Some Healthcare Thoughts

I read an interesting article today. Two thoughts struck me about this:

1. 11 Let’s not be hasty to dismiss patients as “vegetative” without more extensive testing.

Belgian doctors who treated him early on said that Rom had gone from a coma into a vegetative condition.

Coma is a state of unconsciousness in which the eyes are closed and the patient can't be roused, as if simply asleep. A vegetative state is a condition in which the eyes are open and can move, and the patient has periods of sleep and periods of wakefulness, but remains unconscious and unaware of him or herself or others. The patient can't think, reason, respond, do anything on purpose, chew or swallow.

. . .

The case came to light after Laureys published a study in the journal BMC Neurology this year showing that about four out of ten patients with consciousness disorders are wrongly diagnosed as being a vegetative state. Houben, although not specifically mentioned, was part of the study.

2. 2. Advanced technology saved the day here.

More searching finally got her in touch with Laureys, who put Houben through a PET scan that indicated he was conscious. The family and doctors then began trying to establish communication.

A breakthrough came when he was able to indicate yes or no by slightly moving his foot to push a computer device placed there by Laureys' team.

Then came the spelling of words using his finger and a touch-screen attached to his wheelchair.

Houben has started writing a book on his experiences.

Sleight of Hand in Health Care

This is the cautionary tale of two bills:

1. H.R. 3590 - To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees, and for other purposes. Entered IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES on September 17, 2009 by Charlie Rangel.

2. H.R. 3962 - Affordable Health Care for America Act. Entered IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES on October 29, 2009 by John Dingell.

H.R. 3950, when in the House, had the short title of Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009. The bill was six pages long and primarily affected the tax treatment and first time home buyer credit for US Military. It passed on Oct 8, 2009 with 416 Yes votes and 16 not voting. After all, it was a good thing to help our heroes fighting in the War on Terror. Good going House guys in passing it virtually unanimously.

As you probably know, H.R. 3962 was voted on a late Saturday night (Nov 7) and squeaked by 220 – 215 with one Republican voting yes. It was placed on the Senate calendar on Nov 16, 2009. Some pundits said it was dead on arrival in the Senate and would never pass in its current form (2,016 pages).

Now here’s the tricky thing: H.R. 3590 was amended in the Senate (by replacement) by Harry Reid. The original six page bill suddenly became 2,076 pages and acquired the new title of Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. This bill, remember, started as a Revenue bill. Now it is the health care bill, but it can be reconciled by simple majority vote in both chambers. This sleight of hand was accomplished with these words:

AMENDMENT NO. 2786

Purpose: In the nature of a substitute.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES—111th Cong., 1st Sess.

H. R. 3590

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify

the first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members

of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees,

and for other purposes.

November 19, 2009

Ordered to lie on the table and to be printed

Amendment in the nature of a substitute intended to be

proposed by Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr.

DODD, and Mr. HARKIN)

Viz:

1 Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following:

Now, some on the left will think this was clever of the Democratic leadership. Some on the right will think it is chicanery. What do you think?

I think I’m going to vomit.

Blue Dogs in Name Only

The following so-called Blue Dog Democrats failed to join the other 39 to defeat the Health Care bill:

Mike Arcuri (N.Y.)
Joe Baca (Calif.)
Marion Berry (Ark.)
Sanford Bishop (Ga.)
Leonard Boswell (Iowa)
Dennis Cardoza (Calif.)
Christopher Carney (Penn.)
Jim Cooper (Tenn.)
Jim Costa (Calif.)
Henry Cuellar (Texas)
Kathy Dahlkemper (Penn.)
Joe Donnelly (Ind.)
Brad Ellsworth (Ind.)
Gabrielle Giffords (Ariz.)
Jane Harman (Calif)
Baron Hill (Ind.)
Mike Michaud (Maine)
Harry Mitchell (Ariz.)
Dennis Moore (Kan.)
Patrick Murphy (Penn.)
Earl Pomeroy (N.D.)
John Salazar (Colo.)
Loretta Sanchez (Calif.)
Adam Schiff (Calif.)
David Scott (Ga.)
Zack Space (Ohio)
Mike Thompson (Calif.)
Charles Wilson (Ohio)

 

Should they be called BDINO’s?  or maybe BINO’s?  Or how about “outta there!”.

Eleven Principled Democrats

The recent vote on the so-called stimulus package found every single House Republican voting “No”.  That isn’t much of a surprise, since the package is all about funding liberal pet projects, growing government and having no positive impact on the economy. 

 

What might be more surprising is the fact that eleven Democrats stood up to their party (including my own Representative, Bobby Bright).  In case you are interested in personally thanking these people, I am providing a link to their Congressional home pages.

Allen Boyd, FL (2)

Bobby Bright, AL (2)

Jim Cooper, TN (5)

Brad Ellsworth, IN (8)

Parker Griffith, AL (5)

Paul Kanjorski, PA (11)

Frank Kratovil, Jr, MD (1)

Walt Minnick, ID (1)

Collin Peterson, MN (7)

Heath Shuler, NC (11)

Gene Taylor, MS (4)

 

Kudos to the Blue Dogs and the conservatives in the Republican party for standing up to this sham legislation.  Too bad it passed the House anyway.  Now let’s see what the Senate does.

 

Dave and Blarney Discuss the Bailout

Blarney: Well, the Senate is acting where the House flopped.

Dave: You mean because they passed a bailout bill?

Blarney: Exactly. Now if only those stubborn Republicans in the House will get on board.

Dave: Blarney, can I ask you a few questions?

Blarney: I suppose so.

Dave: Does this bill have anything to do with money?

Blarney: It has everything to do with money.

Dave: Does it have anything to do with raising revenues?

Blarney: Well, it does address taxes.

Dave: According to the Constitution, where do bills about revenue originate?

Blarney: Well, everyone knows that: the House of Representatives.

Dave: So, you don’t have a problem with Senate originating this bill?

Blarney: Oh, but it originated in the House.

Dave: But the House killed it.

Blarney: No, they didn’t. They suspended the vote before it was final. That allows the Senate to modify it.

Dave: That seems a little sneaky, doesn’t it? By the way, how many votes would it take to pass the bill in the House?

Blarney: Everybody knows that, too. With 434 or 435 members, it takes 218 votes to be a majority.

Dave: How many “No” votes were there in the House?

Blarney: Er, ah, 228.

Dave: Sounds to me that it failed.

Blarney: No, no, the vote was suspended. That was to give the Republicans time to change their minds.

Dave: How many Democrats are in the House?

Blarney: Uh, I don’t know. Maybe a couple hundred?

Dave: Would you believe, 235? If the Democrats think this is such a great bill, they could pass it all by themselves.

Blarney: But that wouldn’t be fair.

Dave: So 95 Democrats voted against the bill just to be fair?

Blarney: well, …

McCain, Obama, and the "Credit Crisis"

OK. Let's review the bidding.
1977 - Jimmuh Cahtuh and the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) - Encourage banks to make loans to risky clients.
Enter ACORN

ACORN is a non-profit, non-partisan social justice organization with national
headquarters in New York, New Orleans and Washington, D.C. To maintain
independence, ACORN does not accept government funding and is not tax exempt.

Since 1970 ACORN ( Association of [originally Arkansas] Community Organizations for Reform Now) has been pressuring banks to make loans to high-risk clients. In 1990, they launched the first challenge to block a merger based on non-compliance with CRA.

2004 - Republicans want to investigate Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Democrats oppose.

2008 - The bad loans begin to default. Freddie and Fannie hold a huge portfolio of bad paper.

2008 - President Bush, Pelosi, Reid, etc (including both McCain and Obama) push for a $700 billion bailout which is widely opposed by Main Street America. It fails in the House and the finger-pointing begins. McCain calls it a failure to act. Congress did act. They REJECTED the bailout, as the majority of Americans wanted them to. It was Bi-Partisan, with nearly 100 Democrats voting against it. Even ACORN opposed the bailout, even though a staggering amount of the funds would have gone to ACORN (in direct opposition to their statement above).

2008-Sep 29 - The market (Dow Jones Average) falls over 770 points in one day, the largest single point loss in history. As a percentage of the Dow, however, it is about 6.5% and would not make the list of the ten largest drops.

2008-Sep-30 - The market rebounds with the Dow gaining 485 points. Meanwhile, the media and the political talking heads decry the tragedy of not getting the bailout pushed through.

Let's see what happens tomorrow. And visit here for more information.

Senators up for Election

Thought you might want to consider their votes on suspending earmarks (pork-barrel politics) in this year’s election. A “NO” vote is against limiting the earmarks. A “Yes” vote is in the best interests of the individual taxpayer.
Class II - Senators Whose Terms of Service Expire in 2009
Senators in Class II were elected to office in the November 2002 general election. Their terms run from the beginning of the 108th Congress on January 3, 2003 to the end of the 110th Congress in January 2009. The Yes and NO indicated how they voted on establishing a moratorium on earmarks.

Democrats
Baucus, Max (D-MT) NO
Biden, Joseph R., Jr. (D-DE) NO
Durbin, Richard (D-IL) NO
Harkin, Tom (D-IA) NO
Johnson, Tim (D-SD) NO
Kerry, John F. (D-MA) NO
Landrieu, Mary L. (D-LA) NO
Lautenberg, Frank R. (D-NJ) NO
Levin, Carl (D-MI) NO
Pryor, Mark L. (D-AR) NO
Reed, Jack (D-RI) NO
Rockefeller, John D., IV (D-WV) NO

Republicans
Alexander, Lamar (R-TN) Yes
Allard, Wayne (R-CO) Yes
Chambliss, Saxby (R-GA) Yes
Cochran, Thad (R-MS) NO
Coleman, Norm (R-MN) NO
Collins, Susan M. (R-ME)NO
Cornyn, John (R-TX) Yes
Craig, Larry E. (R-ID) NO
Dole, Elizabeth (R-NC) Yes
Domenici, Pete V. (R-NM)NO
Enzi, Michael B. (R-WY) Yes
Graham, Lindsey (R-SC) Yes
Hagel, Chuck (R-NE) NO
Inhofe, James M. (R-OK) Yes
McConnell, Mitch (R-KY) Yes
Roberts, Pat (R-KS) NO
Sessions, Jeff (R-AL) Yes
Smith, Gordon H. (R-OR) NO
Stevens, Ted (R-AK) NO
Sununu, John E. (R-NH) Yes
Warner, John (R-VA) NO

Phony Soldiers

The Democrats are up in arms over Rush Limbaugh saying two words ("phony soldiers") to a caller who was referring to the likes of Jesse MacBeth, Scott Thomas Beauchamp, and others. These people make up things to say about our troops and try to gain credibility by enhancing their military service, much like the Senator from North Vietnam and Tom Harkin. They are, in fact, phony soldiers attempting to steal the valor of our military.

Now, it is interesting to me who is leading this fight. Notice the names of the folks who voted AGAINST condemnation of MoveOn.org (previous article), and then note the names of those on the letter from Senator Reid.

Anybody surprised? Who do YOU think really "supports the troops"?

In case you missed the Congressional Response to the "Betray US" AD

MoveOn.org ran a subsidized ad in the New York times implying that General Petraeus could be called General "Betray Us".

In response, Senator John Cornyn (R-Tex) sponsored an amendment expressing support for the General and condemning the personal attacks.

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 110^th Congress - 1^st Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On the Amendment (Cornyn Amdt. No. 2934 )
Vote Number:	344	Vote Date:	September 20, 2007, 12:36 PM
Required For Majority:	3/5	Vote Result:	Amendment Agreed to
Amendment Number:	S.Amdt. 2934 to S.Amdt. 2011 to H.R. 1585 (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008)
Statement of Purpose:	To express the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces.

Vote Counts:	YEAs	72
	NAYs	25
	Not Voting	3

You would think that would be a fairly straightforward proposition. The moveOn ad was despicable. Yet, there were 25 who voted against the resolution. Here are the names and votes. (Blue are Democrat or Independents who voted in favor of the resolution. Red are current or former Democrat Presidential candidates or Majority Leader):
Grouped By Vote Position

YEAs ---72
Alexander (R-TN) Allard (R-CO) Barrasso (R-WY) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Bennett (R-UT) Bond (R-MO) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burr (R-NC) Cardin (D-MD) Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Chambliss (R-GA) Coburn (R-OK) Cochran (R-MS) Coleman (R-MN) Collins (R-ME) Conrad (D-ND) Corker (R-TN) Cornyn (R-TX) Craig (R-ID) Crapo (R-ID) DeMint (R-SC)	Dole (R-NC) Domenici (R-NM) Dorgan (D-ND) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Feinstein (D-CA) Graham (R-SC) Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH) Hagel (R-NE) Hatch (R-UT) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Isakson (R-GA) Johnson (D-SD) Klobuchar (D-MN) Kohl (D-WI) Kyl (R-AZ) Landrieu (D-LA) Leahy (D-VT) Lieberman (ID-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) Lott (R-MS) Lugar (R-IN)	Martinez (R-FL) McCain (R-AZ) McCaskill (D-MO) McConnell (R-KY) Mikulski (D-MD) Murkowski (R-AK) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Pryor (D-AR) Roberts (R-KS) Salazar (D-CO) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Smith (R-OR) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (R-PA) Stevens (R-AK) Sununu (R-NH) Tester (D-MT) Thune (R-SD) Vitter (R-LA) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA) Webb (D-VA)

NAYs ---25
Akaka (D-HI) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Byrd (D-WV) Clinton (D-NY) Dodd (D-CT) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI)	Harkin (D-IA) Inouye (D-HI) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Levin (D-MI) Menendez (D-NJ) Murray (D-WA) Reed (D-RI)	Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sanders (I-VT) Schumer (D-NY) Stabenow (D-MI) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wyden (D-OR)

Not Voting - 3
Biden (D-DE)	Cantwell (D-WA)	Obama (D-IL)

Notice that two of the current crop decided not to be on record one way or the other. Also notice that the anointed President (Clinton) was just fine with the ad.

My New Hero

Here is a new hero for the people:  Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican, Alabama.

Watch him on immigration.

Check here for the written word.

Why Not Vote for Generic Republicans?

I don't know about you, but I get numerous requests for campaign contributions. Even John McCain wants my support (translation: dollars). I get phone calls from the Republican National Committee, the College Republicans, The Republican Senatorial Alliance (or something like that), all asking me to contribute because the Republicans are better than Hillary.

That strikes me as the same type argument that the Democrats used in 2004: "We're not George Bush". The recent cloture vote on gave me at least seven reasons to not support generic Republicans and ten possible reasons to like the Democrats. Of course, one might argue that some of the Democrat votes were for other reasons, but I think Boxer knows that her constituents will really be upset if amnesty carries. Maybe "Sheets" Byrd is just a bigot. That still leaves eight good Democrats.

In case you missed the link above, here are the Republicans who favor amnesty:

Graham (R-SC)
Hagel (R-NE)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
Specter (R-PA)
Voinovich (R-OH)

Here are the Democrats who helped keep the amendment from coming to a vote:

Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Landrieu (D-LA)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Pryor (D-AR)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Tester (D-MT)
Webb (D-VA)

Call or write and thank them.

Another Roll Call Vote

While it is interesting to hear what candidates say, it is often more instructive to watch what they do.  Case in point is Senator John McCain, the man who would be President.  Just two days ago, he participated in a vote FOR embryonic stem cell research.  Here is the text of the legislation (S. 5; Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007) and the results of the roll call vote (63-34), mostly Democrats for and Republicans against.  I'll note the exceptions below.

 

First a summary:

S.5
Title: A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for human embryonic stem cell research.
Sponsor: Sen Reid, Harry [NV] (introduced 1/4/2007)      Cosponsors (41)*
Related Bills: H.R.3, S.997
Latest Major Action: 4/11/2007 Passed/agreed to in Senate. Status: Passed Senate, having acquired the 60 votes required under unanimous consent, without amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 63 - 34.

Record Vote Number: 127.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY AS OF:
1/4/2007--Introduced.

 

Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 - Amends the Public Health Service Act to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct and support research that utilizes human embryonic stem cells, regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived from a human embryo. Limits such research to stem cells that meet the following ethical requirements: (1) the stem cells were derived from human embryos donated from in vitro fertilization clinics for the purpose of fertility treatment and were in excess of the needs of the individuals seeking such treatment; (2) the embryos would never be implanted in a woman and would otherwise be discarded; and (3) such individuals donate the embryos with written informed consent and receive no financial or other inducements.

Full Text

 

The Italics were added by me to call attention to the relevant language.  Note that it does not allow, it requires human embryonic stem cell research.

*Note that both Democrat front runners were cosponsors.

 

Now the votes (Full vote count at the link above)
Republicans FOR the bill (asterisks identify co-sponsors for the legislation):

Alexander (R-TN)	Burr (R-NC)
Cochran (R-MS)	Collins (R-ME)*
Gregg (R-NH)	Hatch (R-UT)*
Hutchison (R-TX)	Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)	McCain (R-AZ)
Murkowski (R-AK)	Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)*	Specter (R-PA)*
Stevens (R-AK)*	Warner (R-VA)

 

Democrats against the bill:

Casey (D-PA)

Nelson (D-NE)

 

Really, there are few surprises in this vote for people who have been following the other Congressional votes.  President Bush has promised to veto this legislation if it ever reaches his desk.

 

 

 

 

 

The Senate Vote

The Republicans, using the 60 vote rule managed to "filibuster" the motion. On the vote to end the filibuster, seven Republicans actually sided with the Democrats. The names are no surprise if you have been following Congressional votes. For a review of some of the ones I thought were important, click the Congressional Votes link below.

Anyway, the seven Republicans who voted for cloture are:

• Norm Coleman of Minnesota


• Susan Collins of Maine


• Chuck Hagel of Nebraska


• Gordon Smith of Oregon


• Olympia Snowe of Maine


• Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania


• John Warner of Virginia

The total vote was 56 to 34, with 10 either absent or abstaining. When the Senate updates it voting records, I will update this post with a link to the vote.

Who wants to support the trops?

As Scott Ott at Scrappleface has nailed it,

Moments after Republicans in the senate blocked a Democrat attempt to vote on a non-binding resolution expressing disapproval of a U.S. troop surge in Iraq, Majority Leader Harry Reid hailed the non-vote as “perhaps the greatest Democrat military accomplishment of the past 40 years.”

Reid is upset because the House did what he could not get the Senate to do, pass a non-binding resolution of support for the enemy. Oh, no, wait, that's not how it was worded. Here is the text of the House Resolution 63, Disapproving of the decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq:

Disapproving of the decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That--

(1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and

(2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

The results were almost predictable. With 231 Democrats out of the 435 total representatives, the majority was guaranteed along party lines. What was not quite so predictable was that 17 Republicans sided with the majority. They are

1. Michael N. Castle of Wilmington, DE
2. Howard Coble of Greensboro, NC
3. Tom Davis of Vienna, VA
4. John J. Duncan Jr. of Knoxville, TN
5. Phil English of Erie, PA
6. Wayne T. Gilchrest of Kennedyville, MD
7. Bob Inglis of Travelers Rest, SC
   
8. Timothy V. Johnson of Urbana, IL
9. Walter B. Jones of Farmville, NC
10. Ric Keller of Orlando, FL
11. Mark Steven Kirk of Highland Park, IL
12. Steven C. LaTourette of Concord Township, OH
13. Ron Paul of Surfside, TX
14. Thomas E. Petri of Fond du Lac, WI
15. Jim Ramstad of Minnetonka, MN
16. Fred Upton of St. Joseph, MI
17. James T. Walsh of Syracuse, NY
    

Also surprising was the fact that two Democrats actually opposed the resolution:

1. Jim Marshall of Macon, GA
2. Gene Taylor of Bay St. Louis, MS
   

Was the President's decision to send more tropos correct? I have mixed thoughts about this, but General Petraeus seems to think so. He also thinks the resolution will in fact, accomplish two things:

1. Demoralize our own troops
2. Give aid and comfort to the enemy
   

But since the left values feelings over results, that's just what the doctor ordered.
Rant off.

House vote on same sex marriage

Each chamber of Congress must pass a resolution for a Constitutional amendment by a 2/3 majority. It would then go to the states where 3/4 must ratify. To put that in numbers, you would need 67 positive votes in the Senate and 289 positive votes in the House. So, with only 236 votes, the amendment failed in the House. It is no surprise that most of the Democrats voted no. On a straight party vote, there would have been no chance (231 Republicans, 201 Democrats and one independent). Only 34 Democrats supported the amendments. Twenty-seven Republicans voted against it. Here is the text of the amendment:

`Section 1. This article may be cited as the `Marriage Protection Amendment'.

`Section 2. 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.'.

Here is the vote:

(Republicans in roman; Democrats in italic; Independents=Sanders)

H J RES 88 2/3 YEA-AND-NAY 18-Jul-2006 2:00 PM
QUESTION: On Passage
BILL TITLE: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage

	Yeas	Nays	PRES	NV
Republican	202	27		2
Democratic	34	159	1	7
Independent		1
TOTALS	236	187	1	9

---- YEAS 236 ---

Barrow Berry Bishop (GA) Boren Boucher Boyd Chandler Cooper Costello Cramer Cuellar

Davis (AL) Davis (TN) Edwards Etheridge Ford Gordon Herseth Holden Jefferson Marshall Matheson McIntyre

Melancon Ortiz Peterson (MN) Rahall Ross Scott (GA) Skelton Spratt Tanner Taylor (MS) Thompson (MS)

---- NAYS 187 ---

Bass Biggert Boehlert Bono Castle Diaz-Balart, L. Diaz-Balart, M. Dreier Fitzpatrick (PA)

Foley Frelinghuysen Gerlach Gilchrest Hobson Hostettler Johnson (CT) Kirk Knollenberg

Kolbe Leach Paul Pryce (OH) Ros-Lehtinen Schwarz (MI) Shays Simmons Sweeney

---- ANSWERED “PRESENT” 1 ---

Lipinski

---- NOT VOTING 9 ---

Brown (OH) Davis (IL) Evans

Hinojosa Johnson, Sam Kind

McKinney Northup Strickland

House Condemns Times, Supports Swift TFTP

Lots of whereas, followed by

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) supports efforts to identify, track, and pursue suspected foreign terrorists and their financial supporters by tracking terrorist money flows and uncovering terrorist networks here and abroad, including through the use of the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program;

(2) finds that the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program has been conducted in accordance with all applicable laws, regulations, and Executive Orders, that appropriate safeguards and reviews have been instituted to protect individual civil liberties, and that Congress has been appropriately informed and consulted for the duration of the Program and will continue its oversight of the Program;

(3) condemns the unauthorized disclosure of classified information by those persons responsible and expresses concern that the disclosure may endanger the lives of American citizens, including members of the Armed Forces, as well as individuals and organizations that support United States efforts; and

(4) expects the cooperation of all news media organizations in protecting the lives of Americans and the capability of the government to identify, disrupt, and capture terrorists by not disclosing classified intelligence programs such as the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program.
  FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 357 (Republicans in roman; Democrats in italic; Independents underlined)
      H RES 895      YEA-AND-NAY      29-Jun-2006      7:27 PM
      QUESTION:  On Agreeing to the Resolution
      BILL TITLE: Supporting intelligence and law enforcement programs to track terrorists and terrorist finances conducted consistent with Federal law and with appropriate Congressional consultation and specifically condemning the disclosure and publication of classified information that impairs the international fight against, etc.



	Yeas	Nays	PRES	NV
Republican	210	8		12
Democratic	17	174		10
Independent		1
TOTALS	227	183		22

 

Republican Nay Votes (Sanders is the independent):

Bartlett (MD) Garrett (NJ) Jones (NC)

Manzullo Otter Paul

Sanders Shays Walsh

 

 

Democrat Yea Votes:

Barrow Bean Boren Boswell Cuellar DeFazio Edwards

Gordon Higgins Marshall Matheson Melancon

Peterson (MN) Ross Salazar Skelton Taylor (MS)

 

 

People who did not vote (Democrats in italics):

Bishop (UT) Blumenauer Bonner Boyd Cannon Davis (TN) Dicks Evans

Everett Fitzpatrick (PA) Ford Gerlach Green, Gene Johnson, Sam Jones (OH) Kanjorski

McHenry Moran (KS) Osborne Rogers (AL) Rush Sherwood

 

FYI.

Update on the "Flag burning" amendment.

Here is the full text of the proposed amendment:

`The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.'

Maybe that is a little broad. What, exactly, would be the power to prohibit? Passing a law? What would constitute physical desecration? Perhaps this was only intended to get around the 1989 Court decision that said these type of laws were "unconstitutional".

Flag Burning Amendment

The vote to propose a Constitutional Amendment against burning the flag failed by one vote (See Article V), 66 to 34. Interestingly enough, three Republicans voted against the resolution:
Robert Bennett (R-UT)
Lincoln Chafee (R-RI)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)

Any one of them could have voted for the resolution which would have initiated the process of the House of Representatives and then the states considering the amendment. Understand that a two-thirds majority in both houses is required to submit an amendment to the states.

More interesting to me were some of the Democrats who voted for the proposition:

Max Baucus (D-MT)
Evan Bayh (D-IN)
Mark Dayton (D-MN)
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Tim Johnson (D-SD)
Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)
Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
Bill Nelson (D-FL)
Benjamin Nelson (D-NE)
Harry Reid (D-NV)
John Rockefeller (D-WV)
Ken Salazar (D-CO)
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)

In fact, some were downright surprising.

House Resolution on Iraq

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) honors all those Americans who have taken an active part in the Global War on Terror, whether as first responders protecting the homeland, as servicemembers overseas, as diplomats and intelligence officers, or in other roles;

(2) honors the sacrifices of the United States Armed Forces and of partners in the Coalition, and of the Iraqis and Afghans who fight alongside them, especially those who have fallen or been wounded in the struggle, and honors as well the sacrifices of their families and of others who risk their lives to help defend freedom;

(3) declares that it is not in the national security interest of the United States to set an arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq;

(4) declares that the United States is committed to the completion of the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq;

(5) congratulates Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki and the Iraqi people on the courage they have shown by participating, in increasing millions, in the elections of 2005 and on the formation of the first government under Iraq's new constitution;

(6) calls upon the nations of the world to promote global peace and security by standing with the United States and other Coalition partners to support the efforts of the Iraqi and Afghan people to live in freedom; and

(7) declares that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the noble struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary.

H RES 861 YEA-AND-NAY 16-Jun-2006 11:17 AM
QUESTION: On Agreeing to the Resolution
BILL TITLE: Declaring that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary

	Yeas	Nays	PRES	NV
Republican	214	3	2	12
Democratic	42	149	3	7
Independent		1
TOTALS	256	153	5	19

---- YEAS 256 ---

Barrow Bean Berman Berry Bishop (GA) Boren Boswell Boucher Cardoza Chandler Cooper Costa Costello Cramer

Cuellar Davis (TN) Edwards Etheridge Gordon Green, Gene Herseth Higgins Holden Kind Larsen (WA) Lipinski Lynch

Marshall Matheson McIntyre Melanchon Moore (KS) Peterson (MN) Ross Salazar Smith (WA) Snyder Spratt Taylor (MS) Thompson (MS)

---- NAYS 153 ---

Duncan

Leach

Paul Sanders

---- ANSWERED “PRESENT” 5 ---

Boyd Jones (NC)

McCotter Miller (NC)

Sherman

---- NOT VOTING 19 ---

Bachus Bishop (NY) Bishop (UT) Burton (IN) Cannon Carter Cleaver

Dingell Evans Gutierrez Johnson, Sam Kilpatrick (MI) Lewis (CA) Nussle

Reichert Sensenbrenner Sessions Waxman Wilson (NM)

Senators Facing the Voters in November

Here is a listing of those Senators up for reelection this year. For your convenience, I put an asterisk (*) next to those that voted FOR the Senate scamnesty bill (S 2611)

*Akaka, Daniel K.- (D - HI)*
Allen, George- (R - VA)
*Bingaman, Jeff- (D - NM)*
Burns, Conrad- (R - MT) C
Byrd, Robert C.- (D - WV)
*Cantwell, Maria- (D - WA)*
*Carper, Thomas R.- (D - DE)*
*Chafee, Lincoln- (R - RI)*
*Clinton, Hillary Rodham- (D - NY)*
*Conrad, Kent- (D - ND)*
*Dayton, Mark- (D - MN)*
*DeWine, Mike- (R - OH)*
Ensign, John- (R - NV)
*Feinstein, Dianne- (D - CA)*
*Frist, William H.- (R - TN)*
Hatch, Orrin G.- (R - UT)
Hutchison, Kay Bailey- (R - TX)
*Jeffords, James M.- (I - VT)*
*Kennedy, Edward M.- (D - MA)*
*Kohl, Herb- (D - WI)*
Kyl, Jon- (R - AZ)
*Lieberman, Joseph I.- (D - CT)*
Lott, Trent- (R - MS)
*Lugar, Richard G.- (R - IN)*
*Menendez, Robert- (D - NJ)*
*Nelson, Bill- (D - FL)*
Nelson, E. Benjamin- (D - NE)
Santorum, Rick- (R - PA)
*Sarbanes, Paul S.- (D - MD)*
*Snowe, Olympia J.- (R - ME)*
Stabenow, Debbie- (D - MI)
Talent, James M.- (R - MO)
Thomas, Craig- (R - WY)

You can contact them by referring to the information here.