This diary details every vote cast where Hillary Clinton and John Edwards voted differently during 2001 (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 (Zell Miller, Joe Lieberman, and after he switched, Jim Jeffords are all 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.
Clarification: I have not yet had time to cover 2002, 2003, and 2004 (or 2005 or 2006), plus this is rather long as it is, so I thought it made more sense to do it in sections.
- Wellstone's amendment to the 2001 Bankruptcy Act to, in Senator Wellstone's words, "make sure we offer a fresh start for those people put under by medical bills who honestly cannot pay back." Senator Clinton voted YEA along with 33 other Democrats, Senator Edwards voted NAY along with Biden, Bingaman, Breaux, Byrd, Carnahan, Carper, Cleland, Conrad, Feinstein, Johnson, Kohl, Miller, Ben Nelson, Reid, Torricelli and every Republican.
- Motion to invoke cloture on the Bankruptcy Act of 2001.
Paul Wellstone had this to say about the act (he was the leading Senate crusader against the attempts to pass Bankruptcy Acts of 2001 and before; I'll be quoting him a lot).
First of all, I think this piece of legislation is--I know it sounds strong. I hate to say it because I like my colleague from Utah so much. It has nothing to do with a dislike or a like. It has to do with policy issue. I think it will have a very harsh effect on a whole lot of people and a whole lot of families who are not able to file chapter 7, for whom the bankruptcy law has been a major safety net--not just low-income families but middle-income families as well.
Senator Edwards voted YEA, along with every Republican, Akaka, Baucus, Bayh, Biden, Bingaman, Breaux, Byrd, Cantwell, Carnahan, Carper, Cleland, Conrad, Daschle, Dorgan, Feinstein, Graham, Hollings, Inouye, JOhnson, Kohl, Lieberman, Lincoln, Mikulski, Miller, Ben Nelson, Harry Reid, Rockefeller, Stabenow, and Torricelli. Senator Clinton voted NAY, along with Boxer, Corzine, Dayton, Dodd, Durbin, Feingold, Harkin, Kennedy, Kerry, Landrieu, Leahy, Levin, Bill Nelson, Reed, Sarbanes, Schumer, Wellstone and Wyden.
- Paul Wellstone amendment "To change the relevant time period in determining current monthly income."
Wellstone again:
Mr. President, amendment No. 70 would fix the means test so it only looks at present and future income, not an average of the past 6 months. This is a really important amendment and I am interested in a vote. The means test in the bill determines a debtor's ability to pay a certain threshold amount of debt by averaging the debtor's last 6 months of income. This may be a very poor snapshot of a debtor's circumstances, especially if the debtor's income has gone down shortly before the filing due to a job loss or disability. This will have the effect of inappropriately forcing some debtors into chapter 13 repayment plans which they will never be able to complete.
This means test is unfair. It does not really look at the debtor's current income in determining ability to repay debt. It is abusive to workers who file shortly after losing well-paying jobs, particularly given the current weakness in the manufacturing sector of our economy.
Senator Clinton voted YEA, along with Akaka, Boxer, Carnahan, Corzine, Dayton, Dodd, Durbin, Feingold, Feinstein Harkin, Inouye, Kennedy, Kerry, Leavhy, Levin, Murray, Bill Nelson, Rockefeller, Sarbanes and Wellstone. Senator Edwards and every other Senator voted NAY.
- Gordon Smith's amendment to prohibit certain campaign contributions while Congress is in session.
Here's what Senator Feingold had to say about this amendment:
Mr. President, it is not pleasant to oppose this amendment. T
...
I have to agree with the distinguished Senator from Tennessee. This does raise some real questions because it doesn't apply to State legislatures. It applies to this Congress. It may make sense for State legislatures that convene for a few months every year, but it doesn't make sense for this Congress. In the year 2000, this Congress went into session in January and, as we painfully remember, did not adjourn until December. There was even a possibility that we were going to go up to New Year's Eve. So it is not realistic to have this kind of limitation that we have in States such as Wisconsin and Oregon at the Federal level.
...
As has been said by other speakers, this amendment is overly broad in its attempt to prohibit congressional candidates from accepting contributions while the Congress is in session from all the following individuals or entities. It is not just registered lobbyists, as some thought when the amendment was first described. It is much more than that. It is registered lobbyists that are affected, PACs, senior executives, officers, or owners of any organization that employed or retained a registered lobbyist during a calendar year preceding the contribution.
I am afraid this amendment also gives a huge advantage to wealthy incumbents or any incumbents who have a substantial war chest. Under the Smith amendment, while challengers are unable to raise funds from those listed above throughout this very extensive time period in a year, the incumbents who have a lot of resources would be able to rely on their existing war chests or personal wealth. That concerns me as well.
Finally, as the Senator from Tennessee has focused on, there is a serious question of the constitutionality of this amendment. This is one of the reasons I asked the Senator from Oregon at the beginning about whether this affected PACs. He conceded that banning PAC contributions does raise constitutional questions. It calls into question the whole bill.
On the motion to table, Senator Edwards voted NAY, along with Senator Wyden and the following Republicans: Brownback, Bunning, Burns, Campbell, Collins, Domenici, Ensign, Gregg, Helms, Hutchinson, Hutchison, Inhofe, Lugar, McConnell, Murkowski, Santorum, Sessions, Bob Smith, Gordon Smith, Snowe, Stevens, Thurmond, Warner. Senator Clinton voted YEA. (As a clarification, a court case in North Carolina was referenced a lot in the floor debate, and that may be Edwards' reason for voting against tabling).
- Senator Fritz Hollings' amendment to the Constitution, having the primary affect of overturning Buckley v. Valeo.
`SECTION 1. Congress shall have power to set reasonable limits on the amount of contributions that may be accepted by, and the amount of expenditures that may be made by, in support of, or in opposition to, a candidate for nomination for election to, or for election to, Federal office.
`SECTION 2. A State shall have power to set reasonable limits on the amount of contributions that may be accepted by, and the amount of expenditures that may be made by, in support of, or in opposition to, a candidate for nomination for election to, or for election to, State or local office.
`SECTION 3. Congress shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation.'.
Senator Clinton voted YEA, along with a majority of Democrats, Thad Cochran, John McCain, Arlen Specter and Ted Stevens. Senator Edwards voted NAY, along with every other Republican, Dan Akaka, Jon Corzine, Russ Feingold, Tim Johnson, Ted Kennedy, Herb Kohl, Pat Leahy, Bill Nelson, Ben Nelson, Bob Torricelli, and Paul Wellstone.
- Senator Paul Wellstone's amendment regarding eliminating the 527 group loophole for TV ads (this is amazing foresight considering it came 3 years before the Swift Boaters and such)
It has to do with the treatment of sham ads. The purpose of this amendment is simple: It is to ensure that the sham issue ads run by interest groups fall under the same rules and prohibition that the McCain-Feingold legislation rightly imposes on corporations and union shame ads.
I make this appeal to my colleagues: This was in the Shays-Meehan bill. This was in the original McCain-Feingold bill. I know people have had to negotiate and make different political compromises, but from the point of view of policy, what good will it do if we have a prohibition of raising soft money on political parties and a prohibition when it comes to unions and corporations, but then other interest groups and organizations will be able to, using soft money, put ads on television? The money will just shift.
My argument is twofold: No. 1, I do not think it is fair to labor and corporations to say there is a prohibition on raising soft money for these sham issue ads and then not applying that standard to every other kind of group or organization, whether they are left, right, or center.
No. 2, I think we are going to have a proliferation of new stealth groups and organizations, all operating within this loophole, so that soft money will shift from the parties to these sham ads.
There is this huge loophole and all those ads will go into the TV ads.
I say to my colleagues, I would rather point my finger at an opponent or another political party and say, look, your ads are not fair. I might say they are scummy or poisonous. Instead, we will have a proliferation of these stealth sham ads. This is a huge loophole in this bill.
In the original McCain-Feingold, the same rules and prohibitions that apply to corporations and unions apply to all the other interest groups. That is the way it should be. It is not fair to corporations and unions. We know it is a loophole. We know we will be back in a couple years dealing with this problem, and there will be plenty of lawyers who will figure out how to create the organizations and put the money into the sham issue ads.
Senator Clinton voted YEA, Senator Edwards voted NAY (party line was not held on this vote).
Senator Edwards had the folowing to say on this amendment.
I agree with Senator Wellstone, that what he is trying to do makes a great deal of sense in terms of basic equity and fairness. The problem is that 501(c)(4) corporations, at which his amendment is aimed, have not been treated the same by the U.S. Supreme Court as unions and for-profit corporations.
Snowe-Jeffords is very carefully crafted to meet the constitutional test of Buckley v. Valeo. Basically, it meets the two fundamental requirements of Buckley:
First, that there can be a compelling State interest. The Buckley Court found that exactly what is being done with Snowe-Jeffords constituted a compelling State interest.
Second, it be narrowly tailored. Snowe-Jeffords is limited to the 60 days before the election. It is narrowly tailored, limited to broadcast advertising.
It also requires the likeness or name of the candidate to be used.
What has been done with Snowe-Jeffords is a very careful effort to make sure the constitutional requirements of Buckley v. Valeo have been met. In fact, they have been met. It is not vague; it establishes a very clear bright-line test so we don't have a vagueness constitutional problem. We also don't have a problem of substantial overbreadth because all of the empirical evidence shows 99 percent of ads that meet the test are, in fact, election campaign ads and constitute electioneering.
Snowe-Jeffords has been very carefully crafted. It is narrow. It specifically meets the requirements of Buckley v. Valeo, the constitutional requirement.
The problem with what Senator Wellstone is attempting to do is there is a U.S. Supreme Court case, the FEC v. The Massachusetts Citizens for Life, that is directly on point, saying that these 501(c)(4)s have a limited constitutional right to engage in electioneering to do campaign ads. There are some limits, but unfortunately if you lump them in with unions and for-profit corporations, you create a very serious constitutional problem because the U.S. Supreme Court has already specifically addressed that issue.
So the reason Senator Feingold and Senator McCain are opposing this amendment is the same reason that I oppose this amendment: It raises very serious constitutional problems. The U.S. Supreme Court, in fact, in 1984 specifically ruled on this question.
What we urge the Members of the Senate to do is not support this amendment, to vote for tabling. Those people who are in favor of real and meaningful campaign finance reform we hope will support Snowe-Jeffords, support McCain-Feingold, and vote to table the Wellstone amendment.
Note: Having done further research, John Edwards was incorrect about the Wellstone amendment being unconstitutional
The law does however, provide an exception for nonprofit corporations, so that they may fund electioneering communications from their general treasuries. The Court upheld both the Snowe-Jeffords Provision and the Wellstone Amendment, ensuring that only nonprofit corporations fulfilling certain requirements (MCFL requirements]) would be permitted to freely sponsor those advertisements. These organizations are still subject to certain disclosure requirements and are prohibited from receiving funds from corporations or labor unions.
- Senator Kerry's amendment regarding public financing of Senate campaigns via matching funds up to $200 (to encourage small donors like most of us by doubling our contribution power) if a Senator agreed to spend no more than 1 million dollars plus an additonal 50 cents for every voter in the state (voluntary and therefore constitutional).
Senator Clinton voted YEA along with 29 other Democrats. Senator Edwards voted NAY.
- Senator Harkin's amendment to ensure fair elections by having 2:1 public financing if someone spends more than the specified limit (i.e for every $1 raised over the limit, the opponent would get $2) (see Harkin's remarks below).
The formula is very simple. It is $1 million plus 50 cents times the number of voting-age residents in the State. Every Senator has on his or her desk the chart that shows how much you would be limited in your own State. With that limitation, there is a low of $1.2 million in Wyoming to $12 million in California. My own State of Iowa would be limited to $2.1 million for a Senate campaign. I say to the occupant of the Chair, in Virginia the limit would be $3.6 million. I don't know how much the Senator spent this last campaign, but I know for myself in Iowa, $2.1 million runs a good grassroots campaign as long as your opponent does not spend any more than that. I bet the same is true in Virginia at $3.7 million.
The amendment also says if you have a primary, you can spend 67 percent of your general election limits. If you have a runoff, you can spend 20 percent of the general election limit.
I'd like to stress that this is a voluntary limit. Why would anyone abide by the limit? You abide by the limit because the amendment says if one candidate goes over the voluntary limits by $10,000, then the other person who abided by the limits will begin to get a public financing of 2-1. For every $1 someone would go over the limit, you get $2.
Senator Clinton voted YEA along with 31 other Democrats, Senator Edwards voted NAY along with every Republican, Baucus, Breaux, Carnahan, Cleland, Feinstein, Johnson, Kerry, Kohl, Landrieu, Lincoln, Mikulski, Zell, Ben Nelson, Rockefeller, Schumer and Wyden.
- Senator Jeff Bingaman offered an amendment to curb attack ads.
Mr. President, turning to the amendment I have offered, it is a relatively simple amendment. It proposes to accomplish a central goal, and that is to provide candidates for Federal office who are confronted with sham negative issue ads the opportunity to respond to those ads.
The amendment states that if a broadcast station, whether it is a television station or radio station, permits any person or group to broadcast material opposing or attacking a legally qualified candidate for Federal office, then that station, within a reasonable period of time, must provide, at no charge to the candidate who has been attacked, an equal opportunity to respond to those attacks.
This requirement would apply in this same period that is discussed in the legislation pending before us in the so-called Snowe-Jeffords language; that is, 60 days prior to a general election, 30 days prior to a primary election. It is in those two periods of time that the requirements apply.
On the motion to table this amendment, Senator Edwards voted YEA along with 21 other Democrats and every Republican, Senator Clinton voted NAY.
- Senator Jack Reed's amendment to strengthen FEC enforcement
My amendment would specifically strengthen the Federal Election Commission, which is the organization that is charged with enforcing all the laws we have been discussing for the last 2 weeks. Observers have called the FEC ``beleaguered,'' a ``toothless watchdog,'' a ``dithering nanny,'' and a ``lapdog,'' indicating that the state of the FEC is rather moribund because they don't have the resources necessary or some of the tools necessary to do the job of effectively enforcing our campaign finance laws.
All of this effort over these several weeks and several years will amount to very little if we don't give the FEC the resources and tools to effectively enforce our campaign finance laws. If we are serious about reform, we need to be serious about giving the FEC these resources.
Senator Edwards voted YEA along with 40 Democrats (Joe Lieberman among them), Senator Clinton voted NAY, along with every Republican, Baucus, Boxer, Feinstein, Ben Nelson, and Bob Torricelli.
- The initial Senate vote on passage of the budget guidelines (the ones Bush wanted, with the tax cuts and things).
Senator Edwards voted YEA along with every Republican, Baucus, Bayh, Breaux, Carnahan, Carper, Cleland, Feinstein, Johnson, Kohl, Landrieu, Lincoln, Zell Miller, Ben Nelson, and Toricelli. Senator Clinton voted NAY.
Senator Edwards made the following remarks during the debate on this bill.
We are at a unique time in our country's history. We have an opportunity to do things that we haven't had the chance to do before. But in order to take advantage of this unique moment in our country's history, we must make the right decisions and make the right choices. I think we have to begin by being straight with the American people.
First, we need to be honest about the fact that none of us know what is going to happen 5, 6, or 7 years from now. For us to suggest otherwise is nonsense. The American people do not know what is going to happen, and we don't know what is going to happen. Any reputable economist in the country will say that there is no way to predict what is going to be happening 5 or 6 years from now in our economy.
Second, in being straight with the American people, we need to stop suggesting that we can have it all. There is a suggestion being made by some people in Washington that, in fact, we can have it all. We can have a huge tax cut. We can do everything we need to do for our public school system. We can give you prescription drugs. We can do everything we need to do to help our military men and women. We can have everything. Well, that is not the truth. That is not being straight with the American people. And I think the American people know this.
There are two basic principles around which I hope this
debate will revolve. First, we don't know what is going to occur 5 or 6 years from now; second, no American family can have everything and we as a nation can't have everything.
First, on the issue of what is going to happen 5 or 6 years from now, what we know from experience is that when budget surplus projections were made--actually, they were talking about the deficit at the time in the Reagan administration--the projections were off by hundreds of billions of dollars. When George Herbert Walker Bush was President of the United States, exactly the same thing occurred. The projections were off by hundreds of billions of dollars. The same occurred in the Clinton administration. Common sense would tell us that the current projections are just as speculative. The Secretary of the Treasury and Chairman Greenspan have all suggested exactly the same thing.
So what we know with certainty is that we cannot predict where we will be 5 or 6 years from today.
The President's tax cut is loaded to the last 5 years of their 10-year period. The bulk of the costs and the bulk of the benefits fall in that last 5 years. It is also during that last 5 years that most of the projected surplus falls.
We have two things occurring simultaneously. The bulk of the costs of the tax cut and the benefits occur at exactly the same time that the bulk of the surplus projection occurs, and also at the same time that those surplus projections are riskiest, when they are least reliable.
Does it make common sense for us to have a huge tax cut, the bulk of which coincides with the time when the surplus projections are at greatest risk for being wrong? We know these projections are going to be wrong. That is the one thing we don't have any doubt about. We just do not know how wrong. And we need to be straight with the American people about that.
So knowing these projections are going to be wrong, what is the sensible thing to do? The sensible thing to do is to have a more moderate tax cut that protects Social Security, that protects Medicare, and make sure the tax cut is fair to all the American people.
If 5 or 6 years from now--and we can't predict right now what is going to occur--the surpluses actually exist, and we have enacted a moderate tax cut, we have done everything we can to pay down the debt, and if we have protected Social Security and Medicare, we can do something else. We can do another tax cut.
In the alternative, or even in addition, we can also do something about what we know is coming in the next decade--the retirement of the baby boomers. No one is talking about that, but this is going to put a tremendous strain on the Social Security system. But we know it is coming.
One suggestion which has been made by the Concord Coalition is that we have mandatory IRAs; that we use some part of the surplus at that point to provide mandatory IRAs to the people around the country, which helps deal with the demographic shift that we know is coming in the next decade. This is something we can talk more about, but we need to start focusing on this before it is too late.
What I am suggesting is the common sense thing to do, knowing the unreliability of the surplus projections, knowing that we need to pay down our debt, knowing that we need to protect Social Security and Medicare, is to have a more moderate tax cut now and to pay down the debt to the extent we are able to pay it down.
No one in this body wants to saddle our kids with these huge interest payments that are being made now on our national debt. And we don't want to pass the debt itself on to our kids either. The best thing we can do for them is make sure we pay down this debt.
In addition to that, we don't want to make our kids take care of us because Social Security is insolvent. They shouldn't have to take care of us because we failed to protect Social Security.
We have an extraordinary opportunity to address these problems right now. The key is that we not squander it.
Second, I want to emphasize that we must be straight with the American people and not suggest to them that they can have everything. It is just not the truth.
We can have a tax cut, and we should have a tax cut. But we can't have a tax cut of the size the President is proposing and do all the other things that are being talked about--education, for example.
Having been to schools all over my State in North Carolina, I know how desperately we need to make a real effort to improve our education system in this country.
We have actually done some great things in North Carolina. Some of what the President is proposing is patterned after North Carolina--tough accountability, measurement, identification of the schools that are not performing, that are low performing, and making an intense effort to turn those schools around.
This is what we did in North Carolina when we went through that process and identified the schools that were low performing, in addition to having tough accountability, we sent real experts in to turn the schools around. In those schools that are in poor school districts that did not have the resources, we helped them; we gave them the resources they needed to turn the schools around.
We know that needs to be done. Unfortunately, under this budget resolution, that is probably impossible. We cannot expect to have effective education reform if we don't commit ourselves to do what is needed. We have to have a balanced, thoughtful approach to this issue.
Secondly, I want to mention our military men and women. We have military bases that are very important to us in North Carolina. I have been there. I have talked to our military men and women. These are people who are devoting their lives to protect us, to defend us. They have, in many cases, inadequate housing. Some of them are having to live on food stamps. This is an embarrassment to us as a nation.
We have to do something for our military men and women. The problem is, we can't do everything. We can't have a huge tax cut and still do what needs to be done in these other areas. But what we can do is have a more moderate tax cut that doesn't jeopardize our commitment to important national interests and that doesn't jeopardize Social Security and Medicare. And most importantly, we can pay down the debt, not saddle our kids with it.
What we ought to do is not spend money we do not have, to not spend money if we have no idea whether it will ever come into existence. Why is that not the responsible thing to do?
Mr. President, the key to this--in this debate, and in our discussion, our dialog with the American people--is that we tell them the truth. We do not know what is going to happen 5 or 6 years from now. In addition to that, we have to be responsible when we decide what to do about this budget resolution. They can't have everything. They know it. American families can't have everything they want, and they know as a nation that we can't have everything we want.
We also have to make absolutely sure that this tax cut we enact is fair; that it is fair to everybody; that the benefits are not directed at a particular part of our society. We need to make sure that everybody gets a benefit--including those people who work but only pay payroll taxes and don't pay income taxes; those people need to be included in any tax cut.
We need to make sure it is balanced so that middle-income
people all across this country get a substantial benefit, so that working families get a substantial benefit.
So the principles we should be guided by are: No. 1, having a moderate, fiscally responsible tax cut; No. 2, making sure Social Security and Medicare are protected; and, No. 3, making sure this tax cut is fair--fair to all Americans, not unfairly benefitting one part of our society.
In conclusion, we are at a remarkable moment in our country's history. We have a chance to have a real impact not only over the course of the next decade but over the course of the next century. But we can only do it if we make the right decisions, if we are careful and deliberate and thoughtful, and if we are straight with the American people. We can have a balanced, moderate tax cut, giving real tax relief to the American people. We can pay down our debt, which is the responsible thing to do. We can preserve and shore up Medicare and Social Security. And we can have a tax cut plan that is fair to all Americans. But in order to do that, we have to begin by telling the American people the truth. And the truth is, we don't know what is going to happen 5 or 6 years from now, and they can't have everything.
We as a nation have important decisions to make. We have important choices to make. Those choices are going to have consequences for our country, and for our children.
- Senator Tim Hutchinson(R-AR)'s amendment "To liberalize the tax-exempt financing rules for public school construction." (no Democrat explains what's in it, and I don't trust Republicans to provide explanations, so I'll have to leave the explanation at that).
Senator Edwards voted YEA, Senator Clinton voted NAY, along with Baucus, Byrd, Chafee, Conrad, Durbin, Feingold, Grassley, Hollings, Inouye, Jeffords, Johnson, Kyl, McCain, Mikulski, and Snowe.
- Senator Bob Graham's amendment to the Tax-cut bill which would decrease only the lower marginal rates, and leave the higher marginal rates in effect.
So we build upon a concept that is in the President's budget or the President's tax bill, and that is the addition of a 10-percent rate. But we alter the President's proposal in two critical regards. First, his 10-percent rate doesn't go fully into effect until the year 2006. Ours is fully in effect as of January 2001.
Second, his 10-percent rate covers the first $6,000 of taxable income for a single person; $12,000 for a married couple. We would increase those numbers to $9,500 for a single American, and $19,000 for a family.
Senator Clinton voted YEA along with 34 other Democrats. Senator Edwards voted NAY along with every Republican, Baucus, Bayh, Breaux, Carnahan, Carper, Cleland, Durbin, Feinstein, Harkin, Kohl, Landrieu, Lincoln, Zell Miller and Ben Nelson.
- Senator Bob Graham's amendment "To provide a reduction in State estate tax revenues in proportion to the reduction in Federal estate tax revenues"
The estate tax is a shared source of income. The States get approximately 20 percent of the estate tax which is collected at the Federal level; 80 percent stays in the National Treasury. What President Bush had suggested was that there be an equal phase-out of the State share and of the Federal share. That is not what is in the bill before us tonight, unfortunately.
What we have before us tonight is a bill which would say that beginning January 1, 2002, just a little more than 7 months from now, the State share would be cut in half. Then it says that there will be gradual further reductions and then January 1, 2005, the State share would be zero.
Senator Clinton, 37 Democrats and Craig Thomas voted YEA. Senator Edwards voted NAY along with every other Republican, Baucus, Bayh, Breaux, Carnahan, Cleland, Feingold, Landrieu, Lincoln, Zell Miller, Ben Nelson, and Wyden.
- Senator Dodd's amendment "To limit the reduction in the 39.6% rate to 38% and to replace the estate tax repeal with increases in the unified credit and the family-owned business exclusion so that the savings may be used for Federal debt reduction and improvements to the Nation's nontransportation infrastructure." (This was one of many Democratic amendments to make the tax cuts smaller).
Senator Clinton, 36 Democrats, Chafee and Jeffords voted YEA. Senator Edwards voted NAY along with every other Republican, Baucus, Bayh, Breaux, Carnahan, Cleland, Landrieu, Lincoln, Zell Miller, Bill Nelson, Ben Nelson, Torricelli and Wyden.
- Senator Feingold's motion to recommit the tax cut bill to the Finance Committee with instructions to
spread the estate tax relief in this bill more broadly. My motion would instruct the Finance Committee to strike all the estate tax rate reductions in the bill and use the savings to expand the amounts of the estate tax unified credit exemption amounts. Thus under my motion, more relatively smaller estates would be exempted from taxation altogether. I have been told that elimination of the rate reductions would allow the unified credit exemption to increase to $5 million, or $10 million a couple.
Senator Clinton and 30 Democrats voted YEA. Senator Edwards voted NAY along with every Republican, Baucus, Bayh, Breaux, Carper, Cleland, Feinstein, Johnson, Kerry, Landrieu, Leahy, Lincoln, Mikulski, Zell Miller, Bill Nelson, Ben Nelson, Schumer, Torricelli, and Wyden.
- Confirmation of Viet D. Dinh to be Assistant Attorney General
Hillary Clinton cast a lone protest vote against him because of his involvement in the Arkansas Project.
- Confirmation of Michael Chertoff, Asst. Atty. Gen.
Senator Clinton cast a lone protest vote against him because of his involvement in the Arkansas Project
- Senator Wellstone's amendment to the No Child Left Behind Act to prevent it from being an unfunded mandate.
This was so important what Senator Dodd did, so important what Senator Collins did, so important that 79 Senators voted for it, but really what makes a difference is if we go on record and make it crystal clear that unless we live up to what we already voted for and provide the money--this would be $24 billion plus in the year 2005--then in Rhode Island or Minnesota or other States, schools can say: You didn't provide the money you said you were going to provide. You didn't provide the resources you said you were going to provide. We choose not to do the testing.
Senator Clinton voted YEA along with 22 other Democrats, Senator Edwards voted NAY.
- Senator Bill Nelson's amendment " Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds to execute a final lease agreement for oil and gas development in the area of the Gulf of Mexico known as "Lease Sale 181"." (i.e. prohibit the drilling in that area of the Gulf of Mexico)
On the motion to table, Senator Clinton voted YEA along with every Republican, Akaka, Baucus, Breaux, Cantwell, Carper, Clinton, Conrad, Dorgan, Feinstein, Johnson, Landrieu, Lincoln, Miller, Murray, Ben Nelson, Chuck Schumer, and Torricelli. Senator Edwards voted NAY.
- Senator Richard Lugar's Amendment to the Agricultural Assistance bill.
Here's what Kent Conrad had to say about the amendment.
Finally, he said, clearly this legislation, precisely what we are going to be voting on in the Senate, cuts supplemental help to farmers by $1 billion from last year to this year. We are cutting at the time we see a desperate situation in farm country all across America. It does not make sense. It is not what we should do. We ought to reject the amendment by the Senator from Indiana.
On the motion to table, Senator Clinton in addition to every Democrat except Senator Edwards as well as Senator Snowe, voted YEA. Senator Edwards voted NAY.
- Senator Schumer's amednment to reinstate BuyBack America
I rise to introduce an amendment to restore a valuable initiative to reduce gun violence in the Nation's public housing authorities. The amendment sets aside $15 million of the $300 million that we allocate to the public housing drug elimination program for BuyBack America, a gun buyback program to eradicate violence in our Nation's public housing authorities. BuyBack America was introduced by the Department of HUD in November, 1999. In the first year alone, it helped local police departments in 80 cities take 20,000 guns off our streets. Guns were bought back for around $50. The guns were taken in and then destroyed.
On the motion to table, Senator Edwards voted YEA along with Russ Feingold, Jim Jeffords, Pat Leahy, every Democratic Senator from a state Gore lost fair and square except Daschle, Hollings and Landrieu, Senator Clinton voted NAY along with the rest of the Democrats and Peter Fitzgerald.
- Amendment by Senator Bob Graham. Here's what Paul Wellstone had to say about the amendment.
First of all, the Senator from Florida is about as committed to this region of the world, and to the country of Colombia, as anybody in the Senate. I understand that. This is just a respectful difference of opinion we have.
The two members of the Colombian Congress my colleague spoke about were killed by paramilitaries, the AUC, not by the FARC or ELN, the guerrillas. Although I agree that the FARC and ELN are terrorist organizations and should be listed as such, so is the AUC, which is now listed as a terrorist organization. I will go into this in a moment because I think it is an important point.
There are reasons we do not want to put an additional $71 million into this package without much more accountability when it comes to human rights and who is committing the violence.
I also want to point out that of the money we are talking about, the $71 million, a lot of that money in this package goes to disaster relief, goes to refugees, goes to combating HIV/AIDS, goes to public health, goes to education. I think we are probably a lot better off in a foreign operations bill with these priorities than we are putting an additional $71 million into this package.
I also have, which I think is very relevant to this debate, an EFE News, Spain piece, the headline of which is ``Colombian Paramilitaries Kidnap 70 Farmers to Pick Coca Leaves.''
The truth is, the FARC and ELN, these are not Robin Hood organizations; they are into narcotrafficking up to their eyeballs. But so is the AUC and the paramilitary.
The problem is this effort, Plan Colombia, has been all too one-sided. If it was truly counternarcotics, we would see just as much effort by the Government and by the military focused on the AUC and their involvement in drug trafficking as we see vis-a-vis ELN and FARC. But we don't see that.
Senator Clinton voted YEA along with 26 other Senators (mostly Western Republicans as well as both Democrats from CT and both Democrats from the 3 most heavily Latino East Coast states [NJ, NY, FL]). Senator Edwards voted NAY.
- Senator Landrieu amendment to redistribute education funds more equitably
Clarification: This vote was basically a "get my state its 'fair share'" (i.e. get my state as much federal funding as I possibly can) vote. It changed the funding levels as decided in committee to go down in several states and up in other states (Louisiana, for instance, got a 5% increase). New York got a 2% decrease, one of the biggest decreases. Senator Clinton voted NAY, along with Schumer, both Senators from CA, MO, KS, AZ, AK, and VA [all of which had significant decreases], as well as Jesse Helms, Don Nickles, Strom Thurmond, Tim Hutchinson, and Peter Fitzgerald. Oddly, even though North Carolina got a 1% decrease, Senator Edwards voted YEA.
- Treasury Department, Executive Office of the Presient, various independt agencies Appropriations bill
Senator Clinton voted YEA, Senator Edwards voted NAY, along with Allard, Baucus, Bayh, Brownback, Bunning, Collins, Ensign, Feingold, Helms, Hutchinson, Roberts, Bob Smith, Gordon Smith and Olympia Snowe.
- Mike Enzi's amendment doesn't have a clear progressive position (it's about the Internet and sales taxes), so I'm going to quote Senator Dorgan and Senator Boxer, who were on opposite sides of this debate (Senator Dorgan has been a strong fighter for net neutrality; Boxer's overall progressive credentials are very nearly as good as Wellstone's)
Dorgan:
We have two problems. One of the problems is that more and more sales in this country now are being conducted by remote sellers--Internet, catalog, and so on. On Main Streets of our communities we have sales being conducted by small business men and women. When they make those sales, they collect the tax. They compete against a remote seller who makes a sale but does not charge the tax, even though a tax is owed on the transaction. The tax is owed on a transaction with the remote seller, but it is never paid because it is a use tax and people don't file millions and millions of use tax returns. The result is State and local governments are losing a substantial amount of money--$13 billion it is estimated this year; by the year 2006, $45 billion, most of which goes to support local schools. So State and local governments are rightly concerned about funding for their schools.
There is also the issue of fairness for Main Street. That is a problem: Lack of funding for schools, a tax that is owed but not paid, fairness for Main Street retailers.
The second problem is a problem for remote sellers. A remote seller says: I don't want to have to collect a tax and submit it to 5,000 or 7,000 jurisdictions. That is a fair point. They should not have to do that. That is burdensome and too complicated. So we say solve both problems.
Require State and local governments to make dramatic simplifications in their tax systems. When they do, through a compact, submit that compact to the Congress for approval or disapproval. If the Congress approves that, then allow them to require remote sellers to collect the tax that is already owed on the transaction, solving both problems and dramatically simplifying compliance for the remote sellers. And we will not approve it if it does not do that.
Second, at the same time, collect a tax that is already owed and make it much simpler for those who owe that tax to comply with current law.
We can do both of those. We can solve both of those by beginning with this substitute. This substitute itself doesn't solve the problem, but we have two choices. We can decide to ignore this problem and do nothing. But you know and I know it will not go away. We will be back here next year or the year after or 5 years from now. This problem is going to grow, not recede. We can solve this problem now or we can just do the moratorium, which, incidentally, I have supported and do support, but I support it with a solution to the other problem.
Boxer:
I have read this amendment over and over. It has changed mightily during the last month or so. But it is very clear to me that if this amendment were to become law--by the way, the House would never allow it to become law. But let's say it could become law. I think it would wreak havoc on Internet commerce. Let me tell you why.
Look at page 3 of the amendment. Look at section 3, and look at paragraph A. There is a 1, which clearly states that Internet service providers could be forced to go back retroactively to 1998 and remit Internet access taxes to the States.
Can you imagine the burden that would put on this country at a time in our history when we are in a major recession?
Second, Senator Enzi's amendment would not prohibit new taxes on Internet access and, although it would keep the moratorium on ``discriminatory and multiple'' taxes, it may not prevent ``new'' taxes on electronic commerce.
Finally, I want to state that these are statements made by my friend and colleague from Oregon, RON WYDEN, in a far more articulate way than I. I am trying to underscore what he said.
If you look at page 4, you see that the Enzi proposal would allow taxes on Internet content. It is very clear that the moratorium on Internet access taxes would no longer apply to Internet content.
Can you imagine people connecting to the Internet and suddenly being charged every time perhaps they connected to the Web?
In my view, this is a very dangerous kind of amendment because if it does become law it will wreak havoc on business on the Internet, and not only business, but just the right to get on the Web and read content and to be able to do that without extra charges. This is not the time for that.
Madam President, this was updated as of October 5, 2001. The Wall Street Journal has printed 30 pages of companies that have gone out of business. I will give you some of them. AdMart: announced plans to shut down, lay off 334 employees. Advertising.com: announced plans to lay off 72 employees, or 25 percent of its staff. And it goes on and on and on.
On the motion to table, Senator Edwards voted YEA, Senator Clinton voted NAY (a very mixed vote, see link)
- Vote on whether or not Russ Feingold's amendment prohibiting cost-of-living increases for Senators was germane to the Defense Appropriations bill.
Clarification:There's no question that it was not germane to the bill, but it's also certain that no Senator was concerning themselves with whether or not it was germane when they cast their vote on it.
Senator Edwards voted YEA, Senator Clinton voted NAY (mixed vote, see link)
- Senator Johnson's amendment to prevent Big Packing from increasing their stranglehold on the meatpacking industry by prohibiting them from owning livestock.
Mr. President, let me address specifically what our amendment does; First, it bans large meatpackers from owning slaughter cattle, hogs, and lambs for more than 14 days prior to the time in which these livestock are slaughtered. Second, it exempts producer-owned cooperatives engaged in slaughter and meatpacking. Therefore, many of the innovative, start-up projects operating and being formed to give producers greater bargaining power in the market will not be affected by our amendment.
...
That's the substance of our amendment. Here is why we need our amendment. Our amendment would take on a growing problem in livestock marketing--that of packer ownership of livestock and captive supplies of livestock that allow packers to manipulate cash prices paid to producers. This amendment would strengthen the 80 year-old Packers and Stockyards Act, to make it unlawful for a packer to own, feed, or control livestock intended for slaughter.
Our amendment also addresses a glaring deficiency in the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921, because it has failed to prevent packers from squeezing independent producers out of the market.
Here are a few cases in point where current law--written 80 some years ago--has failed to promote competition in livestock markets. The poultry industry has been almost entirely vertically integrated for many years, and the pork industry is becoming more so. The hog industry especially has been consolidating rapidly in recent years. At the packer level, the 4 largest firms' share of hog slaughter reached 56 percent in 1999, compared with 40 percent in 1990. In 1997, 64 percent of all hogs were marketed through some form of forward sales arrangement between producers and packers, and approximately 10 percent of all market hogs involved entire or partial packer ownership.
Senator Clinton voted YEA along with most Democrats, Chafee, Collins, Grassley, Hagel, Burns and both Republicans from WY and ID, Senator Edwards voted NAY along with the rest of the Republicans, Bayh, Corzine, Durbin, Edwards, Lincoln, Zell Miller, Chuck Schumer, Stabenow, and Torricelli.
- On the Hutchinson substitute amendment for the farm bill (it seems based on Senator Dorgan and Harkin's statements below that the Republicans were filibustering the Democratic farm bill to try to get their bad one passed instead; Dorgan are Harkin were freakin' pissed about this).
Dorgan:This does not wash--to stall for 2 months, to filibuster for 2 weeks, then walk around here pretending you are out of breath from running so far. Every step of the way, we had people on that side of the aisle trying to prevent us from writing a farm bill, and now they are coming to the floor saying: We are trying to move it along.
This is a sure way to try to move it along--filibustering through two cloture votes. We will see at 1:15 if they give us help to move it along.
Harkin: The time for games is over. The fact is, the White House itself has said we should not have a farm bill this year. The ranking member of the Agriculture Committee, Senator Lugar, has said that. The Secretary of Agriculture has said that. The entire Republican hierarchy downtown and here have said time and time again we should not have a farm bill this year. Since this amendment is different from that of the House, it would still require a conference.
Again I say, Mr. President, now is the time to pass a good bill. If we get cloture today and we can close this bill down, we can conference our bill in the next 2 days and we can go into conference with a good bill, not with an amendment that is less than what the House has.
I urge defeat of the Hutchinson amendment.
I move to table the Hutchinson amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
On the motion to table: Senator Clinton voted YEA along with nearly every Democrat, every northeastern Republican except for Santorum, Hagel, Lugar, McCain, Gordon Smith and George Voinovich. Senator Edwards voted NAY along with Blanche Lincoln and the rest of the Republicans.
On the sine die adjournment of Congress.
Senator Edwards voted YEA, along with most Democrats, Bennett, Bunning, Chafee, Cochran, Fitzgerald, Gramm, Hagel, McCain, Shelby and Stevens. Senator Clinton voted NAY along with every other Republican, Bayh, Conrad, Dayton and Schumer.