Voterama in Congress, week ending May 18, 2012

Updated: May 20, 2012 11:02PM

House

Violence Against Women Act: Voting 222 for and 205 against, the House on May 16 approved a Republican bill (HR 4970) to renew the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) through fiscal 2016 on a budget of $680 million annually. The bill was disputed mainly because it omits provisions in a bi-partisan Senate-passed bill to expand protections for battered women who are illegal immigrants, Native American women who are assaulted on reservations by non-Indians and gays, lesbians and transsexuals. A conference committee will reconcile the competing House and Senate bills.

Since it was enacted in 1994, the VAWA has funneled several billions of dollars in grants to state and local governments and non-profit organizations for a variety of programs aimed at preventing domestic and dating violence, stalking and sexual assaults and dealing with such violence after it occurs. Recipients of the federal funds are obligated to follow requirements such as confidentiality rules (next issue).

U.S. Rep. Renee Ellmers, R-N.C., said the bill “makes several key improvements to the Senate bill” in areas such as providing more funds for rape-evidence kits for law enforcement and in “cracking down on the fraud identified in the immigration program. This bill also brings great accountability to the grant administration by ensuring that funding is spent on the victims, not Washington bureaucrats.”

U.S. Rep. Lois Capps, D-Calif., said the bill lacks Senate-passed protections “not just for immigrants or the (gay, lesbian and transsexual) community...but also for women on college campuses, those in need of safe housing, tribal women. And that is why hundreds of groups across the country -- service providers, law enforcement, healthcare workers -- have come out against this bill.”

A yes vote was to pass the bill.

Confidentiality in violence cases: Voting 187 for and 236 against, the House on May 16 defeated a Democratic bid to retain all safeguards in current law that protect the identity of victims when they report domestic-violence allegations to police, shelters and other agencies. Democrats said the underlying GOP bill (HR 4970, above) weakens existing confidentiality protections in ways that could expose victims to retaliation by those they accuse. They argued the bill upsets the delicate balance in current law between the due-process rights of the accused and the confidentiality needs of the accuser. Republicans disputed that argument.

Sponsor Gwen Moore, D-Wis., said her motion “clarifies that the preservation of confidentiality to protect the victims’ identity to avoid retaliation and even loss of life shall not be weakened as compared to current law.”

U.S. Rep. Sandy Adams, R-Fla., called the motion Democratic “political gamesmanship” but did respond directly to the points raised by Moore.

A yes vote backed the Democratic motion.

2013 military budget: Voting 299 for and 120 against, the House on May 18 approved a $642.7 billion military budget for fiscal 2013, including $88.5 billion for actions in Afghanistan and Iraq and more than $50 billion for healthcare for active-duty and retired personnel and their families. The bill (HR 4310) funds a 1.7 percent military pay raise; orders a war plan for land- and sea-based actions against Iran; establishes a missile-defense site on the East Coast to protect against any missile attack by Iran; bars prisoner transfers from the Guantanamo Bay naval base to the U.S.; reduces active-duty personnel by 21,000 positions; increases co-pays for prescription drugs in the TRICARE health system and rejects the Pentagon’s request for one round of base-closings in 2013 and another in 2015.

In weaponry, the bill funds multi-year procurements for up to ten Virginia-class submarines and ten Arleigh Burke-class destroyers; retains three of seven Navy cruisers that the Pentagon wants to retire and funds certain Air National Guard and Reserves strategic-lift aircraft such as the C-130 Hercules, C-23 Sherpa and C-273 Spartan that the Pentagon seeks to retire.

U.S. Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, said: “We all need to keep in mind that there are still people out there trying to kill as many Americans as they possibly can.... We ought to be cautious about that.”

U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, objected to the bill’s bellicosity toward Iran, saying “this is Iraq all over again, and we should at least have a separate debate on whether or not we should be recommending an attack on Iran....”

A yes vote was to pass the bill.

Detaining terrorist suspects: Voting 182 for and 238 against, the House on May 18 defeated an amendment to HR 4310 (above) to prohibit the government from ubjecting terrorist suspects arrested in the United States to indefinite military detention without being formally charged. Instead, the amendment would turn these individuals over to the Justice Department for prosecution in the civilian criminal-justice system with full due-process rights.

Justin Amash, R-Mich., said: “The frightening thing here is that the government is claiming the power under the (2001 Afghanistan war authorization) as a justification for entering American homes to grab people, indefinitely detain them and not give them a charge in a trial.”

Allen West, R-Fla., said: “We are at a war. We are not in a police action. We cannot look to guarantee to those who seek to harm us the Constitutional rights that are granted to Americans. If we extend that to them, then we are starting to say that this war on terror (is) a criminal action.”

A yes vote backed the amendment.

Afghanistan withdrawal: Voting 113 for and 303 against, the House on May 17 defeated an amendment to limit Afghanistan-war funding in HR 4310 (above) to that necessary for “the safe and orderly withdrawal of U.S. troops and military contractors” from that country. The bill calls for basing at least 68,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan through 2014. President Obama would remove all combat troops by the end of 2014.

Sponsor Barbara Lee, D-Calif., said “the American people have been far ahead of Congress” on this issue. “My amendment allows Congress the opportunity to stand squarely with the war-weary American people who want to bring our troops home.”

Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, said that “if we leave too early and al Qaeda and the Taliban return and use (Afghanistan) as a base to launch attacks against us, then I’m afraid more Americans will suffer and we could see repeats of past terrorist attacks.”

A yes vote backed a prompt withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Nuclear-bomber budget: Voting 112 for and 308 against, the House on May 17 refused to strip HR 4310 (above) of its $18 billion for developing a nuclear bomber that ould replace today’s fleets of B-52 and B-2 long-range nuclear-capable aircraft when they are retired between 2040 and 2058. The amendment sought to delay the project for ten years.

Edward Markey, D-Mass., said that “of all the things America doesn’t need right now, it’s a brand new nuclear bomber. We’re talking about cutting Medicare or Medicaid...there’s not enough money to invest in research to find the cure for Alzheimer’s, but we need a new nuclear bomber for $18 billion? It makes no sense. It’s insane.”

John Fleming, R-La., said: “The Air Force has only 19 B 2 stealth bombers in the inventory....A mainstay of the U.S. global military power is the ability to conduct long-range conventional or nuclear-strike missions anywhere in the world and against any type of threat. Therefore, it is imperative to maintain a credible bomber fleet.”

A yes vote backed the amendment.

Senate

Export-Import Bank: Voting 78 for and 20 against, the Senate on May 15 sent President Obama a bill (HR 2072) to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank through fiscal 2014 while raising its lending authority from $100 billion to $140 billion and stepping up auditing and transparency requirements. An independent New Deal agency backstopped by taxpayers, the bank provides loans and guarantees to customers of U.S. companies in politically or economically risky markets abroad. The rationale is that without such government support, the companies would lose sales to foreign competitors who are subsidized by their governments. Fewer than 2 percent of bank transactions have defaulted in recent years and the agency has generated $3.7 billion in profits to the Treasury since 2005. The Congressional Budget Office projects that the bill would reduce deficits by $900 million over four years. Federal law bars the bank from taking business away from U.S. private-sector lenders.

Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., said the bank is ‘making money for the federal government” while “helping U.S. manufacturers sell their products overseas....”

Mike Lee, R-Utah, said the bank represents “corporate welfare that distorts the market and feeds crony capitalism.”

A yes vote was to pass the bill.

To abolish Export-Import Bank: Voting 12 for and 86 against, the Senate on May 15 defeated a Tea-Party backed amendment to HR 2072 (above) that sought to abolish the Export-Import Bank on May 31, 2013, on grounds that it promotes corporate welfare, distorts the free market and wrongly empowers government officials to pick winners and losers among corporations.

Mike Lee, R-Utah, said: “The (U.S.) corporations that largely benefit from the Ex-Im Bank should have no trouble marshaling their resources to compete in today’s economy. If they are struggling, then they are most likely not deserving of taxpayer help -- and if they are turning billions in profit, then they clearly do not need taxpayer-subsidized loans.”

Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said: “The last thing I am going to do with my vote is take American companies that are struggling to make it, creating jobs in America through selling products overseas, and put them at a disadvantage against the Chinese or any other country that is doing business.”

A yes vote backed the amendment.

Export-Import loan reserves: Voting 36 for and 62 against, the Senate on May 15 refused to require the Export-Import Bank to establish $14 billion in cash reserves against the ceiling of $140 billion in loans and loan guarantees authorized by HR 2072 (above). At present, the bank has reserves of $1 billion against its $100 billion in outstanding credit to foreign purchasers of U.S. goods and services. Under this amendment, Ex-Im profits that now go to the Treasury for deficit-reduction would be diverted to a reserve fund to cushion against loans going bad and costing U.S. taxpayers.

Bob Corker, R-Tenn., said: “As a responsible body, the very least we can do is...have the appropriate capital reserved against the loans they are making, which are more risky than private-sector loans.”

Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., said the bank “has a reserve ratio that has worked for decades...and I like the fact that it helps us pay down the deficit.”

A yes vote backed the amendment.

U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget: Voting 41 for and 58 against, the Senate on May 16 defeated a House-passed Republican budget blueprint (H Con Res 112) for fiscal 2013 and later years that would eventually privatize Medicare, raise the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67 and convert Medicaid and food stamps into block-grant programs runby the states. Drafted by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., the non-binding plan would permanently extend all Bush-era tax cuts; slash discretionary spending for most domestic ograms; generate annual deficits well below those in President Obama’s budget (below); repeal the 2010 health law; increase national-security spending and keep Social Security in its present structure. For 2013, the budget approves federal spending of $3.5 trillion and projects a deficit of nearly $800 billion, down about one-third from the 012 deficit.

Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said the GOP-controlled House “has produced a budget that would change the debt course of America, create economic growth, put us on a path to financial stability and do the things that a responsible budget should do. The president’s budget utterly failed in that regard and has gotten no support.”

Kent Conrad, D-N.D., said the Ryan budget “ends Medicare as we know it (and) provides $1 trillion of additional tax cuts to the wealthiest among us. It gives millionaires, on average, an additional tax cut of $150,000 a year. In addition, it cuts healthcare by $3 trillion and increases the number of uninsured...by 30 million people.”

A yes vote backed the non-binding Ryan budget.

President Barack Obama’s budget: By a unanimous vote of zero for and 99 against, the Senate on May 16 rejected President Obama proposed federal budget for fiscal 2013 and later years (S Con Res 41). Compared to Rep. Paul Ryan’s GOP budget (above), the president provided far less deficit reduction, much higher spending on education and social safety-net programs and higher taxes on the wealthy. Unlike Ryan, Obama would not privatize Medicare or convert Medicaid to a block grant run by the states. He sought to end Bush-era tax cuts for those earning $250,000 or more, proposed a $350 million stimulus for purposes such as hiring teachers and police, saved $1 trillion over ten years by capping domestic discretionary spending and proposed cuts in agriculture subsidies and federal workers’ pensions.

Unveiling his budget in February, Obama opposed “efforts to turn Medicare into a voucher or Medicaid into a block grant. Doing so would weaken both programs and break the promise that we have made to American seniors, peopdisabilities, and low-income families - a promise I am committed to keeping.”

Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said: “Over 50 percent of our spending is in mandatory entitlement programs -- Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, food stamps, retirement benefits....That is what puts us on an unsustainable course. The president’s budget...refuses to confront these surging entitlement costs.”

A no vote opposed the non-binding Obama budget.

Show / Hide Comments