John Kerry on Government Reform Jr Senator (MA), Democratic nominee for President

FactCheck: Yes, Kerry was absent from Senate 76% in 2003

CNN FACT CHECK:Official records confirm that Sen John Kerry attended 11 out of 49 public committee meetings from 1993 through January 2001, for an absentee rate of 78%. President Bush’s campaign credits Kerry for attending another public meeting in June 1999, although official records do not indicate exactly who attended. Assuming Kerry did attend this 12th meeting, his absentee rate would be 76%, as the Bush campaign claims. The Kerry campaign says that most of the committee meetings are closed and that attendance records are not public, suggesting that his attendance rate could be higher if closed meetings were included in the tally. However, Kerry himself could authorize the committee to release his attendance records for closed meetings, but has not done so.

FactCheck: Kerry passed more than 5 bills, but less than 56

KERRY: Once again, the president is misleading America. I’ve actually passed 56 individual bills that I’ve personally written and, in addition to that, and not always under my name, there are amendments on certain bills.

FACT CHECK: Bush said Kerry passed five bills. Kerry said he’s passed 56. Who’s right? That depends on the definition of “passed” and “bills.” Bush counted only measures technically defined as “bills,” leaving out four “joint resolutions” that also have the force of law, and he also omitted two laws whose House versions were adopted in a form nearly identical to Senate versions authored by Kerry. When Kerry said “I’ve actually passed 56 individual bills that I’ve personally written” he was counting everything that had passed the Senate, whether or not it cleared the House. He also counts 24 resolutions that have no force of law.

Every vote must be counted

A: we are going to prechallenge some of these automatic machines -- the Diebold machines -- where there have already been problems. And we’re going to prechallenge and have a team across this country who are focused on those particular areas of the country where they are notorious about switching addresses, telling people they’re not registered

Only Senator elected 4 times without a dime of PAC money

I stand before you as the only person elected to the US Senate four times without ever taking a dime of soft money, special interest PAC money, or independent expenditures. I will be a President who will get the money out of American politics and restore the democracy of our country for all Americans.

Flag and patriotism belong to all Americans

A: People want to know why Bush is rolling back environmental protections, why everyone is sacrificing for the war on terrorism except millionaires who are just getting new tax breaks, and why is he selecting judges who want to turn back the clock on civil rights and workers rights and the right to choose. The American flag and patriotism doesn’t belong to any political party - it belongs to all of us as Americans.

Voted YES on Congressional pay raise.

Makes appropriations to the Senate for FY2010 for:
1. expense allowances;
2. representation allowances for the Majority and Minority Leaders;
3. salaries of specified officers, employees, and committees (including the Committee on Appropriations);
4. agency contributions for employee benefits;
5. inquiries and investigations;
6. the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control;
7. the Offices of the Secretary and of the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate;
8. miscellaneous items;
9. the Senators' Official Personnel and Office Expense Account; and
10. official mail costs.

Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Rep. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (D, FL-20): We, as Members of Congress, have responsibility not just for the institution, but for the staff that work for this institution, and to preserve the facilities that help support this institution. We have endeavored to do that responsibly, and I believe we have accomplished that goal.

Opponent's argument to vote No:Rep. SCALISE (R, LA-1): It's a sad day when someone attempts to cut spending in a bill that grows government by the size of 7%, and it's not allowed to be debated on this House floor. Some of their Members actually used the term "nonsense" and "foolishness" when describing our amendments to cut spending; they call that a delaying tactic. Well, I think Americans all across this country want more of those types of delaying tactics to slow down this runaway train of massive Federal spending. Every dollar we spend from today all the way through the end of this year is borrowed money. We don't have that money. We need to control what we're spending.

Voted YES on providing a US House seat for the District of Columbia.

• The District of Columbia shall be considered a Congressional district for purposes of representation in the House of Representatives.
• DC shall not be considered a State for purposes of representation in the US Senate.
• Reapportionment [census-based House seats] shall apply with respect to DC in the same manner as it applies to a State, except that DC may not receive more than one Member.
• Effective with the 112th Congress, the House of Representatives shall be composed of 437 Members, including the Member representing DC.
• The State of Utah is entitled to one additional Representative pursuant to this reapportionment.

Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Sen. ORRIN HATCH (R-UT): I am cosponsoring the legislation to provide a House seat for DC and an additional House seat for Utah. Representation and suffrage are so central to the American system of self-government that America's founders warned that limiting suffrage would risk another revolution and could prevent ratification of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held in 1820 that Congress' legislative authority over DC allows taxation of DC. Do opponents of giving DC a House seat believe that DC is suitable for taxation but not for representation?

Opponent's argument to vote No:Sen. JOHN McCAIN (R-AZ): I make a constitutional point of order against this bill on the grounds that it violates article I, section 2, of the Constitution. I appreciate the frustration felt by the residents of DC at the absence of a vote in Congress. According to many experts, DC is not a State, so therefore is not entitled to that representation. Also, one has to raise the obvious question: If DC is entitled to a Representative, why isn't Puerto Rico, which would probably entail 9 or 10 Members of Congress? [With regards to the seat for Utah], this is obviously partisan horse-trading.

Voted YES on granting the District of Columbia a seat in Congress.

• 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.

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 Congress to "exercise exclusive legislation" over D.C., the historical intent of the Founders on this point is unclear. I oppose S.1257, because I doubt that our Nation's Founding Fathers ever intended that the Congress should be able to change the text of the Constitution by passing a simple bill.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Sen. HATCH. There are conservative and liberal advocates on both sides of this issue,and think most people know Utah was not treated fairly after the last census. For those who are so sure this is unconstitutional, [we include an] expedited provision that will get us to the Supreme Court to make an appropriate decision. It will never pass as a constitutional amendment. There are 600,000 people in D.C., never contemplated by the Founders of this country to be without the right to vote. They are the only people in this country who do not have a right to vote for their own representative in the House. This bill would remedy that situation.

Voted NO on requiring photo ID to vote in federal elections.

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.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

Sen. FEINSTEIN. If one would want to suppress the vote in the 2008 election, one would vote for this because this measure goes into effect January 1, 2008. It provides that everybody who votes essentially would have to have a photo ID. If you want to suppress the minority vote, the elderly vote, the poor vote, this is exactly the way to do it. Many of these people do not have driver's licenses. This amendment would cost hundreds of millions of dollars to actually carry out. It goes into effect--surprise--January 1, 2008 [to affect the presidential election]. I urge a "no" vote.

Voted NO on allowing some lobbyist gifts to Congress.

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.

Opponents of the amendment say to vote YEA on the tabling motion because:
• I can tolerate not accepting gifts from lobbyists. But this amendment goes a step further which is problematic.

  For example, I am a big fan of McDonald's. What about the kids working behind the counter? Would they be considered registered lobbyists because McDonald's has lobbyists? Would I not be able to go to lunch with my longtime friend who owns 12 McDonald's?

• Every company in the Fortune 1000 employs a lobbyist, either a private firm or an in-house lobbyist. Under this amendment, every person who works for Exxon, Wal-Mart, Home Depot, and countless other businesses that employ lobbyists in Washington would be considered registered lobbyists.
• If we want to ban the CEO and chairman of the board of the company from paying for a meal, or the head of a labor union, do that specifically. But this is so broadly developed I think it goes way beyond that.

Voted YES on establishing the Senate Office of Public Integrity.

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 and bring its findings to the Ethics Committees in a transparent manner.

Opponents of the bill say to vote NAY because:
• The Constitution gave us not only the right but the duty to create our own rules, including the rules concerning our ethics. They are enforced internally by the Senate itself.
• The decisions made under this amendment would be no different than right now. The final decision will be made by the Senate Ethics Committee. All this really does is find a way to further publicize that complaints have been made.
• We have people accusing us almost daily of having done something wrong and publishing it through blogs and all that. I think we should be very careful in setting up another tool for these bloggers to create more charges against the Senate.
• I cannot support an amendment that either replaces the Senate Ethics Committee or adds another layer to our already expensive and time-consuming process. I urge the Senate to defeat this provision.

Voted YES on banning "soft money" contributions and restricting issue ads.

Voted NO on require photo ID (not just signature) for voter registration.

Voted YES on banning campaign donations from unions & corporations.

Voted YES on funding for National Endowment for the Arts.

Voted YES on favoring 1997 McCain-Feingold overhaul of campaign finance.

Voted YES on Approving the presidential line-item veto.

Voted NO on banning more types of Congressional gifts.

Voluntary public financing for all general elections.

Return Politics to the People
At a time when much of the world is emulating American values and institutions, too many Americans have lost confidence in their political system. They are turned off by a partisan debate that often seems to revolve not around opposing philosophies but around contending sets of interest groups. They believe that our current system for financing campaigns gives disproportionate power to wealthy individuals and groups and exerts too much influence over legislative and regulatory outcomes.

The time for piecemeal reform is past. As campaign costs soar at every level, we need to move toward voluntary public financing of all general elections and press broadcasters to donate television time to candidates.

The Internet holds tremendous potential for making campaigns less expensive and more edifying and for engaging Americans directly in electoral politics. We should promote the Internet as a new vehicle for political communication and champion online voting.

Goals for 2010
• Introduce voluntary public financing for all general elections.
• Allow properly regulated voter registration and voting online.
• Implement civic education courses in every public school.

Make Election Day a national holiday.

Designates November 5, 2002, and November 2, 2004, as Federal Election Day. Makes Federal Election Day a legal public holiday. Identical bills introduced in House HR.934, Senate S.1388 and S.2104.

Criminalize false or deceptive info about elections.

OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: Amends federal criminal law to prohibit any person from knowingly deceiving any other person regarding:

1. the time, place, or manner of conducting any federal election; or
2. the qualifications for or restrictions on voter eligibility for any such election.

SPONSOR'S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Sen. OBAMA: Voter participation is fundamental to our democracy, and we must do all we can to encourage those who can to vote. I also hope voters go to the polls with accurate information about what is on the ballot, where they are supposed to vote, and what our Nation's voting laws are.

It might surprise some of you to know, but even in this awesome age of technological advancement and easy access to information, there are folks who will stop at nothing to try to deceive people and keep them away from the polls. These deceptive practices all too often target and exploit vulnerable populations, like minorities, the disabled, or the poor.

Deceptive practices often rely on a few tried and true tricks. Voters are often warned that an unpaid parking ticket will lead to their arrest or that folks with family members who have been convicted of a crime are ineligible to vote. Of course, these warnings have no basis in fact, and they are made with one goal and one goal only: to keep Americans away from the polls.

The bill I am introducing today provides the clear statutory language and authority needed to get allegations of deceptive practices investigated. It establishes harsh penalties for those found to have perpetrated them. Deceptive practices and voter intimidation are real problems and demand real solutions like those offered in my bill.

LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Referred to Senate Committee on Rules and Administration; never came to a vote.

Reject photo ID requirements for voting.

OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: Expresses the sense of Congress that:

1. a requirement that U.S. citizens obtain photo identification cards before being able to vote has not been shown to ensure ballot integrity and places an undue burden on citizens' legitimate voting rights; (
2. the Department of Justice should challenge any state law that limits a citizen's ability to vote based on discriminatory photo identification requirements; and
3. any effort to impose national photo identification requirements for voting should be rejected.

SPONSOR'S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Sen. OBAMA: I am submitting a resolution to express the Senate's strong disapproval of recent efforts to disenfranchise Americans. Unfortunately, too many electoral reform efforts seem intent on limiting access to the ballot as opposed to expanding it. In the mid-20th century, the poll tax was the preferred means of disenfranchising large minority populations, specifically African Americans. Today, the poll tax is taking on a new form--a photo identification requirement for voters.

According to the National Commission on Federal Election Reform, such a requirement would "impose an additional expense on the exercise of the franchise, a burden that would fall disproportionately on people who are poorer and urban." Nevertheless, a number of States, including Georgia, have recently passed laws mandating government-issued photo identification for voters at the polls. Nationwide, at least 12% of eligible drivers do not have a driver's license. And Georgia has made it difficult for rural and urban folks to obtain their voter photo identification.

The Carter-Baker Commission on Federal Election Reform acknowledges that there is "no evidence of extensive fraud in U.S. elections or of multiple voting."

LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Referred to Senate Committee on Rules and Administration; never came to a vote.

Post earmarks on the Internet before voting on them.

OnTheIssues.org Explanation: This bill attempts to limit earmarks by publicizing them. Rather than banning earmarks, this bill requires that earmarks and other last-minute add-ins get posted on the Internet. Posting provisions on the Internet for 3 days is intended to restrict lobbyists influence on earmarks that would otherwise go unnoticed.

OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY:

Curtailing Lobbyist Effectiveness Through Advance Notification, Updates, and Posting Act or the CLEAN UP Act: Amends the Standing Rules of the Senate to:
• Identify and explain separately each provision of a bill & identify the Member who proposed such provision.
• Make each bill provision available to the general public by means of the Internet for at least 72 hours before its consideration.
• Prohibits consideration of an appropriation bill unless a list of all earmarks in the bill and accompanying reports is available in the same manner.
• Allows a waiver of such prohibitions by a two-thirds majority vote of Members.

Prohibit voter intimidation in federal elections.

Makes it unlawful for anyone before or during a federal election to knowingly communicate false election-related information about that election, with the intent to prevent another person from exercising the right to vote. Increases from one year to five years' imprisonment the criminal penalty for intimidation of voters.

Introductory statement by Sponsor:

Sen. OBAMA: This bill seeks to address the all-too-common efforts to deceive voters in order to keep them away from the polls. It's hard to imagine that we even need a bill like this. But, unfortunately, there are people who will stop at nothing to try to deceive voters and keep them away from the polls. What's worse, these practices often target and exploit vulnerable populations, such as minorities, the disabled, or the poor. We saw countless examples in this past election.

• Some of us remember the thousands of Latino voters in Orange County, California, who received letters warning them in Spanish that, "if you are an immigrant, voting in a federal election is a crime that can result in incarceration."
• Or the voters in Virginia who received calls from a so-called "Virginia Elections Commission" informing them--falsely--that they were ineligible to vote.
• Or the voters who were told that they couldn't vote if they had family members who had been convicted of a crime.

Require full disclosure of independent campaign expenditures.

Congressional Summary:

• Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections Act of 2012 or DISCLOSE Act:
• Amends the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA) to add to the definition of "independent expenditure" an expenditure by a person that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate, or takes a position on a candidates, qualifications, or fitness for office.
• Expands the period during which certain communications are treated as electioneering communications.
• Prescribes disclosure requirements for corporations, labor organizations, and certain other entities, including a political committee with an account established for the purpose of accepting donations or contributions that do not comply with the contribution limits or source prohibitions under FECA (but only with respect to such accounts).
• Repeals the prohibition against political contributions by individuals age 17 or younger.

• On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, ruled that prohibiting corporations and unions from making independent expenditures in political campaigns was unconstitutional. This ruling is frequently described as permitting corporations and unions to donate to political campaigns, but these claims are incorrect. The ruling did remove the previous ban on corporations and organizations using their funds for direct advocacy, including endorsing for or against specific candidates, actions that were previously prohibited.

  The result of Citizens United was that "Super PACs" spent millions on TV ads in the 2012 election, advocating both issues and candidates. The DISCLOSE Act attempts to reduce the negative effect of Citizens United by requiring disclosure of independent expenditures made by advocacy groups.

  Source: S3369/HR4010 12-S3369 on Jul 10, 2012

  Prohibit 'voter caging' which intimidates minority voting.

  Kerry co-sponsored prohibiting 'voter caging' which intimidates minority voting

  Rep. CONYERS: "Since the late 1950's, the pernicious practice of 'voter caging' has been used to discourage or prevent eligible voters from casting their vote. Recent elections have shown that caging tactics are not outdated, and in fact, have disenfranchised voters in recent midterm and Presidential elections. While caging efforts have traditionally been directed at minority communities, all voters are susceptible to these attempts at voter intimidation and suppression.

  "The undemocratic practice of voter caging involves sending mail to voters at the addresses at which they are registered to vote. Should such mail be returned as undeliverable or without a return receipt, the voter's name is placed on a 'caging list.' These caging lists are then used to challenge a voter's registration or eligibility.

  "In my home State of Michigan, I have seen firsthand how caging efforts are used to harass, bully, and ultimately disenfranchise, eligible voters. With a Michigan lawmaker advocating 'suppress the Detroit vote,' I cannot help but think that is synonymous with 'suppress the Black vote' as Detroit is 83% African American. These voter suppression campaigns always seem to target our most vulnerable voters--racial minorities, low-income people, homeless people, and college students.

  "Caging tactics meant to suppress the vote do more than impede the right to vote. They threaten to erode the very core of our democracy. By eliminating barriers to the polls, we can help restore what has been missing from our elections--fairness, honesty, and integrity."

  S.2305: PROHIBITION ON VOTER CAGING: No State or local election official shall prevent an individual from registering or voting in any election for Federal office, or challenge an individual's registration status or eligibility to vote, if the sole basis for such decision or challenge is evidence consisting of a voter caging document or voter caging list; or an unverified match list. Source: Caging Prohibition Act (S.2305/H.R.5038) 2007-S2305 on Nov 5, 2007

  Click here for definitions & background information on Government Reform. Click here for a Wikipedia profile of John Kerry. Click here for a Ballotpedia profile of John Kerry. Click here for SenateMatch quiz answers by John Kerry. Click here for AmericansElect quiz answers by John Kerry. Click here for MyOcracy quiz answers by John Kerry. Click here for Huffington Post quiz answers by John Kerry. Click here for a summary of John Kerry's positions on all issues. Click here for issue positions of other MA politicians. Click here for issue statements from MA archives.
  Other candidates on Government Reform:		John Kerry on other issues:
  MA Gubernatorial: Bill Weld Charlie Baker Dan Wolf Deval Patrick Don Berwick Karyn Polito Martha Coakley Marty Walsh Richard Tisei Steve Grossman Tom Menino Warren Tolman MA Senatorial: Brian Herr Bruce Skarin Ed Markey Elizabeth Warren Gabriel Gomez Martha Coakley Mo Cowan MA politicians MA Archives Retiring in 2014 election: GA:Chambliss(R) IA:Harkin(D) MI:Levin(D) MT:Baucus(D) NE:Johanns(R) SD:Johnson(D) WV:Rockefeller(D) Retired as of Jan. 2013: AZ:Kyl(R) CT:Lieberman(D) HI:Akaka(D) ME:Snowe(R) ND:Conrad(D) NE:Nelson(D) NM:Bingaman(D) TX:Hutchison(R) VA:Webb(D) WI:Kohl(D)	Senate Retirements 2014: GA:Chambliss(R) IA:Harkin(D) MI:Levin(D) MT:Baucus(D) MT:Walsh(D) NE:Johanns(R) OK:Coburn(R) SD:Johnson(D) WV:Rockefeller(D) Senate races Nov. 2014: AK: Begich(D) vs.Miller(R) vs.Treadwell(R) vs.Sullivan(R) AL: Sessions(R,unopposed) AR: Pryor(D) vs.Cotton(R) vs.Swaney(G) vs.LaFrance(L) CO: Udall(D) vs.Gardner(R) vs.Baumgardner(R) vs.Buck(R) vs.Hill(R) vs.Stephens(R) DE: Coons(D) vs.Wade(R) GA: Nunn(D) vs.Perdue(R) vs.Swafford(L) vs.Kingston(R) vs.Gingrey(R) vs.Handel(R) vs.Broun(R) HI: Schatz(D) vs.Hanabusa(D) vs.Cavasso(R) vs.Pirkowski(R) IA: Braley(D) vs.Ernst(R) vs.Butzier(L) vs.Whitaker(R) vs.Clovis(R) ID: Risch(R) vs.Mitchell(D) IL: Durbin(D) vs.Oberweis(R) vs.Hansen(L) vs.Truax(R) KS: Roberts(R) vs.Orman(I) vs.Batson(L) vs.Wolf(R) vs.Taylor(D) KY: McConnell(R) vs.Bevin(R) vs.Grimes(D) LA: Landrieu(D) vs.Cassidy(R) vs.Maness(R) MA: Markey(D) vs.Herr(R) vs.Skarin(I) vs.Gomez(R) ME: Collins(R) vs.D`Amboise(R) vs.Bellows(D)	MI: Land(R) vs.Peters(D) vs.Wiedenhoeft(R) MN: Franken(D) vs.McFadden(R) vs.Johnson(L) vs.Abeler(R) MS: Cochran(R) vs.Childers(D) vs.McDaniel(R) MT: Walsh(D) vs.Daines(R) vs.Curtis(D) vs.Rankin(I) vs.Edmunds(R) vs.Bohlinger(D) NC: Hagan(D) vs.Tillis(R) vs.Haugh(L) NE: Sasse(R) vs.Domina(D) vs.Haugh(L) vs.Osborn(R) NH: Shaheen(D) vs.Brown(R) vs.Smith(R) vs.Rubens(R) vs.Testerman(R) vs.Martin(R) NJ: Booker(D) vs.Bell(R) vs.Sabrin(R) NM: Udall(D) vs.Weh(R) vs.Clements(R) OK-2: Lankford(R) vs.Johnson(D) vs.Shannon(R) OK-6: Inhofe(R) vs.Silverstein(D) OR: Merkley(D) vs.Wehby(R) vs.Conger(R) RI: Reed(D) vs.Zaccaria(R) SC-2: Scott(R) vs.Dickerson(D) vs.Wade(D) SC-6: Graham(R) vs.Hutto(D) vs.Ravenel(I) vs.Stamper(D) vs.Mace(R) vs.Bright(R) SD: Rounds(R) vs.Weiland(D) vs.Pressler(I) vs.Howie(I) TN: Alexander(R) vs.Ball(D) vs.Carr(R) vs.Adams(D) TX: Cornyn(R) vs.Alameel(D) vs.Roland(L) vs.Sanchez(G) vs.Stockman(R) VA: Warner(D) vs.Gillespie(R) vs.Sarvis(L) WV: Capito(R) vs.Tennant(D) vs.Buckley(L) vs.Lawhorn(I) vs.Raese(R) vs.McGeehan(R) WY: Enzi(R) vs.Cheney(R) vs.Hardy(D)	Abortion Budget/Economy Civil Rights Corporations Crime Drugs Education Energy/Oil Environment Families Foreign Policy Free Trade Govt. Reform Gun Control Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Jobs Principles Social Security Tax Reform Technology War/Peace Welfare Other Senators Senate Votes (analysis) Bill Sponsorships Affiliations Policy Reports Group Ratings
  Contact info: Fax Number: 202-224-8525 Mailing Address: Senate Office SR-218, Washington, DC 20510 Phone number: (202) 224-2742

  
  
  
  
  
  Page last updated: Jan 03, 2015