Smith Watch - Nebraska's 3rd District

Lilly Ledbetter Bill Passes, Will Be Signed Into Law

2009-01-28T21:44:00.004-06:00

Yesterday, in the House of Representatives the Senate version of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (S.181) was passed without further amendment. The bill will now go to President Barack Obama to be signed into law.

This bill has been followed by Kyle Michaelis and myself, in the following articles:

Will Nebraska's Congressmen Protect Women From Wage Discrimination?

Demand Congressmen Protect Nebraska Women In Friday Vote

Terry, Fortenberry & Smith Vote AGAINST Nebraska Women

Smith, Terry, Fortenberry Fail Nebraska Children Again

Johanns Joins His Fellow Republicans By Voting Against Women

Senator Nelson: Thank You For Standing Up For Nebraska Women!

The bill previously passed in the Senate on a vote of 61-36-1. Senator Mike Johanns voted against it, while Senator Ben Nelson voted for it.

In the House, the bill was passed today without further amendment on a vote of 250-177-6. The vote was basically party-line, with 3 Republicans voting with the Democrats, and 5 Democrats voting with the Republicans.

In other words, House Republicans made it clear they would never support the idea of protecting women from wage discrimination. And Jeff Fortenberry, Lee Terry, and Adrian Smith all stuck with their party.

But despite the fact that 4 out of 5 of our Washington voices voted against this bill, we should be thankful for Sen. Ben Nelson and his strong voice. He, and he alone, said the women of Nebraska matter!

This bill will now go to President Obama, and he is scheduled to sign it into law on Thursday (1/29/2009). What a proud day for our nation that a vital and necessary law is passed.

Thank you, Senator Nelson, for supporting the mothers, wives, daughters, sisters, nieces, and grandmothers who work hard everyday and deserve to be paid a fair wage for a fair day’s work.

Smith, Terry, Fortenberry Fail Nebraska Children Again

2009-01-14T20:07:00.005-06:00

Today in the US House of Representatives, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was put forward for a vote. As previously reported, this bill has been a long time coming, being defeated through 2 vetoes from President Bush, and not enough of votes to override those vetoes. Both times, Nebraska’s 3 Stooges voted against the bill.

Now, in the 111th Congress, another vote came up to expand SCHIP for children across the country who need health care.

With the new bill, H.R.2, the only new addition was to allow states to waive the 5 year waiting period for legal immigrant children. Otherwise, the bill was as it has been for over a year. The program is to be paid for with an increase in the cigarette tax.

The main argument used by those opposed were expected, and once again they chose lies over truth. First off, there was the claim that 2/3rds aren’t even children, but adults. What they were referring to was that some pregnant low-income women receive SCHIP assistance while pregnant. Also, some states allow those between 18 - 21 to be eligible for SCHIP assistance. But the vast majority of those covered under SCHIP are children.

The next argument was that poor children weren’t getting the help, while less needy children were, and they felt there were no assurances the neediest would get the help. This is another lie. Each state sets up a level to which assistance will be provided. This ensures only the neediest get the assistance. The average level for the a state is around 200% above the poverty level.

Finally, there was anger over allowing states to waive the 5-year waiting period for legal immigrant children. It was felt that this would open the door to illegal immigrants. Wrong. The bill is very clear, along with already established law, that illegal immigrants cannot receive SCHIP assistance. If states allow it, they can and will lose their funding.

Republicans did a Motion to Recommit the bill. They wanted to recommit to the Energy and Commerce Committee with further amendments regarding the use of the funds.

The Motion FAILED on a vote of 179-247-7. It was nearly party line.

H.R.2 then PASSED on a vote of 289-139-6. Only 2 Democrats voted against the bill, while 40 Republicans crossed the isle to join with Democrats in passing it.

Adrian Smith, Lee Terry, and Jeff Fortenberry all voted against it.

So this is what we will be dealing with in Nebraska, yet again, for the next 2 years: Representatives that vote against the people. First they voted against the rights of women with regards to fair wages, and now they vote against needy children, who’s numbers are growing day after day.

Just who the hell do they think they represent??

This next goes to the Senate, where they will either take up the House version or vote on their own version. Senator John Kerry has submitted S.77, and it will a chance for new Senator Mike Johanns to show who he really represents. Senator Ben Nelson has already supported the legislation in the past, but his voice may be the only voice of reason when it comes to the health of the children of Nebraska.

UPDATE:

An AP article quotes them all:

“This bill may expand the program to those who do not need it,” Rep. Jeff Fortenberry said.

The legislation “risks creating a program that encourages some families to drop their existing insurance coverage for the government program,” he said.

Rep. Lee Terry said the bill “expands coverage for higher-income families” and places a greater tax burden on lower-income people.

Rep. Adrian Smith said the measure “shifts the focus from poor children without health insurance to adults and families who already have personal coverage,” thereby expanding the reach of government.

What's even more disgusting? That they can flat out LIE and the media YET AGAIN ASKS NO QUESTIONS!

Nebraska Congressmen Have Chance to Support SCHIP

2009-01-12T21:51:00.004-06:00

This week, the State Children’s Health Insurance Plan (SCHIP) will be coming up for a vote. According to the New York Times, Democrats will be putting forth a bill that carry’s the same language as the last bill put forth to try and expand the program to 10 million children. It will also include a provision that allows states to waive a 5-year waiting period for legal immigrant children.

This is a chance for Nebraska’s 3 Stooges to step up and finally do the right thing, after doing the wrong thing repeatedly in the 110th Congress. Let’s recap the history of this attempted expansion.

On September 25, 2007, HR 976 was voted on in the House. Jeff Fortenberry, Lee Terry and Adrian Smith ALL voted against the expansion.

After passage in the Senate, the bill was then vetoed by President George Bush. When it went back to the House, once again, they ALL voted against overriding the veto.

Republicans began their political spin, making arguments against SCHIP expansion that was full of lies. In focusing on Adrian Smith, I documented all of the falsehoods. A more concise look at the claims was done on NNN as well.

Another bill, HR 3963, was put forth for a new debate. It passed in the House, but with ALL 3 voting against it. After Bush vetoed it yet again, it went to the House to attempt an override, and yet again, they ALL voted against it. In the end, all that was supported was continuation of the current program with no expansion of any kind.

An NPR/Kaiser Family Foundation/Harvard School of Public Health Poll was conducted at the time of the debates. That poll found that 65% of American’s supported expansion of SCHIP.

In a new poll conducted around November 4, 2008 (Election Night), when asked to rate the importance of addressing health insurance for children on a scale of 1-10, 56% of all respondent rated it a 10, with the number rising to 60% among those who had children.

The poll showed that 82% favored the renewing of SCHIP. When told it would be paid for with cigarette taxes, 65% were more supportive of keeping SCHIP than before being informed of the cigarette tax increase. When it comes to the topic of expanding to legal immigrant children, 79% support the expansion, and 67% favor removing the 5-year waiting period.

Democrats plan to set up the passage of the bill so that it will be among the first bills that President Barack Obama will sign into law.

With all that in mind, here is the chance for the Representatives of Nebraska to stand up and support the people of this state, especially the children. With a Democratic majority in the House and Senate, the White House becoming Democratic, and polls consistently showing an overwhelming support for health care coverage for the children of this country, it’s time that Jeff Fortenberry, Lee Terry and Adrian Smith stepped up and voted YES on SCHIP.

Congressman	Seat	D.C. Office	District Office
Jeff Fortenberry Lee Terry Adrian Smith	NE-01 NE-02 NE-03	(202) 225-4806 (202) 225-4155 (202) 225-6435	(402) 438-1598 (402) 397-9944 (308) 633-3333

Be sure to let your representative know how you feel about this bill. After all, they’ve already voted against women, do they really want to be accused of not caring about children, too?

Nebraska's Congressmen Refuse to Protect Nebraska Women from Discrimination

2009-01-09T19:06:00.006-06:00

As the 111th Congress begins, so, too, begins the work on Smith Watch. I'll be doing my best to keep on top of the goings on with Congressman Adrian Smith, along with the rest of Nebraska's delegation. With that in mind, we come to the first major votes of the new Congress.

Today, Nebraska’s 3 Stooges in the House of Representatives decided to vote against HR 11 and HR 12, bills set up to ensure fairness and protection from discrimination in wages for women.

For further information on these bills, I refer you to Kyle Michaelis at the New Nebraska Network. He covered this issue earlier in the week, and then did a second report.

The first votes were on HR 12, the Paycheck Fairness Act. After an hour of debate, Republicans made a Motion to Recommit to the Committee on Labor and Education. This would have effectively delayed passage.

The motion was defeated on a vote of 178-240-14. The Nebraska 3 voted for the motion.

HR 12 was then PASSED on a vote of 256-163-14.

Representatives Jeff Fortenberry, Lee Terry and Adrian Smith ALL VOTED AGAINST THE BILL.

HR 11, better known as the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Bill was then voted on.

The bill PASSED on a vote of 247-171-15.

Once again, ALL 3 VOTED AGAINST IT.

None of this, however, should come as a surprise.

In 2008, all 3 voted AGAINST HR 1338, which was the original version of HR 12. They also all voted AGAINST HR 2831 in 2007, which was the original version of HR 11.

But an even more recent vote just this week indicated they, along with the rest of the Republicans, would vote against these bills.

When the House convened for the 111th Congress, they voted on the Rules of the session, which was H.RES.5. Democrats saw fit to include the fairness in pay bills to be the first order of business. Republicans got angered, and claimed there should be hearings first.

Guess what. There were hearings. They happened in the last Congress. These are the same bills that passed the House in the 110th, but then got held up in the Senate without further action. These bills have been vetted, debated, inspected, etc. It was a bogus argument to be made.

It should also be pointed out that our 3 Stooges showed they will continue to support a party rather than the people they represent. Quite frankly, none of the Republicans have independent thought. Why do I say this? Well, because of another issue in the Rules.

In the 110th Congress, Republican learned an incredibly effective parliamentary tactic to stall or even stop legislation. It’s called the Motion to Recommit. This would add additional changes or amendments to a bill by resubmitting to a Committee and then recommitted with the change back to the House. If using the word “forthwith”, this become a change where the bill was immediately put up for a final vote by a motion from the relevant committee’s chair. There was no need to take back to the actual committee. However, Republicans began making their motions using the word “promptly”. In parliamentary terms, this would require a bill to be taken back to a committee and hearings scheduled with a minimum of 3 days notice. In other words, this would have the potential of stopping a bill in it’s tracks, and just as effective as a filibuster.

In the Rules put forth for this session, it was determined that members of the House could no longer make motions using the word “promptly”. To put it another way, Republicans can no longer delay a vote indefinitely on legislation that had reached the point of already jumping through all the necessary hoops, just because Democrats are in control of the agenda. Republicans had abused this option on nearly every major bill, and to keep business moving, this abuse was ended.

Today’s votes, when taking in the votes of the past and the votes of the Rules this week, were not a surprise, and demonstrated what we can continue to see from our Representatives. They will walk lock-step with their party, they will put the rights of their citizens second to political grandstanding, and will continue to support those who discriminate over those who they discriminate against.

I’d just like to hear each of them - Fortenberry, Terry and Smith - explain how they think their own mothers, spouses, sisters, nieces or daughters should have no right to fair pay and equal pay for equal work when compared to their male counterparts?

I can guarantee the Nebraska Press certainly won’t be asking that question.

Nebraska’s Adrian Smith Continues to Put Party First

2008-12-22T23:25:00.005-06:00

CQ Politics released their 2008 Vote Studies for the 110th Congress. This annual report reviews the voting patterns of the members of the House and Senate. It includes how often they voted with President Bush, and with the party. This is how our House Representatives stacked up:

Name	District	Pres. Support	Party Unity
Jeff Fortenberry	1st	56%	82%
Lee Terry	2nd	68%	90%
Adrian Smith	3rd	74%	98%

As you can see, all 3 voted heavily with their party, but Adrian Smith was the most in line with his party’s positions. It’s astounding that, during a time when Americans and Nebraskans have been asking their leaders to work together and stop all the partisan positioning, that the 3rd District once again is shown that their representative is one of the greatest puppets of the Republican party. He ranks up there as one of the most partisan in the country. And yet, despite that, he has never shown any real leadership.

During his first 2 years in office, Adrian Smith only introduced 7 bills. To make it worse, the first 6 bills were introduced between January and July 2007. The only bill he introduced in 2008 was a resolution to recognizing North Platte, Nebraska, as "Rail Town USA". And even that bill went nowhere!

By comparison, Jeff Fortenberry sponsored 27 bills, and Lee Terry sponsored 42 bills. We could dive into the content of those bills and show how there are concerns with many of them, but that can be a discussion for another time. The bottom line is that of the 3, Adrian Smith made absolutely no relevant or substantive efforts to stand up for the 3rd District of Nebraska.

In the Senate, Nebraskans had a little more balance in representation in 2008:

Name	Pres. Support	Party Unity
Chuck Hagel	79%	78%
Ben Nelson	48%	72%

Unfortunately, Nebraska went against the national trend for the 111th Session. The Three Stooges (Fortenberry, Terry, Smith) are being joined by Mike Johanns, who through his stint as the Secretary of Agriculture and his robotic repetition through the campaign, has shown he will be just as much of a “yes man” as Adrian Smith is.

As President-Elect Barack Obama prepares to take office, he is showing his willingness to listen to and work with those who disagree with him. Some on the far-left aren’t necessarily agreeing with all his decisions, but he’s taken seriously the belief that he now will be representing ALL Americans. Whereas the Bush Republicans did not seek out or even try to listen to those voices that were there in disagreement, Obama is welcoming those voices. For too long, our country has been divided by blind partisanship, and that it’s time for that to stop.

It’s time for Adrian Smith, and the other Republicans in this state, to acknowledge the fact that Nebraska, despite a Republican majority being present, did have clear voices rise up demanding to be heard this year that were NOT Republican. Just look at the Presidential Election results of the 2nd District. Also consider the fact that the 3rd Districts still shifted a little to the center. While there was a loss (due to population loss) of about 2000 voters, Independents and Democrats still increased their numbers while Republicans LOST 5000 voters.

It will be the responsibility of every Nebraskan who voted for Democrats this year to hold our representatives accountable and demand they begin to work WITH the Democrats, rather than working as the opposition simply because that’s how they see it. If they don’t, Nebraska will lose the vital voices needed for our state to continue moving forward in these difficult times.

Smith Votes Against Agriculture and Transparency in Commodities

2008-07-30T18:29:00.002-05:00

The House of Representatives held a vote today on H.R. 6604, the Commodity Markets Transparency and Accountability Act of 2008. A Motion was made to “suspend the rules” and pass the bill as it was amended in the House Agricultural Committee. This required a 2/3rd’s majority to pass it. In other words, they needed 290 votes to pass the bill.

The bill failed on a vote of 276-151-8.

But according to the Chairman of the House Agricultural Committee, Collin Peterson, they had the 290 votes until they got to the floor. Here was the release he sent out after the vote:

House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin C. Peterson of Minnesota released the following statement today regarding the floor vote on H.R. 6604, the Commodity Markets Transparency and Accountability Act of 2008:

"With the support of more than 290 Members of Congress, including more than 75 Republicans, H.R. 6604 was well on its way to being passed over the two-thirds vote requirement, sending a clear signal that transparency and enforcement would return to the commodities and futures markets. Then Republican leadership demanded that Members change their votes in order to protect President
Bush.

H.R. 6604 is a bipartisan bill that passed the Agriculture Committee by voice vote. It is the product of a comprehensive series of hearings to examine the issues surrounding futures trading from all sides. And it clearly has enough support to pass this House.

We will continue to pursue meaningful steps to address the conditions that have thrown some futures markets into disorder and hope that Members will have the courage of their convictions to join us."

Let’s take a closer look at that release: The bill passed the Ag Committee by voice vote. That means there were no real objections to the bill.

And who is on the Ag Committee?

Adrian Smith.

Then the Republican Leadership DEMANDED members change their votes.

And Adrian Smith DID JUST THAT - He voted AGAINST the bill.

In other words, he flip-flopped when the party leaders told him to. Proof that he puts party and partisanship before voters.

According to this article:

The Commodity Markets Transparency and Accountability Act would boost staffing at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and require the agency to limit the positions of speculators in energy and agricultural commodities. Most Republicans objected to the bill, preferring to pass legislation to open the outer continental shelf and other off-limits areas to energy exploration.

That’s right, folks: it doesn’t matter to the Republicans that one of the biggest problems with soaring energy costs is the work of speculation run amuck. They don’t care that even their own studies have shown (and both John McCain and George Bush have admitted) that opening up these areas for drilling will have little to no affect on prices. And Adrian Smith certainly doesn’t seem to care that this has had a negative impact on agriculture (which his district depends on). They’d rather let the speculators continue doing what they’ve been doing, and driving prices artificially high, all because their Big Oil contributors want more land to drill on (ignoring the more than 68 Million acres of leases they hold that they are doing nothing with, and could be drilling right now - they choose not to drill).

After the vote, the National Farmers Union denounced the vote:

Rampant financial speculation in commodity markets is having a negative impact on rural America, preventing some agricultural producers from participating in the futures market……

"It's pretty clear that the markets are not functioning as they should," National Farmers Union President Tom Buis said.

"Without adequate oversight and transparency we will only continue down this slippery slope, leaving America's family farmers and ranchers in jeopardy."

The Commodity Markets Transparency and Accountability Act of 2008 (H.R. 6604) would have required transparency and improved access; prevented excessive speculation by requiring the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) establish requirements limiting speculation; and strengthened the CFTC with legal authority and increased staffing to address oversight, surveillance and regulation.

Buis said this legislation would also address concerns producers have about speculation in the energy futures markets, a particular concern for agriculture producers whose input costs are directly related to U.S. and world energy prices.

"There are many reasons for high energy prices; this bill does not and cannot address all of them.

"However, it is a good step to addressing our concerns in the markets," Buis said.

The NFU was one of 29 Ag groups that sent a letter to Congress, voicing their support of this bill. This included the American Corn Growers Association, National Corn Growers Association, R-CALF United Stockgrowers of America, and the American Association of Crop Insurers, to name a few. In the letter, they stated:

This important legislation would benefit farmers and the entire economy by insuring that the nation’s commodity futures markets are utilized for their original purpose-- to serve as a marketplace where producers and users of commodities can hedge their commercial transactions free of manipulation.

Production agriculture relies on smoothly functioning futures markets for risk management and price discovery. Unfortunately, in recent months concerns about agricultural futures market performance have grown, and the ability of producers and processors to use those markets for hedging has in some cases been seriously compromised.

At the same time, agricultural producers have a strong interest in transparent and efficient energy futures markets, since so many of our input costs are directly related to U.S. and world energy prices. We are concerned that energy futures prices have been unduly affected by new capital flows, including passively-managed, long-only index funds. These funds and other sources of speculative capital may also be affecting agricultural futures markets to the extent that these markets are not fully available to farmers trying to hedge their crops.

H.R. 6604 addresses our concerns about both agricultural and energy markets in a balanced, responsible, and bipartisan way.

So, in summary, today is solid proof that Adrian Smith will always do as he is told by the party leadership, and put his own self-interests ahead of the interests of the 3rd District, Nebraska, and the nation as a whole.

Adrian Smith Votes Consistently Against the People

2008-07-29T16:42:00.002-05:00

It’s been a while since I’ve had some time to look at what Adrian Smith has been doing, and I’m disappointed to report that nothing has changed. As has been his pattern since he took office, Smith consistently votes in the interest of his donors and his party, and against his constituents and the American people. What is really sad is that he tends to be in the minority even among Republicans when doing it.

The biggest news recently was the override of the Presidents veto on the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008. If the bill had not been passed and the veto overrode, there would been a cut in benefits to doctors and providers by almost 11%. Doctors in smaller, more rural areas were already telling elderly and disabled patients they might have to stop providing care because of the cuts. And the real kicker was that most Medicare supplemental insurance wouldn’t pay for the difference. This would have left many elderly and disabled, ESPECIALLY IN RURAL AREAS, without the critical care they needed.

This same bill also provided a grant to communities that expanded mental health services for veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.

The bill had wide, bi-partisan support. It was put before the House on June 24, 2008 and passed on a vote of 355-59-20. That extreme minority that voted against the bill were all Republicans - and Adrian Smith was one of them.

The bill went to the Senate and passed by Unanimous Consent.

When the bill came back for the veto override, it passed the House on a vote of 383-41-11. Once again, the extreme minority that voted against the veto override were all Republicans - and again, Adrian Smith was one of them.

Why would Adrian Smith vote to defeat a bill that obviously had wide support, would continue to ensure needed services were provided to some of the most vulnerable citizens in his constituency, and provided further mental health assistance to returning soldiers?? It makes absolutely no sense.

Another vote I looked at was the National Highway Bridge Reconstruction and Inspection Act. Remember that tragic bridge collapse in Minnesota last fall? This bill was written as a response. It provides for more inspection and reconstruction on bridges around the country, many of which could also be tragedies waiting to happen. It just went through the floor process in the House for the first time. After debate and some amendments, it passed with wide, bipartisan support on a vote of 367-55-12. Once again, an extreme minority of Republicans voted against a bill - and Adrian Smith joined in with them.

The next vote I looked at was the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act. This bill extends the investment into fighting the spread of AIDS and other terrible diseases. This is a matter we, as a nation, should take a lead on, and it’s one of the few good things President Bush actually takes a stand on.

The bill was passed in the House on a vote of 303-115-17. Adrian Smith voted against this bill. It has now gone to the President, and he has stated he will sign it.

Finally the last recent vote I looked at was the Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008. Many called this a bailout of Frannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but it was more than that. It was help for those families finding themselves in a position where they are losing their homes. All those years, people were encouraged to buy their homes. They were told they could have all these special deals to do so. Banks and lenders approved thousands who probably shouldn’t have been approved, but it was a big money maker for them. Now, with the economy tanking and families finding they can’t even afford basic necessities, many are losing the very roofs over their heads.

The bill was passed in the House on a vote of 272-152-11. Again, Adrian Smith voted against this measure - one that would help so many struggling families in the 3rd District.

But this last vote was not a surprise. The Club for Growth listed it as one of the Key Votes and demanded all of the ~~bought and paid for~~ politicians they supported to vote against it.

Adrian Smith - working hard to do nothing.

Temporary Break

2008-06-18T16:52:00.002-05:00

If you've noticed, I've not been posting a lot in recent months to Smith Watch. It's not because I don't want to continue holding Adrian Smith accountable, but time and other commitments is preventing me from doing this as I would like.

Presently, I'm focusing on the Senate race, so if you see anything about Mike Johanns in a small local paper, or hear about him making an appearance in your area, I'd be greatful if you sent it on to me. You can email me through this site or through New Nebraska.

In the mean time, if something really pressing comes up, I'll try to get it posted on this site. Also, if anyone would like to get involved in providing some articles for Smith Watch (it can be done anonymously), get in touch with me and maybe we can work out a coordination of information.

If anyone sees anything about Adrian Smith and want more information, or you have questions about anything, please don't hesitate to email me. I'll respond and help out in every way I can.

Thanks for everyones support and hang in there with me in the crazy time! And know that your voices are just as powerful as anyones, and if many voices speak out, they will have impact that only makes our district better!

Smith Traveling to Gas Stations Again

2008-05-25T16:19:00.003-05:00

Over Memorial Day Week, Smith will be traveling, at taxpayers expense to ~~campaign for reelection~~ talk with people about gas prices. Here is his information:

Rep. Adrian Smith is visiting gas stations during Congress' long Memorial Day recess to talk with motorists about fuel prices, energy legislation and other issues.

Gas prices are near $4 a gallon and have hit nationwide highs on consecutive days for nearly two weeks. Crude oil is shot past $130 a barrel last week, and the U.S. economy has felt the impacts – from the cost of food to summer vacation plans to surcharges on shipped goods, Smith said.

“American families need real relief," he said in announcing his plans. "We need to reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy, lower fuel prices here at home, and invest in all forms of energy to create jobs and grow our economy."

“I want to take this opportunity to speak with folks as they are traveling for vacation or running their daily errands and hear what they have to say."

Smith started the tour May 23 in Columbus and is working eastward.

The upcoming schedule:

5/26 -- Alliance, 9 a.m. MDT, Cenex, 724 West Third St.

-- Valentine, 4 p.m. CDT, Rodco Gas Station, East Highway 20.

5/27 -- Arnold, 2:45 p.m. CDT, Cal’s Best Services Conoco, 102 South Carroll St.

5/30 -- Broken Bow, 11 a.m. CDT, Trotter’s Whoa and Go, 608 South E.

-- Kearney, 4 p.m. CDT, Holiday Gas Station, 115 East 25th Street, Kearney.

If you're able to see him, go ahead and ask him tough questions, such as:

- Why does he consistantly vote against energy bills that expand renewable energy?

- Why does he encourage drilling in such places as ANWR when a report from the Department of Energy showed that oil from ANWR would arrive in 10 years at a savings of only 75 cents per barrel?

- Why did he vote against the new GI Bill?

- Why did he play along with other Republicans to prevent the final passage of a bill honoring mothers for Mothers Day?

In the mean time, have a good Memorial Day weekend!

This Is Nebraska

2008-04-27T12:41:00.003-05:00

Time to take a break from politics, even if only for a short time.

This is a video I put together of what, I hope, captures the real Nebraska. I tried to tell a story, starting with the Oregon Trail, the Native Americans, Fort Robinson, expansion, growth, the Dust Bowl, World War II, our Native sons and daughters who gave to the world, our rich agricultural ties, and most importantly, the people and land itself.

The music is a song that I find tells an incredible story just with the notes and feelings it evokes.

This is my first time doing a video, so I hope you enjoy it.

Assessments of Smith’s Performance in Congress

2008-04-15T21:19:00.007-05:00

Today I will highlight the evaluations done by 3 different organizations with regards to how members of Congress are performing. As has continued to be shown, Adrian Smith receives very low marks.

POWER RANKINGS

The Congress.org's Power Rankings have been updated with the information from the 2007 session in Congress.

From last year's post on this matter, here were the previous rankings:

State: 3 out of 3
House: 429 out of 439 (this include the At-large Reps).
House Republicans: 190 out of 202
Class of 2006: 42 out of 53
House Agriculture Committee: 45 out of 46
House Budget Committee: 38 out of 38
House Science Committee: 44 out of 44

Here are the new rankings for 2008:

State: 3 out of 3
(stayed the same)
House: 425 out 435
(remained basically the same, maybe one up 1)
House Republicans: 191 out of 200
(Dropped 1 even though the number of Republicans dropped by 2)
Class of 2006: 51 out of 57
(Even though there were 4 more freshmen added, Smith's rank dropped by 9 points).
House Agriculture Committee: 44 out of 45
(basically the same)
House Budget Committee: 39 out of 39
(even with adding one to the mix, he stayed in last place)
House Science Committee: 41 out of 43
(gained a couple spots)
House Natural Resources: 47 out of 48
(new ranking, as he is new to the committee

CHILDREN’S DEFENSE FUND

The Children’s Defense Fund Action Council released their 2007 Nonpartisan Congressional Scorecard. They looked at who was best representing the children in this nation, and who were the worst representatives.

They based their score on votes cast for bills that had a direct affect on children. None of the representatives in Nebraska showed up on the “best” list, but 2 showed up on the “worst”:

The Worst Representatives for Children Scored 30 Percent or Below
- Rep. Adrian Smith (R-NE) 20%
- Rep. Lee Terry (R-NE) 20%

Nebraska’s representation as a whole ranks 46 out of 50.

THE MIDDLE CLASS

A sited called The Middle Class was set up to score member’s of Congress on how well their votes support the middle class. The non-partisan Drum Major Institute for Public Policy has issued annual scorecards for a few years now.

All three of Nebraska’s Representatives received failing grades in 2007, and 2008 is looking no different:

Adrian Smith

2007 - F
Smith voted against the middle class on 12 out of 16 bills considered.

2008 - 40% year to date
Smith has voted against the middle class on 3 out of 5 bills so far.

Of the 3, Smith had the worst score in 2007.

Jeff Fortenberry

2007 - F
Fortenberry voted against the middle class on 9 out of 12 bills considered.

2008 - 33% year to date
Fortenberry has cast 2 votes against the middle class, and missed 2 votes, out of 5 bills so far.

He also received an “F” in 2005.

Lee Terry

2007 - F
Terry voted against the middle class on 11 out of 16 bills considered.

2008 - 40% year to date
Terry has voted against the middle class on 3 out of 5 bills so far.

Terry also received an “F” in 2003, 2004 and 2005.

Here are the bills that were considered and how Smith, Fortenberry and Terry voted on each:

2008

Smith and Terry voted AGAINST, Fortenberry FOR:

HR 5351 - Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008

Smith, Fortenberry and Terry voted AGAINST:

HR 3963 - Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007 (Revised Bill)
HR 1424 - Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2008

Smith and Terry voted FOR, Fortenberry DID NOT VOTE:

HR 5140 - Recovery Rebates and Economic Stimulus for the American People Act of 2008
HR 4137 - College Opportunity and Affordability Act of 2008

2007

Smith, Fortenberry and Terry voted FOR:

HR 4040 - Consumer Product Safety Modernization Act of 2007
HR 3580 - FDA Amendments Act of 2007
HR 1429 - Improving Head Start Act of 2007
HR 1362 - Accountability in Contracting Act of 2007

Smith, Fortenberry and Terry voted AGAINST:

HR 3996 - Temporary Tax Relief Act of 2007
HR 3688 - United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act of 2007 (Voted for, which is felt to be against the middle class).
HR 2831 - Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2007
HR 976 - Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007
HR 800 - Employee Free Choice Act of 2007
HR 6 - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (first vote)
HR 2 - Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007
HR 4 - Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act of 2007

Smith and Fortenberry voted AGAINST, Terry voted FOR:

HR 2895 - Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act of 2007

Smith and Terry voted AGAINST, Fortenberry voted FOR:

HR 2669 - College Cost Reduction Act of 2007
HR 1257 - Shareholder Vote on Executive Compensation Act of 2007
HR 6 - CLEAN Energy Act of 2007 (last vote)

Nebraska’s Senators were also given grades:

Ben Nelson

2007 - B
Nelson voted against the middle class on 2 out of 13 votes considered.

2008 - 67% year to date
Nelson has voted against the middle class on 3 votes, missed one voted, out of 10 bills so far.

He also received a “B” in 2003, a “C” in 2004, and an “F” in 2005.

Chuck Hagel

2007 - F
Hagel voted against the middle class on 8 out of 13 bills considered.

2008 - 11% year to date
Hagel has voted against the middle class on 8 bills, missed one vote, out of 10 bills so far.

He also received a “D” in 2003, and an “F” in 2004 & 2005.

House Actions 2/25/2008 - 2/29/2008

2008-04-12T13:50:00.003-05:00

After a week off, the House returned, and Republicans still had the chip on their shoulders regarding the FISA reauthorization bill. They didn't want it to go to Conference. They wanted an immediate vote. So they kept up their games, and as usual, Adrian Smith was right their supporting the actions of the political leadership at the expense of other bills being debated.

A bill called the Public Housing Asset Management Improvement Act of 2007 was considered. During the debate, one of he amendments presented was to clarify the bill regarding local housing authories that go into receivership. It would protect tenants by continuing to abide by agreements that had been made previously, and protect them from being homeless in such a situation. Democrats and most Republicans supported the amendment. While time was claimed for opposition, no one actually spoke up and stated why this amendment should be opposed. Adrian Smith voted against the amendment. It's really rather bizarre. Why would he vote against it?

But Republicans decided to hijack the bill and propose a Motion to Recommit. In that motion, they wanted to erase the current bill and replace it with the text of the FISA Bill passed in the Senate. Smith supported the idea. In the end, the Motion was ruled not to be germane. Then, per the rules of debate on the bill, the Speaker decided to postpone further consideration of the bill. It is on hold at this point.

Another bill that was considered was the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008. This bill laid out many tax credits that would encourage the use, expansion and investment of renewable forms of energy (wind, solar, ethanol, biodiesal, etc). To help pay for this, Big Oil would not be able to deduct their income from oil and gas production. Once again, Republicans tried to replace the text of the bill with the FISA Bill passed in the Senate. The Chair ruled it was not germane to the bill being considered, and a motion to table their appeal was upheld. Smith supported the actions of his fellow Republicans. Republicans then tried to remove many of the tax credits, and to restore the corporate welfare for Big Oil. They also tried to make some of the Bush tax cut permanent in the process. They blame Democrats for raising energy costs and wanted to maintain investment in oil and gas. The attempt to make these changes failed, but Smith supported all of them. When the final version was voted on, Smith voted against it. The bottom line is that Smith is all for tax credits, but only when they benefit the very few, the wealthy and Big Oil.

Smith made a brief statement on the floor regarding energy, but it didn't take place during the debate on the bill. He basically took the stance that it would create a greater dependence on foreign oil, would send jobs overseas, and would raise costs overall. The fact is that energy costs are rising all over the world, not just here. The longer we put off investing in and moving toward the regular use of renewable energy sources, the greater the cost. Not just in a monetary sense, but in cost to health, safety, and to our planet. We should have started moving away from oil and gas a long time ago.

Smith also decided to submit a statement on National Engineers Week. The funny thing is that the resolution had been voted on nearly two weeks before he submitted his statement for the record. Way to be on the ball there!

Finally, Smith again failed to submit any new bills as a sponsor. He signed onto 4 bills, 2 of which have been out for nearly a year already.

ROLL CALL VOTES

One of the first votes was to Approve the Journal from the last session

Since there had been all the issues over FISA and the contempt of Congress vote, Republicans demanded a vote.

The Journal was APPROVED on a vote of 226-183-1-18
FOR: 205 Democrats, 21 Republicans
AGAINST: 15 Democrats, 168 Republicans
PRESENT: 1 Republican
NO VOTE: 10 Democrats, 8 Republicans

Smith voted AGAINST approval.

H.RES.974 - Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3521) to improve the Operating Fund for public housing of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

This sets forth the rules for consideration of H.R.3521. As per normal, there were 2 votes, both party-line, with Republicans voting against it.

H.R.3521 - To improve the Operating Fund for public housing of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

This bill is known as the Public Housing Asset Management Improvement Act of 2007. Per the CRS Summary:

- Prohibits the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development from imposing restrictions or limitations on the amount of management and related fees for a public housing project which the public housing agency (PHA) determines reasonable, unless such restriction or limitation:
(1) is determined pursuant to a negotiated rulemaking convened by the Secretary no earlier than April 1, 2009, with representatives from interested parties; and
(2) is effective only on or after January 1, 2011.
- Allows any PHA that owns or operates fewer than 500 public housing units under the United States Housing Act of 1937 to elect to be exempt from asset management requirements imposed by the Secretary.
- Prohibits the Secretary from imposing any requirement, regulation, or guideline relating to asset management that restricts or limits in any way the use by PHAs of amounts for Capital Fund assistance for costs of any PHA central office.
- Requires the Secretary to ensure that PHAs encourage the reasonable efforts of resident tenant organizations to represent their members and of tenants to organize.
- Requires guidance issued by the Secretary to encourage participation by residents in the implementation of asset management and the development of local policies for such purposes.

There were 2 amendments that were debated and voted on.

H.AMDT.956 - Clarifies the intent of an amendment offered by Rep. Velazquez and adopted by the Financial Services Committee by ensuring that public housing authorities that apply to HUD for "stop-loss" do not have their applications rejected on the basis that the management and related fees they establish pursuant to this bill are not reasonable as defined by HUD. Additionally, the amendment is a restatement of current law with respect to the ineligibility of illegal immigrants for assistance.

The amendment PASSED by on a vote of 415-0-18.

H.AMDT.957 - Holds HUD responsible, in the case of receivership, for performing the same responsibilities that the local housing agencies have in respect to working with tenant associations before building public housing. Additionally, in the case of receivership, before building new public housing HUD must honor any formal agreements entered into before the commencement of such receivership between the local housing authority and the tenant association.

Those who supported this amendment wanted to ensure that, should a dispute arise with HUD and a local housing authority, and should that housing authority fall into receivership, that all agreements with tenants will be honored. It would be protection against forcing people into a situation where they are homeless.

While opposition time was claimed, no one stood up to speak as to why this would be opposed.

The Amendment PASSED on a vote of 337-77-19.
FOR: 223 Democrats, 114 Republicans
AGAINST: 77 Republicans
NO VOTE: 11 Democrats, 8 Republicans

Adrian Smith voted AGAINST this amendment, while Lee Terry and Jeff Forteberry voted FOR it.

A Motion to Recommit was then made by Republicans:

The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. SMITH of Texas moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 3521, to the Committee on Financial Services with instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith with the following amendment:

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the text of the bill H.R. 3773 as passed by the Senate on February 12, 2008.

That's right: Republicans came back to start playing their political games. They tried to get rid of this bill and replace it with the FISA Bill as it was passed in the Senate.

Democrats raised a point of order that the amendment was not germane to the bill, as it had nothing to do with asset management. Republicans accused Democrats of using a "procedural objection" to block consideration of the FISA Bill. Of course, they didn't admit they were using partisan, political, procedural actions to play their games. Just who is playing politics here? Here was the dialogue that occured on this motion:

POINT OF ORDER
Mr. SIRES. Madam Speaker, I make a point of order that the amendment is not germane to the bill. The bill H.R. 3773 has nothing to do with the asset management bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Yes, I do, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, once again, the Democratic majority is insisting on a procedural objection to block consideration of the Senate-passed FISA modernization bill. This motion to recommit adds the bipartisan bill passed 2 weeks ago by the Senate, 68-29.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend. The gentleman must confine his remarks to the gentleman from New Jersey's point of order.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, there is nothing more germane to the security of the American people than to take up the Senate bill as quickly as possible.
Now I would like to reiterate my disappointment that the majority has raised a point of order against this motion to recommit.
Mr. SIRES. Madam Speaker, the gentleman is not speaking on the point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas must confine his remarks to the point of order.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman to withdraw his point of order and allow for an up-or-down vote on the bipartisan Senate reform bill.
Mr. SIRES. Madam Speaker, I insist on my point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The instructions in the motion to recommit propose an amendment consisting of the text of an entirely different measure that falls outside the jurisdiction of the Committee on Financial Services. The instructions are therefore not germane. The point of order is sustained. The motion is not in order.

When the decision was appealed by the Republicans, a motion was made to table (not consider) that appeal.

The Motion to Table PASSED on a vote of 218-195-15. Democrats for, Republicans against. Smith joined his party as usual.

Further consideration of the bill was then postponed per Section 2 of H.RES.974:

Sec. 2. During consideration in the House of H.R. 3521 pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated by the Speaker.

The next day, the Journal had to be approved, and vote was again demanded.

The Journal was APPROVED on a vote of 217-185-1-25
FOR: 205 Democrats, 12 Republicans
AGAINST: 15 Democrats, 170 Republicans
PRESENT: 1 Republican
NO VOTE: 10 Democrats, 15 Republicans

Smith voted AGAINST approval.

H.RES.1001 - Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5351) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax incentives for the production of renewable energy and energy conservation.

This set forth the rules for consideration of H.R. 5351. There were 3 votes: To Consider the Resolution, Ordering the Previous Question, and Approving the Resolution. All 3 votes were party-line: Democrats for, Republicans against.

H.R.5351 - To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax incentives for the production of renewable energy and energy conservation.

This is known as the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008.

It extends tax credits through 2011 for production of electricity from renewable resources. A limit is place on credits based on investment in renewable resource facilities placed in service after 2009. It extends tax credits for investment in solar and fuel cell property through 2016. An offset is allowed against AMT liability for certain energy tax credits. It allows public utilities to qualify. Extends credits for energy efficient property upgrades through 2014. A new tax credit is provided for production of plug-in hybrid vehicles. It extends a tax credit for installing nonhydrogen alternative fuel refueling property to 2010, among other adjustments for alternative fuel properties. It extends through 2010 the income and excise tax credits for biodiesel. A tax credit is provided for cellulosic alcohol fuel. Energy conservation bods are authorized to finance local government conservation and greenhouse gas reductions projects (a national limit of $3.6 Billion). A five-year recovery period for depreciate of energy management devices (measures and records electricity usage data) is set up. Oil Companies are denied a tax deduction for income from oil and gas production, while individual taxpayers' deductions are reduced by 3%. Increases the estimated tax payment for large oil corporations by 3% in the 3rd quarter of 2013 for assest over $1 Billion. A study is to be done to determine tax provisions that have the greatest affect on reducing carbon and greenhouse gas emissions. A scientific finding is also to be made in regards to current and future biofuels production and the domestic effects of a dramatic increase in productivity. Finally, it applies labor standards under the Davis-Bacon Act to projects financed with new clean renewable energy bonds.

There were no amendments set forth for this bill, and after the debate was held on it, Republicans made a Motion to Recommit.

Once again, they tried to remove this bill and replace it with the pending FISA Bill as approved in the Senate. Democrats objected saying the motion was not germane to the bill (FISA is not energy tax credits!). The Chair sustained the objection, and Republicans demanded an appeal of the decision. Democrats moved to table the appeal.

The Motion to Table was PASSED on a vote of 222-191-15. It was party-line, with Democrats for, Republicans against.

Another Motion to Recommit was made, asking to promptly report back (which in the House ends all debate before passage and delays considerably). The motion was to remove several of the tax credits. They then wanted to add in entensions for the marriage penalty relief and child tax credits.

Those for the motion decided to blame the Democrats for the rising oil prices, and failing to address it effectively. They then say this bill, by taking away some of the corporate welfare Big Oil receives, will only make things worse for Americans and not promote ongoing exploration for oil and gas. They call the bonds a "liberal slush fund".

Those opposed point out that this motion would essentially kill the bill, or at the very least, render it ineffective.

The Motion to Recommit FAILED on a vote of 197-222-9, nearly party-line. Republicans were for it, Democrats were against it.

H R 5351 was then PASSED on a vote of 236-182-11.
FOR: 219 Democrats, 17 Republicans
AGAINST: 8 Democrats, 174 Republicans
NO VOTE: 4 Democrats, 7 Republicans

Smith voted AGAINST the bill. So, while he's all for tax credits that usually benefit only a very few and usually the wealthy (individuals and corporations), he's against this one. Shows where his priorities really are.

----------------------------------------------

The remaining bills that received votes were passed with little or no opposition:

H.RES.978 - Expressing support for the designation of the week of March 3-7, 2008, as "School Social Work Week" to promote awareness of the vital role of school social workers in schools, and in the community as a whole, in helping students prepare for their future as productive citizens.
H.RES.930 - Supporting the goals and ideals of "Career and Technical Education Month".
H.RES.944 - Honoring the service and accomplishments of Lieutenant General Russel L. Honore, United States Army, for his 37 years of service on behalf of the United States.
S.2272 - A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service known as the Southpark Station in Alexandria, Louisiana, as the John "Marty" Thiels Southpark Station, in honor and memory of Thiels, a Louisiana postal worker who was killed in the line of duty on October 4, 2007.
H.R.3936 - To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 116 Helen Highway in Cleveland, Georgia, as the "Sgt. Jason Harkins Post Office Building".
H.R.4454 - To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 3050 Hunsinger Lane in Louisville, Kentucky, as the "Iraq and Afghanistan Fallen Military Heroes of Louisville Memorial Post Office Building", in honor of the servicemen and women from Louisville, Kentucky, who died in service during Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom.

FLOOR STATEMENTS

Smith submitted the following statement for the record. Funny, but it was submitted on February 25, but was for the resolution passed nearly 2 weeks before:

SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF NATIONAL ENGINEERS WEEK
(Extensions of Remarks - February 25, 2008)

SPEECH OF HON. ADRIAN SMITH OF NEBRASKA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2008

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Madam Speaker, I rise to salute the engineers, past, present, and future, of the United States of America. Engineers have shaped our history, from aiding the colonists to win our independence to designing our advanced, modern technologies. They impact our daily lives from the first ring of our alarm clocks in the morning to our late-night, online shopping.

In my home State of Nebraska, engineers aid agriculture with new and more effective agricultural chemicals and better equipment and technologies. Nebraska engineers help secure our Nation's energy independence by supporting the ethanol industry. Nebraska engineers ensure our roads, bridges, water-works, and other infrastructure are well designed, functional, and safe.

Engineers are key to a prosperous and productive future for all Nebraskans and Americans. There are nearly 150 engineering companies in Nebraska's Third District. Every day I hear about the need to attract talented, educated young people to fill technical, engineering, and science positions in small communities and rural areas in the Third District. I have been, and continue to be, an enthusiastic supporter of the America COMPETES act which encourages American competitiveness in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education. I am optimistic this initiative will help Nebraska's engineering businesses attract and maintain native talent in engineering.

Smith then made the following statement on the floor. It did NOT occur during the Energy Tax Credit debate:

ENERGY TAX HIKE MEANS HIGHER GAS PRICES
(House of Representatives - February 26, 2008)

(Mr. SMITH of Nebraska asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, this week the House will, for the third time, debate an energy bill which actually raises gas prices for the American people, sends manufacturing jobs overseas, and increases our reliance on foreign energy. This energy tax hike will raise taxes on domestic energy producers, in essence making it more difficult and expensive to produce American energy for American consumers.

As you know, oil has reached and broken the previously untouched benchmark of $100 a barrel, and the average national price of gasoline has gone up 16 cents in just 13 days. In my State of Nebraska, gas prices are hitting $3.14 in Grand Island, and in Scottsbluff they're hitting $3.08.

The American public is deeply worried about the rising cost of energy, yet we stand on the verge of making it worse by stubbornly going forward with this legislation. It's simple, really; raising taxes on American energy leads to higher gas prices and a greater dependency on foreign sources of energy.

The longer we put off working to switch to new forms of energy, specifically renewable forms, the worse it will be for all of us. Does Smith propose we just ignore that fact?

BILLS SPONSORED/COSPONSORED

Smith did not sponsor any new bills this week. The last time he introduced a bill as the lead sponsor was on 7/24/2007 (H.R.3143 - to eliminate meth kingpins). He's only sponsored a total of 6 bills.

He signed on to 4 bills as a cosponsor.

H.RES.951 - Condemning the ongoing Palestinian rocket attacks on Israeli civilians by Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist organizations, and for other purposes.

This was introduced on 1/29/2008. Smith signed onto it on 2/26/2008.

H.R.1576 - To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the special rule for contributions of qualified conservation contributions.

This bill would make permanent the tax deduction for charitable contributions by individuals and corporations of real property interests for conservation purposes.

It was introduced back on 3/19/2007. Smith signed onto it on 2/27/2008, nearly a year later.

H.R.1767 - To amend the Consumer Credit Protection Act to assure meaningful disclosures of the terms of rental-purchase agreements, including disclosures of all costs to consumers under such agreements, to provide certain substantive rights to consumers under such agreements, and for other purposes.

This bill was introduced back on 3/29/2007. Smith signed onto it on 2/28/2008.

H.R.5134 - To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide an exclusion for gain from the sale of farmland to encourage the continued use of the property for farming, and for other purposes.

This bill has been titled the Beginning Farmers and Ranchers Act, and was introduced on 1/23/2008 by Rep. Lee Terry (NE-2). It would exclude 100% of the gain, up to $500,000, from the sale of farm property to first-time farmers who will use the property for farming for 10 years. There would be a 50% exclusion for all farm sales to those who will use it to farm for 10 years, and a 25% exclusion for all other sales.

Smith signed onto the bill on 2/25/2008.

House Actions 2/11/2008 - 2/15/2008

2008-04-11T09:32:00.005-05:00

This week in the House was an ongoing battle over FISA and warrantless wiretapping. A bill revamping the program had gone through the House previously, and then the Senate had considered. The Senate added on amendments that would give telecom companies blanket ammunity, an idea House Democrats had previously rejected. As a result, House Republicans were trying to put the issue in most of the bills being presented. It was a lot of political games, and Adrian Smith followed right along with the party leadership.

The first thing that came up was a bill to expand the Protect America Act of 2007 (the temporary FISA Bill from last year) for another 21 days, as it was expiring on February 16th. It was the old battle of Republicans accusing Democrats of supporting the terrorists, while Democrats argued that they wanted to insure civil liberties and the law was followed, and still go after terrorism. Republicans tried to get the Senate version of the bill into the extension, which failed. Smith made sure to support that, and also voted against the extension. In the end, the extension failed. However, even if the extension failed, the old FISA rules would still apply and not stop any needed work by the intelligence community, despite what Bush and the Republicans wanted anyone to believe.

The next big issue to occur was a vote on a Contempt of Congress citation against Harriet Miers and Joshua Bolton. Both had been subpeonaed by Congress to testify on the firing of several US Attorney's after the 2006 elections. Congress was attempting to find out if there had been an abuse of power for political purposes. The White House was refusing to provide documents on the matter, and had told Miers and Bolton not to testify even though they were no longer employeed in the White House. As a result, they didn't show for the hearing. The resolution was also going to allow Congress to take legal action to enforce the subpeonas in the legal system, even if the Bush Administration directed the Justice Department not to cooperate in the enforcement.

Because Republicans were continuing to be angered over the FISA Bill that had passed the Senate, and also because they didn't want to support anything that held Bush Administration official in contempt, the large majority of them walked off the House floor and refused to participate in the vote. The irony was that they accused Democrats of playing political games - and this was after they played a game and walked out as a group to a bank of microphones to use political games in the media to make their point. It was all set up prior to the vote. Adrian Smith, of course, walk right in line with the other Republicans like a puppet on a string. The Contempt citation was passed in the end.

During the week, Smith made no statements, didn't sponsor any new legislation, and didn't cosponsor any new legislation.

The following week, starting 2/18/2008, the House was in recess, but Smith signed his name to a resolution. The resolution is an attempt to further insert that Christianity and the Bible were, and continue to be, a foundation of this nation. It's to establish an "American Religious History Week". Now, if this was to show the diversity of religion in this nation, it might be okay. However, this extensive resolution lays out very clearly the focus is on Christianity and makes no mention of any other religions. Given Smith's connection with the Religious Right (Jerry Falwell, Liberty University), it's a bill that appeals to his most ardent supporters. But it also shows he's more concerned with continuing to present an image, and not actually do anything that has a real impact on the daily lives of the people of the Third District. While people may have their faith and their beliefs, what does that do to help a family afford health care for their children? To pay their energy bills? To buy their groceries? To pay their mortgage? And what is Smith even doing about any of that?

ROLL CALL VOTES

H.RES.976 - Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5349) to extend the Protect America Act of 2007 for 21 days.

This set forth the rules for consideration of HR 5349. What followed were several moves by Republicans to stall and delay. They wanted to move forward, but at a snails pace.

Prior to consideration, a motion was made to Adjourn.

Adjournment FAILED on a vote of 3-366-59.

Shortly thereafter, another motion was made to Adjourn.

Adjournment FAILED on a vote of 7-364-57.

There were then 4 different votes just to pass the resolution. First there was "ordering the previous question". Then a motion was made by Republicans to reconsider that vote, but Democrats countered with a vote to "table" (not consider) that motion. A vote was then held to "agree to the resolution". Republicans then tried to make a motion to reconsider that vote, but was countered by another vote to "table" that motion. All 4 votes were party line votes, with Democrats supporting the resolution, Republicans voting against it. As always, Smith joined with his party.

H.R.5349 - To extend the Protect America Act of 2007 for 21 days.

This bill would amend the Protection America Act of 2007, set to expire on February 16, 2008, by extending it another 21 days. This was the Act the dealt with the FISA courts. The argument going at the time was Bush accusing Democrats of not wanting to protect America. Republicans wanted to continue to let the Bush Administration to perform wiretaps without following the law. They also wanted to exempt telecom companies that gave information to the Bush Administration from any lawsuits that may be filed by citizens claiming civil rights violations. However, Democrats were wanting to give the authority to wiretap with the proper oversight in place, and wanted to prevent the Bush Administration from continuing to circumvent the law.

Prior to consideration, however, Republicans again stalled with a motion to Adjourn. Once again, they didn't actually want adjournment, but wanted to simply delay moving forward by holding the vote.

Ajournment FAILED on a vote of 3-395-30.

Those in support of this bill explained that the delays in the Senate on the House-passed RESTORE Act were a factor. The day before this vote, the Senate had then passed the new FISA bill with additions that were concerning. First, they provided blanket, retroactive amnesty for telecom companies that participated in warrantless surveillance programs. The additional time which an extension would provide would allow time to examine the legality of this matter. There continued to be concerns about the President's view that he can spy on American's without warrants and without real oversight. As Representative John Conyers stated on the floor, "Congress is committed to providing the executive branch the tools it needs. But we need to do so to make sure that the power to spy on Americans is not subject to abuse or misuse. All of us in this body think that that is of paramount concern."

Those opposed to this extension felt it would hurt the intelligence community (although keeping existing law in place is exactly what would be happening, and that was not hurting anyone at present). They felt it put national security at risk (but couldn't say just how that is). They wanted the Senate bill passed without further debate, and to forgo any conference between the House and Senate to debate differences in the bill. There was a lot of fear-mongering and assertions that this was aiding terrorists (yes, we've heard those for years: If you don't support Bush blindly, then you support terrorists).

At the end of debate a Motion to Recommit was made.

The motion was to take the full text of HR 3773 (the FISA Bill) that was passed in the Senate and put that in the bill in place of the extension.

Democrats objected, saying that the motion was not germane to the bill under consideration, that it goes beyond the scope, and should not be considered. Republicans argued that Democrats are using procede over substance and aren't prepared to protect Americans from terrorists (get real!).

The Chair then had to make a ruling:

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule.

The gentleman from Michigan makes a point of order that the motion to recommit offered by the gentleman from Texas proposes an amendment that is not germane to the bill.

Clause 7 of rule XVI provides that no proposition on a subject different from that under consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment.

The bill, H.R. 5349, extends the Protect America Act of 2007 for a limited time.

The instructions contained in the motion to recommit propose permanent changes in law.

A general principle of the germaneness rule is that where a bill is composed only of a temporary extension of existing programs, an amendment making permanent changes in law relating to such programs is not germane.

The Chair will note a relevant precedent. On December 2, 1982, the Chair ruled that an amendment permanently changing the organic law governing an agency's operation was not germane to a bill that merely provided a temporary authorization for the agency. This precedent is recorded on page 722 of the House Rules and Manual.

Therefore, in the opinion of the Chair, the instructions contained in the motion to recommit are not germane. The point of order is sustained.

The Republicans then made a motion to appeal the Speaker's ruling. Democrats immediately countered with a motion to table the appeal.

The Motion to Table the Ruling was PASSED on a party-line vote of 222-196-10: Democrats for, Republicans against. This led to the final vote on whether to pass the bill.

H.R. 5349 then FAILED on a vote of 191-229-9.
FOR: 191 Democrats
AGAINST: 34 Democrats, 195 Republicans
NO VOTE: 6 Democrats, 3 Republicans

Smith voted against the bill.

H.CON.RES.293 - Providing for an adjournment or recess of the two Houses.

This Concurrent Resolution would adjourn the House and Senate at the end of the week until Monday, February 25, 2008, with allowances for early recall should it be necessary.

The House PASSED the the resolution of a vote of 215-203-10, nearly party-line. Democrats voted for it, Republicans against it. Smith joined in voting against it with his party. In the Senate, it passed with no problems by Unanimous Consent.

H.RES.982 - Providing for the adoption of the resolution (H. Res. 979) recommending that the House of Representatives find Harriet Miers and Joshua Bolten, Chief of Staff, White House, in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with subpoenas duly issued by the Committee on the Judiciary and for the adoption of the resolution (H. Res. 980) authorizing the Committee on the Judiciary to initiate or intervene in judicial proceedings to enforce certain subpoenas.

H.Res.979 is a Contempt of Congress citation against Harriet Miers and Joshua Bolton. They were both former members of the Bush White House staff, and were issued subpoenas by Congress to testify in hearings regarding the firing of the US Attorney's after the 2006 elections. If you recall, they were suspect and there was extensive evidence that the firings were the result of the US Attorney's refusing to use their office to play politics in the elections. Both Miers and Bolton failed to appear and refused to testify. H.Res.980 would allow for legal proceedings to begin to enforce the subpeonas through the legal system.

Prior to considering the bill, however, a motion was made to Adjourn.

Adjournment FAILED on a vote of 2-185-11.

Then another motion was made to Adjourn.

Adjournment FAILED on a vote of 2-400-26.

Republicans were angered by this resolution. While they claimed that they believed Congress has a right to demand information from the Executive Branch, they didn't think it applied in this case. They said the US Attorney's were "at-will" employees, that could be fired for any reason by the President (of course, they didn't point out that such "firings" had never happened at this point in any other Administration and that there was clear indication it was politically motivated). They also claimed they weren't getting a chance to debate - while they were standing and debating the matter. The Republicans went back to the pending FISA bill that passed the Senate and wanted to focus on that instead.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi spoke on the matter:

This is not a conflict that the Congress has sought. In fact, as the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee has indicated, the committee has repeatedly sought to avoid confrontation, repeatedly making requests that have been ignored or rejected by the White House on completely unacceptable terms.

The Judiciary Committee, indeed the Congress, is clearly entitled to this information. It involves neither national security information nor communications with the President. The President has no grounds to assert executive privilege.

On the other hand, Congress has the responsibility of oversight of the executive branch. I know that Members on both sides of the aisle take that responsibility very seriously. Oversight is an institutional obligation to ensure against abuse of power, in this case the politicizing of the Department of Justice. Subpoena authority is a vital tool for that oversight.

Today, we seek to require the Department of Justice to bring contempt motions against Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten. When our resolution passes, we hope the administration will realize that this House of Representatives, this Congress, is serious about our constitutional role of oversight and will reach a settlement with us over the documents and testimony at issue. I still hold out the hope that they will cooperate.

But if the administration fails to do so, and if it orders the Department of Justice not to file contempt proceedings, we will then, through this resolution, have the power ourselves to go to Federal court and seek civil enforcement of our subpoenas.

The resolution before us today should not be a partisan issue. It should not be. This isn't about Democrats or Republicans. Former Congressman Mickey Edwards, who once served in the Republican leadership, has said that the enforcement of the subpoenas in the U.S. Attorney matter is about defending Congress, not a Democratic or a Republican Congress, but the people's Congress, as a separate, independent, and completely equal branch of government.

The subject of the Judiciary Committee's investigation involves serious and credible allegations that Federal law enforcement was politicized. Political manipulation of law enforcement undermines public confidence in our criminal justice system. Congress must find out what happened not just in terms of those who were fired but also whether improper criteria were used to retain the remaining U.S. Attorneys. We must have the information in order to protect against political manipulation of law enforcement, and it must be provided in terms consistent with our constitutional obligations.

House Majority Leader Stenny Hoyer added:

The issue before this body is not fundamentally whether the current administration acted properly and within the law when it dismissed seven U.S. attorneys in 2006, that may be the issue at some point in time, but unless we have the information to get to that point, such a question will be moot. Nor is this a partisan clash between a Democratic House and a Republican President. Rather, the basic issue before this House is this: whether this body and the committee system, which is central to our duties to perform meaningful and vigorous oversight, can simply be ignored by the executive branch when this body seeks testimony and documents relevant to an important public policy controversy.

As the New York Times noted this morning, ``If Congress fails to enforce its own subpoenas, it would effectively be ceding subpoena power. It would also be giving its tacit consent to the dangerous idea of an imperial President, above the law, and beyond the reach of checks and balances.''

Republicans were angered over this vote, and wanted to protest it, along with the delay in adoption of the new FISA bill. To do so, they took their ball and went home.

In other words.......they walked out.

The Resolution was PASSED on a vote of 223-32-1-173.
FOR: 220 Democrats, 3 Republicans
AGAINST: 1 Democrat, 31 Republicans
PRESENT: 1 Republican
NO VOTE: 10 Democrats, 163 Republicans

Nebraska's Representatives chose politics over the Constitution. Adrian Smith, Lee Terry and Jeff Fortenberry all walked out and did not vote.

H.R.1834 - To authorize the national ocean exploration program and the national undersea research program within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

This would establish a program that the NOAA, in coordination with other programs around the country, would conduct an undersea research, exploration, education, and technology development program to increase scientific knowledge regarding management, use, and preservation of oceanic, coastal, and Great Lakes resources.

H R 1834 was then PASSED on a vote of 352-49-27
FOR: 213 Democrats, 139 Republicans
AGAINST: 49 Republicans
NO VOTE: 17 Democrats, 10 Republicans

Smith voted FOR the program.

----------------------------------------------

The remaining bills to receive votes were passed with little or no opposition:

H.RES.954 - Honoring the life of senior Border Patrol agent Luis A. Aguilar, who lost his life in the line of duty near Yuma, Arizona, on January 19, 2008.
H.RES.909 - Commemorating the courage of the Haitian soldiers that fought for American independence in the "Siege of Savannah" and for Haiti's independence and renunciation of slavery.
H.CON.RES.281 - Celebrating the birth of Abraham Lincoln and recognizing the prominence the Declaration of Independence played in the development of Abraham Lincoln's beliefs.
H.RES.960 - Congratulating the National Football League champion New York Giants for winning Super Bowl XLII and completing one of the most remarkable postseason runs in professional sports history.
H.RES.917 - Supporting the goals and ideals of National Engineers Week, and for other purposes.
H.RES.966 - Honoring African American inventors, past and present, for their leadership, courage, and significant contributions to our national competitiveness.
S.2571 - A bill to make technical corrections to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
H.CON.RES.289 - Honoring and praising the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People on the occasion of its 99th anniversary.
H.R.4169 - To authorize the placement in Arlington National Cemetery of an American Braille tactile flag in Arlington National Cemetery honoring blind members of the Armed Forces, veterans, and other Americans.
H.RES.790 - Commending the people of the State of Washington for showing their support for the needs of the State of Washington's veterans and encouraging residents of other States to pursue creative ways to show their own support for veterans.
H.RES.963 - Supporting the goals and ideals of National Salute to Hospitalized Veterans Week, and for other purposes.
H.RES.972 - Supporting the goals and ideals of American Heart Month and National Wear Red Day.

FLOOR STATEMENTS

Adrian Smith made no statements on the floor, nor submitted any for the record this week.

BILLS SPONSORED/COSPONSORED

Adrian Smith did not sponsor or cosponsor any new bills during this week.

ACTIONS DURING HOUSE ADJOURNMENT

For the week of 2/18/2008, the House was Adjourned. However, Smith decided to sign onto a resolution.

H.RES.888 - Affirming the rich spiritual and religious history of our Nation's founding and subsequent history and expressing support for designation of the first week in May as "American Religious History Week" for the appreciation of and education on America's history of religious faith.

This was introduced back on 12/18/2007 by Republican Rep. Randy Forbes of Virginia. Smith signed onto it on 2/19/2008.

This resolution is one for many of the Religious Right. It highlights Christianity in the country, and is a long resolution. Here are some of the highlights:

Whereas political scientists have documented that the most frequently-cited source in the political period known as The Founding Era was the Bible;

Whereas the first act of America's first Congress in 1774 was to ask a minister to open with prayer and to lead Congress in the reading of 4 chapters of the Bible;

Whereas Congress regularly attended church and Divine service together en masse;

Whereas in 1776, Congress approved the Declaration of Independence with its 4 direct religious acknowledgments referring to God as the Creator (`All people are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'), the Lawgiver (`the laws of nature and nature's God'), the Judge (`appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world'), and the Protector (`with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence');

Whereas the Liberty Bell was named for the Biblical inscription from Leviticus 25:10 emblazoned around it: `Proclaim liberty throughout the land, to all the inhabitants thereof';

Whereas in 1789, on the same day that Congress finished drafting the First Amendment, it requested President Washington to declare a National day of prayer and thanksgiving, resulting in the first Federal official Thanksgiving proclamation that declared `it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor';

Whereas in 1854 the United States House of Representatives declared `It [religion] must be considered as the foundation on which the whole structure rests ... Christianity; in its general principles, is the great conservative element on which we must rely for the purity and permanence of free institutions';

Whereas in 1864, Congress passed an act authorizing each State to display statues of 2 of its heroes in the United States Capitol, resulting in numerous statues of noted Christian clergymen and leaders at the Capitol, including Gospel ministers such as the Revs. James A. Garfield, John Peter Muhlenberg, Jonathan Trumbull, Roger Williams, Jason Lee, Marcus Whitman, and Martin Luther King Jr.; Gospel theologians such as Roger Sherman; Catholic priests such as Father Damien, Jacques Marquette, Eusebio Kino, and Junipero Serra; Catholic nuns such as Mother Joseph; and numerous other religious leaders;

Whereas America's first Presidential Inauguration incorporated 7 specific religious activities, including--
(1) the use of the Bible to administer the oath;
(2) affirming the religious nature of the oath by the adding the prayer `So help me God!' to the oath;
(3) inaugural prayers offered by the President;
(4) religious content in the inaugural address;
(5) civil leaders calling the people to prayer or acknowledgement of God;
(6) inaugural worship services attended en masse by Congress as an official part of congressional activities; and
(7) clergy-led inaugural prayers, activities which have been replicated in whole or part by every subsequent President;

Whereas President Andrew Jackson declared that the Bible `is the rock on which our Republic rests';

Whereas President Abraham Lincoln declared that the Bible `is the best gift God has given to men ... But for it, we could not know right from wrong'

Whereas President Ronald Reagan, after noting `The Congress of the United States, in recognition of the unique contribution of the Bible in shaping the history and character of this Nation and so many of its citizens, has ... requested the President to designate the year 1983 as the `Year of the Bible',' officially declared 1983 as `The Year of the Bible';

Whereas the first week in May each year would be an appropriate week to designate as `American Religious History Week': Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the United States House of Representatives----
(1) affirms the rich spiritual and diverse religious history of our Nation's founding and subsequent history, including up to the current day;
(2) recognizes that the religious foundations of faith on which America was built are critical underpinnings of our Nation's most valuable institutions and form the inseparable foundation for America's representative processes, legal systems, and societal structures;
(3) rejects, in the strongest possible terms, any effort to remove, obscure, or purposely omit such history from our Nation's public buildings and educational resources; and
(4) expresses support for designation of a `American Religious History Week' every year for the appreciation of and education on America's history of religious faith.

While a lot things highlighted were personal feelings of many in our history, my concern would be that this resolution would be yet another attempt to mesh government and religion (specifically Christianity) together. But signing onto it will appeal to those that want just that.

House Actions 2/4/2008 - 2/8/2008

2008-04-10T14:13:00.003-05:00

This week in the House focused on 2 major bills: the College Opportunity and Affordability Act of 2007, and the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008.

Adrian Smith supported both bills in the end, and made a couple of floor statements. However, he did not sponsor any new bills.

ROLL CALL VOTES

H.RES.956 - Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4137) to amend and extend the Higher Education Act of 1965, and for other purposes.

This sets forth the rules for debate on H.R. 4137. As usual, on "ordering the previous question" and "agreeing to the resolution", the votes were party-line: Democrats for, Republicans against.

H.R.4137 - To amend and extend the Higher Education Act of 1965, and for other purposes.

Known as the College Opportunity and Affordability Act of 2007, this bill would provide greater access to higher education. It would provide greater resources, establish a new Teacher Quality Partnership grant program, expand the Pell Grant, broaden eligibility for various other grants, provide further loan forgiveness programs, and other oversight and program expansions.

There were 23 amendments offered up for debate. Of those, 20 were passed by voice vote. The remaining 3 received roll call votes.

H.AMDT.936 - Requires the existing Education-Treasury Study Group to evaluate the feasibility of an alternative market-based reform to the Federal Family Education Loan Program. The recommended alternative should reduce federal costs to taxpayers and use savings to increase need-based grant aid to low-income students.

This amendment would study market-based reforms to the guaranteed student loan program.

Those opposed to this amendment state this would require a feasibility study on market mechanisms that could then be used to determine lender returns when making student loans. With the current set up, it's unclear how a study could be done without implementing a broader pilot program.

The Amendment PASSED on a vote of 260-153-21. There were 49 Republicans that joined Democrats in passing the amendment, while 10 Democrats joined Republicans in voting "no".
Smith voted AGAINST this amendment.

H.AMDT.937 - Extends the new audit and reporting provisions applied only to the Direct Loan program to the Federal Family Education Loan Program.

As stated, this amendment would extend the audit and reporting provisions. This amendment was offered due to the scandals and abuse by such lenders like Nelnet. It would create further accountability.

Those opposed felt the idea was on track, but wanted to further debate and asked for a "no" vote.

The Amendment PASSED on a vote of 222-191-21. There were 25 Republicans that joined the Democrats to pass the amendment, while 24 Democrats voted "no" with the Republicans.
Smith voted AGAINST the amendment.

H.AMDT.939 - To restore protections to private student loan borrowers similar to those afforded other unsecured debtors by allowing the discharge of private student loans via bankruptcy.

This amendment would allow for student loans to be included in bankruptcy filings by individuals.

Those opposed said this would add uncertainty and additional risk to student lending. They also point out that student loans can be discharged right now if the person is facing and undue hardship. The amendment would remove the hardship element and create greater instability.

The Amendment FAILED on a vote of 179-236-19. There were 52 Democrats that joined Republicans to defeat the amendment.
Smith voted AGAINST it.

A MOTION TO RECOMMIT was then offered up for consideration.

The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Ferguson moves to recommit the bill H.R. 4137 to the Committee on Education and Labor with instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith with the following amendment:
At the end of the bill, add the following new title:

TITLE XII--LIMITATIONS ON EXPENDITURES
SEC. 1201. FUNDING PRIORITIES.
(a) Pell and IDEA First.--None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available pursuant to an authorization of appropriations or other provision of this Act (including an amendment made by this Act) shall be expended to carry out any new program under this Act for any fiscal year, or any FIPSE program for that fiscal year, unless--
(1) the Federal Pell Grant program is fully funded for that fiscal year; and
(2) the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act is fully funded for that fiscal year.
(b) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
(1) NEW PROGRAM.--The term ``new program under this Act'' means a title, part, subpart, section, or other provision of the Higher Education Act of 1965--
(A) for which funds are authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available by an amendment made by this Act to the Higher Education Act of 1965; and
(B) for which funds were not authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available prior to the date of enactment of this Act .
(2) FIPSE PROGRAM.--The term ``FIPSE program'' means any program authorized by section 741 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended by title VII of this Act.
(3) PELL GRANT FULL FUNDING.--The Federal Pell Grant program shall be considered to be fully funded for a fiscal year only if the total amount appropriated or otherwise made available for such fiscal year is sufficient to provide a maximum Federal Pell Grant that equals or exceeds $9,000.
(4) IDEA FULL FUNDING.--The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act shall be considered to be fully funded for a fiscal year only if, with respect to such fiscal year, the total amount appropriated pursuant to the authorization of appropriations under section 611(i) of such Act (20 U.S.C. 1411(i)) or otherwise made available is sufficient to provide the maximum grant to each State as determined under section 611(a)(2)(B) of such Act (20 U.S.C. 1411(a)(2)(B)) for such fiscal year.

The Motion would essentially block funding unless IDEA is fully funded, and would cause the full bill to lose a lot of its strength.

The Motion FAILED on a vote of 194-216-19, with most Democrats AGAINST it, and most Republicans FOR it.
Smith voted FOR the motion.

H R 4137 was then PASSED on a vote of 354-58-17
FOR: 219 Democrats, 135 Republicans
AGAINST: 58 Republicans
NO VOTE: 12 Democrats, 5 Republicans

Smith voted FOR the bill.

H.R.5140 - To provide economic stimulus through recovery rebates to individuals, incentives for business investment, and an increase in conforming and FHA loan limits.

This was the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008.

The vote was to approve the Senate amendments to the bill.

The Senate Amendments PASSED on a vote of 380-34-16.
Only 6 Democrats and 28 Republicans voted against it.
Smith voted FOR it.

The bill was then signed by the President on 2/13/2008, becoming Public Law No: 110-185.

--------------------------------------------

The remaining roll call votes were on bills that passed with little or no opposition:

H.RES.867 - Commending the Houston Dynamo soccer team for winning the 2007 Major League Soccer Cup.
H.RES.942 - Recognizing the significance of Black History Month.
H.RES.943 - Remembering the space shuttle Challenger disaster and honoring its crew members, who lost their lives on January 28, 1986.
H.CON.RES.283 - Calling for a peaceful resolution to the current electoral crisis in Kenya.
H.R.4848 - To extend for one year parity in the application of certain limits to mental health benefits, and for other purposes.
H.RES.947 - Congratulating Lee Myung-Bak on his election to the Presidency of the Republic of Korea and wishing him well during his time of transition and his inauguration on February 25, 2008.

FLOOR STATMENTS

Adrian Smith made 2 statements on the House Floor during this week.

CONGRATULATING THE X PRIZE FOUNDATION
February 06, 2008

Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my colleague and friend from Nebraska (Mr. Smith).

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, prizes have a history of encouraging innovation by promoting competition and expanding the talent pool to include a numerous and diverse array of groups and individuals. Those unable or unwilling to secure grants can participate in the race for the goal. With prizes, government funding is not used to pick technological winners and losers. The prize is only awarded if the goal is met. Prizes encourage the investment of private capital and research, even beyond the monetary value of the prize.

I applaud the X PRIZE Foundation for spurring competition and innovation in the race to a more efficient automobile. When the 100 mile-per-gallon vehicle is achieved, citizens of my home State of Nebraska will be able to drive across the State on Interstate 80 on only 4 1/2 gallons of fuel. This tremendous efficiency would dramatically reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign oil, it would stimulate our economy, and certainly improve our national security.

I am grateful for the vision and enterprise of men like Dr. Peter Diamandis who kindle the spark of innovation that leads to revolutionary technologies.

COLLEGE OPPORTUNITY AND AFFORDABILITY ACT OF 2007
February 07, 2008

Mr. KELLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I note that Mr. Emanuel's extension was shorter than even his form that he's seeking here, but we're in broad bipartisan support of that simplified process. It was a wonderful idea, and I'm glad we could work with him. At this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska.

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, since being elected to Congress, I have had the opportunity to speak with young students throughout the Third District of Nebraska. They are smart and sharp, and we need to do everything we can to encourage them. Unfortunately, however, many rural States have seen what we call ``brain drain'' in recent years. As the depletion occurs, we lose our most vital economic asset to more populated areas. Responsible policy is needed to retain and grow our workforce to make our rural communities more competitive in this modern economy.

The College Opportunity and Affordability Act seeks to address this by encouraging economic development partnerships. These partnerships would be formed between rural colleges and universities and rural employers. This would provide additional career training to students attending rural schools in fields significant to the local economy. It also would encourage rural businesses to employ students once they graduate.

I thank the chairman and ranking member for working with me to target these partnerships to the areas in the most need.

There are no indications that Smith had any role in working on the bill in question.

BILLS SPONSORED/COSPONSORED

Smith did not sign on to any new bills this week.

Smith Appointed to New Committee

2008-04-08T21:06:00.002-05:00

With the start of the 2nd session of the 110th Congress, Adrian Smith was added to another committee: Natural Resources. He continues to be appointed to the Budget, Agriculture and Science & Technology committees in the House of Representatives.

When Smith was in the Nebraska Unicameral, he was a member of the Natural Resources Committee. Because he is now joining the Houses committee, it's a chance to recap his attendance as a Nebraska State Senator.

Smith was on the Nebraska Natural Resources Committee for the 2005-2006 sessions. The following is his attendance information as compared to the other members:

2005 Session
Total Bills Considered: 44

(Senator: Voting - Present/Not Voting - Absent)

Sen. Hudkins: 44 - 0 - 0
Sen. Kopplin: 43 - 1 - 0
Sen. Kremer: 43 - 1 - 0
Sen. Louden: 43 - 0 - 1
Sen. McDonald: 41 - 1 - 2
Sen. Schrock: 44 - 0 - 0
Sen. Stuhr: 44 - 0 - 0
Sen. Smith: 30 - 2 - 12

2006 Session
Total Bills Considered: 39

Sen. Hudkins: 38 - 0 - 1
Sen. Kopplin: 37 - 2 - 0
Sen. Kremer: 35 - 1 - 3
Sen. Louden: 30 - 3 - 6
Sen. McDonald: 32 - 2 - 5
Sen. Schrock: 38 - 1 - 0
Sen. Stuhr: 37 - 1 - 1
Sen. Smith: 21 - 1 - 17

TOTAL BILLS: 83

Sen. Hudkins: 82 - 0 - 1
Sen. Kopplin: 80 - 3 - 0
Sen. Kremer: 78 - 2 - 3
Sen. Louden: 73 - 3 - 7
Sen. McDonald: 73 - 3 - 7
Sen. Schrock: 82 - 1 - 0
Sen. Stuhr: 81 - 1 - 1
Sen. Smith: 51 - 3 - 29

In summary, Smith was present AND voting on only 61.4% of the bills, and he was absent for 35% of the bills. The next most absent Senators (McDonald and Louden) were only absent for 8% of the bills.

That was a HORRENDOUS attendance and participation record!

Let's hope he does better at the federal level. However, given his low level of real participation in hearings on the other committees, we may be disappointed.

More Hearing Transcripts

2008-04-08T20:18:00.002-05:00

After taking a much needed break, I'm back to catching up on the activities of Congressman Adrian Smith. The following are excerpts from hearings Smith should have participated in, given his membership in those committees. These transcripts are not always available in a timely manner, but as before, I will keeping posting what I find as those transcripts become accessible. As has been his pattern in the past, his participation tends to be very limited.

BUDGET COMMITTEE HEARINGS

PERSPECTIVES ON RENEWING STATUTORY PAYGO - JULY 25, 2007

Witnesses:

- Peter R. Orszag, Director, Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
- David M. Walker, Comptroller General of the United States
- Robert Greenstein, executive director, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
- Hon. Patrick J. Toomey, president, Club for Growth, former Congressman from the State of Pennsylvania
- Robert L. Bixby, executive director, the Concord Coalition
- Maya C. MacGuineas, president, Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget

At the start of the hearing, Smith is listed as "present".

As the hearing continues, however, and it comes his turn to ask any questions, he's gone:

Chairman Spratt. Thank you. We will now turn to Mr. Alexander of Louisiana. Okay. Mr. Smith of Nebraska. Not here. Mr. Campbell of California.

Mr. Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

HURRICANES KATRINA AND RITA: WHAT WILL BE THE LONG TERM EFFECT ON THE FEDERAL BUDGET? - AUGUST 2, 2007

Witnesses:

- Donald E. Powell, Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding, U.S. Department of Homeland Security
- Stanley J. Czerwinski, Director, Strategic Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office
- Rev. Donald Boutte, Pastor, St. John Baptist Church

Smith is listed as "present" at the start.

After that, we hear nothing else from him.

USING TAXPAYERS' DOLLARS MOST EFFICIENTLY: PERSPECTIVES ON PERFORMANCE BUDGETING - SEPTEMBER 20, 2007

Witnesses:

- Barry Anderson, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
- Hon. Clay Johnson III, Deputy Director for Management, Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
- David M. Walker, Comptroller General of the United States, U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO)
- Peter R. Orszag, Director, Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
- Paul L. Posner, director, Public Administration Program, George Mason University

Smith is listed as present, but asks no questions. However, he is the only Representative to submit a prewritten statement for the record (outside of the Chairman and Ranking Republican, who normally submit statements for the record on all hearings).

Prepared Statement of Hon. Adrian Smith, a Representative in Congress From the State of Nebraska

Good morning and thank you, Chairman. I am so pleased we are holding this hearing today. We have an obligation to exercise accountability and fiscal responsibility in government spending. As this Committee plans for future federal budgets, the ideas and information expressed to us today are of utmost importance. While we address the many fiscal challenges we face, we must assess the value of the information available to us. This hearing will give us the opportunity to explore ``performance-based budgeting.'' The models and results of ``performance-based budgeting'' could serve as a valuable tool for setting our spending priorities. Too often in Congress, we debate, vote on, and pass--and in some cases regrettably so--legislation about which we have no measure of its efficacy. And Mr. Chairman, that just has to change. Financial discipline is one of my greatest concerns. By serving on this Committee, my goal is to add fiscal restraint to the budget process. Congress must promote policies which will make government programs better, more efficient, and more sustainable for the long- term. Commonsense tells us this can only be achieved with an accountability system in place. Adding accountability to the budget process will combat waste, fraud, and abuse while we work to control the growth in government and restrain spending. I appreciate the Committee for holding this hearing as an important step to meeting our goals. Chairman, I look forward to continuing to work with you, and I thank you for your time.

Given Smith's close ties with the Club for Growth, do not be surprised if this was provided for him to submit.

THE TAX CODE AND HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE - OCTOBER 18, 2007

Witnesses:

- Grace-Marie Turner, president, Galen Institute
- Leonard E. Burman, director, Tax Policy Center, senior fellow, the Urban Institute

Smith was listed as present at the beginning. However, yet again, he is the only Representative to submit a written statement. He also presubmits his questions instead of staying and asking them live. Given this is, yet again, a hearing about taxes the Club for Growth would be interested in, there is a chance these were given to him to submit. It also prevented him from having to put himself on the spot in a room full of people like the rest of the members of the committee.

Prepared Statement of Hon. Adrian Smith, a Representative in Congress From the State of Nebraska

Good Morning. I would like to thank Chairman Spratt for holding today's hearing on this issue of concern to Americans. Our goal in this committee today is to address access and affordability of health care while looking for solutions that promote both fiscal and individual responsibility. Throughout the nation people are concerned about having access to health care; in my home state of Nebraska 11.1 percent of people go without health insurance. Today this Congress is grappling with the issue of providing health insurance to needy children. We must not lose sight, however, of the need for public policy that will reduce the number of Americans who are uninsured while continuing to foster a system that provides consumers with choice and competition. Choice and competition in health care promotes efficiency and innovation that works to keep the costs of health care under control. I look forward to hearing the testimony of the witnesses today. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your leadership in holding this hearing.

I will only post the question that was submitted, not the response (since it was a written statement with no give and take).

Question for Ms. Turner From Mr. Smith of Nebraska

As we look at ways to use the tax code to reduce the number of uninsured, we have seen different proposals including either tax credits or tax deductions to individuals and families for health care. In a general sense, as we look at the differences between credits, deductions, or a combination of the two, which approach will 1) be more fiscally responsible; and 2) do more to reduce the number of uninsured?

THE GROWING BUDGETARY COSTS OF THE IRAQ WAR - OCTOBER 24, 2007

Witnesses:

- Peter R. Orszag, Director, Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
- Prof. Linda J. Bilmes, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University
- Amy Belasco, Specialist in U.S., Defense Policy and Budget, Congressional Research Service

Once again, Smith was the only committee member (outside of the Chairman and Ranking member) to submit a written statement:

Prepared Statement of Hon. Adrian Smith, a Representative in Congress From the State of Nebraska

Good Morning. I would like to thank Chairman Spratt for holding today's hearing on this issue of concern to almost every American. As Congress provides funds for troops in both the Fiscal Year 2008 Defense Appropriations Bill and the War Supplemental, it is important for us to set the politics aside. Congress should finance Iraq operations in a fiscally responsible manner without jeopardizing the needs of our troops. After visiting our troops stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan and seeing real progress from strategies now in place, I am even more convinced the Global War on Terror can be won by supporting our troops and providing them the appropriate tools needed for success. By properly funding the Iraq mission today, the United States is helping Iraq to operate independently in the future; and an independent Iraq is a goal I know we all share. I look forward to hearing the testimony of the witnesses today. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your leadership in holding this hearing.

Smith then asked a few questions:

Chairman Spratt. Thank you, Mr. Doggett. Mr. Smith.

Mr. Smith. Excuse me. I apologize for arriving here late from a markup in another committee. When you talk about reset costs, what would you point to as something that might be neglected that we may need to address 5 years down the road or 10 years down the road rather than 2 years down the road?

Mr. Orszag. I am not exactly sure what you mean, sir.

Mr. Smith. With the reset costs, replacing equipment and various other items, long term, I mean, we are finding out now that some of the equipment is needing to be replaced that was not replaced 10 years ago that maybe should have been, so we are starting to see some increased costs now, and certainly the war on terror exacerbates the entire issue. Could you elaborate on that?

Mr. Orszag. Sure. Again, the most dramatic increases in costs over the past several years have been in the area of procurement, and part of that is related to the reset program. I would just note, though, that the reset program now is being so aggressively funded that our analysis suggests that it is more than offsetting what it is supposedly designed to do, which is to replace or repair equipment that is damaged in theater. In other words, it is leading to a net improvement in the quality and number of tanks and trucks and what have you relative to prewar----

Mr. Smith. So, I mean----

Mr. Orszag [continuing]. Because of the money that you are providing to it, okay?

Mr. Smith. Excuse me. I understand, I think, where you are going with this. Now, if a 1990--and my years are probably not accurate, but if a 1990 tank is needing to be replaced, what would you suggest replacing it with?

Mr. Orszag. Well, again, I think the question is not whether or not a 1990 tank needs to be replaced, but, rather, if a 1995 or a 1998 tank is damaged in theater, whether the purpose of the emergency funding that is provided for the reset program is to restore it to operational--you know, to its original state, or whether the funds should be used to purchase a 2007 or a 2008 high-technology tank. A significant component of what is happening is the latter. Again, that is up to you. The way that the program is being described is that it is designed just to offset the impact of the war on that 1998 tank, and that is not all that is happening.

Mr. Smith. Okay. Thank you.

How embarrassing! I don't think Smith had a clue what he was even talking about!

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION: INVESTMENT NEEDS AND THE BUDGET - OCTOBER 25, 2007

Witnesses:

- Hon. Mary E. Peters, Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation
- Robert A. Sunshine, Deputy Director, Congressional Budget Office
- Janet F. Kavinoky, director of transportation infrastructure, U.S. Chamber of Commerce and executive director, Americans for Transportation Mobility Coalition
- Robert Puentes, fellow, metropolitan policy program, the Brookings Institution

Smith must have learned a new way to get words on the record regularly and not have to actually speak or think in the moment. He was one of 2 committee members to submit statements....again:

Prepared Statement of Hon. Adrian Smith, a Representative in Congress From the State of Nebraska

Good morning and thank you, Mr. Chairman. This hearing is necessary and timely, and I am pleased we are holding it today. Safe and efficient transportation is tremendously important to the Nation's economy and to the Third District of Nebraska. The Federal surface transportation spending and revenue structure needs improvement. This is especially troubling to me since Nebraska is one of 25 donor states; putting more money in gas tax revenue into the Highway Trust Fund than we get back. As currently structured, funds are not targeted to most effectively address current and future challenges. Some of the these challenges in Nebraska relate to changing economic activity. For example, we still face significant transportation issues in the ethanol industry. As we see changes resulting from bioenergy development, transportation demands are changing and I question whether or not we are prepared to meet this challenge. I want to thank our witnesses for coming here today to provide testimony for the Committee, and I look forward to hearing from you. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to continuing to work with you, and I thank you for your time.

Smith does not take the time to ask any questions during the hearing.

COUNTING THE CHANGE: ACCOUNTING FOR THE FISCAL IMPACTS OF CONTROLLING CARBON EMISSIONS - NOVEMBER 1, 2007

Witnesses:

- Peter R. Orszag, Director, Congressional Budget Office
- David Doniger, Climate Center policy director, Natural Resources Defense Council
- Robert Greenstein, executive director, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
- Anne E. Smith, Ph.D., vice president, CRA International

Smith decides to ask some questions during this hearing:

Mr. Spratt. Mr. Smith.

Mr. Smith of Nebraska. Thank you very much for your time here. I know that it gets to be a challenge balancing science and politics and economics, and I appreciate your efforts. In trying to read up on so much of this, it has been interesting to see, and especially for my district, a large producer of livestock. And I have read about the impacts of high corn prices, not only high corn prices on the prices in livestock, but across the food spectrum, if you will, around the world. Here are pluses and minuses along the way. But especially the criticisms of the livestock industry and relating to carbon, would situations be considered, Mr. Orszag, if you don't mind; with a cap and trade system would the increased costs of food production be considered in this equation?

Mr. Orszag. There would be a variety of effects that would be spread out across different sectors, and the agricultural sector in particular would experience effects. I would also note, the agricultural sector would be one of the sectors most affected by a change in climate, so you also need to weigh the costs and benefits. And beyond that, I would just point out that your example might be a particularly salient one to return to the scoring issue. Handing a farmer a permit worth $100 that the farmer then turns around and sells for cash of $100 is really similar to handing that farmer $100 in cash. So you are right to identify your district and the agricultural sector in particular as a key sector in climate change. It is often noted that methane emissions are tied to the agricultural sector, and that is one of the greenhouse gases. And there would be important effects that are part of all of these models that strive as best they can to identify potential impacts on particular sectors.

Mr. Smith of Nebraska. Go ahead.

Mr. Doniger. May I add a couple points? First, that most cap and trade bills don't suggest they would actually control the emissions from most agricultural activities. But the change in the markets for energy means that there will be even larger opportunities for farm-based energy production. And this is apart from allocation subsidies or other subsidies. It just becomes more valuable to make wind energy, to recover methane natural gas from the wastes of livestock production, to grow, we would hope, cellulosic products, not the corn but the stocks, switchgrasses and so on, and turn those into ethanol. So you get an increase in farm-related energy markets just from the imposition of a cap. And there can also be, inside the distribution of the allowances there can be incentives to make some of those technologies come forward faster.

Mr. Smith of Nebraska. Dr. Smith.

Ms. Smith. I would like to also point out agriculture is one of the most energy intensive forms of manufacturing we have in the U.S. It is up there with other energy intense sectors. Cost of energy, when it rises, will raise the cost of farming. There is no question, though, that there may be some opportunities if the world is shifting towards biomass-based ethanol and use of land for forestry. There will be higher rises and changes in markets for land as well as change in markets for the crops off of the land, and I think it creates much uncertainty. There could be some upside for farmers, but it could also be a pretty disruptive time. At the same time, all the input prices are changing.

Mr. Smith of Nebraska. I think you might have been reading a transcript of some conversations I had with constituents. I appreciate your bringing that up, because agricultural producers, their greatest concern right now is the cost of energy. And with the direct impact that a cap and trade system would probably have on the energy costs, it would even exacerbate the problem that I see. When we look at the larger issue, again, are we confident that those who would be most impacted across the border, whether it is individuals, whether it is companies, whether it is those on fixed income paying their utility bills, that we can truly address all those? I know that is an ambiguous question; but I am fearful that there might be some unintended consequences along the way. If Mr. Greenstein would respond.

Mr. Greenstein. Sort of following up on an earlier comment I made. If the question is, could we identify every individual firm or elderly person on a fixed income, or a farmer, and fully offset the impact, no, we can't do it for each individual one. We have never done that for any big policy the governmenthas ever implemented. What we can do, though, is we can identify the priority needs. And if we auction off the lion's share of the permits, the resources are there. One can design in an efficient manner how to provide the assistance in those areas. Now, clearly you are not going to be able to fully offset the impact on everyone. If you took every consumer at all income levels and fully offset the cost on all of them, you wouldn't have money for basic research, or you might not have enough to go deeper in the coal mining communities. You make some choices. But the amount of revenue that can be raised, whether it be through auctioning permits or a carbon tax, as Mr. Ryan suggested, is sufficient that Congress could identify all the priority needs it needed to address, and it could on average fully address the needs in each of those areas, whether it be energy companies, people on fixed incomes, low income consumers, or the like.

Mr. Orszag. Mr. Smith, let me just add that it is not possible to compensate each individual household or each individual firm precisely because there is an overall economic cost to acting. That overall economic cost means it is not--I don't want to call it a fool's quest, but it is not possible to compensate everyone for the effects because there is some net cost. However, that cost has to be weighed against the benefit of purchasing insurance against climate change, basically. And so attempts to fully compensate everyone for the economic costs involved are not going to succeed almost by definition, but the net cost that sort of will be there needs to be weighed against the benefit of reducing the risk of potentially catastrophic climate change.

Ms. Smith. I would like to add, I completely agree. There was a net cost that was my starting point. The different forms of allocations can maybe help find a way to smooth out where the impacts are, but there is no way to make everybody better off even if you get a fully smooth and equitable sort of distribution. But I also want to point out, yes, we need to try to weigh the costs against the benefits, and we need to look at the costs that I just reported in my statement. Those are the net costs after accounting for all the recycling of all the benefits associated with the revenues from the allocations. And so the net average cost to the household for the kinds of hard cap bills that we are looking at, without accounting for the uncertainty of volatilities, is in the range of $1,000 to $1,500 a year. That is what needs to be compared against the benefit from the climate.

Mr. Orszag. So it is not net-net.

Mr. Smith of Nebraska. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really want to thank the witnesses here today. This has been very interesting and I think a very productive debate. Thank you.

Mr. Spratt. Thank you, Mr. Smith.

STATE OF THE U.S. ECONOMY AND IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FEDERAL BUDGET - DECEMBER 5, 2007

Witnesses:

- Peter Orszag, Director, Congressional Budget Office
- Martin Feldstein, professor of economics, Harvard University
- C. Fred Bergsten, director, Peterson Institute for International Economics

Smith was listed as NOT present for this hearing.

------------------------------------

AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE HEARINGS

REVIEW OF THE WELFARE OF ANIMALS IN AGRICULTURE - MAY 8, 2007

Witnesses:

- Hon. Charlie Stenholm, Olsson, Frank, and Weeda, P.C., Washington, D.C.
- Mr. Wayne Pacelle, President and CEO, The Humane Society of the United States, Washington, D.C.
- Dr. Gail C. Golab, PhD, DVM, Associate Director, Animal Welfare Division, American Veterinary Medical Association, Schaumburg, Illinois
- Dr. Steven L. Leary, DVM, Assistant Vice Chancellor, Veterinary Affairs, Washington University, on behalf of National Association for Biomedical Research, St. Louis, Missouri
- Mr. Gene Gregory, President, United Egg Producers, Alpharetta, Georgia
- Mr. Guillermo Gonzalez, Owner, Sonoma Foie Gras, on behalf of Artisan Farmers Alliance, Sonoma, California
- Mr. David Martoska, Director of Research, Center for Consumer Freedom, Washington, D.C.
- Mr. Gene Baur, President, Farm Sanctuary, Watkins Glen, New York
- Mr. Paxton Ramsey, Member, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, Devers, Texas
- Ms. Barbara Determan, National Pork Producers Council, Early, Iowa
- Ms. Leslie Vagneur Lange, National Director, American Quarter Horse Association, Greeley, Colorado
- Dr. Karen Jordan, Owner, Large Animal Veterinary Services, on behalf of National Milk Producers Federation, Siler City, North Carolina

Smith had only one question.

The chair at this time would recognize the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Smith.

Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Congressman Stenholm, for appearing before us today. Growing up in rural America, certainly I have always paid a lot of attention to animal issues, livestock issues, and most recently, or more recently I should say, it has been brought to my attention the commitment that having animals on the premises entails, whether it is a small dog or cat or certainly a horse, and the financial commitment of caring appropriately whether it is the feeding or veterinary expenses as well. You touched a little bit on the cost of caring for these wild horses and certainly that was a new number for me. It has been brought to my attention in my district that there is a concern that you have touched on a bit of what do we do with the unwanted horses and there has been some concern expressed in my district that a rancher might find some unwanted horses on his or her property. What then? I mean, are you aware of what the options a rancher might have, that are liability issues and certainly in light of Federal penalties that may exist? Could you please elaborate?

Mr. Stenholm. You bring up a very good question, and if it is on a ranch and the horse is unwanted, it probably will be euthanized with a bullet and allowed--well, it probably won't even be buried and nobody will ever know about it. But if you are in a non-rural area, you have a problem. Landfills in many cities will not accept large animals so you don't have the option of euthanasia by a veterinarian, and here it is interesting to me when you hear--there are three ways of euthanizing that unwanted horse. One is captive bolt, which is the most humane, two is bullet, and three is overdose of barbiturates. Talk to any veterinarian and they will tell you that overdose of barbiturates is not the most humane way to end your horse's life. That is what veterinarians tell us. And we are already seeing this happening. We are seeing it reportedly in Kentucky now, these are thoroughbreds, and contrary to what you hear from California, talk to the livestock auctions and listen to them what is happening there with mistreated horses that come in to them. People bring them in because they find them wandering. People don't have the wherewithal financially to deal with that question. Renderers, we don't have many of those left. In some cases that is an option but you have to pay somebody to come get your horse. That gets into what Mr. Conaway was talking about a moment ago. What makes the Federal Government believe that we in our super wisdom can take away the private property right of that individual rancher who finds that horse to take it and receive value from if it is still of value? What makes us believe that we can do this constitutionally, but those are the choices that you are putting on those ranchers that you are talking about.

Mr. Smith. Thank you. I yield back.

That's it?

--------------------------------------------

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE HEARINGS

THE BAYH-DOLE ACT (P.L. 96-517, AMENDMENTS TO THE PATENT AND TRADEMARK ACT OF 1980)-- THE NEXT 25 YEARS - JULY 17, 2007

Witnesses:

- Mr. Arundeep S. Pradhan, Director, Technology and Research Collaborations, Oregon Health & Science University; Vice President for Annual Meetings and Board of Trustees, Association of University Technology Managers
- Dr. Susan B. Butts, Senior Director, External Science and Technology Programs, The Dow Chemical Company
- Mr. Wayne C. Johnson, Vice President, Worldwide University Relations, Hewlett-Packard Company
- Dr. Mark A. Lemley, Professor of Law, Stanford Law School; Director, Stanford Program in Law, Science, and Technology
- Dr. Mark G. Allen, Joseph M. Pettit Professor; Regents Professor, Georgia Institute of Technology; Co-founder & Chief Technology Officer, CardioMEMS, Inc., Atlanta

There were no statements or questions from Smith.

BRIDGE SAFETY: NEXT STEPS TO PROTECT THE NATION'S CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE - SEPTEMBER 19, 2007

Witnesses:

- Mr. Dennis C. Judycki, Associate Administrator, Research, Development, and Technology, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation; Accompanied by Mr. Benjamin Tang, Principal Bridge Engineer/Team Leader, Office of Bridge Technology, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation
- Mr. Harry Lee James, Deputy Executive Director and Chief Engineer, Mississippi Department of Transportation; Member, Standing Committee on Highways, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
- Dr. Kevin C. Womack, Director, Utah Transportation Center; Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Utah State University
- Mr. Mark E. Bernhardt, Director, Facility Inspection, Burgess & Niple, Inc.

There were no statements or questions from Smith.

THE UNITED STATES FIRE ADMINISTRATION REAUTHORIZATION: ADDRESSING THE PRIORITIES OF THE NATION'S FIRE SERVICE - OCTOBER 2, 2007

Witnesses:

- Mr. Gregory B. Cade, Assistant Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency; U.S. Fire Administrator, United States Fire Administration, Department of Homeland Security
- Dr. Sivaraj Shyam Sunder, Director, Building and Fire Research Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce
- Mr. Steven P. Westermann, President and Chief Fire Officer, International Association of Fire Chiefs
- Captain Robert Livingston, Legislative Director of the Oregon State Council of Fire Fighters, International Association of Fire Fighters
- Mr. Gordon Henderson, Deputy Chief of Operations, Rome-Floyd County Fire Department; Past President of the Georgia State Firefighters Association, National Volunteer Fire Council
- Dr. John R. Hall, Jr., Assistant Vice President, Fire Analysis and Research, National Fire Protection Association

There were no statements or questions from Smith.

110-411--MINE COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION ACT - OCTOBER 29, 2007
Mark Up Hearing for H.R. 3877

II. PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of the bill is to authorize a research, development, and demonstration program at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to accelerate the development of innovative mine communications and tracking technology; and to require the Director of NIST to work with industry and relevant Federal agencies to develop consensus standards and standard reference materials for communications in underground mines. The programs authorized in this bill are run by the National Institute for Standards and Technology.

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVES RALPH HALL, PHIL GINGREY, VERNON EHLERS, MICHAEL MCCAUL, TOM FEENEY AND ADRIAN SMITH

Although Members on the minority side supported the bill offered in Committee, Members expressed concern with the language directing that funding for this bill come from the funds authorized for the COMPETES Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-69). Retroactively authorizing programs through previously authorized legislation sets a questionable precedent for future programs to be authorized in a similar manner.

Members expressed reservations that this practice could hamper the agencies enumerated in COMPETES which have long suffered declining or stagnant budgets. The purpose of the COMPETES Act was to increase America's competiveness and innovation capacity. It is not clear that this bill directly achieves that purpose. Members trust that this will not begin a precedent of redirecting funding intended for these programs whenever a new bill requires an authorization.

Ralph M. Hall.
Vernon J. Ehlers.
Phil Gingrey.
Michael T. McCaul.
Tom Feeney.
Adrian Smith.

110-451--HEALTHCARE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ENTERPRISE INTEGRATION ACT - NOVEMBER 15, 2007
Mark Up Hearing for H.R. 2406

II. PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of this bill is to direct the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to establish an initiative to advance healthcare information enterprise integration; to direct NIST to work with industry toward the development of or the adoption of technology-neutral technical guidelines and standards for healthcare information technology (HIT) systems used by Federal agencies; to create a program of grants to universities and consortia for multidisciplinary HIT research centers; to direct the National High-Performance Computing Program to coordinate Federal research and development programs related to HIT; to direct NIST to establish a task force to develop recommendations on standards harmonization; and to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2009 and 2010 to conduct these activities.

XXI. ADDITIONAL VIEWS ON H.R. 2406, THE `HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ENTERPRISE INTEGRATION ACT' OF REPRESENTATIVES RALPH HALL, PHIL GINGREY, VERNON EHLERS, MICHAEL MCCAUL, TOM FEENEY AND ADRIAN SMITH

The American Health Information Community (AHIC) is a federal advisory body, chartered in 2005 to make recommendations to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on how best to accelerate the development and adoption of health information technology, including terminologies and classifications. Since 2005, the Federal Government has spent $122 million for activities related to coordinating health information technology, and the President has budgeted $118 million for FY 2008. In addition, AHIC and the National Library of Medicine are already working on medical terminologies and definitions. Additionally, the Office of the National Coordinator at the Department of Health and Human Services also established the Health Information Technology Standards Panel (HITSP)--public/private partnership with broad participation across more than 300 health related organizations--to identify and harmonize data and technical standards for healthcare.

At the Committee markup of H.R. 2406, an amendment was offered by Mr. Hill to create a new `task force' that is run through the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in consultation with the National Science Foundation (NSF). The minority feels that such a charter is not only redundant, but may slow the forward progress that is already being made by AHIC and HITSP. Indeed, AHIC has already recommended adoption of some standards, and several have already been rolled out.

Even more problematic to the minority is that the Hill amendment would go against NIST's core competencies and instead saddle NIST with responsibilities far outside of its expertise. NIST has never been a body that set standards. It takes an agreed-upon policy and develops the technical standards around that policy. However, as head of this new task force, NIST would be also charged with creating recommendations for the design of a centralized authority that develops, encourages adoption of, and maintains health information technology terminologies and classifications. These roles are beyond the scope of NIST. Further complicating this process, the amendment by Representative Hill also adds another agency into the picture--one that also lacks the expertise or experience in setting policies for health information technology. It is inadvisable for NIST to consult specifically with the NSF. While the NSF does have an important role to play with information technologies basic research, some of which may have the potential to be used by the health industry, determining standards and health terminology is not within their expertise.

Representative Gingrey (GA) offered a perfecting amendment to the amendment offered by Representative Hill (IN). The purpose of this perfecting amendment was to remove the National Science Foundation (NSF) from the task force to evaluate creation of national policies on health information technology standards. This amendment was supported by the minority, but was voted down by the majority. The Hill amendment to the bill was accepted in its original format after a vote in Committtee and will be included in the bill that is reported to the House.

In addition to concerns about the Hill amendment, the minority is also concerned with the language directing funding for this bill come from funds authorized for the COMPETES Act of 2007 (PL 110-69). Retroactively authorizing programs through previously authorized legislation sets a questionable precedent for future programs to be authorized in a similar manner. This practice would hamper the agencies enumerated in COMPETES which have long suffered declining or stagnant budgets. The purpose of the COMPETES Act was to increase America's competitiveness and innovation capacity. It is not clear that this bill directly achieves that purpose.

We urge our colleagues to consider the vital importance of properly and effectively creating national policies on health information technology standards in a focused manner so that these policies are universally and quickly adoptable.

Ralph M. Hall.
Vernon J. Ehlers.
Phil Gingrey.
Michael T. McCaul.
Tom Feeney.
Adrian Smith.

House Actions 1/28/2008 - 2/1/2008

2008-03-01T17:52:00.003-06:00

During this week on the House floor, the biggest debate occurred over the first vote on the Economic Stimulus package. Adrian Smith joined the vast majority in the House to pass the initial version.

The only other major bill debated was to designate the New England National Scenic Trail as an official National Scenic Trail. This was requested by the various states involved. In doing so, the Secretary of the Interior can work with the states to manage and maintain the trail. Adrian Smith voted against the bill.

Smith made no floor statements during the week, but he signed onto 4 bills as a cosponsor. One of the bills would be to set up a Joint Select committee to review earmarks. It would change the rules of how earmarks are handled. The irony is that, while this may be needed, the Republicans weren't so gung-ho about it until Democrats became the majority. It was under Republican control that the earmark requests exploded, and it was the Democrats that brought the numbers back down after record high requests the previous 6 years.

Smith also signed onto a bill that would permit a form of discrimination by employers, but the bill itself may violate the Constitution. While it's one thing for employers to be able to require all employees be English-speaking, it's another for employer to be allowed to require and even fire employees for having personal conversations in a language other than English while working. If these private conversation do not interfere in the work being done, then this could be a possible First Amendment violation. After all, haven't we all had personal conversations with friends and co-workers while on the job? It's discriminatory if only those having conversations in another language are targeted.

ROLL CALL VOTES

H.R.5140 - To provide economic stimulus through recovery rebates to individuals, incentives for business investment, and an increase in conforming and FHA loan limits.

This was the economic package introduced in the House by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and known as the Recovery Rebates and Economic Stimulus for the American People Act of 2008.

This initial version contained the following:

- $600 rebates to individuals, $1200 to married couples filing joint returns.
- $300 rebates for each child claimed.
- $300 minimum rebates ($600 for couples) for taxpayers with earned income of at least $3000.
- Reductions of 5% of the amount that exceeds an adjustest gross income of $75,000 ($150,000 for couples).
- Increase in 2008 of expensing allowance for depreciable business assets to $250,000, with maximum investment phaseout threshhold to $800,000.
- Increase from 30% to 50% the adjusted base of depreciable property to be claimed.
- Raises the statutory ceiling on maximum original principal obligation of certain mortgages, among other housing and mortgage provisions.

A Motion was made to Suspend the Rules and Pass the bill as submitted.

The bill PASSED on a vote of 385-35-1-10
FOR: 216 Democrats, 169 Republicans
AGAINST: 10 Democrats, 25 Republicans
PRESENT: 1 Democrat
NO VOTE: 5 Democrats, 5 Republicans

Smith voted FOR the bill. It then was sent to the Senate for consideration.

H.R.1528 - To amend the National Trails System Act to designate the New England National Scenic Trail, and for other purposes.

This bill would designate the New England National Scenic Trail as an official "National Scenic Trail", and direct the Secretary of the Interior to use the Trail Management Blueprint as the framework for management and administration of the Trail. The Interior would work in cooperation with many state, local, and private organizations to maintain and manage the Trail.

There were 2 amendments offered. One, in an attempt to delay designation, failed by voice vote. The other, indicating that state laws regarding hunting, fishing, trapping and netting would be adhered to, passed by voice vote.

A motion was made to recommit by Republicans, to include that no lands could be acquired through the use of eminent domain.

Those speaking against the motion stated that the bill already prohibited condemnation, and assured private property rights. Also, it was pointed out that Congress cannot stop a State from exercising condemnation authority.

The Motion FAILED on a vote of 183-205-42. All the Republicans voted FOR the motion.

The bill then PASSED on a vote of 261-122-47
FOR: 213 Democrats, 48 Republicans
AGAINST: 122 Republicans
NO VOTE: 18 Democrats, 29 Republicans

Smith voted AGAINST the bill, while Rep. Lee Terry voted FOR it, and Rep. Jeff Fortenberry was a NO VOTE.

--------------

The remaining roll call votes passed with little or no opposition:

S.2110 - A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 427 North Street in Taft, California, as the "Larry S. Pierce Post Office".
(Became Public Law No: 110-184)

H.R.4140 - To designate the Port Angeles Federal Building in Port Angeles, Washington, as the "Richard B. Anderson Federal Building".

H.RES.933 - Commending the Louisiana State University Tigers football team for winning the 2007 Bowl Championship Series national championship game.

FLOOR STATEMENTS

There were not statements by Smith on the House floor this week.

BILLS SPONSORED/COSPONSORED

Adrian Smith did not submit any new bills as a sponsor this week. He signed onto 4 bills as a cosponsor.

H.CON.RES.263 - To establish the Joint Select Committee on Earmark Reform, and for other purposes.

This would establish a Joint Select Committee on Earmark Reform to study and report to the House and the Senate on the practices of the legislative and executive branch regarding earmarks in authorizing, appropriation, tax, and tariff measures. It would also change rules so that no bill, joint resolution, or conference report containing a congressional earmark, limited tax benefit, or limited tariff benefit can be considered until the filing of such report.

The bill was introduced on 11/15/2007 and referred to the House Rules Committee. Smith signed onto it on 1/29/2008.

H.R.192 - To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the 1993 increase in taxes on Social Security benefits.

This is a bill that asks to repeal a 1993 increase in income taxes on Social Security benefits.

The bill was introduced on 1/4/2007 and referred to the Ways and Means Committee. Smith signed on over a year later on 1/28/2008.

H.R.3363 - To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow long-term care insurance to be offered under cafeteria plans and flexible spending arrangements and to provide additional consumer protections for long-term care insurance.

This bill would amend the tax code to include long-term care insurance as a benefit under tax-exempt employee benefit cafeteria plans and flexible spending arrangements, and make certain consumer protections applicable to long-term care insurance.

The bill was introduced on 8/3/2007 and referred to the Ways and Means Committee. Smith signed onto it on 1/29/2008.

H.R.4464 - To ensure that an employer may require employees to speak English while engaged in work.

This bill would make it so that employers can require people to speak only English while working.

Just think about that. Say a couple people are just having a conversation just between themselves while doing their work, and they were doing so in another language. The employer would be allowed to demand they stop speaking that other language, and protected if they fire them for doing so.

Quite frankly, it's only thing to allow an employer to require people be able to speak English if they want to work for that employer. It's another if they ban speaking any other language in conversations. There could be a major First Amendment violation with this bill.

The bill was introduced on 12/12/2007. Smith signed onto it on 1/29/2008.

House Actions 1/21/2008 - 1/25/2008

2008-02-16T15:35:00.001-06:00

There was little action in the House during this week. There were a total of 4 roll call votes held.

The primary votes were to try and override the veto by President Bush on the SCHIP bill from the end of last year. Adrian Smith joined his fellow Republicans in, once again, defeating the bill and preventing the veto override. Smith has shown repeatedly that, while he may try to claim he supports the idea, he has no desire to actually fund it. Smith continued to support the Republican partisanship at the expense of children in this nation who have no health insurance. As has been reported many times, the reasons given do not stand up to scrutiny, and are based purely on partiship and grandstanding.

Most likely due to the short time on votes, Smith made no floor statements and did not sign onto any new bills as a sponsor or cosponsor.

ROLL CALL VOTES

H.R.3963 - To amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to extend and improve the Children's Health Insurance Program, and for other purposes.

The House took up the SCHIP bill one more time. President Bush had vetoed it last year, which has been heavily documented previously.

There were two votes. The first was "ordering the previous question", on whether to take up the vote at all to try and override the veto. The vote was party line with all the Republicans voting against it, Smith included.

Then the vote was held to actually override the veto, which would require a two-thirds majority to do so.

The Override FAILED on a vote of 260-152-19.
FOR: 218 Democrats, 42 Republicans
AGAINST: 1 Democrat, 151 Republicans
NO VOTE: 13 Democrats, 6 Republicans

Smith voted AGAINST the override and against medical coverage for millions of uninsured children all over this country. This is not a surprise. While he has previously tried to claim he supports SCHIP, he has voted against it at every step. He wanted to keep the current coverage at a level that would actually push children out of the program in increasing numbers. Therefore, he never really was in support of this despite the overwhelming support of extending SCHIP to more children by a vast majority in this state and in the country.

The only other recorded votes this week were unanimously passed:

H.R.4211 - To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 725 Roanoke Avenue in Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina, as the "Judge Richard B. Allsbrook Post Office".
H.RES.866 - Honoring the brave men and women of the United States Coast Guard whose tireless work, dedication, and commitment to protecting the United States have led to the Coast Guard seizing over 350,000 pounds of cocaine at sea during 2007, far surpassing all of our previous records.

FLOOR STATEMENTS

There were no statements by Smith this week.

BILLS SPONSORED/COSPONSORED

Smith did not sign onto any new bills this week.

Smith’s Year-End Campaign Fundraising Report

2008-01-31T20:59:00.000-06:00

The FEC reports were filed for the 10/1/2007 to 12/31/2007 fundraising period. Here is a summary of the numbers for Adrian Smith, and then we will take a closer look at the sources of these numbers:

Adrian Smith’s Year-End Filing:

Starting Cash on Hand = $164,524.49
Individual Donations = $63,390.00
PAC Donations = $45,850.00
Total Receipts = $110,370.73
Disbursements = $37,739.36
Cash on Hand at Close = $237,155.86
Net Gain from last period = $72,631.37

Now let’s look at just the highlights of other Congressional Committees in Nebraska.

Jeff Fortenberry:

Starting Cash on Hand = $236,815.54
Individual Donations = $64,562.00
PAC Donations = $22,000.00
Disbursements = $28,711.89
Cash on Hand at Close = $296,708.19
Net Gain from last period = $59,892.65

Lee Terry:

Starting Cash on Hand = $401,266.84
Individual Donations = $58,437.00
PAC Donations = $48,000.00
Disbursements = $54,953.92
Cash on Hand at Close = $454,909.11
Net Gain from last period = $53,642.27

The FEC has a new toy on their site that shows where funds are coming from (PAC vs. Individual). For 2007, this is what they show:

ADRIAN SMITH

As you can see, 55% of Smith's contributions have come from PAC's, while 43% has come from individuals.

He's also spent a total of $195,937 this year. That's 47% of what he's taken in.

JEFF FORTENBERRY

For Fortenberry, 16% of his contributions have come from PAC's, and 81% from individuals.

He's spent $81,844 this year. That's 27% of what he's taken in.

LEE TERRY

For Terry, 46% of his contributions have come from PAC's, and 53% from individuals.

He's spent $254,211 this year. That's 46% of what he's taken in.

It's clear that Adrian Smith is the one most beholden to PAC's for funding his campaign.

Now let’s look at the contributions, starting with the individual donations that he received.

Of the over $200 donations (60 reported) that were received, 27 of them came from Nebraska’s Third District in the amount of $21,725. Some of the key Third District contributors were:

- Jim Pillen, CEO, Progressive Swine Technologies, Columbus
- Steve Hornady,President, Hornady Manufacturing, Grand Island
- Greg Baxter, Cattle Feeder,T&E Cattle Co., Grand Island
- Harry Hoch, Beer Distributor, H&H Distributors, Grand Island

Eleven of the donations were from out-of-state, and the remaining 22 donations were from the Lincoln and Omaha areas. Key Donors of note in that group:

- S. Michael Jensen, CEO, Great Plains Communications
- Gary Blinn, Beer Distributor, Norfolk Beverage Co.
- Dave Sokol, Chairman, MidAmerican Energy Holdings
- Bruce Lauritzen, President, First National Bank
- Michael Simmonds, Chairman/CEO, Simmonds Restaurant Management

As before, when looking at the individuals, most were executives, CEO’s, lobbyists, bank presidents, business owners, lawyers and contractors.

Next there are the PAC’s and committees. Of all the 43 that donated, only 4 are based in Nebraska:

- Pinnacle Bancorp Inc PAC = $1000
- Ameritas Financial Services PAC = $500
- Carol Hudkins Legislative Committee = $100
- Conagra Foods Good Government Assoc PAC = $750

Of the 43 PACS:

- 11 of them are related to Agriculture ($10,750).
- 6 are related to the banking industry ($5,500)
- 3 are related to the health care industry ($3,000)

The remaining were car dealers, builders, realtors, Republican ideological groups, etc.

These were some of the more specific donations that should be noted:

- Cotton Warehouse Gov Rel Com = $1000
- USA Rice PAC = $1000
- Safari Club International = $2000
- RJ Reynolds PAC = $2000
- Motorcycle Riders Foundation = $500
- National Beer Wholesalers Association PAC = $1500
- Petroleum Marketers Assoc of America = $1000

Now let’s look at what he spent $37,739.36 on:

- $2,500 to the National Republican Congressional Committee for "dues".

- $3,000 Meridian Central in Omaha, $10,622.80 to Heartland Campaign Management in Omaha, and $7,731.21 to Hammond & Associates in Falls Church, Virginia, all for consulting and fundraising services. Total = $21,354.01

- $454.20 to Heartland Public Shooting Park for fundraising supplies, sporting clays and a golf cart rental.

- $1,749.34 on postage and shipping charges.

- $4,769.44 to OH-K Fast Print for "stationary".

2007 Summary

These numbers reflected are the itemized contributions received. The unitemized individual contributions are not included when looking at in-state vs. out-of-state breakdowns.

Of Itemized Individual Contributions:

13.2% From Out-of-State
42.9% From Nebraska's 1st & 2nd Districts
43.9% From Nebraska's 3rd District

Of PAC Funds:

85.9% From Out-of-State
14.1% From Nebraska (0% based in the 3rd District)

Of his Total Funds:

43.4% from Individuals
55.6% from PAC's

Also....

56.7% from Out-of-State
43.3% from Nebraska (17.6% from the 3rd District).

House Actions 1/14/2008 - 1/18/2008

2008-01-31T18:30:00.000-06:00

This week marked the start of the 2nd Session of the 110th Congress.

The first bill to be considered was the Supplemental Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act of 2007 (or S-MINER Act). It improved safety standards for miners. It would require at least 96 hours of air be available. This could be done with equipment or with bore holes to the surface at each section. As some may recall, at the Sego mine accident last year, there was only 1 survivor out of 12, and they died due to suffocation. They didn't have the proper equipment available to them, and if they had, they could have survived. With the bill were also provisions to address the rising level of drug use among miners, which is yet another safety risk. Adrian Smith voted against the bill and the increased safety standards.

There was also a vote to reauthorize the HOPE VI program, which helps in providing low income housing to areas that need it. At this time in our country, there is a significant shortage of affordable housing. Within the bill, it set forth requirements that some green or environmentally friendly standards be incorporated into the new projects being built. Also, the bill removed the demolition-only grants. The reason for this was that there had been too many instances where unsafe housing was demolished, but nothing replaced it, further exacerbating the affordable housing shortage. Some that opposed this measure didn't understand that the bill did allow for exceptions where communities could show no new housing was needed. It also allowed for 54 months to start any projects. This move would also prevent those areas not wanting to build from getting rid of the housing because of the "not in my backyard" mentality (i.e. cleaning up the neighborhoods by getting rid of the poor). It was because of the removal of demolition-only grants that Smith voted against this bill.

While Smith made no floor statements, he signed onto 2 new bills. One was another resolution, this time for National Engineers Week. The second was a bill that would allow water systems that serve 10,000 or fewer customers to be exempt from Safe Water standards with regards to naturally occurring elements (arsenic, radon, etc). Instead of helping those systems with meeting the standards, small communities would instead be at risk, and their water unsafe.

ROLL CALL VOTES

The first vote of the 2nd Session was a Quorum Call, which Smith was present for. Then the business at hand began.

H.RES.918 - Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2768) to establish improved mandatory standards to protect miners during emergencies, and for other purposes.

This set forth the rules for debate and consideration of HR 2768.

On "ordering the previous question", the vote was, as usual, on party lines (Democrats for, Republican against). The resolution was then agreed to by voice vote.

H.R.2768 - To establish improved mandatory standards to protect miners during emergencies, and for other purposes.

Per the CRS Summary, the Supplemental Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act of 2007 (or S-MINER Act) would require:

(1) emergency response plans to incorporate new technology;
(2) the Secretary of Labor to require the installation of rescue chambers in underground coal mines; and
(3) accident response plans to provide for the maintenance of refuges.

Also, it would repeal provisions concerning standards relating to the sealing of abandoned areas in mines and sets forth provisions concerning:

(1) regulating mine seals;
(2) regulating the survivability of mine ventilation controls;
(3) directing the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) to determine whether changes in rock dust requirements are needed;
(4) publishing regulations on flame resistance requirements for conveyor belts in use in mines;
(5) prohibiting belt haulage entries from being used to ventilate active working places;
(6) requiring mine operators to implement communication programs at their facilities and to install atmospheric monitoring systems;
(7) requiring miners who may be working alone to be equipped with multi-gas detectors;
(8) requiring mine operators to use administrative action to protect miners from lightning; (9) requiring the Secretary to establish a self-contained self-rescuers inspection program and an advisory committee on regulations applicable to underground metal and nonmetal mines; and
(10) requiring the NIOSH to give priority in its research to technologies that could help miners in an emergency.

Requires the Secretary to establish:
(1) an advisory committee to make recommendations on whether the Mine Act should provide for federal licensing of mines and mine personnel; and
(2) a central communications emergency call center within the Mine Safety and Health Administration.

Requires:
(1) a mine operator to notify the Secretary of specified types of accidents and to take measures to prevent the destruction of evidence; and
(2) regulations concerning mine rescue teams to provide for uniform credentials and coordination with local emergency response personnel.

Directs the Secretary to:
(1) require mine operators to have an ambulance within a specified area;
(2) review and revise the training and availability requirements for medical emergency technicians; and
(3) contract with the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board to conduct an independent investigation of an accident upon the request of miners' representatives or families.

There were also various exposure limits set, among other things.

There were 4 amendments offered up for consideration, all of which were debated and received a roll call vote.

H.AMDT.919 - Amendment provides the mining industry with more time to install a new generation of fire-resistant conveyor belts. The amendment also provides funds for MSHA to purchase a new generation of dust monitoring devices to limit black lung disease, and ensure that breathable air requirements of the MINER Act of 2006 are properly implemented. In addition, the amendment requires that the Secretary of Labor conduct a study on substance abuse by miners with recommendations for policy changes, in consultation with all interested parties. The Secretary shall report the findings within six months of the bill's enactment and, if she deems it feasible and effective, shall be authorized to establish a miner substance abuse testing, rehabilitation, and treatment program within MSHA in consultation with the interested parties.

Within this managers amendment, there were a couple points of contention.

Those in support of this amendment pointed out that right now mine operators are being considered in compliance with laws to provide sufficient breathable air simply by having the supplies on order, some for several years, and the purchase orders being allowed to suffice as proof of compliance. They point out that in the Sago Mines, those that died did so because of lack of air. The amendment would close that loophole and enforce the use of available air supplies immediately, through the use of air cylinders or through boreholes to the surface. In addition to this, the issue of substance abuse would be addressed. The Secretary of Labor would conduct a study of the issue and impose the most appropriate program needed to address the issue.

Those opposed felt the closing of the loophole would harm mine owners, forcing them out of compliance and shutting down mines until they are, thus putting minors out of work. They state that since the backlog in manufacturing of the equipment is not their fault, they should not have to be considered out of compliance. Opponents didn't address the available remedies that would keep them in compliance while they await the arrival of their orders. They also felt that drugs are an issue, but no study is needed, and a drug testing program should be implemented immediately.

The Amendment PASSED on a vote of 234-183-18. Only 8 Republicans joined all the Democrats to vote FOR the amendment. Smith voted against it.

H.AMDT.920 - Authorizes $10,000,000 to award grants to provide rehabilitation services to current and former miners suffering from mental health impairments, including drug addiction and substance abuse issues, which may have been caused or exacerbated by their work as miners.

The Washington Post article, A Dark Addiction, was highlighted repeatedly with the issue of drug abuse. The report showed the high level of addiction to pain killers as a result of injuries and stress of the job. This would provide money to assist those that need help combating that addiction.

The Amendment PASSED on a vote of 364-53-18. All of the NO votes were Republicans. Smith voted FOR it.

H.AMDT.921 - Offers relief to mine operators that have been assessed penalties and pay them in a timely fashion. It also establishes a trust fund within Treasury, composed of mine safety civil penalties. Funds from the trust fund can be used for mine safety inspections and investigations only.

The Amendment PASSED on a vote of 416-0-19.

H.AMDT.922 - Amendment in the nature of a substitute sought to promote the continued robust implementation of the 2006 MINER Act, increases worker safety by providing miners the opportunity to have a voice in mine safety, expands substance abuse programs to all mines to ensure safe working conditions for all miners, and addresses issues raised by the recent Crandall Canyon disaster.

This amendment would replace the underlying bill and basically maintain status quo on mine safety, with only a few additions.

The Amendment FAILED on a vote of 188-229-18, nearly party-line (Democrats against, Republicans for). Smith voted FOR the amendment.

A MOTION TO RECOMMIT was then presented at the end of the debate:

Mr. SOUDER moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 2768, to the Committee on Education and Labor with instructions to report the bill back to the House promptly with the following amendment:

Page 22, after line 22, insert the following:

(n) Substance Abuse Testing.--Title II is further amended by adding at the end the following new section:
``SEC. 208. SUBSTANCE ABUSE TESTING.
``(a) Testing Program.--Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of the S-MINER Act, the Secretary shall promulgate regulations pursuant to section 101(a) to require the operator of each mine to institute a program to conduct mandatory, random substance abuse testing of mine employees. Such regulations shall be no less restrictive than regulations issued by other Federal and State agencies which impose mandatory substance abuse testing and shall provide for--
``(1) mandatory substance abuse testing procedures;
``(2) a process for the random selection of those employees to be tested;
``(3) the protection of individuals' rights and privacy;
``(4) the establishment of an Employee Assistance Program; and
``(5) for purposes of subsection (b), a process for mine operators to notify the Administration of the names of individuals who test positive for substance abuse.
``(b) Registry.--Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of the S-MINER Act, the Secretary shall promulgate regulations creating a registry of those found to have tested positive for substance abuse for the sole purpose of sharing, on a confidential basis, with State authorities responsible for issuance of licenses, certification, permits, or other documents required to seek employment in the mining industry.''.

This would require a drug testing program, but wouldn't necessarily address how to help those in need in an effective manner. Hence, the study approved earlier to find the best way to begin a program to address drug abuse. They also wanted it done "promptly", which in parliamentary terms would cause a delay in further consideration of this bill.

The Motion FAILED on a vote of 197-217-16, basically party line, with Democrats against, Republicans for. Smith voted FOR it.

H R 2768 then PASSED on a vote of 214-199-17
FOR: 207 Democrats, 7 Republicans
AGAINST: 16 Democrats, 183 Republicans
NO VOTE: 8 Democrats, 9 Republicans

Smith voted AGAINST the bill.

H.R.3524 - To reauthorize the HOPE VI program for revitalization of severely distressed public housing, and for other purposes.

The HOPE VI Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2007 would further target low and very low income families, providing housing choice in severely distressed areas. It would prohibit grants that are would be used for demolition only. The program would be extended through FY 2015.

There were 8 amendments offered up for debate. Of those, 3 were passed by voice vote, and the remaining 5 received roll call votes.

H.AMDT.923 - To make a number of technical and conforming changes as well as enhancemen ts to the bill, including the following: (1) redefines the scope of the 1 for 1 replacement requirement by requiring the replacement of all units in existence as of January 1, 2005, and provides a limited waiver from the replacement requirement; (2) extends the timeline for rebuilding replacement housing units to 54 months from the date of execution of the grant agreement, consistent with current HUD practice; (3) clarifies procedural requirements for making any significant amendments or changes to a revitalization plan; (4) removes specific references to LEED for non-residential construction and excludes costs associated with green development compliance from HUD's Total Development Cost calculation; (5) clarifies eligibility and occupancy standards; and (6) clarifies that no person not lawfully permitted to be in, or remain in, the United States is eligible for housing assistance under this bill.

Known as a managers amendment, this made several adjustments to the original bill. There was little opposition to this amendment.

The Amendment PASSED on a vote of 388-20-27. Only 20 Republicans voted against it. Smith voted FOR it.

H.AMDT.924 - To apply the one-to-one replacement requirement for units demolished under a HOPE VI grant only to units that are occupied prior to demolition.

Under the bill, units demolished under the HOPE VI grant would be required to be replace on a one-for-one basis. This amendment would state that this provision would only apply to units that are occupied prior to demolition. In other words, they wouldn't have to replace it. Those in support of this amendment said that they may not be needed or wanted in a particular area, and would be a waste.

Those against the amendment point out this issue was not as black and white as it was being portrayed. Rep. Barney Franks explained :

Let me describe the one-for-one replacement, because it is not nearly as prescriptive as my friend would have indicated. In the first place, communities will have 54 months after the demolition with which to replace the housing.

Secondly, it does not have to be new public housing. We have explicitly added here the ability to do project-based vouchers. We have worked with some of those who in fact try to do HOPE VI, to make it more flexible.

Third, there's a waiver in here. One of the factors in the waiver, the gentleman from Texas correctly mentioned open spaces, one of the desirable things. My colleague from Massachusetts, Mr. Capuano, offered an amendment that has been incorporated into the manager's amendment that would say when you apply for a waiver, your willingness to put in more open space would be one of the justifications for a waiver for one-for-one. So we do have flexibility.

On the other hand, I reject the notion that we shouldn't be prescriptive here. This is not the Federal Government reaching out and telling people what to do. This is a restriction on the expenditure of Federal funds for a limited purpose. Here is the problem: we do have a shortage of affordable housing units. We do not want to see a Federal program contribute to a diminution of that. We allowed flexibility in the replacement.

Here's the problem with the gentleman's amendment: most of the people who run housing authorities are decent, hardworking people who have taken on a tough job, and we have tried to help them. But there are political situations in some community where the people running housing authorities are not supportive of this purpose.

What the gentleman's amendment says is if they leave the units vacant, they can then permanently get rid of the units. That is the problem. Going forward it gives people an incentive or reward not to fill the units. Most housing authorities won't be like that, but there is incompetence and there are people who for political reasons say, We don't want these people, they are too much of a problem........

Now, if a community comes forward and says to HUD, You know what, there is no population here left anymore, there is nobody who wants to live here anymore, those are considerations that can be put into the waiver. So we agree there should be flexibility. That is why we have a waiver component.

The Amendment FAILED on a vote of 181-227-27, along party lines. Republicans were for it, Democrats against it. Smith voted FOR this amendment.

H.AMDT.926 - To maintain HUD's authority to issue demolition-only grants.

This is basically what the previous amendment sought, but with a slightly different approach.

Those opposed to continuing this authority showed that the Bush Administration had even stopped using that authority in 2003. Between 1996 and 2003, there were 285 demolition-only grants awarded to 127 public housing authorities that resulted in demolishing 56,755 affordable housing units. Less than half were replaced, resulting in a net loss of around 30,000. There is a shortage of affordable housing in this country as it is.

The Amendment FAILED on a vote of 186-221-28, along party lines. Republicans for, Democrats against. Smith voted for it.

H.AMDT.928 - To prevent appropriations for Davis-Bacon wages.

I've explained the Davis-Bacon issue many times. This is a pet goal of Rep. Steve King of Iowa. He wants it eliminated. He's been an actual employer that's been forced to pay those living wages, and he has never liked that provision.

What Davis-Bacon does is a law the ensures those working on federal funded projects receive prevailing wages, based on whatever that wage is in that particular community. To put it another way, it prevents contractors from paying a much smaller wage to their workers to get the job, and/or to pocket the extra profit. It also ensures that workers get a living wage for their labors. It's a fair law enacted nearly 75 years ago by Republicans.

The Amendment FAILED on a vote of 136-268-31. There were 48 Republicans that joined with the Democrats to defeat it.

Adrian Smith voted FOR the amendment, as he has done every time King has put the issue forth in various bills.

H.AMDT.929 - To substitute the green building requirement, which is part of the mandatory core component of the underlying bill, with a provision that includes green building as part of the mandatory graded section. It also strikes references in the bill to specific green building standards and instead requires the Secretary of HUD to select a rating system, standard, or code for green buildings. This standard shall meet certain criteria and the Secretary shall conduct a study every 5 years to evaluate and compare third party green building standards to see if they meet the criteria.

This would effectively remove the green component with housing. This includes energy efficient windows, along with other money-saving and environmentally friendly components. It doesn't have to be a major part of the projects, but something must be included. This amendment would remove that requirement.

The Amendment FAILED on a vote of 169-240-26. There were 20 Republicans that joined Democrats to defeat it. Smith voted FOR the amendment.

A MOTION TO RECOMMIT was then made for consideration:

Mr. Graves moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3524 to the Committee on Financial Services with instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith with the following instructions:

In clause (xiii) of paragraph (2)(C) of the matter proposed to be inserted by the amendment made by section 7(a) of the bill, strike ``individuals who are not ineligible'' and all that follows through the end of the clause and insert the following: ``households consisting of or including an individual who served on active duty in the Armed Forces of the United States for a period of not less than 90 days and who was discharged or released from such duty under conditions other than dishonorable. For purposes of this clause, the term `families whose housing needs are difficult to fulfill' shall not include any individuals, or any categories of individuals, who have been released from a prison, jail, or other correctional facility of the Federal Government, a State government, or a unit of general local government, notwithstanding whether such individuals are not ineligible for occupancy in public housing pursuant to subsection (m)(2), have not been arrested for or charged with any crime during any specific period, or are individuals for whom housing is a critical need.''.

The Motion PASSED on a vote of 372-28-30.

H R 3524 then PASSED on a vote of 271-130-29
FOR: 218 Democrats, 53 Republicans
AGAINST: 130 Republicans
NO VOTE: 13 Democrats, 16 Republicans

Smith voted AGAINST the bill.

In reporting on the vote, the Omaha World gave Smith's reason for his vote:

Rep. Adrian Smith, R-Neb., said he supported the intent of the legislation but voted no because it prohibits demolition-only grants.

In other words, he didn't like one part, so let's vote to end all assistance through a no vote, rather than provide it to those in need.

-----------------------------------------------------

The remaining bills passed with little or no opposition:

H.RES.912 - Condemning the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and reaffirming the commitment of the United States to assist the people of Pakistan in combating terrorist activity and promoting a free and democratic Pakistan.
H.RES.921 - Providing for the concurrence by the House in the Senate amendment to H.R. 4253, with an amendment.
H.R.4986 - To provide for the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, as previously enrolled, with certain modifications to address the foreign sovereign immunities provisions of title 28, United States Code, with respect to the attachment of property in certain judgements against Iraq, the lapse of statutory authorities for the payment of bonuses, special pays, and similar benefits for members of the uniformed services, and for other purposes.

FLOOR STATEMENTS

Smith made no statements this week.

BILLS SPONSORED/COSPONSORED

Smith did not introduce any new bills this week. He signed on to 2 other bills as a cosponsor.

H.RES.917 - Supporting the goals and ideals of National Engineers Week, and for other purposes.

It's a simple declaration, introduced on 1/15/2008, with Smith as one of the original cosponsors.

H.R.2141 - To allow small public water systems to request an exemption from the requirements of any national primary drinking water regulation for a naturally occurring contaminant, and for other purposes.

Known as the Small Community Options for Regulatory Equity Act of 2007, it would exempt water systems serving 10,000 or fewer from enforcement of rules under the Safe Drinking Water act with regards to naturally occurring contaminants. This includes arsenic, radon, radium, uranium, and specified disinfection byproducts. A finding would be made that compliance would not be economically feasible. It would also prevent judicial or administration review of such findings.

In other words, instead of finding funds to help the smaller systems be in compliance, those living in smaller communities would not be able to really trust that their water source is safe. And there would be no oversite on these decisions.

The bill was introduced on 5/3/2007. Smith signed onto the bill on 1/16/2008

Smith Watch: One Year Later

2008-01-30T16:32:00.000-06:00

On January 23, 2007, I began Smith Watch, not quite sure where it would go or if it would be a benefit to Nebraska voters.

A year has passed, and I've been humbled by the support and the interest.

As of January 23, 2008, there had been over 21,500 visits to the site, and subscriptions keep going up as well.

There have been visits from all 50 states, as well as from 108 different countries.

The Top 10 States (including DC) have been:

1. Nebraska
2. District of Columbia
3. California
4. Missouri
5. New York
6. Virginia
7. Colorado
8. Texas
9. Illinois
10. Maryland

I've appreciated the support and help of all the people who have contributed to holding Adrian Smith accountable. Without the aid of citizens all over the 3rd District, this would not be possible. Thank you.

And as an additional bonus, I was thrilled to get a double-plug this week from the Sunlight Foundation. They are one of the best resources for all things Congressional:

In Nebraska, Smith Watch, has a very interesting summary of Rep. Adrian Smith’s first year in Congress. Complete with voting summary and some analysis of who gave him money and how often he voted in their favor.

Earmark Corner

The usual ruckus around earmarks has slowed to a disgruntled murmur with people mostly focusing on the election. I did want to highlight a great summary done by Smith Watch on Rep. Adrian’s Smith earmark requests and his opinion on the status of earmarking.

Again, thanks to everyone and lets make 2008 another year where we tell Washington that we, as citizens, have voices......and we know how to use them!

FSA Office Closures: A Closer Look

2008-01-26T18:07:00.000-06:00

One of the big issues that came up in the Third District in 2007 was the closing of several Farm Service Agency county offices. There were several articles giving statements from Smith through the year on the issue, but what did he really do?

The first article mentioning Adrian Smith on the matter was back on April 19, 2007. The Brownfield Network posted a report:

Herseth Sandlin will fight to keep FSA offices open

U.S. Ag Secretary Mike Johanns and Farm Service Agency (FSA) Administrator Teresa Lasseter both told Brownfield Wednesday that inefficient FSA county offices should be closed before the next farm bill is implemented. But South Dakota Representative Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D) isn't swayed by that argument.

Herseth Sandlin introduced a bill earlier this month to block USDA from closing any FSA offices until after the next farm bill comes on-line. And she said the remarks of Johanns and Lasseter haven't changed her mind about the need to keep pushing for the legislation.

"I'm going to continue to do everything that I can, working with my colleagues in a bi-partisan way, to stop this from happening, so that we can focus on the farm bill and not have to be distracted by unreasonable moves, in my opinion, at the state and national offices," Herseth Sandlin declared.

But bi-partisan support for Herseth Sandlin's bill hasn't been swiftly forthcoming, though South Dakota Republican John Thune did introduce a similar piece of legislation in the U.S. Senate two days before Herseth Sandlin introduced her bill in the House. Still, Herseth Sandlin said she expects more representatives to sign-on to her bill as more state plans to close FSA offices become public.

Rep. Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin is also a freshman in Congress, starting the same time as Smith. She decided to try and do something about the issue. But what did Smith do at the time?

Indeed, a spokesman for Nebraska 3rd District Representative Adrian Smith (R) said "we're concerned" about the recently released plan to close FSA offices in Nebraska. According to the spokesman, Smith "hadn't ruled out" co-sponsoring Herseth Sandlin's legislation, but was still considering the matter.

What was there to consider? And keep in mind, this wasn't an issue that just popped up. It had been coming. Leading up to the introduction of this bill, the matter was already being discussed.

The Grand Island Independent wrote articles about the issue:

Mar 28, 2007: FSA to close offices in Central Nebraska
Mar 29, 2007: FSA office closings has major impact
Apr 15, 2007: Corn growers oppose FSA office shutdown

As I previously reported, Rep. Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin introduced HR 1649 on March 22, 2007. It was referred to the Agriculture Committee, then to their Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition and Forestry on May 4, 2007. It got stuck waiting for an Executive Comment from the USDA at that point. (Wait, wasn't Mike Johanns in charge of that department at the time? So, he left without commenting? Interesting).

(Just for the record, there were 3 bills introduced in the Senate, all variations to trying to stop the closures: S.1821 sponsored by Sen. Hillary Clinton, S.2022 sponsored by Sen. Tim Johnson, and S.2043 sponsored by Ken Salazar.)

Adrian Smith then waited until the end of May to write about his opinion on the matter. Even then, he tried to hedge his bets, and was reluctant in getting too critical.

Though it has been about a decade since the last major restructuring effort in Nebraska, during that time there have been several major changes in our farm service programs. I’m not going to criticize the FSA for making the effort to reexamine the workloads of our county offices. However, I do have concerns regarding the timing of the restructuring. Doing so before the upcoming Farm Bill reauthorization currently before Congress may not appropriately reflect the new workloads generated from any new farm programs enacted.

In addition, revamping some of the outdated technologies may create greater efficiencies in certain areas. Any expected changes need to be considered since this is likely to have an impact on the demands of offices in areas with better Internet connections.

Furthermore, the state by state approach has raised concerns among farmers who may be required to cross over a state line to find the nearest FSA office. If an office closes near a state border, those farmers may not be able to rely on the services of a neighboring state office should that office close due to restructuring in a neighboring state.

This issue does not lend itself to easy solutions. But our overall goal should be ensuring rural areas stay vibrant and have strong economic development. Any action taken must ensure farmers, ranchers, and other producers receive the best service possible. If that means waiting until the new Farm Bill is enacted into law, then that should be the route we take.

If, maybe, might.....weak words to keep from making a strong stance. Just compare him to Herseth-Sandlin. She's taking a stand. He has "concerns", but no outright objections. He's still taking the easy road at that point.

So, groups had come out against the closings, farmers had voiced concerns, the bill had gone to a subcommittee, and it was waiting for Johanns to give an Executive Comment.

On June 15, 2007, Smith finally decided to sign onto HR 1649. That was 85 days after introduction, and 42 days after the request for a comment from the USDA.

Basically, a lot of work had already been done by a lot of other people on this issue, long before Adrian Smith decided to lend his name to the cause.

In August 2007, Sec. Johanns then announced the office closures. The way a South Dakota news station reported it:

Nebraska Congressman Adrian Smith has asked the Ag secretary Mike Johanns to delay the closures in the Husker state.

Asking preference for one state was never going to happen. Just "asking" on this matter also wasn't the way to go about it. By ignoring the bill in the House, it was clear Johanns was going to ignore the issue and move forward no matter what. But it looked good politically for Smith to make a quick "request".

On December 8, 2007, a new article was published in the Grand Island Independent:

FSA office closings irk Smith

Third District farmers have been hurt by the closing of area Farm Service Agency offices, said Rep. Adrian Smith, R-Neb.

"These FSA offices are tremendously important," Smith said. "It had been my sincere hope we could have found a way to delay these closures, at least until Congress could complete its work on the reauthorization of the Farm Bill. Now producers in my district could face even more uncertainty as these offices relocate and we go into the new year with the Farm Bill still unfinished."

Again, not a strong statement. To delay "at least until". Producers "could" face "uncertainty".

But just before that report, the new Nebraska FSA Director was named, and Smith put out a statement in support on the new director:

Nov 20, 2007: Rep. Smith congrats new state FSA director

Rep. Adrian Smith (R-NE), a member of the House Committee on Agriculture, congratulated Milton Rogers on his appointment as permanent state executive director of the Nebraska Farm Service Agency (FSA).

"Milt has an extensive background in production agriculture and true dedication for Nebraska, which will serve him well as he takes on the full responsibility of this position. There are challenging times ahead, and I look forward to working with him on issues directly affecting farmers and ranchers in Nebraska," Smith said.

The very next day, this report was posted:

Nov 21, 2007: New Nebraska FSA Exec defends office closures

On September 17th, Milton Rogers became acting executive director of the Farm Service Agency (FSA) for the state of Nebraska. He’s now expected to be named Nebraska’s permanent state FSA executive director in a matter of days.

In fact, Nebraska 3rd District GOP Representative Adrian Smith has already issued a press release congratulating Rogers on the appointment. Rogers told Brownfield the official word hasn’t yet come, though he expects it to within the next week to 10 days. But the life-long western Nebraska wheat farmer says there’s no doubt being even the acting FSA executive director has been a major change of pace.

"I drilled my wheat about 10 days early this year so that I climbed off the tractor on one day and the next day I was in Lincoln in this chair," Rogers said. "So it's been quite a role change for me."

Rogers took over as acting state FSA executive director during a 120 quiet period ahead of closing 10 local county FSA offices in Nebraska. Rogers pointed out that quiet period ends December 10th. And he said the targeted FSA offices have been prepared for closure and affected employees prepared to relocate.

While the move proved unpopular among ag producers affected by the office closures, Rogers defended it as necessary. And he promised no Nebraska farmer will go without services from FSA.

"No producer's been told that he can no longer participate in programs, it's just going to be delivered in a different manner," Rogers said. "And I think if you look at business today there's a lot of that going on and government is no different - we have to take a look at the way that we do business."

A moratorium on further FSA office closures has been included in both the House and Senate versions of the farm bill. But Rogers pointed out the Nebraska FSA office closures were conducted under the strict letter of the law spelled out by in an appropriations bill back in 2006.

It appears Adrian Smith jumped the gun on the congratulations. And in an article where Smith is praising Rogers, the director then defends the FSA closures. A few days later, the title of the article says Smith is "irked", but is he really?

SUMMARY:

When it comes to the issue of the FSA office closures, Smith showed absolutely no leadership, and really did nothing to try and fight the closures. When the issue really started coming out in March and April, Smith was still "considering" the matter. Then in May, he stated he was "concerned". Finally, after over 12 WEEKS had passed since the bill was introduced, 6 weeks after the last action on the bill, and as the bill was sitting and waiting for Johanns to submit a comment, then and only then did Smith attach his name. He decided to make a "request" to Johanns to spare Nebraska in the closing in August. He then praised the new Nebraska FSA Director, who in turn defended the FSA closures. Then, when the day of the first closures came, he made a weak statement that he had "hoped" to delay "at least until" the Farm Bill was done, and that producers "could" face "uncertainty".

Smith showed weakeness, hesitancy to take a stand one way or another, and gave out mixes messages. While he couldn't prevent the closures on his own, his actions were too little too late compared to the hard work and actions of many other members of Congress on this issue. He was a follower, not a leader, and he displayed a complete lack of energy or desire to truly jump in with both feet to fight for the farmers and ranchers affected most by these closures. Nebraska deserves better.

Adrian Smith and Earmarks

2008-01-23T17:12:00.000-06:00

I've working through some old news articles, seeing if anything needs to be highlighted, and I got to this article:

Kearney Hub: Is pared 'pork' more palatable? We'll see as Congress finalizes budget

A statement is made by Smith in this article regarding earmarks. Here are the highlights and what he said:

The Democrats running Congress have cut the number of "pork barrel'' spending items by about 25 percent compared with earmarks under GOP rule, but the annual feeding frenzy continues......

But many lawmakers see the earmark process as a way to help their states receive money for worthy projects that federal bureaucrats might otherwise overlook.

Rep. Lee Terry, R-Neb., recently ran a radio ad touting his opposition to earmarks....

Neither Terry nor Bush complained as much when Republicans ran the House and Senate.......

Republicans ran Congress for most of the past decade, and the number of earmarks rose from 958 in the 1996 fiscal year to a peak of 13,997 in 2005. It dipped to 9,963 in 2006, according to Citizens Against Government Waste, which opposes all the special spending items.

.....Congress may approve spending bills with a total of about 8,000 earmarks this year, estimates Citizens Against Government Waste.....

Rookie Rep. Adrian Smith, R-Neb., said he has seen little evidence of a new passion to reduce pork.

"It's hard for the Republicans to criticize at this point,'' Smith said. "I'm pleased with how far we've come, but we need to do more.''

Among items Smith has requested is $2.5 million for Royal Plastics Manufacturing Co. in Minden to develop polymer materials for advanced military fighter aircraft. Smith said he toured the company and believes the money will support national defense.

Let's recap Smith, earmarks, and his constituents.

In September, I had asked Smith's office about the earmarks he had requested:

I then asked Isom about earmarks. In a recent Lincoln Journal-Star, someone wrote in that a request had been made to all the Nebraska Representatives to get a list of the earmarks they requested. Rep. Lee Terry had not submitted any earmarks. Rep. Jeff Fortenberry and Smith had refused.

Isom also refused me when I asked, so I asked why not. He responded that it’s “office policy”......

I asked him, “Why are you not willing to disclose what you’re requesting?”

Isom said, “It’s an office policy...the earmarks we request may not become part of the final bill.”

I told him I understood that, but that didn’t explain whey they were not willing to disclose the earmarks they were requesting. Isom answered, “It’s our office policy because we don’t want to create a false sense of expectation.”

I told Isom that I thought that was a bad excuse, but that “as your voters, your taxpayers, your constituents, I believe we have a right to know what is being requested.“

Isom said, “I appreciate your opinion, but that’s our policy that we’re not going to release the earmarks requested, but only as they’re approved and passed.“

Thanks, to a group called the Taxpayers for Common Sense, we have a listing of earmarks. What did Smith request?

- $500,000 for a US Hwy 30 viaduct replacement in Columbus.
- $2,500,000 to Royal Plastics in Minden.
- $294,000 for roads in the Valentine National Wildlife Refuge.

There are no indications Smith tried to work for the Panhandle and request funds for completion of the Heartland Expressway. He says he supports it, but do we really know that?

Smith made no requests in the Agriculture, Energy & Water, or Commerce/Justice/Science approprations bills. Other earmarks were requested that benefited the Third District, but those were done by Sen. Ben Nelson. For example, funds were earmarked for the airport in Scottsbluff, located practically in Smith's backyard.

Remember what was reported previously:

...he doesn't want a push to reform "earmarks" in the budget process to impact gaining additional funds for the Heartland Expressway. Earmarks for pet projects, especially to the last transportation bill, has resulted in calls for eliminating the "add-ons" to major funding measures.

Smith told the Chamber's Government Affairs Committee there are "good earmarks and bad earmarks" and reform to eliminate wasteful spending can't be allowed to stop future funding of the multi-state highway.

By refusing to reveal requests, there is only one conclusion that can be reached: There is actually nothing to provide, and Smith didn't work to try and benefit his voters. It also appears he actually did nothing with this project.

Now here's the kicker.

Smith officially announced he was running for reelection this week (yeah, like didn't know). In one article, it stated:

Governor Dave Heineman says Smith has been a strong voice for Nebraska in Congress.

Really? When? I'd sure like some examples of that. And when I say examples, not generalities or platitudes, but real, solid examples, complete with verifiable proof. I have yet to see it.

Smith Job Performance: Year-End Summary

2008-01-17T00:48:00.000-06:00

Since we reached the end of the 1st Session in the 110th Congress, its a good time to recap what Adrian Smith's performance was for his first year in Congress.

CLUB FOR GROWTH KEY VOTES

Given that the Club for Growth paid out over $500,000 to Adrian Smith during the campaign, in contributions and ads, it's a good idea to continue checking if they are getting their money’s worth.

The CFG has what they call their “Key Votes”. They track the votes of their paid representatives to see if they are voting the way the CFG want them to be voting.

Let's look at the "key votes" since July 1, 2007:

1. "YES" on the "Fairness in Farm and Food Policy Amendment" to the 2007 Farm Bill (HR 2419)

This amendment would have basically gutted and replaced the Farm Bill.

Smith voted NO.

2. "NO" on the Rule for the 2007 Farm Bill (HR 2419)

CFG said "The rule would result in a $7.5 billion tax increase on foreign companies with operations in the United States."

Smith spoke up against it during consideration of the rule (H.RES.574).

It actually closed a loophole that allowed foreign corporations to avoid taxes by using "tax havens". It would not affect those from nations with treaties with the US, so would cover a very small, but costly, percentage. It was NOT a tax increase.

Smith voted NO

3. "NO" on the 2007 Farm Bill (HR 2419)

SMITH VOTE YES

4. "NO" ON THE ENERGY BILL (H.R. 3221)

This bill put a new focus on alternative energies.

Smith vote NO

5. "NO" ON THE ENERGY TAX BILL (H.R. 2776)

This bill would "provide tax incentives for the production of renewable energy and energy conservation."

Smith voted NO

6. "NO" on extending the TERRORISM RISK INSURANCE REVISION and EXTENSION ACT (H.R. 2761)

The bill would have extended and expanded the insurance to better cover those affected in the event of a terrorist attack. CFG/Smith took the "market should control" position instead.

Smith voted NO

**Note: the bill did pass, and Smith voted for it, but only after all new provisions were stripped and the extension time was severely reduced. This ensured the CFG position that the "market should control it."

7. "NO" on "SCHIP Reauthorization"

Smith voted NO

8. "NO" on Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act of 2007 (H.R. 3121)

Smith voted NO.

9. "YES" on Permanent Death Tax Repeal on the motion to recommit for the Tax Collection Responsibility Act of 2007 (H.R. 3056).

Smith voted YES

10. "NO" on Veto Override of the Water Resources Development Act (HR 1495).

Smith voted YES, but so did a large majority of Republicans.

11. "YES" on Peru Free Trade Deal

Smith voted YES.

12. "NO" On the Omnibus Spending Bill.

This combined all the remaining appropriations bills and added in the Iraq spending in to a massive bill.

On the day of this statement by the CFG, there were 2 votes in the House to pass this in the House.

Vote #1: Smith voted NO

Vote #2: Smith voted NO

When the Iraq spending was put in that matched what the President wanted (another "blank check" with no accountability), the final vote was held.

Smith voted YES, along the rest of the Republicans.

This will be a 1/2 point vote with the CFG.

SUMMARY: Adrian Smith voted 8.5 out of 12 times with the Club for Growth. When you factor in the first half of the year, you find that Smith has voted with the CFG 85.4% of the time. He's only gone against them on 3.5 out of 24 votes.

But what were those votes?

Two of them were on the Farm Bill: One an amendment, one the Farm Bill itself. To vote with the CFG would be political suicide in this state, and Smith knew it. However the bill isn't finished yet.

The remaining votes were on a veto override and on the Omnibus bill. What allowed him to go against the CFG on those votes was the fact the vast majority of Republicans voted the same way: Safety in numbers.

The CFG are getting what they paid for.

VOTING PATTERN

There were a total of 1186 Roll Call votes in the 1st session. This is, by the far, the most number of record votes in a session in the last 15 years. The most in that time prior to this session was 885 vote in the First Session of the 104th Congress (1995-1996). Most of the votes this time were due to stalling parliamentary tactics by Republicans, which Smith stepped right up to support. Now let's look at his pattern for the first year.

92.83% (1102) - Smith’s votes match the GOP majority.
33.56% (398) - Smith’s votes match the Democrats majority.
38.70% (459) - Majority of GOP votes match the Democrats majority.
38.62% (458) - Smith’s vote is the same as the result of the vote (passed/failed).
43.17% (512) - GOP’s vote is the same as the result of the vote.
95.03% (1127) - Democrats vote is the same as the result of the vote.
0.93% (11) - Smith has voted with the Democrats, but against the GOP majority.
5.99% (71) - Smith’s vote is in the extreme minority of the GOP, voting opposite of the majority.

To get a much better look at these numbers, however, it’s best to remove the votes that are unanimous or near unanimous (less than 25 votes in opposition). These usually consist of ceremonial type votes, such as pledging the support of veterans, praising a sports team, or changing the name of a post office, etc. There were 297 unanimous or nearly unopposed votes. The follow statistics represent the remaining 889 votes:

90.44% (804) - Smith’s votes match the GOP majority.
11.36% (101) - Smith’s votes match the Democrats majority.
18.22% (162) - Majority of GOP votes match the Democrats majority.
18.11% (161) - Smith’s vote is the same as the result of the vote (passed/failed).
24.18% (215) - GOP’s vote is the same as the result of the vote.
93.36% (830) - Democrats vote is the same as the result of the vote.
1.24% (11) - Smith has voted with the Democrats, but against the GOP majority.
7.99% (71) - Smith’s vote is in the extreme minority of the GOP, voting opposite of the majority.

Smith turns out to be on of those in the extreme almost 8% of the time. But overall, the numbers clearly show someone that is even more partisan than the majority of the Republican party.

But in looking at these numbers, understand this is looking at all 1186 votes that were recorded. When all the procedural votes are removed, the numbers are even more startling.

As pointed out by Don Walton in a recent Lincoln Journal Star article, Congressional Quarterly's numbers show a much clearer picture:

Among Nebraska’s three Republican House members, Rep. Jeff Fortenberry compiled the most independent voting record with respect to both the president and his party.

The 1st District congressman supported the president’s position 65 percent of the time and voted with the majority of his Republican colleagues 81 percent of the time.

Rep. Adrian Smith, 3rd District, exhibited the most support for both president and party.

Smith voted with the Republican majority 98 percent of the time. He compiled an 83 percent score in support of Bush’s legislative positions.

Rep. Lee Terry, 2nd District, voted with the majority of his fellow Republicans on 93 percent of roll call votes in the survey. Terry supported the president 76 percent of the time.

Even in the state, Smith is the most partisan. As pointed out many times this year, Smith's votes have repeatedly reflected positions that do NOT benefit people in the Third District. He has repeatedly chosen party over the people, campaign contributors over constituents. All these numbers make that very clear.

BILLS SPONSORED AND COSPONSORED

At the end of the First Session, Adrian Smith had sponsored only 6 bills, and cosponsored 116 bills, for a total of 122 bills.

Compare that to our other 2 Representatives in Nebraska:

Jeff Fortenberry, sponsored 16, cosponsored 169, for a total of 185.

Lee Terry sponsored 29, cosponsored 327, for a total of 356.

Among the 53 Freshman members of Congress, the average number of bills sponsored is 13, and the average number cosponsored is 240, the total average being 253.

The median total number of bills is 247.

Given those numbers, Smith has less than half the number of bills than the average among the Freshmen.

Smith’s rank as far as total number of bills is 50 out of 53. He’s at the very bottom of the group.

The top 20 Freshmen Representatives were as follows (sponsored/cosponsored):

1. Stephen Cohen, D-TN (15/712)
2. Phil Hare, D-IL (10/513)
3. Keith Ellison, D-MN (18/471)
4. Mazie Hirono, D-HI (13/409)
5. Betty Sutton, D-OH (21/389)
6. Yvette Clarke, D-NY (4/374)
7. Hank Johnson, D-GA (11/359)
8. Carol Shea-Porter, D-NH (14/322)
9. Peter Welch, D-VT (38/294)
10. Jason Altmire, D-PA (21/302)
11. Bruce Braley, D-IA (9/312)
12. Chris Carney, D-PA (19/292)
13. Nancy Boyda, D-KS (12/297)
14. Jerry McNerney, D-CA (7/297)
15. Patrick Murphy, D-PA (19/279)
16. Steven Kagen, D-WA (10/278)
17. Joe Courtney, D-CT (19/262)
18. Michael Arcuri, D-NY (23/256)
19. Zachary Space, D-OH (24/245)
20. Nick Lampson, D-TX (33/225)

Now some statistics on these bills:

Of the 6 bills sponsored, only ONE was passed - H.RES.99, which was a simple resolution congratulating the UNL Volleyball team. The remaining bills were referred to committees, with only one of those getting referred then to a subcommittee.

The Sponsored bills were introduced as follows:

1 in January
1 in February
1 in March
1 in June
2 in July

None have had any activity since the last bill in July was referred to a subcommittee in August.

Smith has not gotten many cosponsors on his bills. Specifically:

2 on the UNL Resolution
3 on a college tax credit bill
4 on the CAFO's tax credit
7 on the bill to eliminate meth kingpins
10 on the 15-year non-residental property tax credit
17 on the like-kind property tax credit

Remember the Omaha World-Herald editorial during the 2006 election?

In the Legislature, Smith is not known as a skilled lawmaker. He is not known for an ability to build constructive coalitions for complicated legislation. He is not known as a skilled public speaker. He has no reputation for making substantive issues the subjects for his priority bills. He is not a lawmaker whom backers seek out to be the prime sponsor of major legislation.

He is not known as a leader.

His first year demonstrates that clearly, just with his 6 little bills. They've gone nowhere and have no real support.

Now, lets look at the bills he's cosponsoring.

There are 23 that are types of Resolutions (20%). Of those:

- 5 are Concurrent Resolutions (need votes in both the House and Senate). Of those, 1 has had no vote, 3 were passed in the House and sent to the Senate with no further action , and 1 had a Senate vote but is still awaiting another vote in the House.

- 9 of the Resolutions have been passed.

- 9 have not made it out of Committee.

- Smith was an originating co-sponsor on 9 of the resolution. Of the remaining 14, the soonest he signed onto the resolution (from time of introduction until the time he signed on) was 1 day. The longest wait on another resolution was 119 days. The average time from introduction to signing onto a resolution was 33 days.

- 6 of the Resolutions involved statements in support of troops.

- 2 recognized college sports teams.

There are a total of 93 Bills (in that they require action in the House and Senate, and Presidential action to become a law, compared to resolutions which are just placed in official record and don't become actual laws). Smith has not seen near the action on these as he has the resolutions.

- Only 9 have received any votes. Of those, 2 became laws, 1 was indefinitely postponed, and 6 have recieved no further action in the Senate at this time.

- The two bills passed were:
1) Research program for remediation of meth labs;
2) to name the Capital hall "Emancipation Hall".

- The bill Indefinitely Postponed was to award the Congressional Gold Medal to Dr. ME Debakey (a Senate version passed instead).

- The 6 bills that have only had a House vote and are held up in the Senate are:
1) Allow membership for spouses/siblings of Purple Heart receipients;
2) Set aside more federal lands for the Lewis & Clark Nebraska park;
3) the Lower Republican River Basin Study Act;
4) The Platte River Implementation Program;
5) Directing the FDIA to establish industrial bank holding company regulations; and
6) Impose economic sanctions against Iran.

- Only 7 other bills have had hearings.

- The remaining 77 have only been referred to committees or sub-committees, with no further actions.

- Smith was an originating (day of introduction) co-sponsor on 27 out of 93 of the bills (29%)

- On the remaining 66, the shortest time from introducing to signing for a bill was 6 days, the most on another bill was 300 days. The average number of days from introduction to signing on was 82 days. The median is 62 days.

Just what has he signed on to (bills)?

- 12 of the bills are purely based on "trigger issues" - bills that have huge one-issue PAC's that support Smith, and pull in the one-issue votes.
--- Of those, 3 are related to abortion (one to ban by giving equal rights to the unborn, one to make it illegal to take minors across state lines to get an abortion, one to ban embryonic stem cell research).
--- One appeals to the far-right radio/FOX listeners by making a non-issue into an issue (the Fairness Doctrine).
--- One is making sure "God" is put on Flag Certificates.
--- One is to repeal gun controls in the Washington DC area. One is to prevent the courts from interpreting the Pledge of Allegiance ("under God").
--- One is to stop lawsuits to remove one-religion display's from public property.
--- One is to overrule a judges webcast royalty decision
--- 2 would make no changes to the SCHIP program, but extend it 18 months or 5 years (result being no additional funds, so fewer and fewer children covered).

- 3 bills are pro-corporation/anti-union bills (one would completely repeal Davis-Bacon).

He has now put his name on 6 bills related to immigration, but what are they really?
--- 2 make it easier for employers to hire immigrants. (remember, they take a lower pay).
--- 1 is the "no drivers license" bill
--- 1 is to exclude SSA wages/earnings for an immigrant (those earned while illegal).
--- 1 is English as the official language
--- 1 would eliminate the diversity program, which brings in higher educated immigrants.
*None of these have gone past introduction.

A whopping 22 are related to tax issues. But who do they benefit?
--- 2 are to eliminate the estate tax
--- 1 cuts capital gains
--- 1 repeals the AMT permanently
--- 1 to make ALL the Bush tax cuts permanent
--- 3 are ag tax credits (ag processing property, ag business costs, farm equipment depreciation)
--- Tax credits for restaurant depreciation, freight rail capacity, heat pumps, using renewable energy, and research. He would prohibit internet commerce taxes permanently, road/bridge tolls for those built with federal funds, new cell phone taxes, and increase the amount that can be deducted from an IRA for charity donations. Oh, and he would put beer taxes back to pre-1991 levels.
None of these, however, show where the cuts will come from in spending to cover what would literally be trillions over the decades in lost revenue. If he comes up with it, great - but I doubt it. None have even had a committee hearing.

- With the exception of the tax credits, only 5 bills are related to agriculture.
--- 1 would make it so manure is not a pollutant.
--- 1 would extend the current Farm Bill
--- 1 would treat conservation reserve program payments as rentals
--- 1 was for ag disaster relief (he signed on 60 days after introduction)
--- 1 would have prohibited FSA office closures (signed on 85 days after introduction, and now it's too late).

- 8 bills are related to expanding access to Medicare/Medicaid funds by medical companies and providers.

- 2 bills would order the Treasury to mint commemorative coins for the Army infantry and to honor Mother's Day.

- 2 deal with health care for rural veterans. One he signed on 16 days after introduction, the other was 60 days later. Neither have had any action.

AT NO TIME did Smith submit an Amendment to any of the bills being debated on the floor. The only time his name was mentioned was once, and that was with 2 other Representatives that took the lead while he followed.

There are a lot of odds and ends, but you get the idea.

I'm sure there are other statistics some would have a question about, but it's hard to come up with all the combinations. If there are any questions, just post them, and I'll put the information together, as all of it is saved for further number crunching.

Overall, Smith's first year is nothing to celebrate. It's weak and shows next to no work being accomplished. It's clear he thinks the answer to everying is TAX CREDITS. He's so focused on trying to get every tax credit on the books possible, that he's failing to really spend time focusing on matters that really affect the regular people in his district on a daily basis. His issues benefit a few, but the many are ignored. His actions make the Club for Growth happy, that's for sure.

IN CLOSING

With such a weak performance, Adrian Smith is RIPE for being a one-term Congressman. We, in the Third District, need to work to really encourage those considering a run for the Third District to get into the race, and SOON. Filing deadlines are fast approaching. In this incredibly positive "pro-Democrat" time in our political history, and with a very vulnerable, weak incumbent in office, there is no better time to pick up the Third District seat for the Democrats. The word on the lips of most Americans is "change", and lets hope we can find someone to achieve that. The LAST thing we need is to continue allowing someone remain in office who's sole goal is to do whatever he can to '"stay until retirement", and who's philosophy is that George Bush and the current far-right Republican leadership can do no wrong. That mindset will only continue to hurt the chance of this district remaining a district after the next census.

House Actions 12/17/2007 - 12/21/2007

2007-12-30T14:14:00.000-06:00

This last week in the First Session of the 110th Congress was the culmination of what has become a sad truth. Throughout the entire year, the Republicans, with Adrian Smith marching lock-step, have tried to stall or prevent most of major work in Congress. The reality of the situation was more pronounced this week, as in no other. What is that reality and why was it pronounced?

The reality is that while Democrats have a majority in both the House and Senate, that majority is slim. The Republicans still had enough in numbers to prevent much progress on issues. If something passed the House, the Senate could stall or even prevent further votes. If the bill managed to pass through both, and make it to the desk of the President, there were enough Republicans to prevent vetoes on big bills from being overrode. Matter of fact, when it came to appropriations, Adrian Smith was one of 147 Republicans to sign a pledge that they would support Bush's vetoes, thus preventing any chance to override a veto.

The result was that many of the bills that came up for a vote this week were stripped of meaningful change because Republicans managed to stop that change with their numbers. The result was Democrats finding themselves having to settle for SOMETHING rather than NOTHING. It was a sad week for the voters of the Third District and Smith continued to vote for his own interests rather than the interests of the majority of Americans.

The remaining 11 Appropriations bills (including those passed and vetoed) were combined into one giant Omnibus Bill for consideration. Smith had voted against nearly all these at every step of the way. The version that went through the House was no exception. But then the Republicans in the Senate slipped in $70 Billion for ongoing funding of the Iraq operations. A separate bill had been sent through recently that laid out guideline, and also addressed the issue of torture. They refused to allow it up for consideration in the Senate, and instead chose to slip the money into the Omnibus bill with no restrictions and or expectations on what to do with the money. In other words, Bush could continue his occupation without having to set up a timeline to start getting troops out. When it went back to the House for the final vote, Smith finally voted for the entire thing because of the Iraq funding. The only consolation in the matter is that Smith also had to then vote to support the very appropriations bills he opposed previously in order to be able to say he was "supporting the troops".

The final votes were held this week for HR 6, the Energy Bill with a focus on renewable energy. The bill at every step had been paid for in large part by closing down some of the corporate welfare that our taxpayers have been giving to the big oil companies. This welfare was put in place mainly during the 70's and the oil crisis. We have seen a time of record profits now in recent years where the net profits for the big oil companies have been in the billions each quarter. The welfare isn't needed, at least not to the current extent. Because of these provisions, Smith had voted against the bill at every step of the way. In doing so, he continually voted against the interests of the Third District, which stands to benefit greatly from this bill. When the final version came up, though, Senate Republicans had managed to strip out the cutting of the corporate welfare. Once big oil was once again protected and guaranteed to continue benefiting from the government, then and only then did Smith vote FOR the passage of that bill. The really sad thing was that when the Grand Island Independent reported on the passage of the bill, they allowed Smith to appear as being a great supporter all along, while making the false claim that this was done "without increasing taxes on consumers". Smith had joined Republicans in calling the end of the subsidies as a "tax increase", even though it wasn't, and by making that very statement, he made it APPEAR as if people were going to get taxed. They never were. He stood and supported big oil at every step of the way, and ONLY voted for the Third District once their multi-billion dollar profits were allowed to continue untouched.

The Terrorism Insurance Program was reauthorized this week, but again, only after it was stripped to this barest essentials. Republicans and Democrats from areas greatest affected by 9/11 had fought for a 15-year extension, and other considerations to make the program stronger for both individuals and businesses should, God forbid, the unthinkable happen again. Smith, again, voted AGAINST this measure at every step of the way. Only after it went through Senate Republicans, where they stripped most provisions back out, and cut it to a 7 year extension, did Smith vote for the final version. He, and those that controlled this final version, took the position that the market will take care of itself in such a situation. Essentially, they just don't want to believe that an attack could ever happen again, and that the market will be able to handle it if it does happen. The thing is - most that supported expansion of this program felt that this is not an issue of people having to be able to take care of themselves. Rather, this would be a national defense issue where citizens should have the full faith and support of the government. It goes beyond just helping those in, say, a natural disaster. It's a deliberate attack.

Finally, the Alternative Minimum Tax relief was extended another year. Initially when the bills had gone through, the loss in revenue was going to be paid for by closing some loopholes. Specifically, fund managers with millions couldn't have their hedge funds in tax havens off shores to avoid taxes, and also would pay regular income taxes, rather than the small capital gains taxes. The reason for this was because the AMT had been intended to only affect the highest incomes. It was never supposed to affect middle income families. To keep those families from continuing to be affected, the very people the AMT was intended for would have to pay a fair share on funds they already paid little or no taxes on. Smith voted AGAINST the AMT relief at every step of the way. However, the Republicans in the Senate stripped out the provisions that would pay for that loss in revenue. They decided that PAYGO shouldn't apply in this matter. They falsely argued that since the money hadn't come in, it should never have even been considered in the Congressional Budget Office projections (even though they used those very same projections to increase the spending and the debt over the last 6 years when they were in charge). Therefore, when this final version came up for a vote that PROTECTED THE RICH AND PASSED THE DEBT TO THE NEXT GENERATIONS, then and only then did Smith vote FOR it. That's $50 Billion projected to be added to the nation debt that is already surpassed $9 Trillion (up $3.5 Trillion since Bush took office). Of course, in casting this vote, Smith then sent out press releases making it sound like he played some large role in the matter, and that it was all the Democrats fault for the delays in getting this passed. If you ever get a chance to speak with Smith, you can thank him for keeping some of you from not being affect by the AMT, and passing on that debt instead to your children and grandchildren.

So much for being a fiscal conservative, right?

Overall, Smith only considered his voting constituents once he had ensured that the interests of the uber rich and powerful were protected.

ROLL CALL VOTES

H.RES.873 - Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules.

Per the CRS Summary, this resolution waives a specified requirement of Rule XIII (Calendar and Committee Reports) to allow consideration of the following Senate amendments on the same day they are presented to the House:

(1) the Senate amendment to H.R. 2764 (Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2008); and
(2) the Senate amendments to H.R. 6 (Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007).

On both votes, "ordering the previous questions" and "agreeing to the resolution", it passed on a party-line vote: Democrats for, Republicans against.

H.CON.RES.271 - Providing for the sine die adjournment of the first session of the One Hundred Tenth Congress.

This set forth the rules of the adjournment of the First Session, and how the business would stand until the start of the next session.

The resolution FAILED on a vote of 184-218-30. There were 34 Democrats that joined with Republicans to defeat it. Smith voted against it.

H.RES.878 - Providing for the consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 2764) making appropriations for the Department of State, foreign operations, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes.

This set forth the rules for consideration of HR 2764.

On 2 votes, "ordering the previous question" and "agreeing to the resolution", it passed on party line votes: Democrats for, Republicans against.

H.R.2764 - Making appropriations for the Department of State, foreign operations, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes.

This bill became a large, omnibus bill. On 12/17/2007, the substitute House amendments to the Senate amendment changed this bill to the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008. It contains:

Division A: Agriculture;
Division B: Commerce-Justice-Science;
Division C: Energy-Water;
Division D: Financial Services;
Division E: Homeland Security;
Division F: Interior;
Division G: Labor-HHS-Education;
Division H: Legislative Branch;
Division I: Military-Veterans;
Division J: State-Foreign Operations;
Division K: Transportation-HUD;
Division L: Supplemental Appropriations.

On December 17, the House considered two amendments to Senate amendments on the overall bill. They were technical amendments.

On the First House Amendment, dealing with domestic issues, it PASSED on a vote of 253-154-1. There were only 41 Republicans that joined with Democrats to pass it.

On the Second House Amendment, dealing with military and international issues, it PASSED on a vote of 206-201-25. It was nearly party-line with more Democrats than Republicans crossing over to vote in opposition of the majority of their party. The majority of Democrats voted for it, with Republicans against it. The main problem Republicans had with this second amendment was that they wanted to have Iraq funding built in with the Bush agenda continuing to be intact.

Smith voted with his party on both votes.

The bill then went back to the Senate, where there is only a 1-vote Democratic majority. They added in Iraq funding without any real guidelines or requirements attached. It then went back to the House on Dec. 19th.

Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, David Obey, had to introduce the bill, and explained why he would be voting against it:

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I don't want to take much time. I know people want to leave. Let me explain the procedure that is being followed. I have a ministerial duty to call up this Senate amendment, even though I intend to vote against it.

As the House I think understands, yesterday the House considered an omnibus appropriation bill, and what we did was to consider two amendments; one amendment related to the domestic funding for the bill, and the other amendment related to funding for Afghanistan and for certain force protection items. We sent those two amendments over to the Senate, and the Senate has amended the product in one respect. They have substituted for the $30 billion that we sent to the Senate for Afghanistan and for force protection items, they have substituted $70 billion, and sent it back to the House.

I have an obligation to allow the House to work its will on this matter, even though I suspect I am going to disagree with the result of this action.

In my view, when we sent legislation over to the Senate 3 weeks ago, that legislation provided for $50 billion for the purpose of helping to shut down the war by establishing a timeline, by requiring that all agencies of the Federal Government adhere to the U.S. Army Manual with respect to torture, and would also require that every unit be militarily ready to perform its duties. That is still sitting in the Senate. In my view, all that we had to do to deal with the so-called shortfall that the White House has been talking about is for the President to sign that bill with those conditions. The White House has blocked that legislation in the Senate, and so we have come to this.

Members will vote however they choose. I intend to vote ``no,'' but this is an individual vote of conscience.

Basically, what happened is that Republicans, who have enough in position to obstruct everything they can, made sure to stall, delay, and obstruct the appropriations bills. President Bush helped by vetoing those coming to his desk. They also stopped the Iraq emergency funding bill in the Senate. It was the bill that actually laid out what torture was based on the Army's own manual, and put requirement to start moving the troops out over the next year (the deadline being 12/31/2008, leaving room for other considerations, if needed). As the first session was ending the result was the Democrats put together all the appropriations bills. The Republicans put in the funding for Iraq they wanted. The Republicans were able to manipulate the Democrats into a position where they'd be forced to allow the Bush agenda of unending war to continue. The the offset was that Republicans were at least forced to support a lot of domestic programs they would otherwise want to cut dramatically.

Both sides played political games. But Democrats at least tried to do the RIGHT thing by ensuring that the American People got the services they needed. Republicans only focus was continuing to avoid facing the question of what to do about Iraq. President Bush did say once that this war would not end on his watch. The Republicans are making sure that is the case. Then they can try and blame a Democrat for any problems that will arise (and believe me, whether we withdraw a month from now or 5 years from now, there will be an upsurge in violence in the beginning. There really is no way to avoid that as the sects all try to get the upper hand of power in that country).

Rep. Mark Udall of Colorado also spoke up stating why he was disappointed about this bill, but would reluctantly vote for it:

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, when the House considered this measure earlier this week, I voted for it even though I was far from enthusiastic about doing so.

Now that it is before us again--because the Senate changed it--I am even less enthusiastic about it, but I have reluctantly concluded that bad as it is, it needs to be passed. And so I will vote for it again.

Earlier, I said that one of its worst shortcomings, ironically, was that it was too long--rolling into one massive measure provisions from no fewer than 11 regular appropriations bills that the House passed earlier this year.

And now it is even longer, because the Senate has added an additional $39 billion, all for military activities in Iraq.

There is no mystery about why that happened. It happened for two reasons.

The first reason is that President Bush has insisted that he will not sign the bill unless these funds were added--just as he has insisted he will veto it if it provided more funding than he has requested for domestic purposes.

The second reason is that our Republican colleagues, both here and in the Senate, have made clear they will support any such veto.

And the result of the president's stubborn insistence and our Republican colleagues stubborn loyalty is that of the nearly $190 billion the president requested for Iraq and Afghanistan, this bill includes $39 billion for Iraq, to be available without conditions or significant restrictions.

This essentially unconditional funding approach is very different from the war funding bill I supported and the House passed last month, which would have provided targeted funding toward an ``immediate and orderly'' redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq.

I agree with those who say there are clear signs of progress on the security front in Iraq. But when he announced the ``surge'' of additional troops to Iraq, President Bush promised us more than progress on the security front. We sent more troops to Iraq to provide ``breathing space'' for the Iraqi government to move toward political reconciliation, and that hasn't even begun to happen.

I think that in the long term, there is no sustainable role for large numbers of U.S. troops to remain in Iraq--whether refereeing a civil war or waiting for the Iraqi government to decide to act within the ``breathing space'' our brave troops have provided and our taxpayers are paying for at $9 billion per month.

So I regret that this bill sends the wrong message by including no Congressional direction on how the funds for Iraq should be spent.

At the same time, we all understand that this bill includes no ``strings'' on Iraq funding because the Senate simply doesn't have the votes to pass such a bill and that Republican support for a veto would prevent it from becoming law if it should be passed.

What we need is consensus here at home on a path forward in Iraq.

I believe consensus can be found around the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, which I introduced as legislation earlier this year, including supporting a course of escalating economic development, empowerment of local government, the provision of basic services, a ``surge'' in regional and international diplomatic efforts, and lightening the American footprint in Iraq.

If legislation along those lines had been agreed to, we would not find ourselves making the difficult choice presented by this bill now before us.

Only Democrats and Republicans working together can find the best path out of Iraq. I will continue to work with colleagues on both sides of the aisle on further steps we can take to change our broader Iraq policy.

And today, I will vote for this omnibus bill because despite its shortcomings, I will not vote to deny funding for the body armor and other supplies our troops require and because in terms of funding for domestic programs, it still is a better bill than would have resulted if we had simply rubber-stamped the president's budget requests--and it includes provisions that will directly benefit Colorado and the nation.

The Omnibus Bill then PASSED on a vote of 272-142-18
FOR: 78 Democrats, 194 Republicans
AGAINST: 141 Democrats, 1 Republican
NO VOTE: 12 Democrats, 6 Republicans

Smith voted for the bill.

The President then signed it into law on 12/26/2007.

H.RES.877 - Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 6) to move the United States toward greater energy independence and security, to increase the production of clean renewable fuels, to protect consumers, to increase the efficiency of products, buildings, and vehicles, to promote research on and deploy greenhouse gas capture and storage options, and to improve the energy performance of the Federal Government, and for other purposes.

This set forth the rules for consideration of the final vote on HR 6. There were two votes, on "ordering the previous question" and "agreeing to the resolution". It passed with both votes being party-line: Democrats for, Republicans against.

H.R.6 - An Act to move the United States toward greater energy independence and security, to increase the production of clean renewable fuels, to protect consumers, to increase the efficiency of products, buildings, and vehicles, to promote research on and deploy greenhouse gas capture and storage options, and to improve the energy performance of the Federal Government, and for other purposes.

This was the final vote on the final version of the Energy Bill that invests in renewable energies. This is the bill that, with every vote it's had, Smith voted against each and every time. He knew that this would provide a great benefit to the people of Nebraska, especially the Third District, but he would vote against it each and every time anyway.

With this final version, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer spoke on the floor about it:

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, this is a historic day for the House of Representatives; it's a historic day for the Dean of the House; it's a historic day for the leadership of this House; and it will be, I think, viewed as a very important day for America and our energy independence and for our effort to keep our environment sustainable.

I want to thank and congratulate the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee. I said this when we last considered the bill on this floor; no Member of this body has focused more on energy and energy policy, energy independence, throughout the years than has the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Dingell.

As he said when this bill passed out of the House, it wasn't the perfect bill. There are many of us in this House who would have hoped that the Senate would not have removed some of the items that were in this bill when it came from the House.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, this landmark bipartisan legislation, the Energy Independence and Security Act, represents a vital turning point for our Nation and a historic accomplishment for this Congress.

Today, we set a new direction for this country in the area of energy policy. Our Nation's energy policy is inextricably linked to our national security, our economic security, and our environmental well-being.

And, I have long believed that we must summon our national will, resources and ingenuity to make significant gains in technology, conservation, vehicle efficiency, and the use of alternative fuels in order to end our reliance on foreign oil and other important sources of energy. To that extent, this bill was and remains a vital national security interest.

With this legislation, we will move toward real energy independence that results in a stronger economy, more jobs, and healthier communities. The Chairs and ranking members that worked tirelessly to produce this bill are also to be congratulated.

Under the leadership of Chairman Dingell, as I have said, this bill includes historic fuel economy, renewable fuels, and energy efficiency provisions.

The increase in the fuel efficiency of vehicles to 35 miles per gallon by 2020 is the first in a generation, and is supported by environmentalists and the automobile industry, in no small part because of the work of Chairman Dingell.

Furthermore, it will result in $22 billion in net annual consumer savings by 2020 and reduce greenhouse gases in an amount equal to taking off the road 28 million of today's average cars and trucks.

Among other things, this bill will reduce our reliance on foreign oil by investing in the production and infrastructure needed to deploy homegrown biofuels. It provides incentives for plug-in hybrid cars. And it includes landmark energy efficiency provisions that will save consumers and businesses at least $300 billion through 2030.

Let no one be mistaken, this bill, while comprehensive, does not represent the totality of our energy policy. There is still much more to do, and we will be about that business.

For example, we should take up legislation to establish a renewable portfolio standard and extend the production tax credit, and do so promptly. We also should continue to work across the aisle and with the Senate to reach further consensus on issues such as the use of renewables, the development of new technologies, and the fiscally responsible extension of needed energy tax provisions.

Mr. Speaker, when we started this session, we started it on a historic note and swore in the first woman Speaker in the history of America, in the history of this House of over 200 years. As she was sworn in, we had literally scores of children who surrounded the Speaker. And she intoned that this would be the ``children's Congress,'' it would be the ``children's Congress,'' and it would look to the future, not the past. And this bill looks to the future of energy use, of energy efficiency, of energy security, and of the health of this tiny globe on which all of us survive and hopefully thrive.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is a historic turning point in America's energy policy. And I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, for our children, for our future, for our security, vote for this historic piece of legislation.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

Nebraska Rep. Lee Terry can be commended for helping to work on a compromise on the fuel efficiency standard.

In the end, this final version, through the Senate, stripped out all the language that would reduce a lot of the corporate welfare that the big oil companies have been getting, even though they have continued to net record profits each quarter in the billions of dollars. That was the reason Smith kept voting against the bill, even though it would be a positive for the people of his district. He was protecting big oil. With that provision stripped, however, the bill will basically cost more to the debt, but it was the final version that came to the floor. It was time for a vote.

The bill PASSED on a vote of 314-100-19
FOR: 219 Democrats, 95 Republicans
AGAINST: 4 Democrats, 96 Republicans
NO VOTE: 9 Democrats, 10 Republicans

Smith voted FOR the final version.

When Smith's spokesman from the Grand Island Independent, Robert Pore, reported on the matter, he spun it only positive for Smith:

Congress approves energy bill

By Robert Pore

Passage of the energy bill on Thursday will benefit Nebraska's economy, said U.S. Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., and U.S. Rep. Adrian Smith, R-Neb.

The U.S. House of Representatives passed the Energy Independence and Security Act on Tuesday by a margin of 314-100. President Bush is expected to sign the bill as early as today.

Nebraska's 3rd Congressional District produces more ethanol than any other district in the nation.

"This bill is good for the 3rd District of Nebraska. America can only reduce its reliance on foreign oil by developing a robust alternative-fuels industry of its own," said Smith, who represents the 3rd District. "I am pleased we were also able to continue our nation's commitment to renewable fuels without increasing taxes on consumers."

See? Smith suddenly sounds like he's been a big supporter all along. And the "taxes" would NOT have been on consumers, nor were the "taxes" at all. They were ending subsidies, but Republicans always tried to spin it all as a "tax increase". Want proof? Just read further into Pore's report:

American Farm Bureau Federation officials said that a sufficient number of Senate Republicans supported the measure after Democratic leaders agreed to strip the bill of language that would have required large oil and gas companies to pay nearly $13 billion in additional taxes.

So when the elections get into gear next year, Smith will be crowing about supporting ethanol. Know that he is lying. He only supported it once Big Oil's corporate welfare was protected once again. And the Central Nebraska press perpetrated his ongoing political spin by playing lipservice without researching.

H.R.2761 - To extend the Terrorism Insurance Program of the Department of the Treasury, and for other purposes.

How this came about to a final vote is best explained by Rep. Gary Ackerman of New York:

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us today, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Revision and Extension Act, with Senate amendments, is not the outcome that most of us in the House on both sides of the aisle had wanted. In September, after a series of subcommittee and full committee hearings, a field hearing, and following both subcommittee and full committee markups, the House overwhelmingly passed H.R. 2761 by a strong bipartisan margin of 3-1. H.R. 2761 would have extended TRIA for 15 years. It would have eliminated the distinction between foreign and domestic acts of terrorism. It would have included coverage for human beings by adding group life, and for nuclear, chemical, biological, and radiological, the so-called NCBR attacks. Most importantly, H.R. 2761 included a reset mechanism, which would have addressed the types of increased capacity shortages that we have already seen following major terrorism attacks against our country.

I want to be clear about this. The reset mechanism is not a New York provision. In negotiations with Mr. Baker of the minority, we worked out the reset mechanism that would be triggered for any future catastrophic attack anyplace in America. Under the reset, if, heaven forbid, our country does suffer another catastrophic attack, the nationwide trigger would be reset and the nationwide deductible for any insurer that pays out losses related to that attack would be set at lower levels.

God willing, New York will never suffer a second time, and, God willing, your State will never suffer a catastrophic attack such as 9/11. But if it does, then you too would enjoy the so-called ``benefit'' of being attacked a second time by virtue of the existence of the reset mechanism.

Let's take, for example, Alabama; Alabama, that fought so hard and received $130.5 million in Homeland Security grants because it is at risk of an attack by terrorists. We know that for a fact because its Senators and others told us so. God forbid, terrorists blow up the Medical Center at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Under this legislation, you will be covered. Without a reset, however, after a catastrophic attack, the supply of terrorism insurance could be so scarce that you would not be able rebuild the medical center, which had been in Birmingham, and rebuild it in Birmingham, Alabama.

In short, the House bill, which included the reset, would have met the needs of our country and prepared the Nation to better cope with some of the grave financial issues that would have arisen if there were another terrorist attack on our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, when the House passed H.R. 2761 in September, we presented the Senate with an historic opportunity to protect our homeland from some of the economic consequences of terrorism, and specifically to safeguard the developers and the insurers and the re-insurers, who will bear the highest financial burden if our Nation is attacked again. The financial stability of these industries is the cornerstone of our economy, and they are absolutely essential to our capacity to recover from an attack.

Sadly, the U.S. Senate didn't seize the opportunity to protect our Nation and our markets. Instead, our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol operated to amend our bill to extend the TRIA program by only 7 years, less than half of the extension period, and to strip out every beneficial provision in our bill, save one. The Senate did accept the House position that the distinction between foreign and domestic acts of terror, in today's world, so often impossible to discern, would be included. Having passed the hollow shell of the bill and having done so only after the House had adjourned for Thanksgiving, our Senate counterparts abandoned the legislative process and they have refused to go to conference.

Now, faced with the choice between accepting a bad bill and disrupting the U.S. financial markets, the House went to work yet again, Democrats and Republicans, working together, to try to find a compromise with the Senate, and last week we passed a limited but still much-improved TRIA reauthorization over what they had done in the Senate.

The compromise legislation the House overwhelmingly passed last week by a vote of 303-116 acquiesced to the Senate's position on duration as well as coverage for nuclear, biological, chemical and radiological coverage. That compromise bill accepted the Senate's extension of TRIA, which was for only 7 years, and eliminated NCBR coverage. The House held firm, however, to the provisions we felt were absolutely necessary to allow for large-scale development to continue all across our country; the extension of a reset mechanism, group life insurance coverage, and lower program triggers.

Mr. Speaker, the House overwhelmingly passed the compromise TRIA reauthorization last week, and the Senate, as has been so often the case this year, did nothing. And so, today, we are faced with a very difficult reality: We can either accept the Senate's shell of a bill and ensure that our Nation's economy is somewhat protected against terrorist attacks, or we can let the program expire altogether in less than 2 weeks from today. Maybe that is considered good government in some parts of the country, but entrusting our Nation's economy to the terrorist roulette wheel would not be acceptable to the American people and it is not acceptable to the House, and we must do the responsible thing.

The Senate amendments to H.R. 2761 are unhelpful, shortsighted, and represent an unrealistic pre-9/11 outlook. The Senate amendments come from a naive world where there is no risk of terrorism and another attack like 9/11 is impossible. In the Senate's mythical world, developers build stadiums and malls and national landmarks without funding, banks lend money without insurance, insurers underwrite policies regardless of risk, and reinsurers do the same thing on an even larger scale.

In the Senate's fantasy world, the $30 billion in insured losses from 9/11 can be easily underwritten and capitalized because unimaginable losses such as those that would come from an attack with weapons of mass destruction just can't happen, and the reason they can't happen is because the U.S. Senate said so.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, Santa Claus is not going to give America terrorism risk insurance for Christmas, and we don't live with the Easter Bunny in the Senate's Candyland, where catastrophic risk can be comfortably ignored. Saying ``the market will provide'' just doesn't make it true. In the real world, it is critical to both our national security and to our economy that there is no gap in terrorism risk insurance. This House will not leave our Nation's developers, insurers and reinsurers out in the cold when we adjourn for the year.

I therefore urge all of our colleagues to support this legislation out of the necessity to extend the TRIA program past its expiration date, with the understanding that this fight is not over.

We will continue to advocate for those provisions we know are critical to securing our homeland against terrorist attacks; namely, the reset mechanism, group life coverage, lower program triggers and NCBR coverage. To that extent, I have just introduced legislation entitled the Terrorism Risk Insurance Improvement Act that will add the reset mechanism to the TRIA program we are about to authorize here today, and I invite all of our colleagues to join me as cosponsors. We will continue to fight for a fully effective TRIA program until the Senate and the White House get the memo that the war on terror is not only fought on the other side of the world, but on the homefront as well.

Bottom line? This bill is hollow but will provide some coverage for now without the insurance expiring. The Republicans in the Senate committee refused to even allow a vote on anything, so this is what is left. Sad to say, it's better than nothing, and those working hard to get the insurance renewed decided it's better to take what they can get and then work to improve it later, rather than just voting against it all together and having nothing.

The bill PASSED on a vote of 360-53-19
FOR: 216 Democrats, 144 Republicans
AGAINST: 3 Democrats, 50 Republicans
NO VOTE: 12 Democrats, 7 Republicans

Smith voted FOR this version of the bill. Keep in mind, he voted against it before at every step of the way. Once most of the meat was taken out, and the "market will take care of itself" attitude won out for instances of terrorism, THEN he voted for it. God help us all if any part of this nation gets attacked before the program can be strengthened.

H.RES.884 - Providing for the concurrence by the House in the Senate amendments to H.R. 3997, with an amendment.

This vote was held to concur with a Senate amendment to HR 3997, the Heroes Earnings Assistance and Relief Tax Act of 2007, which provides tax relief and protections for military personnel.

It passed unanimously.

H.R.3996 - To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions, and for other purposes.

This is the final version allowed for consideration to extend protections on the Alternative Minimum Tax. Once again, Republicans in the Senate had the power to prevent votes through filibusters. This would basically freeze it for a year while further options are considered next year. The Republicans prevented measures to be taken to pay for it, so this results in bringing an increase to the national debt.

Rep. Charlie Rangel spoke on the matter:

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This is an extraordinary time for those of us in the Congress, because a constitutional change is taking place that never was expected, and that is where the minority in the Senate can actually dictate to the House of Representatives exactly what they will and what they won't do. And so the whole question of whether or not the fiscal responsibility of supporting revenues for this bill is even going to be considered is something that we cannot expect the Senate ever to respond to because they need 60 votes in order to fulfill their Senate responsibility.

So what do we have on the floor today? We have the principle that most Republicans as well as Democrats have agreed to in the past, and that is that the time has come for us to be fiscally responsible.

Now, when the Congressional Budget Office has an item in this budget and it is called the alternative minimum tax and they put in that budget a receipt of $50 billion, it means to me and should mean to others that if you are going to delete that provision, you are deleting the $50 billion. And in order for the books to be balanced, as any family, any corporation, and I hope most intelligent and motivated countries, you raise the revenue to pay for it.

So this is not happening. The President says you don't have to pay for it. Go to the Japanese, go to the Chinese, borrow. And why should you pay? Let your children and your grandchildren pay for this tax relief that was never but never expected that it would hit these middle-class people.

Now, what are our options? We could stick to our fiscal guns. We could say the right thing to do is not to pass a bill that is not paid for. We could say that the taxpayers are not really entitled to the benefits of waiving the PAYGO rules. Or, we could say, why hold 23 million taxpayers hostage because of the irresponsibility of the minority in not being willing to pay for this, no matter how many alternatives we give them?

Well, we choose to say, protect the taxpayer. Forget the loopholes, forget the revenue losses, forget the indebtedness, at least for now, because we don't want those hardworking people, most of them hardworking couples with children and with deductions, to wake up in the morning and find there is a feud between the House and the Senate and the Republicans and the Democrats that would cause them to carry this burden. And the President says, remove it and don't pay for it.

Well, we come out on the side of the taxpayers, and we just hope that we can pass this suspension, get on with the protection, and then, in a responsible way, maybe the Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate can deal with this in a more permanent way next year.

Madam Speaker, I hope that those that are listening come to the floor on this historic occasion as we hope that we can reverse the thinking in the House and the Senate in pay-fors.

Rep. Ron Kind also made a very pointed comment in his floor statement:

Mr. KIND. Madam Speaker, this is truly a sad day for the institution of Congress in this administration when we have a minority number of Members in both the House and the Senate that are more interested in protecting a handful of hedge fund managers' ability to move millions of dollars offshore without paying their fair share of taxes, which would protect the financial security of our children and grandchildren by paying for this AMT relief bill.

Make no mistake, everyone is in agreement that we want to stop the AMT from affecting 20-plus million Americans next year. The difference is our party wants to pay for it; they don't.

We have had the fastest and largest accumulation of national debt under Republican rule in the last 6 years, and they're saying that's not enough.

We are almost completely dependent on borrowing money from China to finance our deficit, and they're saying that's not enough.

The fastest growing area of spending in the Federal budget is interest payments on the national debt, and they're saying that's not enough. Let's pile on some more and let's leave this mortgage, this legacy of debt for our children to handle. I think that is a disgrace.

Finally, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer spoke on the matter:

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman.

What an ironic argument my friend from Wisconsin makes. We said we were going to have a PAYGO rule. We have voted consistently for PAYGO.

We have paid for that which we have bought with 80 percent cuts and 20 percent increases in revenues.

What an ironic argument he makes that somehow now we are not following that because nobody on this floor believes that 19 or 23 million, take your pick, Americans are going to get a tax cut on which President Bush has relied in every budget he has sent to us except the year of that particular budget. But the revenues have always been relied upon in his budget numbers. You didn't change it. You were in charge for 6 years.

Ironic, because the only reason we have to do this tonight in this fashion and not ask the wealthiest in America, I don't mean people making $10 million, I don't mean people making $100 million a year, but people making $500 million a year, don't have to pay their fair share. That is what this is about. That is what we have been forced to on this day on this floor and in the other body. Because what is happening is what traditionally happens, the wealthiest and most powerful in America are protected on this floor from paying their fair share.

This is not about class warfare. This is about once again saying to the middle class, We are not here to protect you. We are here to protect the wealthiest in America from paying their fair share, which is what PAYGO is all about.

My young friend says that the economy is in trouble. The Democrats have not been able to pass one thing in the last 7 years to impact this economy. Not one. It is all on your watch, I say to my friends; all your watch.

And you told us in 2001 and 2003 if we passed your economic program and continue to follow that the economy would grow and expand, and now you say it is contracting and in trouble. I agree, it is. Why? Because your economic program is a failed program that took us from $5.6 trillion of surplus, four budget surplus years in a row, and has taken us deeply into debt and deficit. And yes, facing recession in the eye because your economic program is a failed policy.

And I am angry about it. Why am I angry about it? Because I have a great granddaughter who is 13 months old. I have a granddaughter who is 5 years of age, just starting kindergarten. And I have another granddaughter who is 21. She has a daughter, and I am worried about continuing to pursue this path of debt piled on debt, piled on debt, piled on debt.

The only reason this bill is not paid for is because Republicans, in lockstep almost, in both bodies, have precluded us from paying for this, which everybody wants to do, and that is to relieve the tax burden on those who are confronted with a tax that everybody agrees was not meant for them. It was meant for the wealthy.
So who is being protected by this? The wealthy, whom this tax was intended to hit.
So when you get up here and tell me nobody intended the tax to hit, that is correct. But the people you are protecting are the people it was specifically intended to impact, to pay their fair share, not to run offshore and avoid taxes, not to have their taxes computed at 15 percent while all of us pay 35 percent. That's what this is about.

Madam Speaker, there is no small irony in the fact that the President and his Republican allies in Congress have fought all year long to prevent Democrats from adding $23 billion in funding for domestic priorities while they have no compunction about voting to add $50 billion to the deficit and debt.

No small irony. Only gross irresponsibility.

Let no one be mistaken: The Republican position on the AMT is part and parcel of an almost theological belief in supply-side economics that is demonstrably false.

The Minority Leader, Mr. Boehner, recently stated: ``Tax relief pays for itself.''
And, the President himself has stated: ``You cut taxes, and the tax revenues increase.''

The facts, however, show otherwise:

In the last 7 years, the Republican party's economic policies have erased a projected 10-year budget surplus of $5.6 trillion, instigated record budget deficits, and added more than $3.4 trillion to the national debt.

As my good friend, Congressman TANNER of Tennessee, recently pointed out: Since President Bush took office, the gross national debt has increased by $1.37 billion per day; $57 million per hour; and $948,907 per minute.

This, of course, is the record of a President and Republicans in Congress who pretend that they are ``fiscally responsible.'' And today, they don't bat an eye at adding another $50 billion to the debt.

Madam Speaker, our Nation is on a perilous course. Just listen to our non-partisan Comptroller General, David Walker, who stated last year: ``Continuing on this unsustainable fiscal path will gradually erode, if not suddenly damage, our economy, our standard of living, and ultimately our national security.''

Democrats recognize the danger of continuing on this unsustainable fiscal path--and in one of our first acts back in the majority, we reinstated the Pay-As-You-Go budget rules that Republicans formerly supported and which are credited with restoring fiscal discipline in the 1990s.

Today, we will protect 23 million middle-income Americans from bearing the brunt of the dreaded AMT--a tax they should not pay, a tax that must be permanently reformed.
And we should also be passing a fiscally responsible AMT patch that is revenue-neutral--a position supported by the President in his budgets.

However, it is regrettable and, yes, shameful that we will not be doing so because the President and his allies in Congress have insisted on political expedience and fiscal irresponsibility.

Finally, I wish to provide you the statements by Rep. Mark Udall:

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I will vote for this bill--as I did for a similar measure last month--because of the urgent need to protect middle-income families from a massive tax increase that will hit them if we do not act to adjust the Alternative Minimum Tax, or AMT.

But I do so with some reluctance, because unlike the versions of the legislation previously passed by the House, this version reflects the inability of the Senate to bring itself to make the legislation fiscally responsible.

As changed by the Senate, this bill does not even attempt to offset the costs of changing the AMT.

I still think that should not be our first choice, because for too long the Bush Administration and its allies in Congress have followed that course--their view, in the words of Vice President Cheney, has been that ``deficits don't matter.''

I disagree. I think deficits do matter, because they result in one of the worst taxes--the ``debt tax,'' the big national debt that must be repaid, with interest, by future generations. I think to ignore that is irresponsible and falls short of the standard to which we, as trustees for future generations, should hold ourselves.

But, as of today we are left with no choice except to vote to protect middle-class taxpayers, or to insist on making them pay the price for the stubbornness of others.

So, I will vote for this bill today, without enthusiasm but with determination to continue working for greater fiscal responsibility when the House reconvenes next year.

The bill PASSED on a vote of 352-64-17
FOR: 157 Democrats, 195 Republicans
AGAINST: 64 Democrats
NO VOTE: 11 Democrats, 6 Republicans

Smith had voted against every bill before this one, but voted FOR this bill because the richest of the rich would not be required to pay their fair share in taxes. The shortfall will be added to the national debt.

When the first bills were being considered, an article was writting in the Omaha World Herald, a there were a couple comments of note:

More may get hit with tax for 'rich'

BY JAKE THOMPSON
WORLD-HERALD BUREAU

Published Sunday October 21, 2007

The Treasury Department estimates that eliminating the AMT would reduce federal revenue by more than $500 billion through 2017, a big hole to fill in the budget.

Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., supports raising AMT exemption levels for two years, his spokesman David DiMartino said.

Nebraska GOP Reps. Adrian Smith, Jeff Fortenberry and Lee Terry favor one-year extensions and further efforts to minimize the tax in subsequent years.

None has outlined how he would pay for the estimated loss of about $50 billion a year in federal revenue.

Because of its potential impact on taxpayers and federal budgeting, even a short-term fix presents a "huge problem," Sen. Chuck Hagel said.

"Where you're going to get the $50 billion to offset the AMT tax (loss), no one has quite figured that out yet," the Nebraska Republican said.

Well, Adrian Smith has decided he's NOT going to pay for it, along with his Republican friends.

Oh, but it gets better. Smith put out one of his "press releases". The title? "Smith, Congress Pass AMT Patch". Tell me, when did Smith ever play a role in this matter other than showing up and voting in lock step with the Republican leadership? He never spoke on it, never cosponsored the legislation, it was never before a committee he's a member of - nothing.

Congressman Adrian Smith (R-NE), a member of the House Budget Committee, today praised Congress’ action to ensure as many as 25 million Americans will not see a massive tax hike caused by the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT).

All the statements were 19-23 Million would be affected. Smith raised that number to 25 Million. Also, since the Budget Committee had NOTHING to do with this bill, or any of those related, why did he feel the need to mention that? The only reason he would do that is because that mention, along with the title, creates a false impression that he was right in the middle of the passing of this bill. He wasn't.

“This was an issue which should never have been delayed this long, threatening millions of Americans with the AMT. The short-sightedness of the AMT should not continue to be a burden on U.S. taxpayers. With this vote today, Congress helped stave off an impending financial tidal wave,” Smith said.

What he failed to point out was that he and his fellow Republicans were the ones that caused delays because they didn't want to pay for the loss in revenue. But that would be telling the truth. Can't have that happen if it could cause him to lose a voter or two.

S.2499 - A bill to amend titles XVIII, XIX, and XXI of the Social Security Act to extend provisions under the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP programs, and for other purposes.

This would extend the present SCHIP coverage (no changes) until June 30, 2008. That means the arguments will be going closer to election day next year on the expansion of the SCHIP program. Republicans, like Adrian Smith, will have to explain on he campaign trail, why they are against health care coverage for the children of the working poor who don't qualify for Medicaid.

The bill PASSED on a vote of 411-3-18. Only 3 Republicans voted against it.

-----------------------------

The rest of the bills were passed with little or no opposition:

H.RES.856 - Expresses heartfelt sympathy for the victims and families of the shootings in Omaha, Nebraska, on Wednesday, December 5, 2007.
H.RES.851 - Honoring local and state first responders, and the citizens of the Pacific Northwest in facing the severe winter storm of December 2 and 3, 2007.
H.R.4286 - To award a congressional gold medal to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi in recognition of her courageous and unwavering commitment to peace, nonviolence, human rights, and democracy in Burma.
H.CON.RES.254 - Recognizing and celebrating the centennial of Oklahoma statehood.
H.R.3793 - To amend title 37, United States Code, to require the continued payment to a member of the uniformed services who dies or is retired or separated under chapter 61 of title 10, United States Code, bonuses and similar benefits that the member was entitled to before the death, retirement, or separation of the member and would be paid if the member had not died, retired, or separated, to prohibit requiring the member to repay any portion of the bonuses or similar benefits previously paid, and for other purposes.
S.2271 - An original bill to authorize State and local governments to divest assets in companies that conduct business operations in Sudan, to prohibit United States Government contracts with such companies, and for other purposes.
H.RES.542 - Expressing the unconditional support of the House of Representatives for the members of the National Guard.
H.R.4040 - To establish consumer product safety standards and other safety requirements for children's products and to reauthorize and modernize the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
H.R.3690 - To provide for the transfer of the Library of Congress police to the United States Capitol Police, and for other purposes.

FLOOR STATEMENTS

Smith only made one floor statement this week. Unfortunately it had nothing to do with any of the big arguments on the floor.

GREAT PLACES TO RAISE KIDS FOR LESS--NEBRASKA
(House of Representatives - December 18, 2007)

(Mr. SMITH of Nebraska asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate 11 Nebraska towns for being named ``Great Places to Raise Kids for Less'' by Business Week Magazine.

Anyone who has ever been to Nebraska knows it's a great place to raise a family. Now it looks like others are finding out, and I hope the rest of the Nation takes note.

Nebraska boasts 11 of the 50 places in the United States which offer kids and their parents the right combination of safety, community, and education. I am also proud to point out that out of those 11, seven are in Nebraska's Third Congressional District, which I have the honor of representing.

So congratulations to the towns of Davenport, Loomis, Diller, Petersburg, Bartlett, Lawrence and Arapahoe for showing the rest of the country how good Nebraska's good life can be.

Yet another example of Smith PLAYING Congressman, rather than BEING a Congressman. It's a nice sentiment, but outside of casting votes dictated by the Republican leadership, he did NOTHING ELSE this week.

BILLS SPONSORED/COSPONSORED

Smith did not sponsor any new bills this week, nor did he add his name as a cosponsor.

I'm working on the year end summary of Smith's first session in Congress. The pattern of this first year is becoming very revealing of the lack of leadership we have come to expect.

Happy New Year, everyone!