Roll Call #217

Rep. Pascrell (who proposed the amendment) said: "...a 2004 National Emergency Management Association study found there is approximately $264 million shortfall in the EMPG for all 50 States... funds could be cut from the office of the DHS chief information officer who received a plus-up of $41 million in funding he didn't even request." [SOURCE: Congressional Record (PDF file),p. 3301]

Rep. Walden voted against additional funding for emergency management, thereby leaving Oregon (and other states) less prepared for a major earthquake or other disasters.

Roll Call #601 (PDF file from Congressional Record)

The official bill summary details rural cuts: "Terminates funding for enhanced access to broadband telecommunications services in rural areas, valued-added agricultural product market development grants, rural business investment programs, rural business strategic investment grants, rural firefighters and emergency personnel grants, and for initiative for future food and agriculture systems." [SOURCE: H.R. 4241 Bill Summary]

Rep. Jackson-Lee listed a few cuts that will hurt poor and middle-class citizens: Medicaid - $11.4 billion; student loans - $14.3 billion over 5 years; food stamps - $796 million over 5 years (affecting nearly 300,000 people), child support - $4.9 billion and foster care - $397 million over 5 years. [SOURCE: Congressional Record (PDF file), p. 10623]

Rep. Walden's vote was crucial to the outcome. If he had voted no instead of yes, it would have been a tie vote, stopping the cuts to programs that help poor and middle-class people.

Roll Call #598 (PDF file from Congressional Record)

Rep. Van Hollen said: "[This bill] cuts education, health care, and human services by $1.5 billion below what was spent on these efforts last year. Meanwhile, Republicans plan to spend $11 billion this week on a capital gains and dividend income tax cut that will provide 53 percent of its benefit to people making more than $1 million. Overall, Republicans will spend more on tax cuts this week alone, $70 billion, than on both the Department of Education and the Department of Labor, $68 billion, for an entire year." [SOURCE: Congressional Record (PDF file), p. 10526]

Rep. Obey said:"..the Republican Party will provide, over the next decade, $1.2 trillion in tax cuts to people who make over $1 million a year. Yet in this bill, they will freeze student loans, they will allow people without health care to increase in number by 2 million, they will provide the first cut in education in a decade, they will cut safe and drug-free schools by 20 percent, and they will slash the President's initiative for math and science education." He noted that Republicans have recently given $14 billion in subsidies to big energy companies. [SOURCE: Congressional Record (PDF file), p. 10524]

Despite Rep. Walden (and Tom Delay's) vote to cut funding for health, education and other domestic programs, enough moderate Republicans did not agree with his priorities, and the bill failed. Walden's "yes" vote shows his priority is to protect tax cuts and corporate welfare at the expense of needs in his district.

Roll Call 562 (PDF file from Congressional Record)

The resolution laid out serious concerns about the way the Iraqi war has been handled. It said: "...Whereas the Republican Leadership and Committee Chairmen have denied requests for hearings, defeated resolutions of inquiry for information and failed to aggressively pursue serious allegatives... [Republican leaders] have failed to undertake meaningful, substantive investigations of any of the abuses pertaining to the Iraq war, including the manipulation of pre-war intelligence, the public release of a covert operative's name, the role of the Vice President in Iraqi reconstruction and the Abu Ghraid prisoner abuse scandal."

"Therefore be it resolved that the House calls upon the Republican Leadership and Chairmen of the committees of jurisiction to comply with their oversight responsibilities, demands they conduct a thorough investigation of abuses relating to the Iraq war and condemns their refusal to conduct oversight of an executive branch controlled by the same party."

By stopping action on this resolution, Republicans once again refused to let the House seek accountability and truth. Rep. Walden voted with Tom Delay, ignoring his responsibility to investigate serious questions about the way the Iraqi war has been handled. [SOURCE: Congressional Record (PDF file), p. 9566]

Roll Call 519
(PDF file from Congressional Record)

Rep. Van Hollen said: "H.R. 3893 extends the gravy train begun several months ago by lavishing oil companies with an additional $1.5 billion over and above the $4 billion they just received under the last energy bill." [SOURCE: Congressional Record (PDF file), p. 8772]

Rep. Stark added: "The reason that the cost of refining has increased is because oil companies voluntarily closed 30 refineries in the late eighties and early nineties to increase their profit margins. The scheme worked: Refinery revenues increased by 255 percent last year alone." [SOURCE: Congressional Record (PDF file), p. 8773]

Greg Walden's vote was pivotal in this roll call. If he had voted no instead of yes, it would have resulted in a tie instead of passing. Rep. Walden could have forced Congress to change direction on energy policy with this vote, and he voted with Tom Delay and wealthy corporations instead.

Amends H.R. 3010

Roll Call # 316 (PDF file from Congressional Record)

Rep. Van Hollen said: "..this amendment is designed to stop what is an ongoing scam in the college student loan program whereby a small handful of lenders are receiving a guaranteed 9.5 government-paid return on certain student loans. As a result of this 9.5 percent loan scheme, the Government Accountability Office has found that certain lenders are pocketing billions of dollars in taxpayer money that would otherwise go to students...The Department of Education has estimated that closing the loophole will save over $7 billion. Other estimates take the number even higher." [SOURCE: Congressional Record (PDF file), pages 5142 & 5143]

Rep. Walden vote against this amendment was a vote for continuing to give lenders excess profits and against a way to free up billions of dollars for student loans. Despite his no vote, this amendment passed.

Amends H.R. 2528

Roll Call 224
(PDF file from Congressional Record)

Melancon said: "The amendment will provide $8 million for combat-related trauma care... Six million dollars is provided for hardware and software to support telemedicine initiatives to allow the polytrauma centers to support wounded troops once they return to their homes...Nine million dollars is added for medical and prosthetic research, which is needed to support current spending levels for VA research....Provide retroactively $23 million for war orphans (...This amendment will help approximately 4,100 spouses with children whose service-member spouse died during the war on terrorism between September 11, 2001, and November 30, 2004...)...This will also provide $7 million for 100 additional staff who process claims for compensation and pension benefits." [SOURCE: Congressional Record (PDF file), p. 4096]

Rep. Walden cast a tie-breaking vote against this amendment. If he had changed his vote, this amendment would have passed 214 to 213 instead of failing.

Amends H.R. 2360

Roll Call 176
(PDF file from Congressional Record)

Amendment to H.R. 6

Roll Call 128 (PDF file from Congressional Record)

Rep. Grijalva said: "H.R. 6 guarantees an additional financial windfall, courtesy of the taxpayers, for oil and gas companies already reaping and sowing profits, record profits, and provides absolutely no guarantee of relief for the high price that consumers are paying for their gas and oil. I urge Members to reject this approach and, instead, support my amendment which brings some semblance of fiscal responsibility to H.R. 6."

Rep. Kind supported this amendment, saying: "Added to the rest of Title 20, this will put $483 million of taxpayer money into the already deep pockets of big oil during a time in which they are reaping record profits." He cited an April 8, 2005 Wall Street Journal article saying "that Exxon Mobile recently reported a fourth-quarter profit that amounted to the fattest quarterly take for a publicly traded U.S. company ever: $8.4 billion." [SOURCE: Congressional Record (PDF file), p. 2418]

Rep. Walden's vote against this amendment was a vote to subsidize already highly profitable oil companies. This was fiscally irresponsible at a time of massive federal deficits.

Roll Call 108 (PDF file from Congressional Record)

Rep. Nadler said: "..this bill is the worst giveaway to special interests, the worst rip-off of the public, of the middle class than I have ever seen in my public life." [SOURCE: Congressional Record (PDF file), p. 2052]

Rep. Blumenauer said: "While S. 256 contains overly harsh punishments for middle class Americans that have been preyed upon by the credit card industry, it preserves loopholes for the very rich."

He added: "The sad fact is that most bankruptcies are due to large medical bills, family breakup, and job loss. This legislation is going to put an unnecessary burden on the vast majority of unfortunate people and still allow too many of the unscrupulous to avoid their responsibilities." [SOURCE: Congressional Record (PDF file), p. 2065]

Rep. Walden's vote supported an unfair and poorly written bankruptcy bill favoring credit card companies and wealthy individuals. His "yes" vote also gave implicit support to the heavy-handed process that limited debate and prevented votes on amendments that could have improved the bill.

Amendment to H. Con. Res. 95

Roll Call 82 (PDF file from Congressional Record)

Rep. Obey explained: "...folks who make more than $1 million in this country this year will on average get a $140,000 tax cut. This amendment would limit that $140,000 tax cut to about $27,000 and save enough money to devote $10 billion to deficit reduction and to use the other $16 billion for the initiatives that we have outlined in the amendment in the area of education, health, science, veterans, homeland security, environment, law enforcement, and community development."

This amendment would have have increased budget authority by more than $2.9 billion for Veterans Benefits and Services with outlays increased by $2,447,000,000 "to maintain quality health care for veterans." [SOURCE: Congressional Record (PDF file), p. 1628]

He added: "The wealthiest 1 percent of people in this country control 33 percent of the Nation's wealth. The poorest 40 percent are struggling to hang on to less than 3 percent of the Nation's wealth, and the President's budget makes it worse."

Rep. Obey said: "..this amendment will enable the House to choose between the social Darwinism of the President's budget and a different budget which more accurately reflects the message of the social gospel." [SOURCE: Congressional Record (PDF file), p. 1628]

In this vote, Rep. Walden chose social Darwinism, favoring concentrating wealth for a few and against additional funding that would help communities in the areas listed above. Walden voted against adding more than $2.4 billion for veteran health care.

Roll Call 79 (PDF file from Congressional Record)

Amendment to H.R. 1268

Roll Call 72 (PDF file from Congressional Record)

Rep. Obey explained: "[Rep. Tierney] would prefer to offer an amendment which directly establishes a Truman-like committee to investigate profiteering in Iraq. The fact is that the majority has chosen to use the technicalities of the rules to prevent that from happening... The purpose is to see to it that a committee is formed which will have as its sole responsibility the reviewing of the use and misuse of taxpayer funds in Iraq." [SOURCE: Congressional Record (PDF file), p. 1455]

Rep. Kaptur added: "All the gentleman is asking for is fiscal accountability on over $200 billion that is being spent far beyond these shores. The gentleman is asking for accountability. To not pass the Tierney amendment is to be fiscally irresponsible and to continue to be unaccountable to the taxpayers of this country." [SOURCE: Congressional Record (PDF file), p. 1456]

Rep. Walden's negative vote was a vote against fiscal accountability.

Roll Call # 64 (PDF file from Congressional Record)

Rep. Higgins said: "The President has signaled that he will support a transportation bill that spends no more than $284 billion in guaranteed funding over 6 years. This number is simply arbitrary and could easily be increased...If we can find a way to match that funding without raising the gasoline tax, without falling deeper into deficit, then I for one believe it is our responsibility to pursue that option... This motion to recommit would mean $34 billion more in Federal infrastructure investments, as well as the final eradication of a number of unfair tax shelters that are weakening economic development efforts throughout our Nation." [SOURCE: Congressional Record (PDF file), p. 1322]

Walden's no voted against potential jobs in two ways: 1) by preventing creation of more jobs to improve our infrastructure and 2) by allowing incentives to continue for outsourcing jobs.

Roll Call # 47 (PDF file from Congressional Record)

Mr. Kildee said: "...half a million jobs have been outsourced over the past 3 years. An additional 830,000 jobs are expected to be outsourced in 2005 and 3.3 million by 2015. Up to 6 million jobs may be sent overseas in the next 10 years...Likewise, many veterans returning from the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq may need skills and training to obtain or retain their jobs. Reservists who have spent a year or more overseas have put their careers on hold to serve our country. This amendment would provide the help they need." [SOURCE: Congressional Record (PDF file), p. 915]

Walden's no vote was a vote against veterans and against workers displaced by job outsourcing.

Roll Call 536
(PDF file from Congressional Record)

Rep. Sherman said: "...I recognize that we need to raise the debt limit this week. I vote against S. 2986 not for the purpose of causing the United States to default, but rather for the purpose of forcing a serious debate on fiscal policy. I am confident that if this motion were to be defeated, Congress would in effect go into emergency session to deal with the fiscal issues that are before us." [SOURCE: Congressional Record (PDF file), p. H9984]

A vote in favor of S. 2986 was fiscally irresponsible, failing to deal with the out-of-control federal debt.

Roll Call 527
(PDF file from Congressional Record)

This bill adjourned the House of Representatives from Oct. 9 or 10 until Nov. 16 and the Senate any time between Oct. 9-15 until Nov. 15 or 16.

Roll Call 484(PDF file from Congressional Record)

Roll Call 259
(PDF file from Congressional Record)

Rep. Levin said: "...this bill is called the American Jobs Creation Act. Because of specific provisions in it, under truth-in-packaging, it should be called the Overseas Job Creation Act."

H.R. 4520 was initiated in response to a World Trade Organization [WTO] sanction. It turned into a tax giveaway for corporations while being sold to the public as a jobs creation bill. It does allow taxpayers to choose if they will deduct State and local sales taxes instead of income taxes but this is buried in the middle of billions of dollars in corporate tax breaks. It gives tobacco companies nearly $10 billion in a "buyout."

Rep. Doggett said: "When $4 billion in sanctions are imposed for an unjustified tax break declared illegal in an international forum [WTO], this House Republican leadership produces this monstrosity of a bill to expand this $4 billion problem to an outrageous $150 billion chunk of corporate welfare." [SOURCE: Congressional Record (PDF file), p. H4394]

The Congressional Budget Office estimates this bill will increase federal deficits by about $5.7 billion in 2005 and more in future years.

Voting for this bill was a vote to send more jobs overseas. It was fiscally irresponsible, increasing the national debt by reducing corporate taxes. Republicans prohibited Democrats from proposing amendments to this bill.

Roll Call 246
(PDF file from Congressional Record

If this bill passes in the Senate, it would give the Department of Energy the ability to make environmental decisions about refineries in these Revitalization Zones. This takes the responsibility about permits for refineries away from the EPA and gives it to the Department of Energy.

One underlying assumption implied in this bill is that unemployed people in poor areas should be grateful to trade clean air for jobs. Rich communities are not expected to make the same environmental sacrifice.

Rep. Waxman said: This bill "aims to weaken public health and environmental regulations that apply to oil refineries. The idea seems to be if refiners are allowed to pollute more, they might save money and they might invest any such savings in refining capacity...Many States may disagree with this approach, so H.R. 4517 allows the Department of Energy to simply override the State decisions." [SOURCE: Congressional Record (PDF file, p. H4180]

This vote is a vote against a clean environment, a vote against State's rights and a vote against people who are already suffering from bad economic policies.

Roll Call 242
(PDF file from Congressional Record

This bill exempts "renewable energy" projects from NEPA by changing the definition of what a renewable energy project is. The new definition would include hydropower dams, geothermal projects and municipal garbage incinerators.

Rep. Rahall said: "If there were a truth-in-labeling requirement under the House rules, this bill should more accurately be called an Act to gut the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Not only is it unwise to fundamentally rewrite NEPA, one of our most important environmental laws, it is unnecessary." [SOURCE: Congressional Record (PDF file), p. H3982)

This bill could lead to dams on trout streams or large garbage incinerators that pollute residential areas or pristine recreational sites. It would make it easier for companies to push through projects that people in a community don't want.

This is a vote against local control of our communities and against sound environmental policies.

Roll Call 241
(PDF file from Congressional Record)

If the Senate also passes this bill, it would weaken the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act. It repeals the Public Utilities Holding Company Act (PUHCA). PUHCA was enacted in 1935 to stop abuses by electricity and gas holding companies. Repealing PUHCA would allow fewer energy companies to gain more and more control over rates and energy distriction, turning us back to 1935 when electricity holding companies charged too much and had unreliable service.

Rep. Cardin noted that this bill would cost $23.5 billion over the next 10 years. Rep. Markey added: "This bill will have a negligible impact on energy production, a negligible impact on energy consumption, a negligible impact on energy imports, will increase the price of gasoline by 3 cents a gallon for regular. It will increase gas prices by 8 cents a gallon for reformulated. It provides $23 billion worth of special interest tax breaks for the oil, gas, coal, nuclear, utility industry. It weakens the Clean Air Act. It weakens the Clean Water Act. It repeals the protections against cross-subsidies amongst these big energy giants." [SOURCE: Congressional Record (PDF file), starting at p. H4115]

This is a vote for large energy corporations at the expense of consumers and the environment.

Roll Call 174
(PDF file from Congressional Record)

This bill fragments the health insurance market further with the likely side effect of driving up health plan costs for small businesses in state-regulated markets. It takes away State regulation on association health plans. Oregon and other states would lose the right to establish or maintain patient protections.

Rep. Ross stated that Mercer Consulting analyzed the Association Health Plans proposed in this bill and concluded that it would increase the number of uninsured by more than 1 million people. [SOURCE: Congressional Record (PDF file), p. H2979]

This is a vote against States' rights and makes the health care problem in this country worse.

Amendment to H.R. 4281

Roll Call 172
(PDF file from Congressional Record)

Rep. Stark pointed out that funds for this plan could have been used from the $50 billion President Bush included in his FY04 budget for the uninsured. [SOURCE: Congressional Record (PDF file), p. H2976]

Failing to vote for this amendment (adopting the Association Health Plans instead) was a vote forcing State deregulation at the expense of consumers. It was a missed opportunity to solve a health care problem.

Roll Call 166
(PDF file from Congressional Record)

Rep. Sandlin said: "Focusing solely on limiting malpractice liability, without insurance reform, does nothing to reduce the ever increasing costs of medical malpractice insurance. Damage caps such as those in H.R. 4280 do accomplish one thing: they boost insurers' profits." He noted that similar damage caps passed in Texas did not control malpractice premiums; instead premiums rose an average of 12%. [SOURCE: Congressional Record (PDF file), p. H2869]

This was a vote in favor of insurance companies and their stockholders without any promise of better health care or reduced malpractice premiums. This was a vote against consumer protection.

Roll Call 92
(PDF file from Congressional Record)

Rep. Green said: " The budget breaks our promise to veterans, as just discussed, by $1.3 billion, short of what we need for veterans health care. The Vietnam Veterans of America called the Bush budget an insult to veterans." [SOURCE: Congressional Record (PDF file), p. 1546]

Rep. Schakowsky adds: "Republicans value more tax cuts for the rich over meeting the needs of senior citizens, working families, the unemployed and the majority of Americans. Medicaid and Section 8 vouchers are slashed so they can pay for missile defense, subsidies to Halliburton and tax cuts for the wealthy...The so-called ``education President's'' own No Child Left Behind is underfunded by $8.8 billion...the GOP budget keeps the Pell Grant maximum at the same level it was three years ago. There is no money for the Family Opportunity Act, which would provide health insurance for disabled children...$2.2 billion in Medicaid cuts over the next five years, jeopardizing health and long term care for 52 million Americans... Section 8, low-income heating assistance of LIHEAP, child care assistance--programs that help people pay the bills and keep roofs over their head in tough times like these--are cut by $3.7 billion. We could see 250,000 people lose affordable housing this year under the GOP budget. Veterans' health care is underfunded again, this time by $1.3 billion below what the Republican Chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee recommended. Over the next five years, the Republican budget will cut these and other domestic programs by $36.9 billion." " [SOURCE: Congressional Record (PDF file), p. 1556]

If Walden and one other House member had decided to change their "no" vote to "yes," this bill would not have passed. Walden could have helped force the House to reconsider making tax cuts for wealthy people a higher priority than adequately funding veterans, education, Medicaid and other social programs.

Motion to Recommit

Roll Call 9
(PDF file of Congressional Record)

Rep. Schakowsky said: "My motion to recommit would provide basic protections to financially distressed military families and veterans from the harsher aspects of the means test found in the newly added text of S. 1920."

She added: "According to the National Guard, four out of 10 members of the Reserves and National Guard lose money when they leave their civilian jobs for active duty. Additionally, many left for the war thinking they would be deployed for 6 months and have ended up staying for a year or even longer. There is almost no way that they could have financially anticipated and prepared for that extension of their service." [SOURCE: Congressional Record (PDF file), p. H216]

A vote against this motion was a vote against National Guard, other military personnel and veterans who experience financial hardship, including those who suffer financially as a result of being deployed to Iraq or elsewhere.

Roll Call 562
(PDF file from Congressional Record)

While this bill does increase support for our troops, it fails to provide sufficient oversight of how this money is spent. It gives the Defense Secretary and President "flexibility" (read: "a blank check") to do what they want to with billions of dollars.

Rep. Becerra said: "Despite our best efforts today to include some Congressional oversight to the contracting process, I am afraid that the Administration and its representatives in Iraq will continue to oppose sensible oversight even while they have compiled a very poor track record of ensuring that the largesse of the American taxpayer will not further be abused." [SOURCE: Congressional Record (PDF file, p. H9661]

By the time this bill came to a vote, there were already signs that money from prior war appropriations was being misspent. The bill was fiscally irresponsible. It gave more money before making sure they would get sufficient accounting of prior appropriations and failed to address where revenue for this additional $87 billion would be raised.

Amendment to H.R. 3289

Roll Call 550
(PDF file from Congressional Record)

The amendment would not reduce the appropriated amount. Instead it would require President Bush to come to Congress if he decides to reprogram how these funds would be used.

Rep. Markey offered this amendment trying to stop giving the President and Secretary Rumsfeld "blank check authority" in their "very own slush funds that they can use for virtually whatever they want to do." He stated that "$53 billion of the $87 billion appropriate is subject to one or more of these retransfer or reallocation provisions." [SOURCE: Congressional Record (PDF file), p. H9591]

Failure of this amendment meant that the House gave up significant responsibility on billions of tax dollars.

Amendment to H.R. 3289

Roll Call 554
(PDF file from Congressional Record)

This vote failed to support our underpaid troops. Since this bill failed in a tie, if Rep. Walden had changed his vote, the amendment addition would have passed.

Amendment to H.R. 3289

Roll Call 555
(PDF file from Congressional Record)

Rep. Reyes requested the amendment to address "serious shortfalls" in national security. Passage of the amendment would have allocated funds for training in critical foreign languages and for creating a more culturally diverse workforce to fight counterterrorism. [SOURCE: Congressional Record (PDF file), p. H9625]

Failure of this amendment was a vote against skill sets needed to fight counterterrorism.

Amendment to H.R. 3239

Roll Call 558
(PDF file from Congressional Record)

Weiner said that no money should go to Saudi Arabia since they still "export the type of hatred that leads to Wahabbism throughout the world" and that the Saudi Arabia government "was directly connected to September 11." He added: ""...why would we offer even a hint of a suggestion that we would provide funding to the richest nation on Earth at the time when we are struggling to pay our bills as well?" [SOURCE: Congressional Record (PDF file), p. H9635].

Failure of this amendment allows President Bush and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld leeway to divert money to Saudi Arabia, taking it away from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The amendment's failure gives the administration permission to give money to a wealthy country that was at least indirectly responsible for terrorism.

Amendment to H.R. 3289

Roll Call 553
(PDF file from Congressional Record)

When he offered this amendment, he said: "I believe we have been derelict in our duty in Congress in demanding more accountability and more justification in regards to the expenditure and the use of the funds that are before us today and have been appropriated earlier this year."

He added that the World Bank and IMF reported that it would be difficult to spend even $5 billion dollars, and therefore allocating $20 billion for reconstruction now did not make sense. He added: "... by slashing funds by one-half, we would encourage greater savings and cost efficiencies." [SOURCE: Congressional Record (PDF file), page H9621]

Voting against this amendment was a vote against an attempt to retain more fiscal control over spending.

Amendment to H.R. 2660

Roll Call 350
(PDF file from Congressional Record)

Rep. Allen, who proposed this amendment, argued that schools should not be punished if they are unable to meet unfunded mandates in the No Child Left Behind Act. [SOURCE: Congressional Record (PDF File), p. H6564]

Voting against this amendment was a vote against state and local control of schools. A "no" vote showed support for punishing states and schools that can't meet unfunded federal mandates.

Amendment to H.R. 2660

Roll Call 351
(PDF file from Congressional Record)

Rep. Obey, who offered this amendment, suggested withholding money that would otherwise make it possible to eliminate overtime pay for an estimated 8 million workers. This was in response to the Bush administration's plan to change the definition of who is covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act. The new definition would exclude many first responders such as firefighters, police and emergency medical technicians. [SOURCE: Congressional Record (PDF file), p. H6568]

Voting against this amendment was a vote to take away overtime pay for millions of workers.

Amendment to H.R. 2417

Roll Call 320
(PDF file from Congressional Record)

Rep. Lee claims that this amendment is to seek an answer to this question: "How was our intelligence regarding Iraqi weapons of mass destruction handled in the months before the war?" [SOURCE: Congressional Record (PDF file), p. H5900]

Voting against this amendment was a vote against holding the executive branch accountable for its actions. A "no" vote was a missed opportunity for the House to use its authority to seek the truth.

Roll Call 293
(PDF file from Congressional Record)

Rep. Michaud said: "I rise today in opposition to the TAA [Trade Adjustment Assistance] health care tax credit rollback provision included in the Taxpayer Protection and IRS Accountability Act...Why would the House leadership try to slip in such a harmful provision in a noncontroversial bill?...This measure would strip away the protections for dislocated workers and allow insurers to cherry pick healthy workers and exclude those who are older or in poor health, those who need the coverage the most."

Fifteen House Democrats wrote a letter to the Chairman on the Ways and Means Committee stating: "Specifically, we are very concerned that your efforts to rewrite the healthcare provisions in TAA by adding language to a non-trade related bill (Section 309; HR 1528, the Taxpayer Protection and IRS Responsibility Act) vitiates your commitments made during debate on TPA. More importantly, this undermines Congress' commitment of providing healthcare tax credits to displaced workers, regardless of their age or health status." [SOURCE: Congressional Record (PDF file), p. H5532]

A vote in favor of this bill was a vote against displaced workers who need health care. It was a vote that favored the interests of corporate insurers at the expense of consumers. See notes below on the proposed amendment 172 to this bill that failed.

Substitute Amendment to H.R. 1528

Roll Call 291
(PDF file from Congressional Record)

Among other things, Rep. McDermott's amendment would have kept consumer protections passed by Congress in an earlier Trade Promotion Act [H.R. 1528 without this amendment revoked these protections]. It would have provided a tax credit for 12 million children and 6 million families [the House passed this credit earlier but it stalled in a conference committee]. It would "stop the delay of tax benefits for our military and relief to families of the astronauts killed in the Columbia disaster." The amendment was an attempt to address "abusive corporate tax shelters." The amendment would have added protections for low and middle-class taxpayers against heavy-handed or unfair treatment by the IRS. [SOURCE: Congressional Record (PDF file, p. H5587]

A vote against this amendment was a vote against consumer protection and in favor of corporate interests. It was a missed opportunity to expedite tax benefits for our military. It was a vote against helping people deal with health insurance costs.

Roll Call 288
(PDF file from Congressional Record)

Rep. Majette said: "It has been estimated that the Republican estate tax repeal bill would cost $162 billion through 2013, and the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities projects that its costs would explode to more than $800 billion in the decade after that. Add this bill to the $425 billion in tax cuts already passed and it will take the total to at least $1.387 trillion of revenues lost over the next 20 years." [SOURCE: Congressional Record (PDF file), p. H5502]

This vote highlights the Republican's ideology of concentrating wealth in the hands of a few. This is at the expense of communities who help make individuals and corporations wealthy in the first place.

This vote reflects a failure to see the fairness of returning a portion of wealth to the society that sacrificed resources to make a few privileged people wealthy. This includes resources such as the environment, infrastructure paid for by the community, tax breaks and subsidies, zoning compromises, schools paid for by the community that educated their employees, plus labor and money from many individuals for the creation and purchase of products and services.

No one gets rich without getting an exceptional amount of resources from others (or inheriting it from someone who got it from others).

This vote fails to recognize that great wealth is often generated because Congress, banks and other institutions in this society have given wealthy people advantages not available to low and middle-income people.

Voting for this bill was fiscally irresponsible, shifting more of the tax burden to low and middle-income taxpayers and to future generations.

Amendment to H.R. 8

Roll Call 287
(PDF file from Congressional Record)

This alternative to the Republican H.R. 8 proposal would give estate tax relief to about 99.7 percent of Americans. It only excludes the richest 3/10th's of one percent of the wealthiest people. This amendment would have helped most people without increasing the national debt as much as the Republican alternative.

Rep. Pomeroy said: "The substitute I have advanced would give family farm couples $6 million in exclusion from estate tax. Any farmer in operation up to $6 million, no estate taxes... In 2004, under their [the Republicans'] proposal, family farm estates over $3 million will be subject to estate tax; over $3 million. Family farm estates per couple in our situation: $6 million. We provide double the relief immediately." [SOURCE: Congressional Record (PDF file), p. H5503]

A vote against this amendment was a vote to postpone estate tax relief for farm families. Voting for H.R. 8 instead of this alternative increases the national debt by billions, shifting more of the tax burden to low and middle-class taxpayers and to future generations.

H.Amdt. 168

Amendment to H.R. 1115

Roll Call 268
(PDF file from Congressional Record)

Rep. Jackson-Lee said: "This amendment prevents American companies from fleeing abroad to avoid liability in a class action lawsuit...Withhout my amendment, it would be possible for the bankrupt Enron corporation to agree to be acquired by a foreign company, relinquish their status as a company incorporated in the United States, avoid the jurisdiction of Federal courts and avoid liability for their corporate crimes." [SOURCE: Congressional Record (PDF file), p. H5296]

A vote against this amendment was a vote to allow corporations to escape responsibility for illegal actions, eroding consumer protections.

Amendment to H.R. 1000

Roll Call 187
(PDF file from Congressional Record)

H.Amdt. 131 would have made executive pensions subject to the same pensions rules that apply to other employees and offered numerous pension protections and options for employees. It would have given employees greater protections when a company goes bankrupt. It would have changed provisions that give executive pension plans special treatment, eliminating their ability to escape taxation or to receive special protection against creditors.

Rep. Andrews stated that this amendment "addresses the underlying problems and causes of the Enron scandal." [SOURCE: Congressional Record (PDF file)]

Voting against this amendment was an endorsement to give special favors to high-paid executives while ignoring protections for other employees.

Roll Call 182
(PDF file from Congressional Record)

This vote was fiscally irresponsible. It gave a huge tax cut to corporations during time of war. It ignored the increasing debt effect on future generations.

Roll Call 175
(PDF file from Congressional Record)

Rep. Tierney noted: "In fiscal year 2002, the Republican majority adopted a $300 million rescission of WIA [Workforce Investment Act] funds; in fiscal year 2003, they cut WIA by $440 million; and they project 2004 to cut it by $265 million...This legislation does nothing to restore those cuts in critically needed training dollars, and it does nothing to restore working families as a priority."

Rep. Watson complained that the Republicans did not allow Democrats the opportunity to discuss or vote on key amendments to improve this bill. [SOURCE: Congressional Record (PDF file), starting p. H3778]

This bill was substandard, failing to adequately deal with the needs of unemployed people. This bill eroded church and state separation.

Amendment to H.R. 766

Roll Call 165
(PDF file from Congressional Record)

Rep. Bell, who introduced H.Amdt. 112, said: "This amendment will ensure that the environmental and toxicological impacts of nanotech applications are studied during the developmental process so that problems can be spotted early on and fixed before any damage is done."

He expressed concern that "only one comprehensive study has been performed to examine the possible toxicity of nanoparticles." He noted that researchers found scar tissue in lungs of rodents after they were exposed to carbon nanotubes and urged more study to avoid introducing possible contaminants into the environment. [SOURCE: Congressional Record (PDF file), p. H3724]

A vote against this amendment was a vote against public safety. It appears to be a vote for profit over consumer protection.

Roll Call 145
(PDF file from Congressional Record)

See notes in the next entries about proposed amendments to this bill that failed, which give some reasons why Democrats voted against H.R. 6.

This energy bill favored large energy companies over consumer interests. It eroded environmental protections. It was a missed opportunity to end our dependence on foreign oil by increasing opportunities for alternative energy companies.

Amendment to H.R. 6

Roll Call 133
(PDF file from Congressional Record)

Rep. Dingell said: "...title VI repeals the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935. It ties Federal regulators' hands in reviewing unjust and unreasonable electricity contracts... This amendment gives FERC [the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission] broad authority to take action against fraud in both electricity and natural gas markets." [SOURCE: Congressional Record (PDF file, p. H3237)]

Voting against this amendment was a vote for large energy companies and a vote against consumers.

Roll Call 138
(PDF file from Congressional Record)

Rep. Udall, who proposed this amendment, said: "Section 14209 [the section that this amendment would have removed] provides a $10 million subsidy over 3 years to promote a highly experimental technology where uranium is mined from groundwater. The problem is, the groundwater is a pure source of drinking water for a community of over 10,000 Navajo Indians...At a time of skyrocketing Federal deficits and an uncertain economic future, we should not be giving away $30 million to the uranium industry." SOURCE: Congressional Record (PDF file), p. H3263]

A vote against this amendment was a vote for uranium companies' profits at the expense of the environment and clean drinking water.

Roll Call 142
(PDF file from Congressional Record)

He noted that the US only has 2% of the world's oil reserves and expressed concern over global warming caused by the burning of fossil fuels. He suggested putting more emphasis more conservation practices plus alternative and renewable fuels (such as wind, solar, biofuels and hydrogen power). [SOURCE: Congressional Record (PDF file), p. H3313]

A "no" vote was a giveaway to large oil companies without any real hope of ending our energy dependence on foreign oil.

Motion to Recommit

Roll Call 18
(PDF file from Congressional Record)

Motion to Recommit

Roll Call 163
(PDF file from Congressional Record)