issues2000.org
Home Issues Candidates Recent Grid Archive Senate House VoteMatch_Quiz The_Forum Policy_Papers News
  SenateMatch     (Quiz)     Senate     Candidates     House of     Representatives     About     Us  
Senate Votes

Activism Centers

Abortion

Death Penalty

Drugs

Education

Environment

Gay Rights

Gun Control

Health Care

Napster

Privacy

Race Relations

Social Security

Sports

Tax Reform

Tobacco



Site Map
Home
(Main page)
Issues
(Presidential quotations organized by topic)
Candidates
(Presidential quotations organized by candidate)
Recent
(Most recent quotation for each candidate)
Issue Grid
(Summary by topic of each candidate's positions)
Candidate Grid
(Summary by candidate of positions on each topic)
Archives
(Debate and book excerpts)
Senate
(Senate races in 33 states)
VoteMatch
(Presidential Selector and Political Affiliation 20-question quiz)
The Forum
(Your views on the candidates and the issues)
SpeakOut Issues
(Policy background)
News
(Latest headlines on the Presidential race)
About Us
(About Issues2000.org)
Letters
(Other viewers' letters)
Write Us
(Your feedback to us)
Following are the U.S. Senate votes used to indicate candidates' stances on the issues. Votes which include "VoteMatch Usage" are scored as VoteMatch and SenateMatch quiz responses. Those without a VoteMatch usage are included only on each candidate's main issues page.
Abortion
Senate BillVote descriptionVoteMatch UsageCandidate Voting
Vote number 2007-379 barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions
on Oct 18, 2007 regarding bill S.Amdt. 3330 to H.R. 3043 Vitter Amendment to HHS/Education/Labor Appropriations
Results: Rejected 41-52
Vote on an amendment, S.AMDT.3330, to H.R.3043 (HHS Appropriations Bill): To prohibit the provision of funds to grantees who perform abortions, with exceptions for maternal health.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Sen. VITTER: Whatever side of the abortion debate you are on, we can all agree on one thing: Abortion is a very divisive topic. In that context, I think it is the right policy to say we are not going to send taxpayer dollars to support groups that perform abortions. Now, the other side will say: Well, we have current Federal law that says we are not going to use taxpayer dollars to fund abortions. But, quite frankly, that is not good enough. Because now, we send Federal dollars to abortion providers and money is fungible--it is a big shell game and it supports their organizations and, in many cases, that funding is a huge percentage of their overall revenue.

Letter of Support from Family Research Council:

Recent reports indicate that Planned

Voting N counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 1: Abortion. Democrats: YES 0; NO 44
Republicans: YES 41; NO 7
Independents: YES 0; NO 1
Vote number 2007-127 expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines
on Apr 11, 2007 regarding bill S.5 & H.R.3 Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act
Results: Bill passed, 63-34 Vetoed by Pres. Bush
Allows federal funding for research that utilizes human embryonic stem cells, regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived from a human embryo, provided such embryos:
  1. have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics;
  2. were created for the purposes of fertility treatment;
  3. were in excess of the needs of the individuals seeking such treatment and would otherwise be discarded; and
  4. were donated by such individuals with written informed consent and without any financial or other inducements.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Since 2 years ago, the last Stem Cell bill, public support has surged for stem cells. Research is proceeding unfettered and, in some cases, without ethical standards in other countries. And even when these countries have ethical standards, our failures are allowing them to gain the scientific edge over the US. Some suggest that it is Congress' role to tell researchers what kinds of cells to use.

Voting Y counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 1: Abortion is a woman's right. Democrats: YES 45; NO 2
Republicans: YES 17; NO 32
Independents: YES 1; NO 0
Vote number 2006-216 notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions
on Jul 25, 2006 regarding bill S.403 Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act
Results: Passed 65-34
This bill prohibits taking minors across State lines in circumvention of laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions. Makes an exception for an abortion necessary to save the life of the minor. Authorizes any parent to sue unless such parent committed an act of incest with the minor. Imposes a fine and/or prison term of up to one year on a physician who performs an abortion on an out-of-state minor in violation of parental notification requirements in their home state.

Proponents recommend voting YES because:

This bill deals with how young girls are being secretly taken across State lines for the purpose of abortion, without the consent of their parents or even the knowledge of their parents, in violation of the laws of the State in which they live. 45 states have enacted some sort of parental consent laws or parental notification law. By simply secreting a child across State lines, one can frustrate the State legislature's rules.

Voting N counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 1: Abortion is a woman's right. Democrats: YES 14; NO 29
Republicans: YES 51; NO 4
Independents: YES 0; NO 1
Vote number 2005-75 $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives
on Mar 17, 2005 regarding bill S.Amdt. 244 to S Con Res 18 Appropriation to expand access to preventive health care services
Results: Amendment Rejected, 47-53
Vote to adopt an amendment to the Senate's 2006 Fiscal Year Budget that allocates $100 million for the prevention of unintended pregnancies. A YES vote would expand access to preventive health care services that reduce unintended pregnancy (including teen pregnancy), reduce the number of abortions, and improve access to women's health care. A YES vote would:
  • Increase funding and access to family planning services
  • Funds legislation that requires equitable prescription coverage for contraceptives under health plans
  • Funds legislation that would create and expand teen pregnancy prevention programs and education programs concerning emergency contraceptives
Voting Y counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 1: Abortion is a woman's right. Democrats: YES 43; NO 1
Republicans: YES 3; NO 52
Independents: YES 1; NO 0
Vote number 2004-63 criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime
on Mar 25, 2004 regarding bill S.1019/HR.1997 Unborn Victims of Violence Act
Results: Bill passed, 61-38
Bill would make it a criminal offense to harm or kill a fetus during the commission of a violent crime. The measure would set criminal penalties, the same as those that would apply if harm or death happened to the pregnant woman, for those who harm a fetus. It is not required that the individual have prior knowledge of the pregnancy or intent to harm the fetus. This bill prohibits the death penalty from being imposed for such an offense. The bill states that its provisions should not be interpreted to apply a woman's actions with respect to her pregnancy. Voting N counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 1: Abortion is a woman's right. Democrats: YES 13; NO 35
Republicans: YES 48; NO 2
Independents: YES 0; NO 0
Vote number 2003-51 banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life
on Mar 12, 2003 regarding bill S.3
Results:
S. 3 As Amended; Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. Vote to pass a bill banning a medical procedure, which is commonly known as "partial-birth" abortion. Those who performed this procedure would then face fines and up to two years in prison, the women to whom this procedure is performed on are not held criminally liable. This bill would make the exception for cases in which a women's life is in danger, not for cases where a women's health is in danger. Voting N counts for 2 points on VoteMatch question 1: Abortion is a woman's right. Democrats: YES 16; NO 29
Republicans: YES 48; NO 3
Independents: YES 0; NO 1
Vote number 2000-134 maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions
on Jun 20, 2000 regarding bill S 2549
Results: Amendment killed, 50-49
Vote on a motion to table [kill] an amendment that would repeal the ban on privately funded abortions at overseas military facilities. Voting N counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 1: Abortion is a woman's right. Democrats: YES 2; NO 43
Republicans: YES 48; NO 5
Independents: YES 0; NO 1
Vote number 1999-340 banning partial birth abortions
on Oct 21, 1999 regarding bill S. 1692 Partial Birth Abortion Ban
Results: Y)63; N)34; NV)3 Bill Passed
This legislation, if enacted, would ban the abortion procedure in which the physician partially delivers the fetus before completing the abortion. [A NO vote supports abortion rights]. Voting N counts for 2 points on VoteMatch question 1: Abortion is a woman's right. Democrats: YES 14; NO 31
Republicans: YES 49; NO 2
Independents: YES 0; NO 1
Vote number 1999-148xxx disallowing overseas military abortions
on May 26, 1999 regarding bill S. 1059 Motion to table Murray Amdt #397
Results: Y)51; N)49 Motion to Table Agreed to
The Murray amdt would have repealed current laws prohibiting overseas U.S. military hospitals and medical facilities from performing privately funded abortions for U.S. service members and their dependents. (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 0; NO 0
Republicans: YES 0; NO 0
Independents: YES 0; NO 0
Vote number 1998-10 banning human cloning
on Feb 11, 1998 regarding bill S. 1601 Motion to invoke cloture on motion to proceed to S. 1601
Results: Y)42; N)54; NV)4 Cloture Motion Rejected
This cloture motion was in order to end debate and move to consideration of legislation banning human cloning. [A YES vote opposes human cloning]. (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 0; NO 42
Republicans: YES 42; NO 11
Independents: YES 0; NO 1

Budget & Economy
Senate BillVote descriptionVoteMatch UsageCandidate Voting
Vote number 2007-090 paying down federal debt by rating programs' effectiveness
on Mar 22, 2007 regarding bill S.Amdt.491 on S.Con.Res.21 Allard Amendment
Results: Amendment rejected 33-64
Amendment intends to pay down the Federal debt and eliminate government waste by reducing spending on programs rated ineffective by the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART).

Proponents recommend voting YES because:

My amendment says we are going to take about $18 billion as a strong signal from the Congress that we want to support effective programs and we want the taxpayer dollars spent in a responsible way. My amendment doesn't take all of the $88 billion for the programs found by PART, realizing there may be points in time when another program is not meeting its goals and needs more money. So that flexibility is allowed in this particular amendment. It doesn't target any specific program.

(Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 0; NO 48
Republicans: YES 33; NO 15
Independents: YES 0; NO 1
Vote number 2005-363 $40B in reduced federal overall spending
on Dec 21, 2005 regarding bill S. 1932 Work, Marriage, and Family Promotion Reconciliation Act
Results: Motion Agreed to, 51-50
Vote to pass a bill that reduces federal spending by $40 billion over five years by decreasing the amount of funds spent on Medicaid, Medicare, agriculture, employee pensions, conservation, and student loans. The bill also provides a down-payment toward hurricane recovery and reconstruction costs. (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 0; NO 44
Republicans: YES 50; NO 5
Independents: YES 0; NO 1
Vote number 2000-55 prioritizing national debt reduction below tax cuts
on Apr 5, 2000 regarding bill S Con Res 101
Results: Tabled 52-48
Vote to table [kill] an amendment that would increase the amount of the budget that would be used to reduce the national debt by $75 billion over 5 year. The debt reduction would be offset by reducing the tax cut in the budget framework from $150 billion Voting N counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 11: Repeal tax cuts on wealthy. Democrats: YES 1; NO 44
Republicans: YES 50; NO 4
Independents: YES 1; NO 0
Vote number 1998-314xxx $500B Omnibus spending bill
on Oct 21, 1998 regarding bill H.R. 4328 Conference Report on H.R. 4328
Results: Y)65; N)29; NV)6 Conf Rpt Agreed to
Passage of a $500 billion-plus omnibus spending bill for 1999. (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 0; NO 0
Republicans: YES 0; NO 0
Independents: YES 0; NO 0
Vote number 1997-92 1998 GOP budget
on May 23, 1997 regarding bill H. Con. Res. 84 H. Con. Res. 84 as amended
Results: Y)78; N)22 CR Agreed to
Approval of the 1998 GOP Budget which would cut spending and taxes. (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 37; NO 8
Republicans: YES 40; NO 14
Independents: YES 1; NO 0
Vote number 1997-24 Balanced-budget constitutional amendment
on Mar 4, 1997 regarding bill S. J. Res. 1 S. J. Res. 1
Results: Y)66; N)34 Joint Resolution Defeated
Approval of the balanced-budget constitutional amendment. (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 11; NO 34
Republicans: YES 54; NO 0
Independents: YES 1; NO 0

Civil Rights
Senate BillVote descriptionVoteMatch UsageCandidate Voting
Vote number 2006-189 recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration
on Jun 27, 2006 regarding bill S.J.Res.12 Flag Desecration Amendment
Results: Resolution failed, 66-34 (2/3rds required)
The Senate voted on a resolution which would recommend a Constitutional Amendment banning flag desecration (not a vote on the Amendment itself). The resolution states:
  1. the flag of the US is a unique symbol of national unity...
  2. the Bill of Rights should not be amended in a manner that could be interpreted to restrict freedom...
  3. abuse of the flag causes more than pain and distress... and may amount to fighting words...
  4. destruction of the flag of the US can be intended to incite a violent response rather than make a political statement and such conduct is outside the protections afforded by the first amendment to the Constitution.
    Proponents of the Resolution say:
  • Fifty State legislatures have called on us to pass this amendment. This amendment simply says that "Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States."
  • In other words, in passing this amendment, we would give to
Voting Y counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 4: Teach family values In Public Schools. Democrats: YES 14; NO 30
Republicans: YES 52; NO 3
Independents: YES 0; NO 1
Vote number 2006-163 constitutional ban of same-sex marriage
on Jun 7, 2006 regarding bill S. J. Res. 1 Marriage Protection Amendment
Results: Cloture motion rejected, 49-48 (3/5ths required)
Voting YES implies support for amending the constitution to ban same-sex marriage. This cloture motion to end debate requires a 3/5th majority. A constitutional amendment requires a 2/3rd majority. The proposed amendment is:
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.
    Proponents of the motion say:
  • If Members of the Senate vote as their States have voted on this amendment, the vote today will be 90 to 10 in favor of a constitutional amendment.
  • Marriage is a foundational institution. It is under attack by the courts. It needs to be defended by defining it as the union of a man and a woman as 45 of our 50 States have done.

    The amendment is about how we are going to raise the next generation.

Voting N counts for 2 points on VoteMatch question 3: Sexual orientation protected by civil rights laws. Democrats: YES 2; NO 40
Republicans: YES 47; NO 7
Independents: YES 0; NO 1
Vote number 2002-147 adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes
on Jun 11, 2002 regarding bill S.625
Results:
Motion to Invoke Cloture on S. 625; Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act of 2001. The bill would expand the definition of hate crimes to incorporate acts committed because of a victim's sex, sexual orientation or disability and permit the federal government to help states prosecute hate crimes even if no federally protected action was implicated. If the cloture motion is agreed to, debate will be limited and a vote will occur. If the cloture motion is rejected debate could continue indefinitely and instead the bill is usually set aside. Hence a Yes vote supports the expansion of the definition of hate crimes, and a No vote keeps the existing definition. Three-fifths of the Senate, or 60 members, is required to invoke cloture. Voting Y counts for 2 points on VoteMatch question 3: Sexual orientation protected by civil rights laws. Democrats: YES 49; NO 1
Republicans: YES 4; NO 42
Independents: YES 1; NO 0
Vote number 2001-300 loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping
on Oct 11, 2001 regarding bill S1510
Results: Motion agreed to, 90-7
Motion to table (kill) the amendment that would provide that in order to conduct roving surveillance, the person implementing the order must ascertain that the target of the surveillance is present in the house or is using the phone that has been tapped. (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 45; NO 5
Republicans: YES 44; NO 2
Independents: YES 1; NO 0
Vote number 2000-136 expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation
on Jun 20, 2000 regarding bill S.2549
Results: Adopted 57-42
Vote on an amendment that would expand the definition of hate crimes to include gender, sexual orientation and disability. The previous definition included only racial, religious or ethnic bias. Voting Y counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 3: Sexual orientation protected by civil rights laws. Democrats: YES 44; NO 1
Republicans: YES 12; NO 41
Independents: YES 1; NO 0
Vote number 1998-93HR ending the set-aside of 10% of highway funds for minorities
on Apr 1, 1998 regarding bill HR 2400
Results: Rejected 194-225
Vote on an amendment to repeal the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise [DBE] Program, which requires no less than 10% of highway construction projects funded by the federal government to be contracted to businesses owned by minorities & women Voting N counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 2: Require companies to hire more women & minorities. Democrats: YES 0; NO 1
Republicans: YES 3; NO 0
Independents: YES 0; NO 0
Vote number 1998-23 setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women
on Mar 6, 1998 regarding bill S.1173
Results: Tabled 58-37
Vote to table, or kill, an amendment to repeal the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise [DBE] Program, which requires no less than 10% of highway construction projects funded by the federal government to be contracted to 'disadvantaged business enterprises' Voting Y counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 2: Require companies to hire more women & minorities. Democrats: YES 43; NO 1
Republicans: YES 14; NO 36
Independents: YES 1; NO 0
Vote number 1997-275 ending special funding for minority & women-owned business
on Oct 23, 1997 regarding bill S.1173 Motion to invoke cloture
Results: Y)48; N)52 Cloture Motion Rejected
This legislation would have abolished a program that helps businesses owned by women or minorities compete for federally funded transportation. Voting N counts for 2 points on VoteMatch question 2: Require companies to hire more women & minorities. Democrats: YES 0; NO 45
Republicans: YES 47; NO 7
Independents: YES 1; NO 0
Vote number 1996-280 prohibiting same-sex marriage
on Sep 10, 1996 regarding bill HR 3396
Results: Bill passed, 85-14
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA): Vote to prohibit marriage between members of the same sex in federal law, and provide that no state is required to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. Define 'marriage' as 'between one man and one woman.' Voting N counts for 2 points on VoteMatch question 3: Sexual orientation protected by civil rights laws. Democrats: YES 31; NO 14
Republicans: YES 52; NO 0
Independents: YES 1; NO 0
Vote number 1996-281 prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation
on Sep 10, 1996 regarding bill S. 2056 Employment Non-Discrimination Act
Results: Y)49; N)50; NV)1 Bill Defeated
Would have prohibited job discrimination based on sexual orientation. Voting Y counts for 2 points on VoteMatch question 3: Sexual orientation protected by civil rights laws. Democrats: YES 41; NO 4
Republicans: YES 7; NO 45
Independents: YES 1; NO 1
Vote number 1995-600 Amendment to prohibit flag burning
on Dec 12, 1995 regarding bill S. J. Res. 31 Flag Desecration Bill
Results: Y)63; N)36 Joint Res. Defeated
Approval of a constitutional amendment which would prohibit desecration or burning of the U.S. flag. (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 13; NO 32
Republicans: YES 49; NO 3
Independents: YES 1; NO 1
Vote number 1995-317 banning affirmative action hiring with federal funds
on Jul 20, 1995 regarding bill HR 1854
Results: Rejected, 36-61
Vote to disallow any funds in the Legislative Appropriations bill from being used to award, require, or encourage any Federal contract, if the contract is being awarded on the basis of the race, color, national origin, or gender of the contractor. Voting N counts for 2 points on VoteMatch question 2: Require companies to hire more women & minorities. Democrats: YES 3; NO 41
Republicans: YES 34; NO 17
Independents: YES 0; NO 1

Corporations
Senate BillVote descriptionVoteMatch UsageCandidate Voting
Vote number 2005-63 repealing tax subsidy for companies which move US jobs offshore
on Mar 17, 2005 regarding bill S AMDT 210 to S Con Res 18 Tax Subsidy for Domestic Companies Amendment
Results: Amendment Rejected, 40-59
Amendment to repeal the tax subsidy for certain domestic companies which move manufacturing operations and American jobs offshore. (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 40; NO 4
Republicans: YES 0; NO 54
Independents: YES 0; NO 1
Vote number 2005-44 reforming bankruptcy to include means-testing & restrictions
on Mar 10, 2005 regarding bill S 256 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005
Results: Bill Passed, 74 to 25
Amends Federal bankruptcy law to revamp guidelines governing dismissal or conversion of a Chapter 7 liquidation (complete relief in bankruptcy) to one under either Chapter 11 (Reorganization) or Chapter 13 (Adjustment of Debts of an Individual with Regular Income). Voting YES would:
  • Declare a debtor eligible only for Chapter 13, as anyone financially capable of paying back their creditors at a rate that still allows them to earn above their state's median income
  • Place domestic support obligations such as child support and alimony amongst the first priority claim category of non-dischargeable debts on a debtor filing for bankruptcy
  • Require debtors to pay for and attend credit counseling prior to filing for bankruptcy
  • Cap home equity protection at $125,000 if the debtor purchased a house within 40 months of filing for bankruptcy.
(Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 18; NO 25
Republicans: YES 55; NO 0
Independents: YES 1; NO 0
Vote number 2001-236 restricting rules on personal bankruptcy
on Jul 17, 2001 regarding bill HR 333
Results: Bill passed, 82-16
Vote to pass a bill that would require debtors able to repay $10,000 or 25 percent of their debts over five years to file under Chapter 13 bankruptcy (reorganization and repayment) rather than Chapter 7 (full discharge of debt). (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 36; NO 14
Republicans: YES 46; NO 2
Independents: YES 1; NO 0

Crime
Senate BillVote descriptionVoteMatch UsageCandidate Voting
Vote number 2007-110 reinstating $1.15 billion funding for the COPS Program
on Mar 23, 2007 regarding bill S.Amdt.529 on S.Con.Res.21 Biden Amendment
Results: Amendment agreed to, 65-33
Amendment would increase funding for the COPS Program to $1.15 billion for FY 2008 to provide state and local law enforcement with critical resources. The funding is offset by an unallocated reduction to non-defense discretionary spending.

Proponents recommend voting YES because:

This amendment reinstates the COPS Program. I remind everyone, when the COPS Program was functioning, violent crime in America reduced 8.5% a year for 7 years in a row. Throughout the 1990s, we funded the COPS Program at roughly $1.2 billion, and it drove down crime. Now crime is rising again. The COPS Program in the crime bill worked, and the Government Accounting Office found a statistical link between the COPS grants and a reduction in crime.

Voting N counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 9: Crime. Democrats: YES 48; NO 1
Republicans: YES 16; NO 32
Independents: YES 1; NO 0
Vote number issues2000-B requiring DNA testing in every death penalty case
on Jul 2, 2000 regarding bill issues2000-B DNA for death penalty questionnaire
Results: (issues2000 questionnaire)
If the Senate were to vote on a bill that required DNA testing in every murder/homicide would you support such a measure in order to alleviate wrongful death sentences? Voting N counts for 2 points on VoteMatch question 8: Death Penalty. Democrats: YES 0; NO 0
Republicans: YES 0; NO 0
Independents: YES 0; NO 0
Vote number issues2000-C Three Strikes law
on Jul 2, 2000 regarding bill issues2000-C Three Strikes questionnaire
Results: (issues2000 questionnaire)
If the Senate were to vote on a bill requiring a "three strikes" law, would you support such a measure? Voting Y counts for 2 points on VoteMatch question 9: Mandatory "Three Strikes" Sentencing Laws. Democrats: YES 0; NO 0
Republicans: YES 0; NO 0
Independents: YES 0; NO 0
Vote number 1999-139 $1.15 billion per year to continue the COPS program
on May 20, 1999 regarding bill S.254
Results: Rejected 48-50
Vote on an amendment to authorize $1.15 billion per year from 2000 through 2005 to continue and expand the Community Oriented Policing Services program. $600 million of the annual funding is marked for hiring additional officers [up to 50,000] Voting N counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 9: Mandatory "Three Strikes" Sentencing Laws. Democrats: YES 44; NO 0
Republicans: YES 3; NO 50
Independents: YES 1; NO 0
Vote number 1996-66 limiting death penalty appeals
on Apr 17, 1996 regarding bill S.735
Results: Tabled 64-35
Vote to table, or kill, a motion to send the bill back to the joint House-Senate conference committee with instructions to delete the provisions in the bill that would make it harder for prisoners given the death penalty in state courts to appeal. Voting Y counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 8: Death Penalty. Democrats: YES 13; NO 32
Republicans: YES 50; NO 1
Independents: YES 1; NO 0
Vote number 1996-46 limiting product liability punitive damage awards
on Mar 21, 1996 regarding bill H. R. 956 Conference Report on H.R. 956
Results: Y)59; N)40; NV)1 Conf Rpt Agreed to
Approval of a limit on punitive damages in product liability cases. (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 12; NO 33
Republicans: YES 46; NO 6
Independents: YES 1; NO 1
Vote number 1996-64HR allowing Habeus Corpus appeals in capital cases
on Mar 14, 1996 regarding bill HR 2703
Results: Rejected 135-283
Vote on an amendment to delete provisions in the bill that would make it harder for prisoners who have been given the death penalty in state courts to appeal the decision on constitutional grounds in the federal courts ['Habeas Corpus']. Voting N counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 8: Death Penalty. Democrats: YES 1; NO 2
Republicans: YES 1; NO 2
Independents: YES 0; NO 0
Vote number 1995-612 restricting class-action lawsuits
on Dec 22, 1995 regarding bill H.R. 1058 H.R. 1058 passage over veto
Results: Y)68; N)30; P)1 Veto Overridden
Restriction of class-action security lawsuits. (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 20; NO 25
Republicans: YES 47; NO 4
Independents: YES 1; NO 1
Vote number 1995-270 repealing federal speed limits
on Jun 20, 1995 regarding bill S. 440 Motion to table Lautenberg Amdt #1428
Results: Y)64; N)36 Motion to Table Agreed to
Repeal federal speeding limits. (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 14; NO 31
Republicans: YES 48; NO 5
Independents: YES 1; NO 1
Vote number 1994-126 mandatory prison terms for crimes involving firearms
on May 19, 1994 regarding bill HR.3355
Results: Passed 51-47
Vote on the motion to instruct conferees on the bill to insist that the conference report include Mandatory prison terms for the use, possession, or carrying of a firearm or destructive device during a state crime of violence or drug trafficking Voting Y counts for 2 points on VoteMatch question 9: Mandatory "Three Strikes" Sentencing Laws. Democrats: YES 17; NO 26
Republicans: YES 29; NO 11
Independents: YES 1; NO 0
Vote number 1994-106 rejecting racial statistics in death penalty appeals
on May 11, 1994 regarding bill S 1935
Results: Amendment passed, 58-41
Vote to express that the Omnibus Crime bill [H.R. 3355] should reject the Racial Justice Act provisions, which would enable prisoners appealing death penalty sentences to argue racial discrimination using sentencing statistics as part of their appeal. Voting Y counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 8: Death Penalty. Democrats: YES 17; NO 28
Republicans: YES 36; NO 4
Independents: YES 0; NO 1

Drugs
Senate BillVote descriptionVoteMatch UsageCandidate Voting
Vote number issues2000-F Drugs
on Jul 2, 2000 regarding bill Drugs
Results:
(Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 0; NO 0
Republicans: YES 0; NO 0
Independents: YES 0; NO 0
Vote number 1999-360 increasing penalties for drug offenses
on Nov 10, 1999 regarding bill S.625
Results: Passed 50-49
Vote to increase penalties on certain drug-related crimes. The amendment would specifically target the manufacturing or trafficking of amphetamines & methamphetamines and possession of powder cocaine, and set stronger penalties for dealing drugs Voting Y counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 19: Drug use is immoral: enforce laws against it. Democrats: YES 3; NO 42
Republicans: YES 47; NO 5
Independents: YES 0; NO 1
Vote number 1996-244 spending international development funds on drug control
on Jul 25, 1996 regarding bill HR 3540
Results: Amendment adopted, 51-46
Vote to add an additional $53 million (raising the total to $213 million) to international narcotics control funding, and pay for it by taking $25 million from international operations funding and $28 million from development assistance. Voting Y counts for 2 points on VoteMatch question 19: Drug use is immoral: enforce laws against it. Democrats: YES 3; NO 42
Republicans: YES 48; NO 3
Independents: YES 0; NO 1

Education
Senate BillVote descriptionVoteMatch UsageCandidate Voting
Vote number 2007-391 additional $10.2B for federal education & HHS projects
on Oct 23, 2007 regarding bill H.R. 3043 American Competitiveness Scholarship Act
Results: Bill Passed, 75-19
Vote on the passage of the bill, the American Competitiveness Scholarship Act, the omnibus appropriations bill for the Departments of Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, and Labor. Pres. Bush then vetoed the Bill.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Rep. OBEY: This bill, more than any other, determines how willing we are to make the investment necessary to assure the future strength of this country and its working families. The President has chosen to cut the investments in this bill by more than $7.5 billion in real terms. This bill rejects most of those cuts.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

Rep. LEWIS: This bill reflects a fundamental difference in opinion on the level of funding necessary to support the Federal Government's role in education, health and workforce programs. The bill is $10.2 billion over the President's budget request. While many of these programs are popular on both sides of the aisle, this bill contains what can

(Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 45; NO 0
Republicans: YES 29; NO 19
Independents: YES 1; NO 0
Vote number 2005-279 $52M for "21st century community learning centers"
on Oct 27, 2005 regarding bill S Amdt 2287 to HR 3010 Amendment to Agencies Appropriations Act
Results: Motion Rejected, 41-56
To increase appropriations for after-school programs through 21st century community learning centers. Voting YES would increase funding by $51.9 million for after school programs run by the 21st century community learning centers and would decrease funding by $51.9 million for salaries and expenses in the Department of Labor. (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 40; NO 1
Republicans: YES 0; NO 55
Independents: YES 1; NO 0
Vote number 2005-269 $5B for grants to local educational agencies
on Oct 26, 2005 regarding bill S Amdt 2275 to HR 3010 Elementary and Secondary Education Amendment
Results: Motion Rejected, 44-51
To provide an additional $5 billion for title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Voting YES would provide:
  • $2.5 billion for targeting grants to local educational agencies
  • $2.5 billion for education finance incentive grants
Voting N counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 7: Parents Choose Schools via Vouchers. Democrats: YES 40; NO 1
Republicans: YES 3; NO 50
Independents: YES 1; NO 0
Vote number 2005-68 shifting $11B from corporate tax loopholes to education
on Mar 17, 2005 regarding bill S AMDT 177 to S Con Res 18 Kennedy amendment relative to education funding
Results: Amendment Agreed to, 51-49
Vote to adopt an amendment to the Senate's 2006 Fiscal Year Budget Resolution that would adjust education funding while still reducing the deficit by $5.4 billion. A YES vote would:
  • Restore education program cuts slated for vocational education, adult education, GEAR UP, and TRIO.
  • Increase the maximum Pell Grant scholarship to $4,500 immediately.
  • Increases future math and science teacher student loan forgiveness to $23,000.
  • Pay for the education funding by closing $10.8 billion in corporate tax loopholes.
(Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 44; NO 0
Republicans: YES 6; NO 49
Independents: YES 1; NO 0
Vote number 2001-103 funding smaller classes instead of private tutors
on May 15, 2001 regarding bill S1
Results: Amendment rejected, 48-50
Vote to authorize a federal program aimed at reducing class size. The plan would assist states and local education agencies in recruiting, hiring and training 100,000 new teachers, with $2.4 billion in fiscal 2002. This amendment would replace an amendment allowing parents with children at under-performing schools to use public funding for private tutors. Voting N counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 7: Parents Choose Schools via Vouchers. Democrats: YES 48; NO 0
Republicans: YES 0; NO 49
Independents: YES 0; NO 1
Vote number 2001-99 funding student testing instead of private tutors
on May 10, 2001 regarding bill S1
Results: Amendment adopted, 50-47
Vote to pass an amendment that would authorize $200 million to provide grants to help states develop assessment systems that describe student achievement. This amendment would replace an amendment by Jeffords, R-VT, which would allow parents with children at under-performing schools to use public funding for private tutors. Voting N counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 7: Parents Choose Schools via Vouchers. Democrats: YES 48; NO 1
Republicans: YES 1; NO 46
Independents: YES 1; NO 0
Vote number 2001-69 spending $448B of tax cut on education & debt reduction
on Apr 4, 2001 regarding bill H Con Res 83
Results: Amendment adopted, 53-47
Vote to reduce the size of the $1.6 trillion tax cut by $448 billion while increasing education spending by $250 billion and providing an increase of approximately $224 billion for debt reduction over 10 years. Voting Y counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 11: Repeal tax cuts on wealthy. Democrats: YES 49; NO 1
Republicans: YES 3; NO 46
Independents: YES 1; NO 0
Vote number issues2000-D allowing School Prayer
on Jul 2, 2000 regarding bill issues2000-D School Prayer questionnaire
Results: (issues2000 questionnaire)
If the Senate were to vote on a bill that allowed for student organized prayer in school, would you support such a measure? Voting Y counts for 2 points on VoteMatch question 4: Teach moral standards In Public Schools. Democrats: YES 0; NO 0
Republicans: YES 0; NO 0
Independents: YES 0; NO 0
Vote number 2000-33 Educational Savings Accounts
on Mar 2, 2000 regarding bill S.1134
Results: Passed 61-37
Vote to pass a bill that would permit tax-free savings accounts of up to $2000 per child annually to be used for public or private school tuition or other education expenses. Voting Y counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 7: Parents Choose Schools via Vouchers. Democrats: YES 9; NO 35
Republicans: YES 52; NO 1
Independents: YES 0; NO 1
Vote number 1999-121 declaring memorial prayers and religious symbols OK at schools
on May 18, 1999 regarding bill S.254
Results: Passed 85-13
Vote to declare that erecting religious symbols and praying on public school campuses as part of a memorial service does not violate the First Amendment to the Constitution, and to provide legal assistance to any government entity defending such a case. Voting Y counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 4: Teach moral standards In Public Schools. Democrats: YES 7; NO 1
Republicans: YES 7; NO 0
Independents: YES 0; NO 0
Vote number 1999-35 allowing more flexibility in federal school rules
on Mar 9, 1999 regarding bill S. 280 Motion to Invoke cloture on Jeffords Amdt #31
Results: Y)55; N)39; NV)6 Cloture Motion Rejected
This vote was a motion to invoke cloture on a bill aimed at allowing states to waive certain federal rules normally required in order to use federal school aid. [A YES vote implies support of charter schools and vouchers]. Voting Y counts for 2 points on VoteMatch question 7: Parents Choose Schools via Vouchers. Democrats: YES 0; NO 39
Republicans: YES 54; NO 0
Independents: YES 1; NO 0
Vote number 1998-169 education savings accounts
on Jun 24, 1998 regarding bill H.R. 2646 H.R. 2646 Conference Report
Results: Y)59; N)36; NV)5 Conf Rpt Agreed to
This Conference Report approved tax-sheltered education savings accounts. Voting Y counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 7: Parents Choose Schools via Vouchers. Democrats: YES 8; NO 34
Republicans: YES 51; NO 1
Independents: YES 0; NO 1
Vote number 1997-260 school vouchers in DC
on Sep 30, 1997 regarding bill S. 1156 DC Appropriations Act
Results: Y)58; N)41; NV)1 Cloture Motion Rejected
This legislation would have amended the DC spending measure, imposing an unconstitutional school voucher program on the District. Voting Y counts for 2 points on VoteMatch question 7: Parents Choose Schools via Vouchers. Democrats: YES 4; NO 40
Republicans: YES 53; NO 1
Independents: YES 1; NO 0
Vote number 1996-231 $75M for abstinence education
on Jul 23, 1996 regarding bill S 1956
Results: Motion to waive rejected, 52-46
Vote to retain a provision of the Budget Act that funds abstinence education to help reduce teenage pregnancy, using $75 million of the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant Program. Voting Y counts for 2 points on VoteMatch question 4: Teach moral standards In Public Schools. Democrats: YES 3; NO 42
Republicans: YES 48; NO 3
Independents: YES 0; NO 1
Vote number 1994-236 requiring schools to allow voluntary prayer
on Jul 27, 1994 regarding bill S.1513
Results: Rejected 53-14
Cut off federal funds to school districts that deny students their right to constitutionally protected voluntary prayer. Voting Y counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 4: Teach moral standards In Public Schools. Democrats: YES 6; NO 38
Republicans: YES 35; NO 6
Independents: YES 0; NO 1
Vote number 1994-85HR giving federal aid only to schools allowing voluntary prayer
on Mar 23, 1994 regarding bill HR 1804
Results: Rejected 195-232
Vote on the motion to send the conference report [final version] of the bill back to the conference committee to have language added that would not permit any federal aid to schools that do not allow voluntary prayer. Voting Y counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 4: Teach moral standards In Public Schools. Democrats: YES 0; NO 4
Republicans: YES 2; NO 0
Independents: YES 0; NO 0
Vote number 1994-34 national education standards
on Feb 8, 1994 regarding bill H.R. 1804 Goals 2000: Educate America Act
Results: Y)71; N)25; NV)4 Bill Passed
Approval of national education standards. (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 43; NO 0
Republicans: YES 16; NO 24
Independents: YES 2; NO 0

Energy & Oil
Senate BillVote descriptionVoteMatch UsageCandidate Voting
Vote number 2007-226 removing oil & gas exploration subsidies
on Jun 21, 2007 regarding bill H.R.6 Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation (CLEAN)
Results: Bill passed, 65-27 Bill passed
Creating Long-term Energy Alternatives for the Nation (CLEAN) Act
  • Title I: Ending Subsidies for Big Oil Act--denying a deduction for income attributable to domestic production of oil, natural gas, or their related primary products.
  • Title II: Royalty Relief for American Consumers Act--to incorporate specified price thresholds for royalties on oil & gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico.
  • Title III: Strategic Energy Efficiency And Renewables Reserve--makes the Reserve available to accelerate the use of clean domestic renewable energy resources and alternative fuels.

Proponents support voting YES because:

This legislation seeks to end the unwarranted tax breaks & subsidies which have been lavished on Big Oil over the last several years, at a time of record prices at the gas pump and record oil industry profits. Big Oil is hitting the American taxpayer not once, not twice, but three times. They are hitting them at the pump, they are hitting them through the

Voting Y counts for 2 points on VoteMatch question 18: Spend Resources to Stop Global Warming. Democrats: YES 44; NO 4
Republicans: YES 20; NO 23
Independents: YES 1; NO 0
Vote number 2007-215 making oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal
on Jun 19, 2007 regarding bill S.Amdt.1519 to H.R.6 NOPEC Amendment to CLEAN Energy Act
Results: Amendment Agreed to, 70-23
Voting YES would amend the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to make oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal. It would be a violation for any foreign state:
  1. to limit the production or distribution of oil & natural gas;
  2. to set or maintain the price of oil & natural gas; or
  3. to otherwise take any action in restraint of trade for oil & natural gas;
  4. when such collective action has a direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect on the market, supply, price, or distribution of oil & natural gas in the US.

Proponents recommend voting YES because:

Our NOPEC bill will authorize filing suit against nations that participate in a conspiracy to limit the supply, or fix the price, of oil. In addition, it will specify that the doctrines of sovereign immunity do not exempt nations that participate in oil cartels from basic antitrust law.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

No one likes OPEC. But this amendment, in my opinion, would make bad law.

(Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 45; NO 2
Republicans: YES 24; NO 21
Independents: YES 1; NO 0
Vote number 2007-166 factoring global warming into federal project planning
on May 15, 2007 regarding bill S.Amdt.1094 to H.R.1495 Kerry Amendment
Results: Amendment rejected, 51-42 (3/5ths required)
Amendment would require the consideration of global climate change, in planning, feasibility studies, & general reevaluation reports. Would require accounting for the costs & benefits from the impacts of global climate change on flood, storm, and drought risks; potential future impacts of global climate change-related weather events, such as increased hurricane activity, intensity, storm surge, sea level rise, and associated flooding; & employs nonstructural approaches and design modifications to avoid or prevent impacts to streams, wetlands, and floodplains that provide natural flood and storm buffers.

Proponents recommend voting YES because:

It just seems logical that we ask the Corps of Engineers to include in their analyses, judgments about the potential impact of global climate change. All this amendment seeks to do, as a matter of common sense, is to ask the Army Corps of Engineers to factor climate change into their future plans. Secondly, we are making a

Voting Y counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 18: Energy & Oil. Democrats: YES 40; NO 7
Republicans: YES 10; NO 35
Independents: YES 1; NO 0
Vote number 2005-288 disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's ANWR
on Nov 3, 2005 regarding bill S Amdt 2358 to S 1932 Bar Oil and Gas Leasing amendment
Results: Amendment Rejected, 48-51
To remove the establishment of an oil and gas leasing program in the Alaskan Coastal Plain. The original bill allows for an oil and gas leasing program in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Voteing YES on this amendment would remove that section, hence barring leasing in ANWR. Voting Y counts for 2 points on VoteMatch question 18: Spend Resources to Stop Global Warming. Democrats: YES 40; NO 3
Republicans: YES 7; NO 48
Independents: YES 1; NO 0
Vote number 2005-250 $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas
on Oct 5, 2005 regarding bill S.AMDT.2033 to HR 2863 Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program appropriation
Results: Motion rejected, 50-49 (3/5th required)
To provide for appropriations for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. Vote on a motion to waive the Budget Act in order to adopt an amendment that appropriates federal funds for the LIHEAP program. A 3/5th vote is required to amand a budget bi (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 40; NO 3
Republicans: YES 9; NO 46
Independents: YES 1; NO 0
Vote number 2005-140 reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%)
on Jun 16, 2005 regarding bill S.Amdt. 784 to H.R. 6 Energy Policy Act of 2005
Results: Amendment Rejected, 47 to 53
Amendment to improve the energy security of the United States and reduce United States dependence on foreign oil imports by 40% by 2025. The amendment seeks to reduce usage by 7.6 million barrels of oil a day, out of a total usage of 20 million barrels of oil a day. The bill without amendment seeks to reduce usage by 1 million barrels of oil a day. Opponents of the amendment said, "It would be disruptive of jobs if you set a 78 mile per gallon CAFÉ standard for cars, a 185-percent increase; a 60 mile per gallon standard for trucks, light trucks, a 174-percent increase. [The unamended version] is more in keeping with President Kennedy's "man on the Moon" goal. [The amended version] is a "man or woman on Mars" goal, and maybe we will get there one day, but it is unrealistic today." Voting Y counts for 2 points on VoteMatch question 18: Spend Resources to Stop Global Warming. Democrats: YES 43; NO 1
Republicans: YES 3; NO 52
Independents: YES 1; NO 0
Vote number 2005-52 banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
on Mar 16, 2005 regarding bill S AMDT 168 to S.Con.Res. 18 Arctic National Wildlife Refuge anti-drilling Amendment
Results: Amendment Rejected, 49 to 51
Vote to adopt an amendment that would strike a provision in the concurrent resolution that recognizes revenue from oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). The amendment says: "To ensure that legislation that would open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, other federal lands, and the Outer Continental Shelf to oil drilling receives full consideration and debate in the Senate under regular order, rather than being fast-tracked under reconciliation procedures; to ensure that receipts from such drilling destined for the federal treasury are fairly shared with local jurisdictions; and does not occur unless prohibitions against the export of Alaskan oil are enacted." Voting Y counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 18: Spend Resources to Stop Global Warming. Democrats: YES 41; NO 3
Republicans: YES 7; NO 48
Independents: YES 1; NO 0
Vote number 2003-317 Bush Administration Energy Policy
on Jul 31, 2003 regarding bill HR 6 Energy Policy Act of 2003
Results: Bill Passed 84-14: R 48-3; D 35-11
Vote to pass a bill would overhaul the nation's energy policies, reorganize the electricity system and make available approximately $15 billion in energy-related tax incentives. It also would direct the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to establish a new CAFE standard within 15 months to two years. It would support the use of alternative energy and call for utilities to increase their dependence on renewable fuels. (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 35; NO 12
Republicans: YES 48; NO 3
Independents: YES 0; NO 0
Vote number 2003-212 targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010
on Jun 10, 2003 regarding bill S.14
Results:
Dorgan Amdt. No. 865; To require that the hydrogen commercialization plan of the Department of Energy include a description of activities to support certain hydrogen technology deployment goals. Part of S 14 Energy Omnibus bill; this vote would pass an amendment that would call for the Department of Energy to set targets and timelines to maintain the production of 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010, and 2.5 million vehicles annually by 2020. It also would call for the department to set targets for the sale of hydrogen at fueling stations. The bill would require the Energy secretary to submit a yearly progress report to Congress. Voting Y counts for 2 points on VoteMatch question 18: Spend Resources to Stop Global Warming. Democrats: YES 46; NO 1
Republicans: YES 20; NO 31
Independents: YES 1; NO 0
Vote number 2003-59 removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill
on Mar 19, 2003 regarding bill SConRes 23
Results:
Boxer Amdt. No. 272.; To prevent consideration of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in a fast-track budget reconciliation bill. S Con Res 23 Budget resolution FY2004: Vote to pass an amendment that would strike (remove) language in the resolution that would permit oil drilling and exploration in part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska. [Voting No favors drilling for oil in ANWR]. Voting Y counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 18: Spend Resources to Stop Global Warming. Democrats: YES 43; NO 5
Republicans: YES 8; NO 43
Independents: YES 1; NO 0
Vote number 2002-71 drilling ANWR on national security grounds
on Apr 18, 2002 regarding bill S.517
Results:
Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Murkowski Amendment No. 31323; To create jobs for Americans, to reduce dependence on foreign sources of crude oil and energy, to strengthen the economic self determination of the Inupiat Eskimos and to promote national security. Would allow gas and oil development in a portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge if the president certifies to Congress that production in the area is in the nation's security and economic interests (qwhich Prsident Bush would). If the cloture motion is agreed to, debate will be limited and a vote will occur. If the cloture motion is rejected debate could continue indefinitely and instead the bill is usually set aside. A yea vote for this bill was one in favor of drilling in the reserve. Three-fifths of the total Senate (60) is required to invoke cloture. (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 5; NO 45
Republicans: YES 41; NO 8
Independents: YES 0; NO 1
Vote number 2002-47 terminating CAFE standards within 15 months
on Mar 13, 2002 regarding bill S.517
Results:
Levin Amendment No. 2997; To provide alternative provisions to better encourage increased use of alternative fueled and hybrid vehicles. Vote to pass an amendment that would remove the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard (CAFE) and instead establish a new automobile efficiency standard in 15 months. Congress could veto any CAFE increase and would be allowed to increase the standard if no changes are made with 15 months. The bill would overhaul the nation's energy policies by restructuring the electricity system and providing for $16 billion in energy-related tax incentives. Voting N counts for 2 points on VoteMatch question 18: Spend Resources to Stop Global Warming. Democrats: YES 19; NO 31
Republicans: YES 43; NO 6
Independents: YES 0; NO 1
Vote number 2000-58 preserving budget for ANWR oil drilling
on Apr 6, 2000 regarding bill S Con Res 101
Results: Tabled 51-49
Vote to preserve language in the Fiscal Year 2001 Budget Framework that assumes $1.2 billion in revenue from oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge [ANWR] in Alaska. Voting N counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 18: Spend Resources to Stop Global Warming. Democrats: YES 4; NO 41
Republicans: YES 47; NO 7
Independents: YES 0; NO 1
Vote number 1999-275 ending discussion of CAFE fuel efficiency standards
on Sep 15, 1999 regarding bill H.R. 2084 Gorton Amdt # 1677
Results: Y)40; N)55; NV)4 Amdt Rejected
Senators Feinstein (D-CA) and Bryan (D-NV) introduced a resolution expressing the sense of the Senate towards ending CAFE Standards. Senator Gorton motioned to table this amendment. [A YES vote is considered pro-business]. Voting N counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 18: Spend Resources to Stop Global Warming. Democrats: YES 34; NO 9
Republicans: YES 5; NO 46
Independents: YES 1; NO 0
Vote number 1999-171 defunding renewable and solar energy
on Jun 16, 1999 regarding bill S. 1186 Motion to table the recommital
Results: Y)60; N)39; NV)1 Motion Agreed to
In June of 1999, Senator Jeffords (R-VT) was prepared to offer an amendment which would have added $62 million to the Energy Department solar and renewable energy programs. This action was blocked by Senator Reid (D-NV). Voting N counts for 2 points on VoteMatch question 18: Spend Resources to Stop Global Warming. Democrats: YES 19; NO 25
Republicans: YES 41; NO 13
Independents: YES 0; NO 1
Vote number 1997-42 approving a nuclear waste repository
on Apr 15, 1997 regarding bill S. 104 Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997
Results: Y)65; N)34; NV)1 Bill Passed
Approval of the interim nuclear waste repository. The repository would be located at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, with an integrated management system for storage and permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. Voting YES would authorize the President with sole and unreviewable discretion to determine the suitability of the Yucca Mountain site. (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 12; NO 32
Republicans: YES 52; NO 2
Independents: YES 1; NO 0
Vote number 1994-255 do not require ethanol in gasoline
on Aug 3, 1994 regarding bill H.R. 4624 Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1995
Results: Y)50; N)50; VP decided YES Table Motion Agreed to
Funding a mandated percentage of market share for the use of ethanol in gasoline, to be funded b reducing NASA budget b $39 million.. Voting N counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 18: Spend Resources to Stop Global Warming. Democrats: YES 24; NO 21
Republicans: YES 17; NO 25
Independents: YES 1; NO 1

Environment
Senate BillVote descriptionVoteMatch UsageCandidate Voting
Vote number 2007-429 prohibiting eminent domain for use as parks or grazing land
on Dec 13, 2007 regarding bill S.Amdt. 3640 to H.R. 2419 Craig Amendment to Farm Bill Extension Act
Results: Rejected 37-58 (3/5 required)
To prohibit the involuntary acquisition of farmland & grazing land by government for parks, open space, or similar purposes. Exceptions include takings for use by:
  • public utility
  • road or other right of way
  • an aqueduct or pipeline
  • a prison or hospital
  • national disaster

Proponents support voting YES because:

Sen. CRAIG: "Eminent domain was elevated greatly as an issue following a highly controversial 2005 Supreme Court decision known as Kelo vs. The City of New London. Since that decision, we as a nation have allowed state & local governments to utilize eminent domain to force landowners to yield their property to private development. Farmers and ranchers in particular have become vulnerable to state and local governments taking their property for economic development or open space designations. My amendment is a very targeted amendment. It addresses only cases in which private working agricultural land is taken and turned into public open space."

(Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 2; NO 44
Republicans: YES 35; NO 13
Independents: YES 0; NO 1
Vote number 2005-225 including oil & gas smokestacks in mercury regulations
on Sep 13, 2005 regarding bill S J Res 20 EPA's Clean Air Mercury Rule
Results: Passage Vote Failed: 47 - 51
A joint resolution disapproving the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on March 15, 2005, relating to the removal of coal- and oil-fired electric generating units from the list of major sources of hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. The EPA's Clean Air Mercury Rule:
  • Limits smokestack emissions in a two-phase program founded on a market based capping system
  • Calls for the first cap to limit mercury emissions to 38 tons in 2010
  • Requires the second and final cap to begin in 2018 and stay fix at 15 tons
(Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 37; NO 6
Republicans: YES 9; NO 45
Independents: YES 1; NO 0
Vote number 2001-6 confirming Gale Norton as Secretary of Interior
on Jan 30, 2001 regarding bill Confirmation vote
Results: Confirmed, 75-24
Vote to confirm the nomination of Gale Norton as Secretary of Interior. [Ms. Norton generally favors conservative or libertarian stances on the environment.] (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 25; NO 24
Republicans: YES 49; NO 0
Independents: YES 1; NO 0
Vote number 1999-272 more funding for forest roads and fish habitat
on Sep 14, 1999 regarding bill H.R. 2466 Motion to table Bryan Amdt. #1588
Results: Y)54; N)43; NV)3 Table Motion Agreed to
The Bryan Amdt (D-NV) offered an amendment to raise funding levels for Forest Service road maintenance and wildlife and fisheries habitat management programs. Senator Craig (R-ID) motioned to table this amendment. [A YES vote is considered pro-business]. (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 8; NO 36
Republicans: YES 46; NO 6
Independents: YES 0; NO 1
Vote number 1998-29 transportation demo projects
on Mar 12, 1998 regarding bill S. 1173 McCain Amdt #1726
Results: Y)78; N)22 Amdt Agreed to
McCain amendment to the transportation reauthorization bill (S. 1173) would require that funding for demonstration projects be covered by their respective state allocations instead of being funded individually in the transportation bill. (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 28; NO 17
Republicans: YES 50; NO 4
Independents: YES 0; NO 1
Vote number 1997-242 reducing funds for road-building in National Forests
on Sep 17, 1997 regarding bill HR.2107
Results: Rejected 51-49
Vote on an amendment to cut the $47.4 million provided for Forest Service road construction by $10 million, and to eliminate the purchaser credit program [which provides credits to timber companies to offset what they owe the government]. Voting Y counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 18: Spend Resources to Stop Global Warming. Democrats: YES 40; NO 5
Republicans: YES 8; NO 46
Independents: YES 1; NO 0
Vote number 1994-326 continuing desert protection in California
on Oct 8, 1994 regarding bill S. 21 California Desert Protection Act of 1993
Results: Y)68; N)23; NV)9 Cloture Agreed to
Invoking cloture on the California desert protection bill. ["Invoking cloture" means "ending the discussion and calling a vote." A NO vote in this case would continue discussing whether to terminate the existing program, and hence is considered pro-business and/or anti-environment]. (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 42; NO 1
Republicans: YES 13; NO 22
Independents: YES 2; NO 0
Vote number 1994-117 requiring EPA risk assessments
on May 18, 1994 regarding bill S. 2019 Safe Drinking Water Act Amdt.s of '94
Results: Y)90; N)8; NV)2 Amdt Agreed to
Require risk assessments of new EPA regulations. (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 40; NO 5
Republicans: YES 39; NO 2
Independents: YES 2; NO 0

Families & Children
Senate BillVote descriptionVoteMatch UsageCandidate Voting
Vote number issues2000-A V-chip on every television
on Jul 2, 2000 regarding bill issues2000-A V-Chip questionnaire
Results: (issues2000 questionnaire)
If the Senate were to vote on a bill that called for a V-chip on every television made/sold, would you support such a bill? (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 0; NO 0
Republicans: YES 0; NO 0
Independents: YES 0; NO 0
Vote number 1999-114 killing restrictions on violent videos to minors
on May 13, 1999 regarding bill S.254
Results: Tabled 60-39
Vote to kill an amendment that would prohibit the distribution of violent video programming to the public during hours when children are reasonably likely to comprise a substantial portion of the audience. Voting YES would kill the amendment proposing the new restrictions. Voting NO would suport the amendment proposing the new restrictions. Voting N counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 4: Teach moral standards In Public Schools. Democrats: YES 19; NO 25
Republicans: YES 40; NO 14
Independents: YES 1; NO 0

Foreign Policy
Senate BillVote descriptionVoteMatch UsageCandidate Voting
Vote number 2002-116 enlarging NATO to include Eastern Europe
on May 17, 2002 regarding bill HR.3167
Results:
H.R. 3167; Gerald B. H. Solomon Freedom Consolidation Act of 2001, To endorse the vision of further enlargement of the NATO Alliance. Vote to pass a bill that would support further expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, authorize military assistance to several eastern European countries and lift assistance restrictions on Slovakia. (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 48; NO 0
Republicans: YES 36; NO 6
Independents: YES 1; NO 0
Vote number 2000-242 killing a bill for trade sanctions if China sells weapons
on Sep 13, 2000 regarding bill HR.4444
Results: Tabled 65-32
Vote to table [kill] an amendment that would require sanctions against China or other countries if they were found to be selling illicit weapons of mass destruction. (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 35; NO 9
Republicans: YES 29; NO 23
Independents: YES 1; NO 0
Vote number 1999-312 cap foreign aid at only $12.7 billion
on Oct 6, 1999 regarding bill H.R. 2606 H.R. 2606 Conference Report
Results: Y)51; N)49 Conf Rpt Agreed to
Adoption of the conference report on the 2000 Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill provided $12.7 billion for foreign aid programs in 2000. (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 0; NO 45
Republicans: YES 50; NO 4
Independents: YES 2; NO 0
Vote number 1998-201 limiting the President's power to impose economic sanctions
on Jul 15, 1998 regarding bill S. 2159 Motion to table the Lugar Amdt #3156.
Results: Y)53; N)46; NV)1 Motion to Table Agreed to
To kill a proposal limiting President Clinton's ability to impose economic sanctions on foreign nations. (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 25; NO 18
Republicans: YES 27; NO 27
Independents: YES 0; NO 2
Vote number 1998-112 limiting NATO expansion to only Poland, Hungary & Czech
on Apr 30, 1998 regarding bill NATO Expansion Treaty #105-36 NATO Expansion limit-Warner Amdt. #2322
Results: Y)41; N)59 Amdt Rejected
This amendment would have limited NATO Expansion to only include Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic. (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 17; NO 28
Republicans: YES 23; NO 31
Independents: YES 1; NO 1
Vote number 1998-44 $17.9 billion to IMF
on Mar 26, 1998 regarding bill S. 1768 McConnell Amdt #2100
Results: Y)84; N)16 Amdt Agreed to
Would provide $17.9 billion for the International Monetary Fund. (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 43; NO 2
Republicans: YES 40; NO 14
Independents: YES 1; NO 1
Vote number 1996-22 Strengthening of the trade embargo against Cuba
on Mar 5, 1996 regarding bill H.R. 927 Conference Report on H.R. 927
Results: Y)74; N)22; NV)4 Conf Rpt Agreed to
Strengthening of the trade embargo against Cuba. (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 26; NO 18
Republicans: YES 47; NO 3
Independents: YES 1; NO 2
Vote number 1994-5 ending Vietnam embargo
on Jan 27, 1994 regarding bill S. 1281 For. Reltns. Auth. Act FY 94 & 95
Results: Y)62; N)38 Amdt Agreed to
Ending U.S. trade embargos on the country of Vietnam. (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 38; NO 7
Republicans: YES 17; NO 25
Independents: YES 1; NO 2

Free Trade
Senate BillVote descriptionVoteMatch UsageCandidate Voting
Vote number 2007-413 promoting free trade with Peru
on Dec 4, 2007 regarding bill H.R. 3688 Peru Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act
Results: Bill passed, 77-18
Approves the Agreement entered into with the government of Peru. Provides for the Agreement's entry into force upon certain conditions being met on or after January 1, 2008. Prescribes requirements for:
  • enforcement of textile and apparel rules of origin;
  • certain textile and apparel safeguard measures; and
  • enforcement of export laws governing trade of timber products from Peru.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Rep. RANGEL: It's absolutely ridiculous to believe that we can create jobs without trade. I had the opportunity to travel to Peru recently. I saw firsthand how important this agreement is to Peru and how this agreement will strengthen an important ally of ours in that region. Peru is resisting the efforts of Venezuela's authoritarian President Hugo Chavez to wage a war of words and ideas in Latin America against the US. Congress should acknowledge the support of the people of Peru and pass this legislation by a strong margin.

Voting Y counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 13: Free Trade. Democrats: YES 30; NO 16
Republicans: YES 47; NO 1
Independents: YES 0; NO 1
Vote number 2006-190 free trade agreement with Oman
on Jun 29, 2006 regarding bill S. 3569 United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement
Results: Bill passed, 60-34
Vote on final passage of a bill to implement the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement.
    Opponents of the bill say to vote NAY because:
  • International trade can confer tremendous benefits on all of its participants. Unfortunately, the Oman Free Trade Agreement fails to live up to that potential.
  • In 2001, the US entered into a similar trade agreement with the country of Jordan. The agreement was heralded for its progressive labor standards. However, we have recently seen in Jordan instances of foreign workers forced into slave labor, stripped of their passports, denied their wages, and compelled to work for days without rest.
  • These incidents have been occurring in Jordan because Jordanian labor laws preclude protections for foreign workers. My fear in Oman is that they have far weaker labor standards, and that would lend itself to even worse conditions than in Jordan.
  • When our trade partners are held to different, less stringent standards, no one is better off.
Voting Y counts for 2 points on VoteMatch question 13: Support & Expand Free Trade. Democrats: YES 11; NO 29
Republicans: YES 48; NO 5
Independents: YES 1; NO 0
Vote number 2005-209 implementing CAFTA for Central America free-trade
on Jul 28, 2005 regarding bill HR 3045 Central America Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act
Results: Bill Passed, 55-45
Approves the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States-Free Trade Agreement entered into on August 5, 2005, with the governments of Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua (CAFTA-DR), and the statement of administrative action proposed to implement the Agreement. Voting YES would:
  • Progressively eliminate customs duties on all originating goods traded among the participating nations
  • Preserve US duties on imports of sugar goods over a certain quota
  • Remove duties on textile and apparel goods traded among participating nations
  • Prohibit export subsidies for agricultural goods traded among participating nations
  • Provide for cooperation among participating nations on customs laws and import licensing procedures
  • Recommend that each participating nation uphold the Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work
  • Urge each participating nation to obey various international agreements regarding intellectual property rights
Voting Y counts for 2 points on VoteMatch question 13: Support & Expand Free Trade. Democrats: YES 11; NO 33
Republicans: YES 43; NO 12
Independents: YES 1; NO 0
Vote number 2003-318 establishing free trade between US & Singapore
on Jul 31, 2003 regarding bill S.1417/HR 2739 US-Singapore Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act
Results: Bill Passed 66-32: R 44-7; D 22-24
Vote to pass a bill that would put into effect a trade agreement between the US and Singapore. The trade agreement would reduce tariffs and trade barriers between the US and Singapore. The agreement would remove tariffs on goods and duties on textiles, and open markets for services The agreement would also establish intellectual property, environmental and labor standards. Voting Y counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 13: Support & Expand Free Trade. Democrats: YES 22; NO 24
Republicans: YES 44; NO 7
Independents: YES 0; NO 0
Vote number 2003-319 establishing free trade between the US and Chile
on Jul 31, 2003 regarding bill S.1416/HR 2738 US-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act
Results: Bill Passed 66-31: R 43-7; D 23-23
Vote to pass a bill that would put into effect a trade agreement between the US and Chile. The agreement would reduce tariffs and trade barriers between the US and Chile. The trade pact would decrease duties and tariffs on agricultural and textile products. It would also open markets for services. The trade pact would establish intellectual property safeguards and would call for enforcement of environmental and labor standards. Voting Y counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 13: Support & Expand Free Trade. Democrats: YES 23; NO 23
Republicans: YES 43; NO 7
Independents: YES 0; NO 0
Vote number 2002-130 extending free trade to Andean nations
on May 23, 2002 regarding bill HR.3009
Results:
HR3009 Fast Track Trade Authority bill: To extend the Andean Trade Preference Act, to grant additional trade benefits under that Act, and for other purposes. Vote to pass a bill that would enlarge duty-free status to particular products from Colombia, Bolivia, Peru, and Ecuador, renew the president's fast-track authority and reauthorize and increase a program to make accessible retraining and relocation assistance to U.S. workers hurt by trade agreements. It would also approve a five-year extension of Generalized System of Preferences and produce a refundable 70 percent tax credit for health insurance costs for displaced workers. Voting Y counts for 2 points on VoteMatch question 13: Support & Expand Free Trade. Democrats: YES 24; NO 25
Republicans: YES 41; NO 5
Independents: YES 1; NO 0
Vote number 2001-291 granting normal trade relations status to Vietnam
on Oct 3, 2001 regarding bill HJRES51
Results: Passed, 88-12
Vote to grant annual normal trade relations status to Vietnam. The resolution would allow Vietnamese imports to receive the same tariffs as those of other U.S. trading partners. Voting Y counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 13: Link Human Rights to trade with China. Democrats: YES 48; NO 2
Republicans: YES 39; NO 10
Independents: YES 1; NO 0
Vote number 2001-275 removing common goods from national security export rules
on Sep 6, 2001 regarding bill S149
Results: Bill passed, 85-14
Vote to provide the president the authority to control the export of sensitive dual-use items for national security purposes. The bill would eliminate restrictions on the export of technology that is readily available in foreign markets. Voting Y counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 13: Support & Expand Free Trade. Democrats: YES 48; NO 2
Republicans: YES 36; NO 12
Independents: YES 1; NO 0
Vote number 2000-251 permanent normal trade relations with China
on Sep 19, 2000 regarding bill HR.4444
Results: Passed 83-15
Vote to give permanent Normal Trade Relations [NTR] status to China. Currently, NTR status for China is debated and voted on annually. Voting Y counts for 2 points on VoteMatch question 13: Link Human Rights to trade with China. Democrats: YES 37; NO 7
Republicans: YES 46; NO 7
Independents: YES 0; NO 1
Vote number 2000-98 expanding trade to the third world
on May 11, 2000 regarding bill HR.434
Results: Adopted 77-19
Vote to expand trade with more than 70 countries in Africa, Central America and the Caribbean. The countries would be required to meet certain eligibility requirements in protecting freedoms of expression and associatio Voting Y counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 13: Support & Expand Free Trade. Democrats: YES 30; NO 13
Republicans: YES 46; NO 6
Independents: YES 1; NO 0
Vote number 1999-53xxx China in WTO
on Mar 18, 1999 regarding bill S.544 Motion to table Specter Amdt #77
Results: Y)71; N)21 Motion to Table Agreed to
This motion would kill an amendment that would prohibit U.S. support for China's admission into the WTO (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 0; NO 0
Republicans: YES 0; NO 0
Independents: YES 0; NO 0
Vote number 1997-294 renewing 'fast track' presidential trade authority
on Nov 5, 1997 regarding bill S 1269
Results: Motion passed, 68-31
Vote to proceed to the bill which establishes negotiating objectives for trade agreements, and renews 'fast track' trade authority for the President, which allows Congress to adopt or to reject a proposed trade agreement, but not to amend it. Voting Y counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 13: Support & Expand Free Trade. Democrats: YES 26; NO 18
Republicans: YES 41; NO 12
Independents: YES 1; NO 0
Vote number 1997-292xxx fast track trading authority
on Nov 4, 1997 regarding bill S. 1269 Motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
Results: Y)69; N)31 Cloture Agreed to
Authorizing President Clinton to make fast-track trade pacts with foreign nations. (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 0; NO 0
Republicans: YES 0; NO 0
Independents: YES 0; NO 0
Vote number 1995-158 imposing trade sanctions on Japan for closed market
on May 9, 1995 regarding bill S Res 118
Results: Resolution adopted, 88-8
Resolution supporting sanctions on Japanese products if car parts markets don't open up; and seeking sharp reductions in the trade imbalances in car sales and parts through elimination of restrictive Japanese market-closing practices. (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 41; NO 3
Republicans: YES 45; NO 4
Independents: YES 1; NO 0

Government Reform
Senate BillVote descriptionVoteMatch UsageCandidate Voting
Vote number 2007-339 granting the District of Columbia a seat in Congress
on Sep 18, 2007 regarding bill S. 1257 District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act
Results: Cloture motion failed, 57-42 (3/5 required)
Cloture vote on the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act:
  • Considers D.C. a congressional district for purposes of representation in the House.
  • D.C. shall not be considered a state for representation in the Senate.
  • Limits D.C. to one Member under any reapportionment.
  • Increases membership of the House from 435 to 437.
  • Entitles Utah to one additional Representative until the next census, and modifies the reapportionment formula thereafter.
[Washington DC currently has a "delegate" to the US House, whose vote does not count. Utah had complained that the 2000 census did not count many Utahns on Mormon missions abroad].

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

Sen. BYRD: In 1978, I voted for H.J. Res. 554, that proposed amending the Constitution to provide for representation of D.C. [That amendment passed the Senate but was not ratified by the States]. While I recognize that others believe that the Constitution authorizes the

(Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 48; NO 1
Republicans: YES 8; NO 41
Independents: YES 1; NO 0
Vote number 2007-269 requiring photo ID to vote in federal elections
on Jul 19, 2007 regarding bill S.2350, amending SP2350 Dole Amendment to the Help America Vote Act
Results: Rejected, 42-54 (3/5 required)
Vote on Dole Amdt. S.2350, amending SP2350 (via the College Cost Reduction Act): To amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to require individuals voting in person to present photo identification.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Sen. DOLE. I am proposing a commonsense measure to uphold the integrity of Federal elections. My amendment to require voters to show photo identification at the polls would go a long way in minimizing potential for voter fraud. When a fraudulent vote is cast and counted, the vote of a legitimate voter is cancelled. This is wrong, and my amendment would help ensure that one of the hallmarks of our democracy, our free and fair elections, is protected. Opinion polls repeatedly confirm that Americans overwhelmingly support this initiative.

(Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 0; NO 48
Republicans: YES 42; NO 5
Independents: YES 0; NO 1
Vote number 2006-080 allowing some lobbyist gifts to Congress
on Mar 29, 2006 regarding bill S.Amdt.2962 to S.2349 Feingold Amendment to Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act
Results: Motion to table passed, 68-30
A motion to table (kill) an amendment to clarify the application of the gift rule to lobbyists. Voting NAY would define employees of lobbying companies as registered lobbyists and therefore subject to the gift ban. Voting YEA would apply the gift ban only to specific people who registered as lobbyists.
    Proponents of the amendment say to vote NAY on the tabling motion because:
  • Using the term "registered lobbyist'' will create a huge loophole. The Ethics Committee treats the actual listed lobbyists as registered lobbyists, but not the organization.
  • So, for example, a company can give a Senator free tickets to a show or a baseball game, as long as a lobbyist doesn't actually offer or handle them. If the lobbyist's secretary makes the call, that would be permitted.
  • If these companies can still give gifts, we won't have a real lobbyist gift ban. We won't be able to look the American people in the eye and say, "We just banned gifts from lobbyists,'' because we didn't.
    Voting N counts for 2 points on VoteMatch question 16: Stricter limits on political campaign funds. Democrats: YES 18; NO 24
    Republicans: YES 49; NO 6
    Independents: YES 1; NO 0
    Vote number 2006-077 establishing the Senate Office of Public Integrity
    on Mar 28, 2006 regarding bill S.Amdt.3176 to S.2349 Collins Amendment to Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act
    Results: Amendment rejected, 30-67
    An amendment to establish the Senate Office of Public Integrity. Voting YEA would establish the new office, and voting NAY would keep ethics investigations within the existing Senate Ethics Committee.
      Proponents of the bill say to vote YEA because:
    • We have heard from the media about the bribes and scandals, but we have heard only silence from the House Ethics Committee. One of the greatest travesties of these scandals is not what Congress did, but what it didn't do.
    • The American people perceive the entire ethics system--House and Senate--to be broken. We can pass all the ethics reforms we want--gift bans, travel bans, lobbying restrictions--but none of them will make a difference if there isn't a nonpartisan, independent body that will help us enforce those laws.
    • The Office of Public Integrity established in this amendment would provide a voice that cannot be silenced by political pressures. It would have the power to initiate independent investigations
    Voting Y counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 16: Stricter limits on political campaign funds. Democrats: YES 22; NO 20
    Republicans: YES 8; NO 46
    Independents: YES 0; NO 1
    Vote number 2002-54 banning "soft money" contributions and restricting issue ads
    on Mar 20, 2002 regarding bill HR.2356
    Results:
    Vote on passage of H.R. 2356; Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (Shays-Meehan bill, House equivalent of McCain-Feingoldf bill). Vote to ban “soft money” contributions to national political parties but permit up to $10,000 in soft money contributions to state and local parties to help with voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives. The bill would stop issue ads from targeting specific candidates within 30 days of the primary or 60 days of the general election. Additionally, the bill would raise the individual contribution limit from $1,000 to $2,000 per election for House and Senate candidates, both of which would be indexed for inflation. Voting Y counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 16: Stricter limits on campaign funds. Democrats: YES 48; NO 2
    Republicans: YES 11; NO 38
    Independents: YES 1; NO 0
    Vote number 2002-38 require photo ID (not just signature) for voter registration
    on Feb 27, 2002 regarding bill S.565
    Results:
    Motion to Table Schumer Amdt. No. 2937; To permit the use of a signature or personal mark for the purpose of verifying the identity of voters who register by mail, and for other purposes. Voting Yes would kill the amendment. The amendment would allow a signature to identify voters who register by mail, instead of requiring showing photo identification or other proof of residence before being allowed to vote. (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 0; NO 49
    Republicans: YES 46; NO 1
    Independents: YES 0; NO 1
    Vote number 2001-64 banning campaign donations from unions & corporations
    on Apr 2, 2001 regarding bill S.27
    Results: Bill passed, 59-41
    Vote to ban soft money donations to political parties and forbid corporate general funds and union general funds from being spent on issue ads. The bill would increase the individual contribution limit to candidates from $1,000 to $2,000. Voting Y counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 16: Stricter limits on campaign funds. Democrats: YES 47; NO 3
    Republicans: YES 11; NO 38
    Independents: YES 1; NO 0
    Vote number 1999-260 funding for National Endowment for the Arts
    on Aug 5, 1999 regarding bill H.R. 2466 Motion to table Smith Amdt #1569
    Results: Y)80; N)16; NV)4 Motion to Table Agreed to
    This table motion would end debate on an amendment aimed at funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. Support for the motion to table is a vote for NEA funding. [YES to table means supporting the NEA; NO means defunding the NEA]. (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 43; NO 0
    Republicans: YES 36; NO 16
    Independents: YES 1; NO 0
    Vote number 1998-174xxx ending some agricultural subsidies
    on Jun 25, 1998 regarding bill S. 2057 Inhofe Amdt #2981
    Results: Y)48; N)45; NV)7 Amdt Agreed to
    Senator Inhofe (R-OK) offered an amendment to the 1999 Agriculture Appropriations bill to end government funding for agricultural market access and market promotion. (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 0; NO 0
    Republicans: YES 0; NO 0
    Independents: YES 0; NO 0
    Vote number 1998-16xxx supporting McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform
    on Feb 26, 1998 regarding bill S. 1663 Motion to invoke cloture on the McCain Amendment #1646
    Results: Y)51; N)48; NV)1 Cloture Motion Rejected
    Cloture to end debate on the McCain-Feingold plan to overhaul campaign finance laws. [Voting FOR cloture (a YES vote) is voting FOR campaign finance reform.] (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 0; NO 0
    Republicans: YES 0; NO 0
    Independents: YES 0; NO 0
    Vote number 1997-267 favoring 1997 McCain-Feingold overhaul of campaign finance
    on Oct 7, 1997 regarding bill S. 25 Campaign Finance Reform Bill
    Results: Y)53; N)47 Cloture Motion Rejected
    Support of the campaign finance bill proposed by Senators McCain (R-AZ) and Feingold (D-WI). Voting Y counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 16: Stricter limits on campaign funds. Democrats: YES 45; NO 0
    Republicans: YES 7; NO 47
    Independents: YES 1; NO 0
    Vote number 1996-56 Approving the presidential line-item veto
    on Mar 27, 1996 regarding bill S. 4 Conference Report on S. 4
    Results: Y)69; N)31 Conf Rpt Agreed to
    Approval of the presidential line-item veto authority. (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 19; NO 27
    Republicans: YES 49; NO 3
    Independents: YES 0; NO 2
    Vote number 1995-339 banning more types of Congressional gifts
    on Jul 28, 1995 regarding bill S. 1061 Murkowski Amdt to S. 1061
    Results: Y)39; N)60; NV)1 Amdt Failed
    To exclude certain items from the Congressional Gift Ban. (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 8; NO 37
    Republicans: YES 29; NO 23
    Independents: YES 2; NO 0

    Gun Control
    Senate BillVote descriptionVoteMatch UsageCandidate Voting
    Vote number 2007-321 prohibiting foreign & UN aid that restricts US gun ownership
    on Sep 6, 2007 regarding bill S.Amdt. 2774 to H.R. 2764 Vitter Amendment to State Dept. Appropriations Bill
    Results: Agreed to, 81-10
    Amendment SA 2774 to H.R. 2764, the Department of State's International Aid bill: To prohibit the use of funds by international organizations, agencies, and entities (including the United Nations) that require the registration of, or taxes guns owned by citizens of the United States.

    Proponents support voting YES because:

    Sen. VITTER: This is a straight funding limitation amendment. Many folks who haven't followed the proceedings on this in the U.N. may ask: What is this all about? Unfortunately, it is about an effort in the United Nations to bring gun control to various countries through that international organization. Unfortunately, that has been an ongoing effort which poses a real threat, back to 1995. In 2001, the UN General Assembly adopted a program of action designed to infringe on second amendment rights.

    Voting Y counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 10: Gun Control. Democrats: YES 33; NO 10
    Republicans: YES 47; NO 0
    Independents: YES 1; NO 0
    Vote number 2005-219 prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers
    on Jul 29, 2005 regarding bill S 397 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act
    Results: Bill Passed, 65-31
    A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others. Voting YES would:
    • Exempt lawsuits brought against individuals who knowingly transfer a firearm that will be used to commit a violent or drug-trafficking crime
    • Exempt lawsuits against actions that result in death, physical injury or property damage due solely to a product defect
    • Call for the dismissal of all qualified civil liability actions pending on the date of enactment by the court in which the action was brought
    • Prohibit the manufacture, import, sale or delivery of armor piercing ammunition, and sets a minimum prison term of 15 years for violations
    • Require all licensed importers, manufacturers and dealers who engage in the transfer of handguns to provide secure gun storage or safety devices
    Voting Y counts for 2 points on VoteMatch question 10: Absolute right to gun ownership. Democrats: YES 14; NO 29
    Republicans: YES 50; NO 2
    Independents: YES 1; NO 0
    Vote number 2004-30 banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence
    on Mar 2, 2004 regarding bill S.1805/H.R.1036 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act
    Results: Bill Rejected 8-90: R 3-48; D 5-41
    Vote to pass a bill that would block certain civil lawsuits against manufacturers, distributors, dealers and importers of firearms and ammunition, mainly those lawsuits aimed at making them liable for gun violence. In this bill, trade groups would also be protected The bill would call for the dismissal of pending lawsuits against the gun industry. The exception would be lawsuits regarding a defect in a weapon or ammunition. It also would provide a 10-year reauthorization of the assault weapons ban which is set to expire in September 2004. The bill would increase the penalties for gun-related violent or drug trafficking crimes which have not resulted in death, to a minimum of 15 years imprisonment. The bill calls for criminal background checks on all firearm transactions at gun shows where at least 75 guns are sold. Exemptions would be made available for dealers selling guns from their homes as well as members-only gun swaps and meets carried out by nonprofit hunting clubs. Voting Y counts for 2 points on VoteMatch question 10: Absolute right to gun ownership. Democrats: YES 5; NO 41
    Republicans: YES 3; NO 48
    Independents: YES 0; NO 0
    Vote number 1999-134 background checks at gun shows
    on May 20, 1999 regarding bill S. 254 Lautenberg Amdt #362
    Results: Y)50; N)50; VP decided YES Amdt Agreed to
    Require background checks on all firearm sales at gun shows. Voting N counts for 2 points on VoteMatch question 10: Absolute right to gun ownership. Democrats: YES 44; NO 1
    Republicans: YES 7; NO 47
    Independents: YES 0; NO 1
    Vote number 1999-118 more penalties for gun & drug violations
    on May 14, 1999 regarding bill S. 254 Hatch Amendment #344
    Results: Y)48; N)47; NV)5 Amdt Agreed to
    The Hatch amdt would increase mandatory penalties for the illegal transfer or use of firearms, fund additional drug case prosecutors, and require background check on purchasers at gun shows. [A YES vote supports stricter penalties]. Voting Y counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 9: Mandatory "Three Strikes" Sentencing Laws. Democrats: YES 1; NO 40
    Republicans: YES 45; NO 8
    Independents: YES 1; NO 0
    Vote number 1999-118 more penalties for gun & drug violations
    on May 14, 1999 regarding bill S. 254 Hatch Amendment #344
    Results: Y)48; N)47; NV)5 Amdt Agreed to
    The Hatch amdt would increase mandatory penalties for the illegal transfer or use of firearms, fund additional drug case prosecutors, and require background check on purchasers at gun shows. [A YES vote supports stricter penalties]. Voting Y counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 9: Mandatory "Three Strikes" Sentencing Laws. Democrats: YES 1; NO 40
    Republicans: YES 45; NO 8
    Independents: YES 1; NO 0
    Vote number 1999-111 loosening license & background checks at gun shows
    on May 11, 1999 regarding bill S.254
    Results: Tabled 51-47
    Vote to table or kill a motion to require that all gun sales at gun shows be completed by federally licensed gun dealers. Also requires background checks to be completed on buyers and requires gun show promoters to register with the Treasury. Voting Y counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 10: Absolute right to gun ownership. Democrats: YES 2; NO 41
    Republicans: YES 48; NO 6
    Independents: YES 1; NO 0
    Vote number 1998-216 maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks
    on Jul 21, 1998 regarding bill S 2260
    Results: Motion passed, 61-39
    Vote to table [kill] an amendment to make it unlawful for gun dealers to sell handguns without providing trigger locks. Violation of the law would result in civil penalties, such as suspension or revocation of the dealer's license, or a fine. Voting Y counts for 2 points on VoteMatch question 10: Absolute right to gun ownership. Democrats: YES 9; NO 36
    Republicans: YES 51; NO 3
    Independents: YES 1; NO 0

    Health Care
    Senate BillVote descriptionVoteMatch UsageCandidate Voting
    Vote number 2007-403 adding 2 to 4 million children to SCHIP eligibility
    on Nov 1, 2007 regarding bill H.R. 3963 Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act
    Results: Bill Passed, 64-30
    Allows State Children's Health Insurance Programs (SCHIP), that require state legislation to meet additional requirements imposed by this Act, additional time to make required plan changes. Pres. Bush vetoed this bill on Dec. 12, 2007, as well as a version (HR976) from Feb. 2007.

    Proponents support voting YES because:

    Rep. DINGELL: This is not a perfect bill, but it is an excellent bipartisan compromise. The bill provides health coverage for 3.9 million children who are eligible, yet remain uninsured. It meets the concerns expressed in the President's veto message [from HR976]:

    1. It terminates the coverage of childless adults.
    2. It targets bonus payments only to States that increase enrollments of the poorest uninsured children, and it prohibits States from covering families with incomes above $51,000.
    3. It contains adequate enforcement to ensure that only US citizens are covered.

    Opponents recommend voting NO because:

    Rep. DEAL: This bill

    Voting Y counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 5: Health Care. Democrats: YES 46; NO 0
    Republicans: YES 17; NO 30
    Independents: YES 1; NO 0
    Vote number 2007-132 requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D
    on Apr 18, 2007 regarding bill S.3 & H.R.4 Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act
    Results: Cloture vote rejected, 55-42 (3/5ths required) Cloture rejected
    Would require negotiating with pharmaceutical manufacturers the prices that may be charged to prescription drug plan sponsors for covered Medicare part D drugs.

    Proponents support voting YES because:

    This legislation is an overdue step to improve part D drug benefits. The bipartisan bill is simple and straightforward. It removes the prohibition from negotiating discounts with pharmaceutical manufacturers, and requires the Secretary of Health & Human Services to negotiate. This legislation will deliver lower premiums to the seniors, lower prices at the pharmacy and savings for all taxpayers.

    It is equally important to understand that this legislation does not do certain things. HR4 does not preclude private plans from getting additional discounts on medicines they offer seniors and people with disabilities. HR4 does not establish a national formulary. HR4 does not require price controls. HR4 does not hamstring research and development by pharmaceutical houses.

    Voting Y counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 5: More Federal Funding for Health Coverage. Democrats: YES 48; NO 1
    Republicans: YES 6; NO 41
    Independents: YES 1; NO 0
    Vote number 2006-115 limiting medical liability lawsuits to $250,000
    on May 8, 2006 regarding bill S. 22 Medical Care Access Protection Act
    Results: Cloture vote rejected, 48-42 (3/5ths required)
    A "cloture motion" cuts off debate. Voting YEA indicates support for the bill as written, in this case to cap medical liability lawsuits. Voting NAY indicates opposition to the bill or a desire to amend it. This bill would "provide improved medical care by reducing the excessive burden the liability system places on the health care delivery system." It would limit medical lawsuit noneconomic damages to $250,000 from the health care provider, and no more than $500,000 from multiple health care institutions.
      Proponents of the motion recommend voting YEA because:
    • Many doctors have had to either stop practicing medicine due to increased insurance premiums.
    • Patients are affected as well--due to rising malpractice rates, more and more patients are not able to find the medical specialists they need.
    • The cost of medical malpractice insurance premiums are having wide-ranging effects. It is a national problem, and it is time for a national solution.
    • I am pleased that
    Voting Y counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 5: More Federal Funding for Health Coverage. Democrats: YES 0; NO 39
    Republicans: YES 48; NO 3
    Independents: YES 0; NO 0
    Vote number 2006-005 expanding enrollment period for Medicare Part D
    on Feb 2, 2006 regarding bill S Amdt 2730 to HR 4297 Medicare Part D Amendment
    Results: Motion Rejected, 52-45 (3/5th required)
    To provide for necessary beneficiary protections in order to ensure access to coverage under the Medicare part D prescription drug program. Voting YES would extend the 6-month enrollment period for the Prescription Drug Benefit Program to the entire year of 2006 and allows beneficiaries to change plans once in that year, without penalty, after enrollment. Also would fully reimburse pharmacies, states and individuals for cost in 2006 for covered Medicare Part D drugs. Voting Y counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 5: More Federal Funding for Health Coverage. Democrats: YES 43; NO 0
    Republicans: YES 8; NO 45
    Independents: YES 1; NO 0
    Vote number 2005-299 increasing Medicaid rebate for producing generics
    on Nov 3, 2005 regarding bill S Amdt 2348 to S 1932 Amendment for Medicaid rebates for generic drugs
    Results: Amendment Rejected, 49-50
    Vote on an amendment that removes an increase in the Medicaid deduction rebate for generic drugs from 11% to 17%. The effect of the amendment, according to its sponsor, is as follows: "This bill eliminates the ability of generic drugs to be sold using Medicaid. Over half the prescription drugs used in Medicaid are generic. Because we have raised the fees so dramatically on what a generic drug company must pay a pharmacy to handle the drug, pharmacies are not going to use the generic. In the long run, that will cost the Medicaid Program billions of dollars. My amendment corrects that situation." A Senator opposing the amendment said: "This bill has in it already very significant incentives for generic utilization through the way we reimburse generics. Brand drugs account for 67% of Medicaid prescriptions, but they also account for 81% of the Medicaid rebates. This is reasonable policy for us, then, to create parity between brand and generic rebates. This amendment would upset that parity." Voting Y counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 5: More Federal Funding for Health Coverage. Democrats: YES 43; NO 0
    Republicans: YES 5; NO 50
    Independents: YES 1; NO 0
    Vote number 2005-60 negotiating bulk purchases for Medicare prescription drug
    on Mar 17, 2005 regarding bill S.Amdt. 214 to S.Con.Res. 18 Prescription Drug Amendment
    Results: Amendment Rejected, 49-50
    Vote to adopt an amendment that would allow federal government negotiations with prescription drug manufactures for the best possible prescription drug prices. Amendment details: To ensure that any savings associated with legislation that provides the Secretary of Health and Human Services with the authority to participate in the negotiation of contracts with manufacturers of covered part D drugs to achieve the best possible prices for such drugs under Medicare Part D of the Social Security Act, that requires the Secretary to negotiate contracts with manufacturers of such drugs for each fallback prescription drug plan, and that requires the Secretary to participate in the negotiation for a contract for any such drug upon the request of a prescription drug plan or an MA-PD plan, is reserved for reducing expenditures under such part. Voting Y counts for 2 points on VoteMatch question 5: More Federal Funding for Health Coverage. Democrats: YES 42; NO 2
    Republicans: YES 6; NO 48
    Independents: YES 1; NO 0
    Vote number 2003-262 $40 billion per year for limited Medicare prescription drug benefit
    on Jun 26, 2003 regarding bill S.1/H.R.1 Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit bill
    Results: Bill Passed 76-21: R 40-10; D 35-11
    S. 1 As Amended; Prescription Drug and Medicare Improvement Act of 2003. Vote to pass a bill that would authorize $400 billion over 10 years to create a prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients beginning in 2006. Seniors would be allowed to remain within the traditional fee-for-service program or seniors would have the option to switch to a Medicare Advantage program that includes prescription drug coverage. Private insurers would provide prescription drug coverage. Private Insurers would engage in competitive bidding to be awarded two-year regional contracts by the Center for Medicare Choices under the Department of Health and Human Services.Enrolled seniors would pay a $275 deductible and an average monthly premium of $35. Annual drug costs beyond the deductible and up to $4,500 would be divided equally between the beneficiary and the insurer. Beneficiaries with incomes below 160 percent of the poverty level would be eligible for added assistance. Voting Y counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 5: More Federal Funding for Health Coverage. Democrats: YES 35; NO 11
    Republicans: YES 40; NO 10
    Independents: YES 1; NO 0
    Vote number 2002-201 allowing reimportation of Rx drugs from Canada
    on Jul 31, 2002 regarding bill S.812
    Results:
    S. 812, as amended; Greater Access to Affordable Pharmaceuticals Act of 2002. Vote to pass a bill that would permit a single 30-month stay against Food and Drug Administration approval of a generic drug patent when a brand-name company's patent is challenged. The secretary of Health and Human Services would be authorized to announce regulations allowing pharmacists and wholesalers to import prescription drugs from Canada into the United States. Canadian pharmacies and wholesalers that provide drugs for importation would be required to register with Health and Human Services. Individuals would be allowed to import prescription drugs from Canada. The medication would have to be for an individual use and a supply of less than 90-days. (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 49; NO 1
    Republicans: YES 28; NO 20
    Independents: YES 1; NO 0
    Vote number 2001-220 allowing patients to sue HMOs & collect punitive damages
    on Jun 29, 2001 regarding bill S1052
    Results: Bill passed, 59-36
    Vote to provide federal protections, such as access to specialty and emergency room care, and allow patients to sue health insurers in state and federal courts. Economic damages would not be capped, and punitive damages would be capped at $5 million. (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 50; NO 0
    Republicans: YES 9; NO 35
    Independents: YES 0; NO 1
    Vote number 2001-65 funding GOP version of Medicare prescription drug benefit
    on Apr 3, 2001 regarding bill H Con Res 83
    Results: Amendment adopted, 50-50; VP decided YES
    Vote to pass an amendment that would make up to $300 billion available for a Medicare prescription drug benefit for 2002 through 2011. The money would come from the budget's contingency fund. The amendment would also require a Medicare overhaul. Voting N counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 5: More Federal Funding for Health Coverage. Democrats: YES 1; NO 49
    Republicans: YES 48; NO 1
    Independents: YES 1; NO 0
    Vote number 2000-144 including prescription drugs under Medicare
    on Jun 22, 2000 regarding bill HR.4690
    Results: Rejected 53-44
    Vote to establish a prescription drug benefit program through the Medicare health insurance program. Among other provisions, Medicare would contribute at least 50% of the cost of prescription drugs and beneficiaries would pay a $250 deductible Voting Y counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 5: More Federal Funding for Health Coverage. Democrats: YES 42; NO 1
    Republicans: YES 2; NO 51
    Independents: YES 0; NO 1
    Vote number 1999-202 limiting self-employment health deduction
    on Jul 13, 1999 regarding bill S. 1344 Santorum Amdt #1234
    Results: Y)53; N)47 Amdt Agreed to
    The Santorum (R-PA) amdt would effectively kill the Kennedy Amdt (D-MA) which would have allowed self-employed individuals to fully deduct the cost of their health insurance on their federal taxes. Voting N counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 5: More Federal Funding for Health Coverage. Democrats: YES 0; NO 45
    Republicans: YES 52; NO 2
    Independents: YES 1; NO 0
    Vote number 1999-76xxx increasing funds for Medicare prescriptions
    on Mar 25, 1999 regarding bill S. Con. Res. 20 Motion to waive Snowe Amdt #232
    Results: Y)54; N)44; NV)2 Motion Rejected
    The Snowe (R-ME) Amdt would allow the Medicare prescription drug benefit program to be paid for by an increase in tobacco taxes. (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 0; NO 0
    Republicans: YES 0; NO 0
    Independents: YES 0; NO 0
    Vote number 1998-161 increasing tobacco restrictions
    on Jun 17, 1998 regarding bill S. 1415 Motion to invoke cloture on a modified committee substitute to S. 1415
    Results: Y)57; N)42; NV)1 Cloture Motion Rejected
    This cloture motion was on a bill which would have increased tobacco restrictions. [YES is an anti-smoking vote]. (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 43; NO 2
    Republicans: YES 13; NO 40
    Independents: YES 1; NO 0
    Vote number 1997-113 Medicare means-testing
    on Jun 24, 1997 regarding bill S. 947 Motion to table the Kennedy Amdt #440
    Results: Y)70; N)20 Motion to Table Agreed to
    Approval of means-based testing for Medicare insurance premiums. Voting N counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 5: More Federal Funding for Health Coverage. Democrats: YES 21; NO 24
    Republicans: YES 48; NO 6
    Independents: YES 1; NO 0
    Vote number 1996-72 blocking medical savings acounts
    on Apr 18, 1996 regarding bill S. 1028 Kassebaum Amdt #3677
    Results: Y)52; N)46; NV)2 Amdt Agreed to
    Vote to block a plan which would allow tax-deductible medical savings accounts. Voting Y counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 5: More Federal Funding for Health Coverage. Democrats: YES 46; NO 0
    Republicans: YES 5; NO 45
    Independents: YES 1; NO 1

    Homeland Security
    Senate BillVote descriptionVoteMatch UsageCandidate Voting
    Vote number 2007-309 removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad
    on Aug 3, 2007 regarding bill S.1927 Protect America Act
    Results: Bill Passed, 60-28 (3/5 required)
    Vote on passage of S.1927, the Protect America Act: Amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to state that nothing under its definition of "electronic surveillance" should encompass surveillance directed at any person reasonably believed to be located outside the US.

    A modified version, S.2011, failed; it called for amending FISA to provide that a court order is not required for the electronic surveillance of communication between foreign persons who are not located within the US for collecting foreign intelligence information, without respect to whether the communication passes through the US or the surveillance device is located within the US.

    Opponents recommend voting NO because:

    Sen. LEVIN: Both bills cure the problem that exists: Our intelligence agencies must obtain a court order to monitor the communications of foreigners suspected of terrorist activities who are physically located in foreign countries. Now, what are the major differences?

    Voting N counts for 2 points on VoteMatch question 14: Homeland Security. Democrats: YES 17; NO 27
    Republicans: YES 43; NO 0
    Independents: YES 0; NO 1
    Vote number 2007-243 limiting soldiers' deployment to 12 months
    on Jul 11, 2007 regarding bill SA2032 to HR1585 Hagel Amendment to Defense Authorization Bill
    Results: Rejected, 52-45 (3/5 required)
    Vote on an amendment, SA2032, which amends HR1585, the Defense Authorization bill: To limit the deployment of a unit or individual of the Armed Forces for Operation Iraqi Freedom to no more than 12 consecutive months; and to limit Marine Corps deployment to no more than 7 consecutive months; except in time of national emergency.

    Proponents support voting YES because:

    Sen. HAGEL: The war in Iraq has pushed the US Army to the breaking point. When we deploy our military, we have an obligation to ensure that our troops are rested, ready, prepared, fully trained, and fully equipped. Today's Armed Forces are being deployed repeatedly for increasing periods of time. This is quickly wearing down the troops and their families, impacting the mental and physical health of our troops. Further, these deployments are affecting the recruiting and retention rates of the military. For example, the Army reached only a little over 80% of its recruiting goal for June.

    Voting N counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 15: Homeland Security. Democrats: YES 48; NO 1
    Republicans: YES 3; NO 44
    Independents: YES 1; NO 0
    Vote number 2007-073 implementing the 9/11 Commission report
    on Mar 13, 2007 regarding bill S. 4 Improving America's Security Act
    Results: Bill passed 60-38
    Vote on passage of a bill to implement unfinished recommendations of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission) to fight the war on terror more effectively:
    • I: Improving Intelligence and Information Sharing within the Federal Government and with State, Local, and Tribal Governments
    • II: Homeland Security Grants
    • III: Communications Operability and Interoperability
    • IV: Emergency Management Performance Grants Program
    • V: Enhancing Security of International Travel
    • VI: Privacy and Civil Liberties Matters
    • VII: Enhanced Defenses Against Weapons of Mass Destruction
    • VIII: Private Sector Preparedness
    • IX: Transportation Security Planning and Information Sharing
    • X: Incident Command System
    • XI: Critical Infrastructure Protection
    • XII: Congressional Oversight of Intelligence
    • XIII: International Cooperation on Antiterrorism Technologies
    • XIV: Transportation and Interoperable Communication
    (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 49; NO 0
    Republicans: YES 10; NO 38
    Independents: YES 1; NO 0
    Vote number 2006-255 preserving habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees
    on Sep 28, 2006 regarding bill S.AMDT.5087 to S.3930 Specter Amendment
    Results: Amendment rejected 48-51
    Sen. Specter's amendment would strike the provision regarding habeas review. The underlying bill authorizes trial by military commission for violations of the law of war. Excerpts from the Senate floor debate:

    Sen. GRAHAM [recommending NO]: The fundamental question for the Senate to answer when it comes to determining enemy combatant status is, Who should make that determination? Should that be a military decision or should it be a judicial decision? That is something our military should do.

    Sen. SPECTER [recommending YES]: My amendment would retain the constitutional right of habeas corpus for people detained at Guantanamo. The right of habeas corpus was established in the Magna Carta in 1215 when, in England, there was action taken against King John to establish a procedure to prevent illegal detention. What the bill seeks to do is to set back basic rights by some 900 years. This amendment would strike that provision and make certain that the constitutional right of

    Voting Y counts for 2 points on VoteMatch question 14: Patriot Act harms civil liberties. Democrats: YES 43; NO 1
    Republicans: YES 4; NO 50
    Independents: YES 1; NO 0
    Vote number 2006-256 requiring CIA reports on detainees & interrogation methods
    on Sep 28, 2006 regarding bill S.AMDT.5095 to S.3930 Rockefeller Amendment
    Results: Amendment rejected 46-53
    Amendment to provide for congressional oversight of certain Central Intelligence Agency programs. The underlying bill S. 3930 authorizes trial by military commission for violations of the law of war. The amendment requires quarterly reports describing all CIA detention facilities; the name of each detainee; their suspected activities; & each interrogation technique authorized for use and guidelines on the use of each such technique.

    Opponents recommend voting NO because:

    I question the need for a very lengthy, detailed report every 3 months. We will probably see those reports leaked to the press.

    This amendment would spread out for the world--and especially for al-Qaida and its related organizations--precisely what interrogation techniques are going to be used.

    Voting Y counts for 2 points on VoteMatch question 14: Patriot Act harms civil liberties. Democrats: YES 44; NO 0
    Republicans: YES 1; NO 53
    Independents: YES 1; NO 0
    Vote number 2006-025 reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act
    on Mar 1, 2006 regarding bill S. 2271 USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments
    Results: Bill passed, 95-4
    This vote reauthorizes the PATRIOT Act with some modifications (amendments). Voting YEA extends the PATRIOT Act, and voting NAY would phase it out. The official summary of the bill is:
    A bill to clarify that individuals who receive FISA orders can challenge nondisclosure requirements, that individuals who receive national security letters are not required to disclose the name of their attorney, that libraries are not wire or electronic communication service providers unless they provide specific services, and for other purposes.
      Opponents of the bill say to vote NAY because:
    • Some may see the vote we are about to have as relatively trivial. They are mistaken. While the bill we are voting on makes only minor cosmetic changes to the PATRIOT Act, it will allow supporting the PATRIOT Act conference report that was blocked in December. Cosmetic changes simply don't cut it when we are talking about protecting the rights and freedoms of
    Voting N counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 14: Patriot Act harms civil liberties. Democrats: YES 40; NO 3
    Republicans: YES 55; NO 0
    Independents: YES 0; NO 1
    Vote number 2005-358 extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provision
    on Dec 16, 2005 regarding bill HR 3199 Motion for Cloture of PATRIOT Act
    Results: Cloture Not Invoked, 52-48 (3/5ths required)
    Vote to invoke cloture on a conference report that extends the authority of the FBI to conduct "roving wiretaps" and access business records. Voting YES would recommend, in effect, that the PATRIOT Act be extended through December 31, 2009, and would makes the provisions of the PATRIOT Act permanent. Voting NO would extend debate further, which would have the effect of NOT extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provision. Voting N counts for 2 points on VoteMatch question 14: Patriot Act harms civil liberties. Democrats: YES 2; NO 41
    Republicans: YES 50; NO 5
    Independents: YES 0; NO 1
    Vote number 2005-203 restricting business with entities linked to terrorism
    on Jul 26, 2005 regarding bill S AMDT 1351 to S 1042 Stop Business with Terrorists Act of 2005
    Results: Amendment Rejected, 47-51
    Vote to adopt an amendment that makes US businesses and their subsidiaries liable to prosecution for dealing with foreign businesses which have links to terrorism or whose parent country supports terrorism. Voting YES would:
    • Empower the President under the Trading with the Enemy Act to prohibit US businesses and their subsidiaries from transacting with foreign businesses identified as having links to terrorism.
    • Forbid US businesses and their subsidiaries from engaging in transactions with any foreign business whose parent country has been identified as a supporter of international terrorism.
    • Require the President to publish a list of foreign businesses identified as having links to terrorism, and bans US ownership or control of foreign businesses engaged in transactions with such businesses.
    • Call for US businesses to disclose in their annual reports any ownership stake of at least 10% in a foreign business that is itself engaging in transactions with a proscribed foreign business.
    (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 43; NO 0
    Republicans: YES 3; NO 51
    Independents: YES 1; NO 0
    Vote number 2005-64 restoring $565M for states' and ports' first responders
    on Mar 17, 2005 regarding bill S AMDT 220 to S Con Res 18 State Homeland Security Grant Program Amendment
    Results: Amendment Agreed to, 63-37
    Amendment intended to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by restoring $565 million in cuts to vital first-responder programs in the Department of Homeland Security, including the State Homeland Security Grant program, by providing $150 million for port security grants and by providing $140 million for 1,000 new border patrol agents. (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 44; NO 0
    Republicans: YES 18; NO 37
    Independents: YES 1; NO 0
    Vote number 2002-249 establishing the Homeland Security Department
    on Nov 19, 2002 regarding bill HR.5005
    Results:
    H.R. 5005, as amended; Homeland Security Act of 2002. Vote to pass a bill that would join 22 agencies into a new cabinet-level Homeland Security Department with the responsibility to protect domestic security. The new Department would include the following agencies: the Coast Guard, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Customs Service, the Secret Service and the Transportation Security Administration. It would split the Immigration and Naturalization Service between immigration enforcement and citizen services, both agencies would be placed under the new The President would be given the ability to exempt some employees from collective bargaining units for national security reasons. The department would also be given the ability to make changes to personnel rules but would set up a process for unions to make an objection to and negotiate on those changes. (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 0; NO 0
    Republicans: YES 0; NO 0
    Independents: YES 0; NO 0
    Vote number 1999-325 adopting the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
    on Oct 13, 1999 regarding bill Treaty Document #105-28 Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
    Results: Y)48; N)51; P)1 Resolution of Ratification Rejected
    Adoption of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty would ban nuclear weapons testing six months after ratification by the 44 nations that have nuclear power plants or nucelar research reactors. (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 44; NO 0
    Republicans: YES 3; NO 51
    Independents: YES 1; NO 1
    Vote number 1999-147 allowing another round of military base closures
    on May 26, 1999 regarding bill S.1059
    Results: Failed 60-40
    Vote on an amendment to allow one round of military base closures beginning in 2001 as determined by an independent panel. Voting N counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 15: More Spending on Armed Forces. Democrats: YES 23; NO 22
    Republicans: YES 16; NO 38
    Independents: YES 1; NO 0
    Vote number 1999-149 cutting nuclear weapons below START levels
    on May 26, 1999 regarding bill S. 1059 Motion to table Kerrey Amdt #395
    Results: Y)56; N)44 Motion to Table Agreed to
    The Kerrey (D-NE) amdt would strike bill language requiring that U.S. strategic nuclear forces remain at START I levels through the end of fiscal 2000 unless Russia ratified START II. (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 4; NO 41
    Republicans: YES 52; NO 2
    Independents: YES 0; NO 1
    Vote number 1999-51 deploying National Missile Defense ASAP
    on Mar 17, 1999 regarding bill S 257
    Results: Bill passed, 97-3
    Vote that the policy of the US is to deploy a National Missile Defense system capable of defending against limited ballistic missile attack as soon as it is technologically possible, and to seek continued negotiated reductions in Russian nuclear forces. Voting Y counts for 2 points on VoteMatch question 15: Reduce spending on Missile Defense ("Star Wars"). Democrats: YES 42; NO 3
    Republicans: YES 54; NO 0
    Independents: YES 1; NO 0
    Vote number 1999-26 military pay raise of 4.8%
    on Feb 24, 1999 regarding bill S.4
    Results: Passed 91-8
    Vote to pass a bill to authorize a military pay raise of 4.8% in 2000 and annual pay increases through 2006 of 0.5% above the inflation rate. The bill would also provide additional incentives to certain enlisted personnel who remain on active duty. Voting Y counts for 2 points on VoteMatch question 15: More Spending on Armed Forces. Democrats: YES 39; NO 5
    Republicans: YES 51; NO 3
    Independents: YES 1; NO 0
    Vote number 1998-262xxx deploying missile defense as soon as possible
    on Sep 9, 1998 regarding bill S 1873
    Results: Cloture motion rejected, 59-41
    Vote to limit further debate and proceed to a bill that would require the U.S. to deploy as soon as possible an effective National Missile Defense system capable of defending against a limited ballistic missile attack. (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 0; NO 0
    Republicans: YES 0; NO 0
    Independents: YES 0; NO 0
    Vote number 1998-180 prohibiting same-sex basic training
    on Jun 25, 1998 regarding bill S. 2057 Byrd Amdt #3011
    Results: Y)39; N)53; NV)8 Amdt Rejected
    Byrd Amdt (D-WV) that would prohibit same-sex military barracks and basic training. Voting N counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 2: Require companies to hire more women & minorities. Democrats: YES 8; NO 32
    Republicans: YES 31; NO 19
    Independents: YES 1; NO 1
    Vote number 1997-287 favoring 36 vetoed military projects
    on Oct 30, 1997 regarding bill S. 1292 Line Item Veto Cancellation bill
    Results: Y)69; N)30; NV)1 Bill Passed
    Overturning line-item vetoes of 36 military projects vetoed by President Clinton. Voting Y counts for 2 points on VoteMatch question 15: More Spending on Armed Forces. Democrats: YES 27; NO 18
    Republicans: YES 41; NO 12
    Independents: YES 1; NO 0
    Vote number 1997-51 banning chemical weapons
    on Apr 24, 1997 regarding bill S. Res. 75 Resolution of ratification of the Chemical (Comprehensive) Weapons (Convention) Ban
    Results: Y)74; N)26 Resolution of Ratification Agreed to
    Approval of the chemical weapons ban. (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 45; NO 0
    Republicans: YES 28; NO 26
    Independents: YES 2; NO 0
    Vote number 1996-157 considering deploying NMD, and amending ABM Treaty
    on Jun 4, 1996 regarding bill S 1635
    Results: Motion rejected, 53-46
    Vote to consider establishing a policy requiring the deployment of a national missile defense system by the end of 2003. The bill would also urge discussions with Russia to amend the ABM Treaty to allow deployment of the system. Voting Y counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 15: Reduce spending on Missile Defense ("Star Wars"). Democrats: YES 0; NO 46
    Republicans: YES 51; NO 0
    Independents: YES 1; NO 0
    Vote number 1995-397 1996 Defense Appropriations
    on Sep 5, 1995 regarding bill S. 1087 Defense Approps Bill FY 96
    Results: Y)62; N)35; NV)3 Bill Passed
    Approval of the 1996 Defense Appropriations bill. Voting Y counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 15: More Spending on Armed Forces. Democrats: YES 13; NO 31
    Republicans: YES 47; NO 4
    Independents: YES 2; NO 0

    Immigration
    Senate BillVote descriptionVoteMatch UsageCandidate Voting
    Vote number 2007-235 comprehensive immigration reform
    on Jun 28, 2007 regarding bill S.1639 McCain-Kennedy Immigration Reform Bill
    Results: Cloture Motion rejected, 46-53
      Establishes specified benchmarks which must be met before the guest worker and legalization programs may be initiated:
    1. operational control of the border with Mexico;
    2. Border Patrol increases;
    3. border barriers, including vehicle barriers, fencing, radar, and aerial vehicles;
    4. detention capacity for illegal aliens apprehended crossing the US-Mexico border;
    5. workplace enforcement, including an electronic employment verification system; and
    6. Z-visa alien processing.

    Proponents recommend voting YES because:

    If we do not legislate now, we will not legislate later this year when our calendar is crowded with Iraq and appropriations bills. We are then an election year, and it will be pushed over to 2009. Circumstances will not be better then, they will be worse.

    A vote against cloture is a vote to kill the bill. A Senator may vote for cloture and then express himself in opposition to the bill by voting against the bill.

    Opponents recommend voting

    Voting Y counts for 2 points on VoteMatch question 12: Immigration. Democrats: YES 34; NO 15
    Republicans: YES 12; NO 37
    Independents: YES 0; NO 1
    Vote number 2007-198 declaring English as the official language of the US government
    on Jun 6, 2007 regarding bill S.Amdt.1151 to S.1348 National Language Amendment Act
    Results: Amendment Agreed to, 64-33
    Voting YES would declare English as the national language of the Government of the US. Unless specifically provided by statute, no person would have an entitlement to have the Government of the US communicate or provide materials in any language other than English. If an exception is made with respect to the use of a language other than English, the exception does not create a legal entitlement to additional services in that language. If any form is issued by the Federal Government in a language other than English, the English language version of the form is the sole authority for all legal purposes. Nothing in this amendment shall prohibit the use of a language other than English.

    Proponents recommend voting YES because:

    Right now, the polling shows that 91% of the people in America want English as an official language, and 76% of Hispanics believe English should be an official language.

    Opponents recommend voting NO because:

    I believe the American people

    Voting N counts for 2 points on VoteMatch question 12: Immigration. Democrats: YES 17; NO 31
    Republicans: YES 47; NO 1
    Independents: YES 0; NO 1
    Vote number 2007-174 eliminating the "Y" nonimmigrant guestworker program
    on May 22, 2007 regarding bill S.Amdt.1153 on S.1348 Dorgan Amendment
    Results: Amendment Rejected, 31-64

    Proponents recommend voting YES because:

    This legislation says we wish to add something called guest workers or temporary workers. With guest workers, working Americans would discover there is no opportunity for upward mobility at their job. In fact, every day their employers are trying to find ways to push down wages, eliminate retirement, and eliminate health care. What has happened in this country, with what is called the "new global economy," is dramatic downward pressure on income for American workers. The guest worker program provides that 400,000 people will be able to come in to assume jobs in our country per year--adding to the 12 million illegal immigrants already here.

    Opponents recommend voting NO because:

    I certainly concur about the need to secure our borders, about the need to have a workable immigration system, and the need for reform that ensures the rule of law is restored in the US. Where I differ is in the belief that

    Voting N counts for 0 points on VoteMatch question 12: Immigration. Democrats: YES 28; NO 18
    Republicans: YES 2; NO 46
    Independents: YES 1; NO 0
    Vote number 2006-262 building a fence along the Mexican border
    on Sep 29, 2006 regarding bill H R 6061 Secure Fence Act
    Results: Bill passed, 80-19
    Within 18 months, achieves operational control over U.S. land and maritime borders, including:
    1. systematic border surveillance through more effective use of personnel and technology; and
    2. physical infrastructure enhancements to prevent unlawful border entry
    Defines "operational control" as the prevention of all unlawful U.S. entries, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, narcotics, and other contraband.

    Proponents support voting YES because:

    It is obvious there is no more defining issue in our Nation today than stopping illegal immigration. The most basic obligation of any government is to secure the Nation's borders. One issue in which there appears to be a consensus between the Senate and the House is on the issue of building a secure fence. So rather than wait until comprehensive legislation is enacted, we should move forward on targeted legislation which is effective and meaningful. The legislation today provides over 700 miles of

    Voting N counts for 2 points on VoteMatch question 12: Immigration helps our economy-encourage it. Democrats: YES 26; NO 17
    Republicans: YES 54; NO 1
    Independents: YES 0; NO 1
    Vote number 2006-157 establishing a Guest Worker program
    on May 25, 2006 regarding bill S. 2611 Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act
    Results: Bill Passed 62-36
      Voting YES establishes a guest worker program with a path to citizenship for illegal aliens who have worked in the US for 5 years. The bill:
    • Increases border security and enforcement
    • Makes it unlawful to knowingly hire, recruit, or refer for a fee an unauthorized alien.
    • Establishes a temporary guest worker program (H-2C visa) with a three-year admission and one additional three-year extension; and issuance of H-4 nonimmigrant visas for accompanying or following spouse and children;
    • Provides permanent resident status adjustment for a qualifying illegal alien, and family, for aliens who have been in the US and employed for five years.
      Proponents of the bill say:
    • Our immigration system is broken and needs to be repaired. This bill is a strong step in the right direction. We need to protect our borders and look out for
    Voting Y counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 12: Illegal immigrants earn citizenship. Democrats: YES 38; NO 4
    Republicans: YES 23; NO 32
    Independents: YES 1; NO 0
    Vote number 2006-130 allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security
    on May 18, 2006 regarding bill S.Amdt.3985 to S.2611 Preclusion of Social Security Credits
    Results: Motion to table passed, 50-49
    Voting YEA would table (kill) the proposed amendment to prohibit illegal immigrants from receiving Social Security benefits. Voting NAY supports that prohibition, while voting YEA supports immigrants participating in Social Security. Text of amendment:
    To reduce document fraud, prevent identity theft, and preserve the integrity of the Social Security system, by ensuring that persons who receive an adjustment of status under this bill are not able to receive Social Security benefits as a result of unlawful activity.
      Proponents of the amendment say to vote NAY because:
    • The Immigration Reform bill would allow people to qualify for social security based on work they did while they were illegally present in the US and illegally working in the US. People who broke the law to come here and broke the law to work here can benefit from their conduct to collect social security.
    • In some cases, illegal immigrants may have stolen an American citizen's identity.
    Voting Y counts for 2 points on VoteMatch question 12: Illegal immigrants earn citizenship. Democrats: YES 38; NO 5
    Republicans: YES 11; NO 44
    Independents: YES 1; NO 0
    Vote number 2006-135 giving Guest Workers a path to citizenship
    on May 18, 2006 regarding bill S.Amdt.3969 to S.2611 Kyl Amendment to Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act
    Results: Motion to table passed, 58-35
    This amendment to the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act would prohibit H-2C nonimmigrants ("Guest Workers") from adjusting to lawful permanent resident status. Voting YEA on the motion to table (which would kill the amendment) indicates supporting a path to citizenship for guest workers. Voting NAY on the motion indicates opposing any path to citizenship. The amendment says:
    Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, an alien having nonimmigrant status is ineligible for and may not apply for adjustment of status.''
      Proponents of the amendment say to vote NAY because:
    • The Immigration Reform Act purports to create two different paths to citizenship for those, first of all, who are in the country living outside of the law in an undocumented status, and secondly, for those who are not yet present in the country but who want to come here at some future date to work.
    • We have given the somewhat misleading name of ''guest worker'' to the
    Voting Y counts for 2 points on VoteMatch question 12: Illegal immigrants earn citizenship. Democrats: YES 39; NO 3
    Republicans: YES 18; NO 32
    Independents: YES 1; NO 0
    Vote number 1998-233 allowing more foreign workers into the US for farm work
    on Jul 23, 1998 regarding bill S.2260
    Results: Passed 68-31
    Vote to create a national registry containing names of U.S. workers who want to perform temporary or seasonal agricultural work, and to require the Attorney General to allow more foreign workers into the U.S. for farm work under H-2A visas. Voting Y counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 12: Immigration helps our economy-encourage it. Democrats: YES 14; NO 31
    Republicans: YES 53; NO 0
    Independents: YES 1; NO 0
    Vote number 1998-141 visas for skilled workers
    on May 18, 1998 regarding bill S. 1723 The American Competitiveness Act
    Results: Y)78; N)20; NV)2 Bill Passed
    This bill expanded the Visa program for skilled workers. Voting Y counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 12: Immigration helps our economy-encourage it. Democrats: YES 27; NO 18
    Republicans: YES 50; NO 2
    Independents: YES 1; NO 1
    Vote number 1997-111 limit welfare for immigrants
    on Jun 24, 1997 regarding bill S.947 Motion to table Kennedy Amdt #429
    Results: Y)59; N)41 Motion to Table Agreed to
    This amendment would have restored food stamp benefits to the children of legal immigrants Voting N counts for 2 points on VoteMatch question 12: Immigration helps our economy-encourage it. Democrats: YES 9; NO 36
    Republicans: YES 49; NO 5
    Independents: YES 2; NO 0
    Vote number 1996-432HR limiting immigrant benefits & controlling borders more tightly
    on Sep 25, 1996 regarding bill HR 2202
    Results: Adopted 305-123
    Vote to adopt the conference report of a bill to change immigration policy, including hiring more Border Patrol Agents, increasing penalties for document fraud and alien smuggling, and limiting public assistance for immigrants, among other provisions. Voting N counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 12: Immigration helps our economy-encourage it. Democrats: YES 2; NO 1
    Republicans: YES 3; NO 0
    Independents: YES 0; NO 0
    Vote number 1994-348HR prohibiting illegal immigrants from receiving FEMA benefits
    on Jul 22, 1994 regarding bill HR 3838
    Results: Passed 220-176
    Prohibit illegal immigrants from receiving benefits under the FEMA's Food and Shelter program unless the president declares a national disaster. Voting N counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 12: Immigration helps our economy-encourage it. Democrats: YES 2; NO 2
    Republicans: YES 2; NO 0
    Independents: YES 0; NO 0

    Jobs
    Senate BillVote descriptionVoteMatch UsageCandidate Voting
    Vote number 2007-426 limiting farm subsidies to people earning under $750,000
    on Dec 13, 2007 regarding bill S.Amdt. 3810 to H.R. 2419 Klobuchar Amendment to Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act
    Results: Rejected 48-47 (3/5 required)
    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.

    (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 34; NO 12
    Republicans: YES 13; NO 35
    Independents: YES 1; NO 0
    Vote number 2007-227 restricting employer interference in union organizing
    on Jun 26, 2007 regarding bill H R 800 Employee Free Choice Act
    Results: Cloture vote rejected, 51-48 (3/5ths required) Cloture rejected
      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:
      1. discharged or discriminated against an employee to discourage membership in a labor organization;
      2. threatened to discharge employees in the exercise of guaranteed collective bargaining rights; and
      3. 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

    (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 49; NO 0
    Republicans: YES 1; NO 48
    Independents: YES 1; NO 0
    Vote number 2007-042 increasing minimum wage to $7.25
    on Feb 1, 2007 regarding bill H.R.2 Fair Minimum Wage Act
    Results: Bill passed, 94-3
    Increase the federal minimum wage to:
    1. $5.85 an hour, beginning on the 60th day after enactment;
    2. $6.55 an hour, beginning 12 months after that 60th day; and
    3. $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.

    (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 48; NO 0
    Republicans: YES 45; NO 3
    Independents: YES 1; NO 0
    Vote number 2005-26 raising the minimum wage to $7.25 rather than $6.25
    on Mar 7, 2005 regarding bill S AMDT 44 to S 256 Amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
    Results: Amendment Rejected, 46 to 49
    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. (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 43; NO 0
    Republicans: YES 17; NO 38
    Independents: YES 1; NO 0
    Vote number 2001-15 repealing Clinton's ergonomic rules on repetitive stress
    on Mar 6, 2001 regarding bill S J Res 6
    Results: Resolution passed, 56-44
    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 (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 6; NO 44
    Republicans: YES 49; NO 0
    Independents: YES 1; NO 0
    Vote number 1999-356 killing an increase in the minimum wage
    on Nov 9, 1999 regarding bill S. 625 Motion to table Kennedy Amdt #2751
    Results: Y)50; N)48; NV)2 Motion to Table Agreed to
    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. (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 0; NO 44
    Republicans: YES 50; NO 2
    Independents: YES 0; NO 1
    Vote number 1997-68 allowing workers to choose between overtime & comp-time
    on May 15, 1997 regarding bill S. 4 Motion to invoke cloture on a Committee amdt to S. 4
    Results: Y)53; N)47 Cloture Motion Rejected
    This bill would have allowed workers to choose between overtime and compensatory time. (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 0; NO 45
    Republicans: YES 52; NO 2
    Independents: YES 1; NO 0
    Vote number 1996-19 replacing farm price supports
    on Feb 7, 1996 regarding bill S. 1541 Agriculture Market Transition Act of 1996
    Results: Y)64; N)32; NV)4 Bill Passed
    Replaces farm price supports with seven years of annual fixed payments. (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 19; NO 26
    Republicans: YES 44; NO 5
    Independents: YES 1; NO 1

    Principles & Values
    Senate BillVote descriptionVoteMatch UsageCandidate Voting
    Vote number 2006-002 confirming Samuel Alito as Supreme Court Justice
    on Jan 31, 2006 regarding bill PN 1059 Alito Nomination
    Results: Nomination Confirmed, 58-42
    Vote on the Nomination -- a YES vote would to confirm Samuel A. Alito, Jr., of New Jersey, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 4; NO 40
    Republicans: YES 54; NO 1
    Independents: YES 0; NO 1
    Vote number 2005-245 confirming John Roberts for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
    on Sep 27, 2005 regarding bill PN 801 Supreme Court Nomination of John Roberts
    Results: Nomination Confirmed, 78-22
    Vote on the Nomination (Confirmation John G. Roberts, Jr., of Maryland, to be Chief Justice of the United States ) (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 22; NO 22
    Republicans: YES 55; NO 0
    Independents: YES 1; NO 0
    Vote number issues2000-G Principles & Values
    on Jul 2, 2000 regarding bill Principles & Values
    Results:
    (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 0; NO 0
    Republicans: YES 0; NO 0
    Independents: YES 0; NO 0

    Social Security
    Senate BillVote descriptionVoteMatch UsageCandidate Voting
    Vote number 2007-089 establishing reserve funds & pre-funding for Social Security
    on Mar 22, 2007 regarding bill S.Amdt.489 on S.Con.Res.21
    Results: Amendment rejected 45-53
    Voting YES would:
    1. require that the Federal Old Age and Survivors Trust Fund be used only to finance retirement income of future beneficiaries;
    2. ensure that there is no change to benefits for individuals born before January 1, 1951
    3. provide participants with the benefits of savings and investment while permitting the pre-funding of at least some portion of future benefits; and
    4. ensure that the funds made available to finance such legislation do not exceed the amounts estimated to be actuarially available.

    Proponents recommend voting YES because:

    Perhaps the worst example of wasteful spending is when we take the taxes people pay for Social Security and, instead of saving them, we spend them on other things. Even worse than spending Social Security on other things is we do not count it as debt when we talk about the deficit every year. So using the Social Security money is actually a way to hide even more wasteful spending without counting it as debt.

    Voting Y counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 6: Social Security. Democrats: YES 1; NO 47
    Republicans: YES 44; NO 4
    Independents: YES 0; NO 1
    Vote number 1999-236 using the Social Security Surplus to fund tax reductions
    on Jul 30, 1999 regarding bill S.1429
    Results: Tabling motion passed 55-45
    Vote on a motion to table (or kill) the motion to recommit the bill to the Senate Finance and Claims Committee with instructions directing the committee to "correct the fact that the bill uses" Social Security surpluses for tax breaks. Voting Y counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 6: Privatize Social Security. Democrats: YES 0; NO 7
    Republicans: YES 6; NO 0
    Independents: YES 0; NO 0
    Vote number 1999-90 Social Security Lockbox & limiting national debt
    on Apr 22, 1999 regarding bill S. 557 Motion to invoke cloture on Amdt #254 to S. 557
    Results: Y)54; N)45; NV)1 Cloture Motion Rejected
    This vote limited debate on the amendment offered by Sen. Abraham (R-MI) that would have created a Social Security "lockbox" and establish limits on the public debt. [A YES vote was for a lockbox]. This vote failed because 3/5 of the Senate did not vote. (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 0; NO 44
    Republicans: YES 53; NO 1
    Independents: YES 1; NO 0
    Vote number 1998-464HR putting 90% of any budget surplus toward Social Security
    on Sep 25, 1998 regarding bill HR 4578
    Results: Passed 240-188
    Vote to pass a bill to establish a 'Protect Social Security Account' to place 90 percent of any annual budget surpluses until a reform measure is enacted to keep Social Security solvent long-term. Voting Y counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 6: Privatize Social Security. Democrats: YES 0; NO 1
    Republicans: YES 3; NO 0
    Independents: YES 0; NO 0
    Vote number 1998-120 allowing Roth IRAs for retirees
    on May 6, 1998 regarding bill H.R. 2676 Roth Amdt #2339
    Results: Y)56; N)42; NV)2 Amdt Agreed to
    Senator Roth (R-DE) offered this amendment to the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act to allow people older than 70.5 with incomes over $100,000 to move funds from an Individual Retirement Account into a Roth IRA. Voting Y counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 6: Privatize Social Security. Democrats: YES 2; NO 42
    Republicans: YES 53; NO 0
    Independents: YES 1; NO 0
    Vote number 1998-56 allowing personal retirement accounts
    on Apr 1, 1998 regarding bill S.Con.Res.86
    Results: Passed 51-49
    Vote on an amendment expressing the sense of the Senate that the Finance Committee should consider legislation to use the federal budget surplus to establish personal retirement accounts as a supplement to Social Security. Voting Y counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 6: Privatize Social Security. Democrats: YES 2; NO 43
    Republicans: YES 49; NO 5
    Independents: YES 0; NO 1
    Vote number 1996-140 deducting Social Security payments on income taxes
    on May 22, 1996 regarding bill S Con Res 57
    Results: Amendment rejected, 43-57
    Vote on an amendment to establish an income tax deduction for Social Security taxes paid by employees and the self-employed. Voting Y counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 6: Privatize Social Security. Democrats: YES 2; NO 44
    Republicans: YES 39; NO 13
    Independents: YES 1; NO 0

    Tax Reform
    Senate BillVote descriptionVoteMatch UsageCandidate Voting
    Vote number 2007-108 repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax
    on Mar 23, 2007 regarding bill S.Amdt.471 on S.Con.Res.21 Grassley Amendment
    Results: Amendment rejected 44-53
    Amendment would accommodate the full repeal of the Alternative Minimum Tax, preventing 23 million families and individuals from being subject to the AMT in 2007, and millions of families and individuals in subsequent years.

    Proponents recommend voting YES because:

    This amendment repeals the AMT. Except for the telephone tax, the alternative minimum tax is the phoniest tax we have ever passed. The AMT, in 1969, was meant to hit 155 taxpayers who used legal means to avoid taxation, under the theory that everybody ought to pay some income tax.

    This very year, more than 2,000 people who are very wealthy are not paying any income tax or alternative minimum income tax. So it is not even working and hitting the people it is supposed to hit. Right now, this year, 2007, the year we are in, there are 23 million families that are going to be hit by this tax. It is a phony revenue machine, over 5 years, $467 billion dollars.

    Voting N counts for 2 points on VoteMatch question 11: Repeal tax cuts on wealthy. Democrats: YES 0; NO 49
    Republicans: YES 44; NO 3
    Independents: YES 0; NO 1
    Vote number 2007-083 raising estate tax exemption to $5 million
    on Mar 21, 2007 regarding bill S.Amdt.507 on S.Con.Res.21 Kyl Amendment
    Results: Amendment rejected 47-51
    An amendment to raise the death tax exemption to $5 million; reducing the maximum death tax rate to 35%; and to promote economic growth by extending the lower tax rates on dividends and capital gains.

    Proponents recommend voting YES because:

    It is disappointing to many family businesses and farm owners to set the death tax rate at what I believe is a confiscatory 45% and set the exemption at only $3.5 million, which most of us believe is too low. This leaves more than 22,000 families subject to the estate tax each year.

    Opponents recommend voting NO because:

    You can extend all the tax breaks that have been described in this amendment if you pay for them.

    Voting N counts for 2 points on VoteMatch question 11: Repeal tax cuts on wealthy. Democrats: YES 0; NO 48
    Republicans: YES 47; NO 2
    Independents: YES 0; NO 1
    Vote number 2006-229 supporting permanence of estate tax cuts
    on Aug 3, 2006 regarding bill H.R. 5970 Estate Tax and Extension of Tax Relief Act
    Results: Cloture Passed 56-42
    Increases the estate tax exclusion to $5,000,000, effective 2015, and repeals the sunset provision for the estate and generation-skipping taxes. Lowers the estate tax rate to equal the current long-term capital gains tax rate (i.e., 15% through 2010) for taxable estates up to $25 million. Repeals after 2009 the estate tax deduction paid to states.

    Proponents recommend voting YES because:

    The permanent solution to the death tax challenge that we have today is a compromise. It is a compromise that prevents the death rate from escalating to 55% and the exclusion dropping to $1 million in 2011. It also includes a minimum wage increase, 40% over the next 3 years. Voting YES is a vote for that permanent death tax relief. Voting YES is for that extension of tax relief. Voting YES is for that 40% minimum wage increase. This gives us the opportunity to address an issue that will affect the typical American family, farmers, & small business owners.

    Voting N counts for 2 points on VoteMatch question 11: Repeal tax cuts on wealthy. Democrats: YES 4; NO 38
    Republicans: YES 52; NO 3
    Independents: YES 0; NO 1
    Vote number 2006-164 permanently repealing the `death tax`
    on Jun 8, 2006 regarding bill HR 8 Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act
    Results: Cloture motion rejected, 57-41 (3/5ths required)
    A cloture motion ends debate and forces a vote on the issue. In this case, voting YES implies support for permanently repealing the death tax. Voting against cloture would allow further amendments. A cloture motion requires a 3/5th majority to pass. This cloture motion failed, and there was therefore no vote on repealing the death tax.
      Proponents of the motion say:
    • We already pay enough taxes over our lifetimes We are taxed from that first cup of coffee in the morning to the time we flip off the lights at bedtime. If you are an enterprising entrepreneur who has worked hard to grow a family business or to keep and maintain that family farm, your spouse and children can expect to hear the knock of the tax man right after the Grim Reaper.
    • In the past, when Congress enacted a death tax, it was at an extraordinary time of war, and the purpose was to raise temporary funds. But after the war was over the death tax was repealed. But that changed in the last century.
    Voting N counts for 2 points on VoteMatch question 11: Repeal tax cuts on wealthy. Democrats: YES 4; NO 38
    Republicans: YES 53; NO 2
    Independents: YES 0; NO 1
    Vote number 2006-008 $47B for military by repealing capital gains tax cut
    on Feb 2, 2006 regarding bill S Amdt 2737 to HR 4297 Tax Relief Extension Reconciliation Act
    Results: Motion Rejected, 44-53
    To strengthen America's military, to repeal the extension of tax rates for capital gains and dividends, to reduce the deficit, and for other purposes. Specifically, a YES vote would appropriate $47 billion to the military and would pay for it by repealing the extension of tax cuts for capital gains and dividends to 2010 back to 2008. The funds wuold be used as follows:
    • $25.4 billion for procurement
    • $17 billion for Army operation and maintenance
    • $4.5 billion for Marine Corps operation and maintenance
    Voting Y counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 11: Repeal tax cuts on wealthy. Democrats: YES 42; NO 1
    Republicans: YES 1; NO 52
    Independents: YES 1; NO 0
    Vote number 2006-010 retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends
    on Feb 2, 2006 regarding bill HR 4297 Tax Relief Extension Reconciliation Act
    Results: Bill passed, 66-31 Bill passed
    Vote to reduce federal spending by $56.1 billion over five years by retaining a reduced tax rate on capital gains and dividends, as well as.
    • Decreasing the number of people that will be required to pay the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)
    • Allowing for deductions of state and local general sales taxes through 2007 instead of 2006
    • Lengthening tax credits for research expenses
    • Increasing the age limit for eligibility for food stamp recipients from 25 to 35 years
    • Continuing reduced tax rates of 15% and 5% on capital gains and dividends through 2010
    • Extending through 2007 the expense allowances for environmental remediation costs (the cost of cleanup of sites where petroleum products have been released or disposed)
    Voting N counts for 2 points on VoteMatch question 11: Repeal tax cuts on wealthy. Democrats: YES 17; NO 26
    Republicans: YES 49; NO 4
    Independents: YES 0; NO 1
    Vote number 2005-347 extending the tax cuts on capital gains and dividends
    on Nov 18, 2005 regarding bill S. 2020 Tax Relief Act of 2005
    Results: Bill passed, 64-33
    This large piece of legislation (418 pages) includes numerous provisions, generally related to extending the tax cuts initiated by President Bush. This vote was on final passage of the bill. The specific provisions include:
    1. Extension Of Expiring Provisions: for business expenses, retirement savings contributions, higher education expenses, new markets tax credit, and deducting state and local sales taxes.
    2. Provisions Relating To Charitable Donations, and Reforming Charitable Organizations
    3. Improved Accountability of Donor Advised Funds
    4. Improvements in Efficiency and Safeguards in IRS Collection
      Opponents of the bill recommend voting NAY because:
    • Health care for children (among many other things) should come before tax cuts for the wealthy.
    • The 2-year cost of the extensions on capital gains tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans is $20 billion. So if we defer the tax break the administration is pushing for the wealthiest people in
    Voting N counts for 2 points on VoteMatch question 11: Repeal tax cuts on wealthy. Democrats: YES 15; NO 28
    Republicans: YES 49; NO 4
    Independents: YES 0; NO 1
    Vote number 2003-196 $350 billion in tax breaks over 11 years
    on May 23, 2003 regarding bill HR.2
    Results: Bill passed 50-50; VP decided Yes
    H.R. 2 Conference Report; Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. Vote to adopt the conference report on the bill that would make available $350 billion in tax breaks over 11 years. It would provide $20 billion in state aid that consists of $10 billion for Medicaid and $10 billion to be used at states' judgment. The agreement contains a new top tax rate of 15 percent on capital gains and dividends through 2007 (5 percent for lower-income taxpayers in 2007 and no tax in 2008). Income tax cuts enacted in 2001 and planned to take effect in 2006 would be accelerated. The child tax credit would be raised to $1,000 through 2004. The standard deduction for married couples would be double that for a single filer through 2004. Tax breaks for businesses would include expanding the deduction that small businesses could take on investments to $100,000 through 2005. Voting N counts for 2 points on VoteMatch question 11: Repeal tax cuts on wealthy. Democrats: YES 2; NO 46
    Republicans: YES 48; NO 3
    Independents: YES 0; NO 1
    Vote number 2002-94 $15 billion in energy-related tax incentives
    on Apr 25, 2002 regarding bill HR.4
    Results:
    H.R. 4, as amended; Energy Policy Act of 2002. "Securing America's Future Energy" (SAFE) Act of 2001. Vote to pass a bill that would reform the electricity system, overhaul the nation's energy policies, and make available approximately $15 billion in energy-related tax incentives. It would promote the use of alternative energy and call for utilities to increase their dependence on renewable fuels. It would also regulate that within the next 15 months to two years, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to establish a new CAFE standard. (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 0; NO 0
    Republicans: YES 0; NO 0
    Independents: YES 0; NO 0
    Vote number 2001-165xxx cutting taxes by $1.35 trillion over 11 years
    on May 23, 2001 regarding bill HR 1836
    Results: Bill passed, 63-38
    Vote to pass a bill that would reduce all income tax rates and make other tax cuts totaling $1.35 trillion over 11 years. The bill would increase the standard deduction for married couples subject to the 15% bracket to double that of singles by 2005 (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 0; NO 0
    Republicans: YES 0; NO 0
    Independents: YES 0; NO 0
    Vote number 2001-112 reducing marriage penalty instead of cutting top tax rates
    on May 17, 2001 regarding bill HR 1836
    Results: Amendment rejected, 44-56
    Vote to expand the standard deduction and 15% income tax bracket for couples. The elimination of the "marriage penalty" tax would be offset by reducing the marginal tax rate reductions for the top two rate bracket Voting Y counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 11: Repeal tax cuts on wealthy. Democrats: YES 42; NO 8
    Republicans: YES 2; NO 47
    Independents: YES 0; NO 1
    Vote number 2001-114 increasing tax deductions for college tuition
    on May 17, 2001 regarding bill HR 1836
    Results: Amendment rejected, 43-55
    Vote to increase the tax deduction for college tuition costs from $5,000 to $12,000 and increase the tax credit on student loan interest from $500 to $1,000. The expense would be offset by limiting the cut in the top estate tax rate to 53%. (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 42; NO 7
    Republicans: YES 1; NO 47
    Independents: YES 0; NO 1
    Vote number 2000-215 eliminating the 'marriage penalty'
    on Jul 18, 2000 regarding bill HR.4810
    Results: Passed 61-38
    Vote on a bill that would reduce taxes on married couples by increasing their standard deduction to twice that of single taxpayers and raise the income limits on both the 15 percent and 28 percent tax brackets for married couples to twice that of singles Voting N counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 11: Repeal tax cuts on wealthy. Democrats: YES 8; NO 37
    Republicans: YES 52; NO 1
    Independents: YES 1; NO 0
    Vote number 2000-197 phasing out the estate tax ("death tax")
    on Jul 14, 2000 regarding bill HR 8
    Results: Bill passed 59-39
    Vote on a bill that would eventually eliminate the tax imposed on estates and gifts by 2010 at an estimated cost of $75 billion annually when fully phased in. Voting N counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 11: Repeal tax cuts on wealthy. Democrats: YES 2; NO 6
    Republicans: YES 5; NO 2
    Independents: YES 0; NO 0
    Vote number 1999-313 across-the-board spending cut
    on Oct 6, 1999 regarding bill S. 1650 Nickles Amdt #1889
    Results: Y)54; N)46 Amdt. Agreed to
    The Nickles (R-OK) Amdendment would express the sense of the Senate that Congress should adopt an across-the-board cut in all discretionary funding, to prevent the plundering of the Social Security Trust Fund (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 0; NO 45
    Republicans: YES 53; NO 1
    Independents: YES 1; NO 0
    Vote number 1999-230xxx $792B tax cuts
    on Jul 29, 1999 regarding bill S. 1429 Motion to waive Congressional Budget Amendment in regards to the Gramm Amdt #1405
    Results: Y)46; N)54 Motion Rejected
    This vote was on a motion to waive the Congressional Budget Act against the Gramm (R-TX) amendment which would reduce taxes by $792 billion over 10 years by reducing all income tax rates by 10%, effectively eliminating the so-called "marriage penalty". (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 0; NO 0
    Republicans: YES 0; NO 0
    Independents: YES 0; NO 0
    Vote number 1998-71 requiring super-majority for raising taxes
    on Apr 2, 1998 regarding bill S Con Res 86 Kyl Amdt #2221
    Results: Y)50; N)48; NV)2 Amdt Agreed to
    Senator Kyl (R-AZ) offered an amendment to the 1999 budget resolution to express the sense of the Senate on support for a Constitutional amendment requiring a supermajority to pass tax increases. Voting N counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 11: Repeal tax cuts on wealthy. Democrats: YES 1; NO 43
    Republicans: YES 49; NO 4
    Independents: YES 0; NO 1
    Vote number 1998-55xxx FY99 tax cuts
    on Apr 1, 1998 regarding bill S Con Res 86 Motion to waive CBA Re: Coverdell Amdt. # 2199
    Results: Y)38; N)62) Motion Rejected
    Senator Coverdell (R-GA) offered an amendment to the 1999 budget resolution to reduce revenues by $101.5 billion over the next 5 years, to provide middle-class tax reflief (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 0; NO 0
    Republicans: YES 0; NO 0
    Independents: YES 0; NO 0

    Technology
    Senate BillVote descriptionVoteMatch UsageCandidate Voting
    Vote number 2007-406 $23B instead of $4.9B for waterway infrastructure
    on Nov 8, 2007 regarding bill Veto override on H.R. 1495 Veto override on Water Resources Development Act
    Results: Veto Overridden, 79-14 (2/3 required)
    Vote on overriding Pres. Bush's veto. The bill reauthorizes the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA): 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. The bill authorizes flood control, navigation, and environmental projects and studies by the Army Corps of Engineers. Also authorizes projects for navigation, ecosystem or environmental restoration, and hurricane, flood, or storm damage reduction in 23 states including Louisiana. (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 44; NO 2
    Republicans: YES 34; NO 12
    Independents: YES 1; NO 0
    Vote number 2006-052 restoring $550M in funding for Amtrak for 2007
    on Mar 15, 2006 regarding bill S.Amdt.3015 to S.Con.Res.83 Santorum amendment to Transportation funding bill
    Results: Amendment rejected, 39-59
    An amendment to provide an additional $550,000,000 for Amtrak for fiscal year 2007. Voting YEA would increase Amtrak funding from $900 million to $1.45 billion. Voting NAY would keep Amtrak funding at $900 million.
      Proponents of the bill say to vote YEA because:
    • [In my state], Philadelphia's 30th Street station is the second busiest train station nationally, with over 3.7 million boarding a year. And 3,000 people are employed by Amtrak in Pennsylvania. Amtrak and the health of Amtrak is important.
    • Last year the Senate transportation bill had $1.45 billion for Amtrak, which is obviously more than the $900 million in the current budget proposal. I am offering an amendment to increase that funding from the $900 million which is in the bill right now to the $1.45 billion level and adding $550 million.
    • I support funding through the section 920 account [without a tax increase]. We have seen that without raising the cap or without raising taxes, the Senate has been able to
    (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 14; NO 29
    Republicans: YES 24; NO 30
    Independents: YES 1; NO 0
    Vote number 2003-348 disallowing FCC approval of larger media conglomerates
    on Sep 16, 2003 regarding bill S J Res 17/H.J.RES.72 FCC Media Ownership bill
    Results: Bill passed 55-40: R 12-38; D 42-2
    Vote to pass a joint resolution expressing congressional disapproval of the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission. The rule would therefore have no force or effect. The rule in question deals with broadcast media ownership and would allow media conglomerates to own more television stations and newspapers. (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 42; NO 2
    Republicans: YES 12; NO 38
    Independents: YES 0; NO 0
    Vote number 1998-296 Internet sales tax moratorium
    on Oct 2, 1998 regarding bill S.442
    Results: Tabled 66-29
    Vote against allowing states to require companies who do business in their state solely by phone, mail, or the Internet to collect state sales taxes. [Current law does not require companies to collect sales taxes where the customer is out of state] Voting N counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 11: Repeal tax cuts on wealthy. Democrats: YES 18; NO 23
    Republicans: YES 47; NO 6
    Independents: YES 1; NO 0
    Vote number 1996-8 telecomm deregulation
    on Feb 1, 1996 regarding bill S. 652 Conference Report on S. 625, the
    Results: Y)91; N)5; NV)3 Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act of 1995
    Deregulation of the telecommunications industry. (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 39; NO 4
    Republicans: YES 50; NO 1
    Independents: YES 2; NO 0

    War & Peace
    Senate BillVote descriptionVoteMatch UsageCandidate Voting
    Vote number 2007-437 redeploying non-essential US troops out of Iraq in 9 months
    on Dec 18, 2007 regarding bill S.AMDT.3875 to H.R.2764 Safe Redeployment Of US Troops From Iraq Amendment
    Results: Rejected 24-71 (3/5 required)
    Vote to transition the missions of US Forces in Iraq to a more limited set of missions as specified by the President on September 13, 2007: S.AMDT.3875 amends S.AMDT.3874 and underlying bill H.R.2764:
    • The President shall commence the safe, phased redeployment of members of the US Armed Forces from Iraq who are not essential to the [new limited mission].
    • Such redeployment shall begin not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
    • No funds under any provision of law may be expended to continue the deployment in Iraq of members of the US Armed Forces after 9 months.

    Proponents support voting YES because:

    Sen. LEVIN: "The amendment requires redeployment be completed within 9 months. At that point, funding for the war would be ended, with four narrow exceptions:"

    1. Security for US Government personnel and infrastructure
    2. Training Iraqi security forces
    3. Equipment to US service men and women to ensure their safety
    Voting Y counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 17: War & Peace. Democrats: YES 23; NO 22
    Republicans: YES 0; NO 49
    Independents: YES 1; NO 0
    Vote number 2007-349 designating Iran's Revolutionary Guards as terrorists
    on Sep 26, 2007 regarding bill S.Amdt. 3017 to H.R. 1585 Sense of the Senate on Iran
    Results: Agreed to, 76-22 (3/5 required)
    Vote on a "Sense of the Senate" amendment, S.Amdt. 3017, to H.R. 1585 (National Defense Authorization Act), that finds:
    • that it is a vital US national interest to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from turning Shi'a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force;
    • that it should be US policy to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of Iran;
    • to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy;
    • that the US should designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization.

    Proponents support voting YES because:

    Sen. LIEBERMAN: Some of our colleagues thought the Sense of the Senate may have opened the door to some kind of military action against Iran [so we removed some text].

    (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 30; NO 19
    Republicans: YES 46; NO 2
    Independents: YES 0; NO 1
    Vote number 2007-075 redeploying US troops out of Iraq by March 2008
    on Mar 15, 2007 regarding bill S.J.Res.9 US Policy in Iraq Resolution
    Results: Resolution rejected 48-50
    Begins the phased redeployment of US forces from Iraq within 120 days of enactment of this joint resolution with the goal of redeploying by March 31, 2008, all US combat forces from Iraq, except for a limited number essential for protecting US and coalition personnel and infrastructure, training and equipping Iraqi forces, and conducting targeted counter-terrorism operations. Such redeployment shall be implemented as part of a diplomatic, political, and economic strategy that includes sustained engagement with Iraq's neighbors and the international community in order to bring stability to Iraq.

    Proponents recommend voting YES because:

    Our troops are caught in the midst of a civil war. The administration has begun to escalate this war with 21,000 more troops. This idea is not a new one. During this war, four previous surges have all failed. It is time for a different direction. It is time for a drawdown of our troops.

    Opponents recommend voting NO because:

    Voting Y counts for 2 points on VoteMatch question 17: Continue Foreign Aid to UN, NATO, & others. Democrats: YES 46; NO 3
    Republicans: YES 1; NO 47
    Independents: YES 1; NO 0
    Vote number 2006-181 redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007
    on Jun 22, 2006 regarding bill S.Amdt. 4442 to S. 2766 Kerry Amendment to National Defense Authorization Act
    Results: Amendment failed, 13-86
    Voting YEA on this amendment would establish a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. Voting NAY would keep the current situation without a timetable. The amendment states:
    1. The President shall redeploy, commencing in 2006, US forces from Iraq by July 1, 2007, leaving only the minimal number of forces that are critical to completing the mission of standing up Iraqi security forces and conducting specialized counterterrorism operations.
    2. The President should maintain an over-the-horizon troop presence to prosecute the war on terror and protect regional security interests.
    3. Within 30 days, the administration shall submit to Congress a report that sets forth the strategy for the redeployment of US forces from Iraq by July 1, 2007.
      Opponents of the Resolution say:
    • This amendment would withdraw American forces from Iraq without regard to the real conditions on the ground.
    • The consequences of an American retreat would be terrible for the security of the
    Voting Y counts for 2 points on VoteMatch question 17: Replace US troops with UN in Iraq. Democrats: YES 12; NO 31
    Republicans: YES 0; NO 55
    Independents: YES 1; NO 0
    Vote number 2005-316 investigating contract awards in Iraq & Afghanistan
    on Nov 10, 2005 regarding bill S Amdt 2476 to S 1042 Committee to Investigate War Contracts
    Results: Amendment Rejected, 44-53
    To establish a special committee of the Senate to investigate the awarding and carrying out of contracts to conduct activities in Afghanistan and Iraq and to fight the war on terrorism. Voting YES would: create Senate special committee to investigate war contracts, taking into consideration: bidding, methods of contracting, subcontracting, oversight procedures, allegations of wasteful practices, accountability and lessons learned in Afghanistan and Iraq. (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 42; NO 0
    Republicans: YES 1; NO 53
    Independents: YES 1; NO 0
    Vote number 2005-96 requiring on-budget funding for Iraq, not emergency funding
    on Apr 20, 2005 regarding bill S.AMDT.464 to H.R.1268 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act
    Results: Amendment Agreed to, 61-31
    Amendment to express the sense of the Senate on future requests for funding for military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. A YES vote would:
    • Request all future funding for ongoing military operations overseas, especially in Afghanistan and Iraq, be included in the President's annual fiscal year budget proposal
    • Call for the President to submit to Congress by Sept. 1, 2005, an amendment to his annual fiscal budget, that details estimated costs for ongoing military operations overseas.
    • Ask that all future funding requests for ongoing military operations overseas appear in the appropriation bills in which such expenditures are normally included.
    Voting N counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 15: More Spending on Armed Forces. Democrats: YES 39; NO 0
    Republicans: YES 21; NO 31
    Independents: YES 1; NO 0
    Vote number 2003-400 $86 billion for military operations in Iraq & Afghanistan
    on Oct 17, 2003 regarding bill S1689 FY04 Emergency Supplemental for Iraq and Afghanistan
    Results: Bill Passed 87-12: R 50-0; D 37-11
    Vote to pass a bill that would appropriate $86.5 billion in supplemental spending for military operations and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan, in Fiscal 2004. The bill would provide $10.3 billion as a grant to rebuild Iraq. This includes:
    • $5.1 billion for security
    • $5.2 billion for reconstruction costs
    • $65.6 billion for military operations and maintenance
    • $1.3 billion for veterans medical care
    • $10 billion as a loan that would be converted to a grant if 90% of all bilateral debt incurred by the former Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein, would have to be forgiven by other countries.
    (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 37; NO 11
    Republicans: YES 51; NO 0
    Independents: YES 0; NO 0
    Vote number 2002-237 authorizing use of military force against Iraq
    on Oct 11, 2002 regarding bill H.J.RES.114
    Results:
    H.J.Res. 114; Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. The administration would be required to report to Congress that diplomatic options have been exhausted before, or within 48 hours after military action has started. Every 60 days the president would also be required to submit a progress report to Congress. (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 29; NO 21
    Republicans: YES 48; NO 1
    Independents: YES 0; NO 1
    Vote number 1999-98 allowing all necessary force in Kosovo
    on May 4, 1999 regarding bill S. J. Res. 20 Motion to table S. J. Res. 20
    Results: Y)78; N)22 Motion to Table Agreed to
    Majority Leader Trent Lott motioned to kill the resolution that would have authorized the president to "use all necessary forces and other means," in cooperation with U.S. allies to accomplish objectives in Yugoslavia. (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 32; NO 13
    Republicans: YES 45; NO 9
    Independents: YES 2; NO 0
    Vote number 1999-57 authorizing air strikes in Kosovo
    on Mar 23, 1999 regarding bill S.Con.Res 21
    Results: Adopted 58-41
    Vote to adopt a resolution to authorize the President to conduct military air operations and missile strikes in cooperation with NATO against Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro). (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 42; NO 3
    Republicans: YES 15; NO 38
    Independents: YES 1; NO 0
    Vote number 1995-331 ending the Bosnian arms embargo
    on Jul 26, 1995 regarding bill S. 21 Bosnia Herzegovina Self-Defense Act of '95
    Results: Y)69; N)29; NV)2 Bill Passed
    Ending the Bosnian arms embargo. (Not used in VoteMatch) Democrats: YES 21; NO 23
    Republicans: YES 47; NO 5
    Independents: YES 2; NO 1

    Welfare & Poverty
    Senate BillVote descriptionVoteMatch UsageCandidate Voting
    Vote number 1996-262 welfare block grants
    on Aug 1, 1996 regarding bill H.R. 3734 Conference Report on H.R. 3734
    Results: Y)78; N)21; NV)1 Conf Rpt Agreed to
    Replacement of federal welfare guarantee with block grants to the states. Voting Y counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 20: Allow churches to provide welfare services. Democrats: YES 24; NO 21
    Republicans: YES 52; NO 0
    Independents: YES 2; NO 0
    Vote number 1996-383HR replacing welfare entitlements with work rules
    on Jul 31, 1996 regarding bill HR 3734
    Results: Adopted 328-101
    Vote to adopt a bill to reform the welfare system by ending the entitlement nature of welfare, giving states control over most welfare programs; limiting welfare benefits; requiring most adult recipients to work; & limiting welfare for legal immigrants. Voting Y counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 20: Allow churches to provide welfare services. Democrats: YES 1; NO 1
    Republicans: YES 1; NO 0
    Independents: YES 0; NO 0
    Vote number 1996-218 eliminating block grants for food stamps
    on Jul 23, 1996 regarding bill S 1956
    Results: Amendment adopted, 53-45
    Vote to not allow states the option of getting food stamp funds as a block grant administered by the state, rather than as a federal program, if they meet certain criteria. Voting N counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 20: Allow churches to provide welfare services. Democrats: YES 46; NO 0
    Republicans: YES 5; NO 45
    Independents: YES 1; NO 0
    Vote number 1996-208 allowing state welfare waivers
    on Jul 19, 1996 regarding bill S.1956
    Results: Rejected 55-43
    Vote on a procedural motion to allow consideration of an amendment to express the Sense of Congress that the president should approve the waivers requested by states that want to implement welfare reform. Voting Y counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 20: Allow churches to provide welfare services. Democrats: YES 2; NO 41
    Republicans: YES 51; NO 1
    Independents: YES 1; NO 0
    Vote number 1995-443 welfare overhaul
    on Sep 19, 1995 regarding bill H.R. 4 Contract w/ America (Welfare Refm)
    Results: Y)87; N)12; NV)1 Bill Passed
    Approval of an overhaul on the federal welfare system. Voting Y counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 20: Allow churches to provide welfare services. Democrats: YES 34; NO 11
    Republicans: YES 51; NO 1
    Independents: YES 2; NO 0


                                                                                                                                                                                   
      

    Home | Issues | Candidates | Most Recent Quote | Issue Grid | Books + Debates | Senate Races | VoteMatch | The Forum | Policy Papers | News | About Us | Write Us

    Reproduction of material from any OnTheIssues.org pages without written permission is prohibited.
    Copyright © 1999-2012 OnTheIssues.org & the SpeakOut Foundation, all rights reserved.
    OnTheIssues.org 1770 Massachusetts Ave. #630, Cambridge MA 02140
    E-mail us at:submit at OnTheIssues.org
    | Advertising information | About Us
      Newsletter     Signup  
    Email:
      
    Zip:
        
    Or click for More Info.