This diary details every vote cast where Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama voted differently during 2006 (it ignores votes where one of them was absent).
I'm not going to speculate on why they voted how they did, unless it's clear from the Congressional Record. That is what the comments section and many, many, many diaries are for.
I will just link to the vote, give as much detail as is necessary to explain what the vote was on, and say how each one voted, as well as how the rest of the Senate voted in terms of party (Joe Lieberman, Zell Miller and Jim Jeffords are counted as Democrats).
If the summary given on the page with the roll call vote seems too brief or confusing to me, I take statements from the Congressional Record to help explain them.
This diary is intended primarily as a reference.
Links to previous diaries:
Clinton vs. Edwards 2001, 2002, 2003-2004
Clinton vs. Obama: 2005
There were 279 roll call votes cast in the Senate in 2006. Clinton and Obama were both present for 272 of those roll call votes. Of those 272 they were present for, 46
were favored by every Senator voting, and on 140 of them the entire Democratic caucus was on the same side
| % of the time voting together |
All votes | 91.9% |
Non-unanimous Senate | 90.2% |
Divided Democratic caucus | 83.3% |
Summary table:
A ? in the progressive position column means the progessive position is unclear.
"Specific Question" refers to whether it's a motion to table (tabling meaning killing), a motion to waive the Budget Act, a cloture vote, passage (refers to approval of a full piece of legislation), adoption (refers to approval of an amendment), and conference report (refers to approval of a bill after both houses of Congress have passed different versions and hashed out their differences in a conference consisting of members of both Houses of Congress).
1. Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005.
Ted Kennedy explains his opposition here (S0499):
It sounds like deficit reduction, until you look at the tax reconciliation bill, which will cut taxes by far more than the savings in spending--$70 billion. The net result will be a substantial increase in the budget deficit--exactly the opposite of what the reconciliation process is supposed to accomplish. Billions of dollars will go from programs that assist low income families and senior citizens into the pockets of the already wealthy. It takes from the least and gives to the most. It is a breathtaking Republican scam on the Nation that can only further discredit this Congress in the eyes of the people.
From day one, the Republican plan has been to use this reconciliation process to push through a cut in the tax rate on capital gains and dividend income. These are tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefit the richest Americans. Over half the tax benefits will go to millionaires. These tax breaks were in the original mark proposed by Chairman Grassley, and they are in the bill already passed by the Republican majority in the House of Representatives. While they are not in the current Senate bill, we all know these capital gains and dividend tax cuts will reappear in the conference report. Leading Republicans have made that clear. The GOP is intent on delivering those tax breaks to their wealthy supporters. They will be included in the final bill.
What is the real cost of these capital gains and dividend tax cuts? The Republicans claim the cost of these provisions is $20 billion, the real cost of extending the lower rates for another 2 years is $50 billion. This tax break is particularly unfair, because over 75 percent of the tax benefits will go to taxpayers with incomes over $200,000 a year. Over half the benefits--53 percent--will go to taxpayers with incomes over $1 million a year. The average millionaire will save over $35,000 a year from these tax breaks for capital gains and dividends.
As a result of this shameful Republican let-them-eat-cake proposal, millions of working families would pay a substantially higher tax rate on their wages than wealthy taxpayers pay on their investment income. What could be more unfair? Republicans are penalizing hard work, not rewarding it. They are giving a preference to unearned income over earned income.
On passage of the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005
- Clinton voted YEA, along with 49 Republicans, Baucus, Cantwell, Carper, Dayton, Feinstein, Johnson, Landrieu, Menendez, Bill Nelson, Ben Nelson, Pryor, Rockefeller, Salazar, Schumer and Stabenow
- Obama voted NAY, along with 26 other Democrats, Burr, Chafee, Coburn and Voinovich
- Bingaman, Domenici and Thomas did not vote
2. Motion to invoke cloture on the Sununu amendments to the Patriot Act.
Senator Feingold:
Everybody in this body wants to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act. Many of the expiring provisions are entirely noncontroversial. But we also need to fix the provisions that went too far, that do not contain the checks and balances necessary to protect our rights and freedoms. This reauthorization process is our chance to get it right, and moving forward with this bill takes us one step closer to wasting that chance.
Back in December, 46 Senators voted against cloture on the PATRIOT Act conference report. I think it is clear by now that the deal makes only minor changes to that conference report, which remains as flawed today as it was 2 months ago. The Senator from Pennsylvania, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the primary proponent of the conference report in this body, was quoted as saying that the changes that the White House agreed to were ``cosmetic.'' And then he said, according to the AP:
But sometimes cosmetics will make a beauty out of a beast and provide enough cover for Senators to change their vote.
Feingold wanted to offer amendments to the bill, but the GOP used a parliamentary tactic known as "filling the amendment tree" to prevent him from doing so (Robert Byrd is described in Bob Woodward's The Agenda as having done the same thing for the Clinton stimulus bill in 1993; in that case, the Republicans blocked cloture and killed the bill). Some of the votes against cloture were in protest of this maneuver.
On the Motion to invoke cloture on the Sununu bill to amend the Patriot Act,
- Clinton voted YEA, along with every Republican as well as Biden, Carper, Conrad, Feinstein, Johnson, Kohl, Lnadrieu, Lincoln, Bill Nelson, Ben Nelson, Pryor, Rockefeller and Schumer
- Obama voted NAY along with 29 other Democrats
- Inouye did not vote.
3. Frist amendment to establish the enactment date of the act.
There was no debate on this amendment. It seems the primary purpose of this amendment was to act to "fill the amendment tree" and thus prevent Senator Feingold from offering his amendments to the Patriot Act.
On adoption of the Frist amendment
- Clinton voted YEA, along with every Republican and 25 other Democrats.
- Obama voted NAY, along with Akaka, Bingaman, Byrd, Cantwell, Dodd, Durbin, Feingold, Harkin, Jeffords, Levin, Lieberman, Menendez, Murray, OBama, Reed, Reid, Rockefeller and Wyden
- Inouye did not vote.
4. Santorum amendment "To increase funding for the Community Develeopment Block Grant Program."
This was the Republican "alternative" amendment on the subject of Community Development Block Grants (mostly unrestricted grants to communities). The difference between the Republican version and the
Democratic version was primarily that the Democratic version introduced by Senator Murray and rejected on a 100% party-line vote) would offset the cost by closing tax loopholes.
On adoption of the Santorum amendment:
- Clinton voted YEA, along with 50 Republicans, Byrd, Johnson, Landrieu, Lieberman, Lincoln, Bill Nelson, Ben Nelson, Pryor and Rockefeller
- Obama voted NAY along with 33 Democrats, Coburn, Ensign, Inhofe and Lott
- Dayton and Coleman did not vote
5. Collins amendment "to establish the Senate Office of Public Integrity."
Senator Obama co-sponsored this amendment, and had the following to say on the subject:
Last month I introduced legislation to create an outside congressional ethics enforcement commission that would be staffed by former judges and former Members of Congress from both parties. Under my proposal, any citizen could report a possible ethics violation by lawmakers, staff, or lobbyists. My commission would have had the authority to conduct investigations, issue subpoenas, gather records, call witnesses, and provide its full public report to the Department of Justice or the House-Senate ethics committees.
I knew this proposal would not be the most popular one that I introduced in Congress, but I didn't anticipate the deafening silence that greeted it. Change is difficult and Members of Congress are understandably concerned about delegating investigations of their own conduct to an outside body, but I hope, when my colleagues learn a little more about the amendment I am offering with Senators COLLINS, LIEBERMAN, and MCCAIN, that they will understand an independent ethics factfinding body is not only a good idea but a necessary idea.
Earlier this year, I was asked by the Minority Leader to take a lead role in crafting ethics legislation. I was glad to assume that role because I believe that the foundation of our democracy is the credibility that the American people have in the legitimacy of their Government. Unfortunately, over the past few years, that legitimacy has been questioned because of the scandals we have here in Washington.
But one of the greatest travesties of these scandals is not what Congress did, but what it didn't do.
Time and time again over the past few years, the House Ethics Committee has looked the other way in the face of seemingly obvious wrongdoing, which has the effect of encouraging more wrongdoing. In those few instances when the committee has taken action, its leadership was punished, and it ceased to become an effective body. Coupled with a Federal Election Commission that was deliberately structured to produce deadlock, this has produced a dangerous outcome
...
And so, 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.
That's why I come to the floor today to support this amendment for an Office of Public Integrity. The office is the next critical step in the evolution of ethics enforcement in the Senate and vital to restoring the American people's faith in Congress.
This amendment doesn't have quite the same level of independence as the outside commission that I proposed setting up. But it does have much more independence than the current system, and for that reason I wholeheartedly endorse it and am proud to be a cosponsor.
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. Final authority to act on these findings would remain with the members of the Ethics Committees, which would satisfy constitutional concerns.
On adoption of the Collins amendment,
- Obama voted YEA, along with 21 other Democrats, 4 Republicans up for re-election (Burns, Chafee, Snowe, Talent), Collins, McCain, Grassley and Vitter
- Clinton voted NAY, along with 20 other Democrats and 46 Republicans.
- Byrd, Graham and Rockefeller did not vote
6.Motion to invoke cloture on 527 reform act: (see below for an explanation of the Act)
- Clinton voted YEA along with 80 other members of Congress
- Obama voted NAY, along with Bunning, Coburn, Dayton, Ensign, Feingold, Kerry, Kohl, Kyl, Lieberman, McCain, Santorum, Sessions, Snowe, Sununu and Vitter.
- Byrd, Graham and Rockefeller did not vote.
7.
The 527 Reform Act was the lobbying and ethics "reform" bill the Republicans had brought forward in a desperate last-minute attempt to convince the American people that the Jack Abramoff, MZM and myriad other Republican scandals were not a reflection of the values of the Republican party. There was nothing bad in this bill. However, there wasn't close to enough good in the bills either, which was the problem Feingold, Kerry and Obama had with it (The Feingold-Obama ethics reform this year fixed many of the problems noted below by Feingold and Kerry)
Senator Feingold:
Mr. President, when Jack Abramoff pled guilty in January, it was clear that the Senate would have to address lobbying and ethics reform this year. For a short time, it seemed like significant reforms had become possible. While this bill contains many positive provisions, it falls too far short of what I hoped could be achieved for me to support it. So I will vote no.
Ethics reform is not something that happens around here every year. Unfortunately, it takes a perfect storm to get Congress to address these difficult issues. We had that perfect storm this year with the Jack Abramoff scandal, which exposed the seamy side of relations between lobbyists and Members of Congress. We had a chance to take decisive action and really change the way things work in Washington. Unfortunately, we have missed that chance.
We had the chance to give the American people what they want and deserve--a strong brew of tough lobbying and ethics reforms. Instead, all we gave them is weak tea.
The lobbying and ethics reform bill before us today includes a number of significant provisions, such as improvements in lobbying disclosure. But the Senate missed a once-in-a-decade opportunity to address the most serious ethical problems plaguing Congress. It left open a major loophole in the lobbyist gift ban, it retreated from earlier promises to get rid of privately funded travel, it allowed Members to continue getting around revolving door restrictions by simply avoiding direct conversations with their former colleagues while accepting millions of dollars to run a lobbying office, and it refused to even vote on a proposal to make Senators pay the charter rate if they want to fly on corporate jets. Perhaps most important, the Senate rejected a thoughtful proposal to establish an independent ethics enforcement office.
Senator Kerry:
A few weeks ago, former Representative ``Duke'' Cunningham received the longest prison sentence ever imposed on a former Member of Congress. His crime? Collecting $2.4 million in homes, yachts, antique furnishings, and other bribes--including a Rolls-Royce--from defense contractors. This disgraceful conduct--beyond comprehension for me and most of my colleagues--earned him 8 years and 4 months in a Federal prison and orders to pay the Government $1.8 million in penalties and $1.85 million in ill-gotten gains.
What is almost as shocking as Duke Cunningham's bribes is that under today's rules, the American taxpayer is still paying for his congressional pension--a pension worth approximately $40,000 per year. Under today's rules, Duke Cunningham will collect his pension--paid for by the American taxpayers--while he sits in jail for violating the law and ethics as a Congressman. That is simply unacceptable. And it has got to change.
...
There are other important issues that the lobbying reform bill fails to address. For example, although the bill bans gifts and meals from lobbyists, it does not apply to the organizations that employ the lobbyists. Nor does it apply to lobbyists paying for parties to ``honor'' or ``recognize'' Members. And although the bill increases the amount of time that Members and senior executive branch officials are prohibited from making lobbying contacts and conducting lobbying activities from 1 to 2 years, it does include organizing and directing a lobbying campaign in the prohibited activities. Thus, a former Member or senior executive branch official cannot make contact directly, but they can direct partners or employees in a lobbying strategy. The bill does not include any restrictions on lobbyists soliciting and organizing fundraisers or serving as treasurers on officeholder committees, nor does it prohibit special interest groups from paying for and organizing congressional travel junkets.
These are serious problems with this lobbying reform legislation. It simply does not go far enough to have a real impact on the way business is done in Washington.
On Passage of the 527 Reform Act:
- Clinton voted YEA along with 89 other Senators
- Obama voted NAY along with Coburn, DeMint, Feingold, Graham, Inhofe, Kerry and McCain
8. Motion to table Coburn amendment "Div I"
These Coburn amendments were to cut earmark funding from an emergency spending bill (see the roll calls for the specific votes because pork is by its very nature a bipartisan issue).
The Division I amendment was
`Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in title II, chapter 9 of this Act, for the Federal Railroad Administration under the heading ``Capital Grants for Rail Line Relocation Projects'' may be available for the Rail Line Relocation Capital Grant program, and the amount made available under such heading is reduced by $700,000,000.
On tabling Coburn amendment "Div I":
- Clinton voted YEA
- Obama voted NAY
9. Motion to table Coburn amendment "Div II"
Text of the amendment:
None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in title II, chapter 2 of this Act, for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration under the heading ``Operations, Research, and Facilities'' may be available for the National Marine Fisheries Service to implement seafood promotion strategies, and the amount made available under such heading is reduced by $15,000,000.
- Clinton voted YEA
- Obama voted NAY
10. Coburn amendment "Div IV"
This amendment would strike this part of the bill:
Amounts appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act, or by chapter 2 of title I of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico and Pandemic Influenza, 2006 (division B of Public Law 109-148; 119 Stat. 2757), under the heading `Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy' may be obligated and expended to pay the costs of any business disruption incurred by a ship construction contractor with respect to facilities or businesses located in the Hurricane Katrina Disaster Area by reason of Hurricane Katrina.
- Clinton voted YEA
- Obama voted NAY
11. Sessions amendment "to increase the amount of fencing and improve vehicle barriers installed along the southwest border of the United States."
Senator Durbin:
Madam President, I am not opposed to fences and vehicle barriers. They are included in the bill. It is our understanding there are some places where fencing can be effective to stop illegal immigration into America. But what we have here has become a symbol for the rightwing in American politics: the symbol of a fence, a fence between America and Mexico.
...
The obvious question we have to ask ourselves--I think two questions--No. 1, will it work?
...
What fence is it that we will build that cannot be tunneled under, that you cannot go over or around? Is this really going to be an effective deterrent?
...
The second thing is the image it creates of a country, that our relationship with Mexico would come down to a barrier between our two countries. I believe we should have a more positive outlook toward where we are going to be. Working with the Mexican Government, working with them toward the goal of stopping illegal immigration, is far better than the confrontation of a fence or a wall.
On adoption of the Sessions amendment
- Clinton voted YEA, along with 82 other Senators
- Obama voted NAY, along with Akaka, Bingaman, Cantwell, Dodd, Durbin, Feingold, Inouye, Jeffords, Kennedy, Lautenberg, Lieberman, Menendez, Murray, Reed and Sarbanes.
- Rockefeller did not vote.
12. Cornyn amendment "To modify the conditions under which an H-2C nonimmigrant may apply for an employment-based immigrant visa."
Senator Kennedy:
Mr. President, Senator Clinton has a very sensible and responsible amendment. The way the funds are allocated, there will be approximately more than $1 billion that would be available under her amendment that will be allocated to these needs which she has outlined. It seems to me that is the way to go.
On the other side, Senator Cornyn is going to raise, for these workers, immigrant workers who are working hard, playing by the rules--he is just going to jack up the amounts they are going to have to pay by another $750.
The sky is the limit. Why not $2,000, $3,000, $4,000? I mean, the fact is, they are already going to be paying the $2,000. This is going to add at least $750; $100 per child additional. So you are giving additional kinds of burdens on the worker, those who are in line to become citizens. I think the Clinton proposal is far superior and more fair.
Oddly enough, on adoption of the Cornyn amendment,
- Clinton voted YEA, along with 45 Republicans, Baucus, Biden, Boxer, Byrd, Cantwell, Carper, Conrad, Feinstein, Kerry, Lieberman, Lincoln, Murray, Bill Nelson, Ben Nelson, Pryor, Schumer, Stabenow and Wyden.
- Obama voted NAY, along with 23 other Democrats, Chafee, DeWine, Graham, Gregg, Hagel, McCain, Specter and Stevens.
- Bunning, Dorgan, Martinez and Rockefeller did not vote.
13. Motion to table the Leahy amendment:
Senator Leahy:
Mr. President, I hope Senators will support this amendment. It has strong bipartisan support. It speaks to the moral goodness of our Nation. It ensures that the waiver in current law is available to asylum seekers who were forced to join terrorist groups or to provide material support against their will.
Completely innocent victims of ethnic and other forms of violence and repression are being denied asylum for engaging in the very activity they were forced to engage in, even though they pose no threat to U.S. security--child soldiers, sex slaves of people who were among the worst violators of human rights. Those victims are being excluded by our great, good Nation.
On the Motion to table Leahy amendment,
- Clinton voted YEA along with 78 other Senators
- Obama voted NAY along with Akaka, Bingaman, Chafee, Coleman, Feingold, Harkin, Inouye, Jeffords, Kennedy, Kerry, Leahy, Levin, Lieberman, Reed, Reid, Salazar, Sarbanes and Sununu.
14. Motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals
Senator Leahy on Brett Kavanaugh
I had hoped, as we discussed in open session last Thursday, the Committee would hear from ABA representatives today on why they took the unusual step of lowering Mr. Kavanaugh’s initial ABA rating after two years. The White House had put out the word, falsely, that this was merely the result of a change in the membership of the ABA evaluation committee. We now know that was not correct. In fact, three-quarters of those who continue on the Committee -- who voted previously on this nomination -- downgraded the nomination based on the recent interviews and review. One judge who presided over a case involving Mr. Kavanaugh said his argument was "less than adequate" and described him as "sanctimonious" and as someone who demonstrated "experience on the level of an associate." Others interviewed by the ABA raised concerns about Mr. Kavanaugh’s ability to be balanced and fair given his many years in partisan positions working to advance a political agenda. Mr. Kavanaugh was described by interviewees as "insulated" and "immovable and very stubborn and frustrating to deal with on some issues." These are not qualities that make for a good judge.
On the motion to invoke cloture on nomination of Brett Kavanaugh
- Obama voted YEA along with every Republican, Biden, Byrd, Carper, Feinstein, Kohl, Landrieu, Lieberman, Lincoln, Bill Nelson, Ben Nelson and Pryor.
- Clinton voted NAY along with 29 other Democrats.
- Conrad, Rockefeller and Salazar did not vote.
15. Cloture on the nomination of Dirk Kempthorne, former Senator and Governor of Idaho, to be Secretary of the Interior.
Although Senator Lautenberg voted for cloture, he had the following to say about Kempthorne:
The League of Conservation Voters has given Governor Kempthorne a lifetime score of 1 percent, meaning he voted against the environment as judged by LCV 99 percent of the time. That does not give me great confidence on how he will address issues of preserving wilderness, protecting wildlife, or defending our coastal waters. Of course, these are areas where the administration has already compiled a poor record.
I am also concerned about whether Governor Kempthorne will continue the pattern of pressuring scientists to alter their views to suit ill-advised Bush administration policies.
Last year, we learned that an administration official named Philip Cooney--an oil lobbyist before and after his White House stint--had altered scientific documents to change their conclusions about global warming. This year, we have seen numerous reports of Bush administration political appointees trying to intimidate and muzzle climate scientists at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
On the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Dirk Kempthorne
- Obama voted YEA along with 84 other Senators
- Clinton voted NAY along with Biden, Dayton, Harkin, Kerry, Mikulski, Bill Nelson and Schumer
- Boxer, Salazar (both of whom announced YEA), Conrad, Dole, Inouye, Rockefeller and Thune did not vote.
16. Collins amendment "to establish the U.S. Emergency Management Authority."
Senator Jeffords on the Collins amendment:
Rather than correct the mistake, extract FEMA from DHS, and restore it to its former state as an independent agency reporting directly to the President, the Collins amendment makes an effort to change the way FEMA operates within the Department. I support Senator Clinton's second-degree amendment to restore FEMA to an independent, Cabinet-level agency, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
...
On September 11, the Nation was struck by a terrorist attack. The effectiveness of FEMA helped reduce the impact of those events.
In what I believe is an example of extremely poor judgment that failed to take into account FEMA's role in responding to natural disasters, FEMA was moved into the Department of Homeland Security.
FEMA has shown itself to be ineffective, in my opinion, largely due to the bureaucracy of the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA's lack of independence. At the time of the creation of DHS, I said:
I cannot understand why, after years of frustration and failure, we would jeopardize the Federal government's effective response to natural disasters by dissolving FEMA into this monolithic Homeland Security Department. I fear that FEMA will no longer be able to adequately respond to hurricanes, fires, floods, and earthquakes, begging the question, who will? (November 20, 2002)
Today, unfortunately, we know the answer--no one.
On adoption of the Collins amendment:
- Obama voted YEA, along with 86 other Senators
- Clinton voted NAY, along with Akaka, Boxer, Bunning, Inhofe, Jeffords, Kerry, Lautenberg, Leahy, Pryor and Schumer
- Ensign and Santorum did not vote.
17. Vitter amendment "To prohibit the confiscation of a firearm during an emergency or major disaster if the possession of such firearm is not prohibited under Federal or State law."
This amendment was probably overly broad, but one can argue that allowing such confiscation violates our rights/creates a police state as well:
Mr. KENNEDY. Let me ask, if we had a 9/11-type situation and you had Wal-Mart that was closed down, with broken windows, and they have a series of guns in the back, and K-Mart and pawn shops were broken down, does the purpose of this for first responders say they have to leave those guns on the shelves so that looters can arm themselves and terrorize a community? Would that be the result, in your reading of this?
Mr. DURBIN. It is so broad that that is exactly what would happen. All of the commonsense explanations you have heard notwithstanding, that is not what the amendment says.
Mr. KENNEDY. Let me ask further, did not the Senator from Idaho--I know the Senator from New Jersey and myself have indicated that if they wanted to go ahead and have some way that individuals could demonstrate they had a legitimate ownership of that gun, they would be immune from this amendment. That was rejected, as I understand it.
Mr. DURBIN. I say to the Senator that if the Senator from Idaho and the Senator from Louisiana want to put together an amendment that allows me to protect my home, as you have described, with my legally owned firearm, I have no objection to that. There are circumstances here that we could write into it, but as it is written, this prohibits the seizure of a firearm based on the existence of a declaration of a state of emergency. That covers it all. If they are firing on National Guardsmen and they say we are going to have a gun-free area around where the Guardsmen are living, you could not seize the guns. You could not take them away, according to the Vitter amendment.
On adoption of the Vitter amendment:
- Obama voted YEA along with 83 other Senators
- Clinton voted NAY along with Akaka, Boxer, Dodd, Durbin, Feinstein, Harkin, Inouye, Kennedy, Lautenberg, Levin, Menendez, Mikulski, Reed, Sarbanes and Schumer.
18. Specter amendment "To modify a provision relating to Federal hopper dredges."
This amendment would've deleted a provision that would've decommissioned the McFarland, a federal hopper dredge
Jeffords on the issue:
The Corps of Engineers maintains a fleet of four hopper dredges, and according to the GAO the Corps needs to maintain its own fleet, even when there are commercial dredges available.
One reason the Corps needs to maintain a hopper dredge fleet is that changes in annual weather patterns and severe weather events, such as hurricanes and floods, can create a wide disparity in the demand for hopper dredges from year to year.
The McFarland is the only hopper dredge on the East coast. If it were retired, it is not certain that the needs of the East coast during an emergency could be met by the private sector.
On adoption of the Specter amendment,
- Clinton voted YEA along with 48 other Democrats, as well as every Republican from an east-coast/gulf-coast state except Allen, Burr, DeMint, Gregg, Sununu and Cornyn, as well as Domenici and both Republicans from AK, PA and UT
- Obama voted NAY along with 31 Republicans, Bayh, Conrad, Dorgan and Durbin
19. Motion to invoke cloture on the Gulf of Mexico Security Act
The League of Conservation voter rated both the vote on cloture and the vote on passage of the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act and had the following to say:
Like most of America’s coasts, Florida’s Gulf of Mexico coastline has been protected by the 25-year bipartisan congressional moratorium on new offshore oil and gas drilling. In 1991, President George H. W. Bush instituted a separate set of protections on new coastal drilling near the FloridaKeys, which President Bill Clinton extended through 2012 for most of Florida’s Gulf Coast. S. 3711, the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act, ended protections for Florida’s Gulf Coastand opened up 8 million acres off the coasts of Florida, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana for oil and gas drilling. And, for the first time ever, 37 percent of the revenue from drilling would go to Gulf Coast states rather than the federal treasury — a precedent that could encourage more states to support drilling off their coasts and cost federal taxpayers billions.
Although many senators have introduced bills that would truly address our nation’s energy problems, such as raising fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks, Senate leaders ignored clean-energy solutions and brought S. 3711 up for a vote on the Senate floor. Opponents of the bill mounted a filibuster and urged that the Senate consider faster, cheaper, and cleaner energy proposals, but on July 31, 2006, the Senate voted 72-23 to end debate on the bill (Senate roll call vote 218). NO is the pro-environment vote. The next day, the Senate approved the bill by a 71-25 vote (Senate roll call vote 219). NO is the pro-environment vote.
On the motion to invoke cloture on the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act:
- Clinton voted YEA along with 19 other Democrats and 52 Republicans
- Obama voted NAY along with 21 other Democrats and Olympia Snowe
- Bunning, Kerry, Lautenberg, Lieberman and McCain did not vote.
20. On passage of the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act
- Clinton voted YEA along with 17 other Democrats and 53 Republicans.
- Obama voted NAY along with 23 other Democrats and Olympia Snowe
- Baucus, Bunning, Kerry and Lieberman did not vote
21. Feinstein amendment "to protect civilian lives from unexploded cluster munitions."
Feinstein on her amendment:
I believe we need to take a look at our policies and adjust them. Specifically, our amendment would prevent any funds from being spent to purchase, use, or transfer cluster munitions until the rules of engagement have been adopted by the Department of Defense to ensure that such munitions will not be used in or near any concentration of civilians, be it permanent or temporary, such as inhabited parts of cities or villages or in camps or columns of refugees or evacuees.
Every year, hundreds of civilians are killed and many more are injured due to unexploded cluster bombs. From the fields of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, through the streets of Kosovo and Iraq, to the arid hills of Afghanistan and the playgrounds of Lebanon, these lethal relics of war continue to cripple life, hope, and peace.
Cluster munitions are large bombs, rockets, or artillery shells that contain up to hundreds of small submunitions or individual bomblets. They are intended for attacking enemy troop formations and armor, covering approximately a .6-mile radius. In other words, their swath is over one-half mile. Yet in practice they pose a real threat to the safety of civilians when used in populated areas because they leave hundreds of unexploded bombs over a very large area and they are often inaccurate. They end up in streets and cities where men and women go to work and do their shopping. They end up in groves of trees and fields where children play. They end up in homes where families live. And in some cases, up to 40 percent of cluster bombs fail to explode, posing a particular danger to civilians long after the conflict has ended.
This is particularly and sadly true of children because bomblets are no bigger than a D battery and in some cases resemble a tennis ball. Children outside with their friends and relatives come across these cluster bombs. They pick them up out of curiosity because they look like balls and they start playing with them and a terrible result follows.
On adoption of the Feinstein amendment:
- Obama voted YEA along with 29 other Democrats
- Clinton voted NAY along with every Republican, Bayh, Biden, Dodd, Inouye, Landrieu, Lautenberg, Lieberman, Lincoln, Bill Nelson, Ben Nelson, Pryor, Rockefeller, Salazar and Schumer
22. Bingaman amendment to limit the waiver authority of the president"
Senator Bingaman:
The purpose of the amendment is not to kill the bill or the agreement with India but, as I see it, to strengthen that agreement. It would allow nuclear trade with India to proceed but in a way that will be consistent with our nuclear nonproliferation goals and our security interests.
It imposes no unreasonable or unrealistic conditions on nuclear trade with India. It simply requires the President to determine that India has followed through on its stated agreement to work toward a fissile material cutoff treaty.
On adoption of the Bingaman amendment
- Obama voted YEA along with 25 other Democrats
- Clinton voted NAY along with every Republican voting as well as Bayh, Biden, Carper, Inouye, Kerry, Kohl, Landrieu, Levin, Lieberman, Murray, Bill Nelson, Ben Nelson, Reid, Rockefeller, Sarbanes, Schumer, Stabenow and Wyden