|
John Barrasso on Government ReformRepublican Jr Senator |
Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Rep. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (D, FL-20): We, as Members of Congress, have responsibility not just for the institution, but for the staff that work for this institution, and to preserve the facilities that help support this institution. We have endeavored to do that responsibly, and I believe we have accomplished that goal.
Opponent's argument to vote No:Rep. SCALISE (R, LA-1): It's a sad day when someone attempts to cut spending in a bill that grows government by the size of 7%, and it's not allowed to be debated on this House floor. Some of their Members actually used the term "nonsense" and "foolishness" when describing our amendments to cut spending; they call that a delaying tactic. Well, I think Americans all across this country want more of those types of delaying tactics to slow down this runaway train of massive Federal spending. Every dollar we spend from today all the way through the end of this year is borrowed money. We don't have that money. We need to control what we're spending.
Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Sen. ORRIN HATCH (R-UT): I am cosponsoring the legislation to provide a House seat for DC and an additional House seat for Utah. Representation and suffrage are so central to the American system of self-government that America's founders warned that limiting suffrage would risk another revolution and could prevent ratification of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held in 1820 that Congress' legislative authority over DC allows taxation of DC. Do opponents of giving DC a House seat believe that DC is suitable for taxation but not for representation?
Opponent's argument to vote No:Sen. JOHN McCAIN (R-AZ): I make a constitutional point of order against this bill on the grounds that it violates article I, section 2, of the Constitution. I appreciate the frustration felt by the residents of DC at the absence of a vote in Congress. According to many experts, DC is not a State, so therefore is not entitled to that representation. Also, one has to raise the obvious question: If DC is entitled to a Representative, why isn't Puerto Rico, which would probably entail 9 or 10 Members of Congress? [With regards to the seat for Utah], this is obviously partisan horse-trading.
Opponents recommend voting NO because:
Sen. BYRD: In 1978, I voted for H.J. Res. 554, that proposed amending the Constitution to provide for representation of D.C. [That amendment passed the Senate but was not ratified by the States]. While I recognize that others believe that the Constitution authorizes the Congress to "exercise exclusive legislation" over D.C., the historical intent of the Founders on this point is unclear. I oppose S.1257, because I doubt that our Nation's Founding Fathers ever intended that the Congress should be able to change the text of the Constitution by passing a simple bill.
Proponents support voting YES because:
Sen. HATCH. There are conservative and liberal advocates on both sides of this issue,and think most people know Utah was not treated fairly after the last census. For those who are so sure this is unconstitutional, [we include an] expedited provision that will get us to the Supreme Court to make an appropriate decision. It will never pass as a constitutional amendment. There are 600,000 people in D.C., never contemplated by the Founders of this country to be without the right to vote. They are the only people in this country who do not have a right to vote for their own representative in the House. This bill would remedy that situation.
Proponents support voting YES because:
Sen. DOLE. I am proposing a commonsense measure to uphold the integrity of Federal elections. My amendment to require voters to show photo identification at the polls would go a long way in minimizing potential for voter fraud. When a fraudulent vote is cast and counted, the vote of a legitimate voter is cancelled. This is wrong, and my amendment would help ensure that one of the hallmarks of our democracy, our free and fair elections, is protected. Opinion polls repeatedly confirm that Americans overwhelmingly support this initiative.
Opponents recommend voting NO because:
Sen. FEINSTEIN. If one would want to suppress the vote in the 2008 election, one would vote for this because this measure goes into effect January 1, 2008. It provides that everybody who votes essentially would have to have a photo ID. If you want to suppress the minority vote, the elderly vote, the poor vote, this is exactly the way to do it. Many of these people do not have driver's licenses. This amendment would cost hundreds of millions of dollars to actually carry out. It goes into effect--surprise--January 1, 2008 [to affect the presidential election]. I urge a "no" vote.
A bill to require Congress to specify the source of authority under the United States Constitution for the enactment of laws.
Each Act of Congress shall contain a concise explanation of the specific constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that Act. The failure to comply with this section shall give rise to a point of order in either House of Congress. The availability of this point of order does not affect any other available relief.
Constitutional Authority for This Act: This Act proposes to establish new procedures by which legislation shall be considered by Congress and is enacted pursuant to the power granted Congress under article I, section 5, clause 2, of the United States Constitution establishing that each House may determine the rules of its proceedings.
| |||
| Other candidates on Government Reform: | John Barrasso on other issues: | ||
|
WY Gubernatorial: Dick Cheney Matt Mead WY Senatorial: Michael Enzi WY politicians Retiring in 2014 election: GA:Chambliss(R) IA:Harkin(D) MI:Levin(D) NE:Johanns(R) NJ:Lautenberg(D) SD:Johnson(D) WV:Rockefeller(D) Senate Vacancies 2013: HI:Inouye(Deceased) HI:Schatz(Appointed) MA:Kerry(Resigned) MA:Cowan(Appointed) SC:DeMint(Resigned) SC:Scott(Appointed) Retired as of Jan. 2013: AZ:Kyl(R) CT:Lieberman(D) HI:Akaka(D) ME:Snowe(R) ND:Conrad(D) NE:Nelson(D) NM:Bingaman(D) TX:Hutchison(R) VA:Webb(D) WI:Kohl(D) |
Senate elections Nov. 2012: AZ:  Flake(R)
vs.Carmona(D)
CA: Feinstein(D)
vs.Emken(R)
vs.Lightfoot(L)
CT:McMahon(R) vs. Murphy(D)
DE: Carper(D)
vs.Wade(R)
vs.Pires(I)
FL: Nelson(D)
vs.Mack(R)
HI: Hirono(D)
vs.Lingle(R)
vs.IN: Donnelly(D)
MA:Brown(R) vs. Warren(D)
MD: Cardin(D)
vs.Bongino(R)
vs.Sobhani(I)
ME: King(I)
vs.Dill(D)
vs.Summers(R)
MI: Stabenow(D)
vs.Hoekstra(R)
vs.Boman(L)
MN: Klobuchar(D)
vs.Bills(R)
MO: McCaskill(D)
vs.Akin(R)
MS: Wicker(R)
vs.Gore(D)
MT: Tester(D)
vs.Rehberg(R)
|
ND: Heitkamp(D)
vs.Berg(R)
NE:Kerrey(D) vs. Fischer(R)
NJ: Menendez(D)
vs.Kyrillos(R)
vs.Diakos(I)
NM: Heinrich(D)
vs.Wilson(R)
NV: Heller(R)
vs.Berkley(D)
NY: Gillibrand(D)
vs.Long(R)
vs.Noren(I)
vs.Clark(G)
OH: Brown(D)
vs.Mandel(R)
PA: Casey(D)
vs.Smith(R)
RI: Whitehouse(D)
vs.Hinckley(R)
TN: Corker(R)
vs.Clayton(D)
TX: Cruz(R)
vs.Sadler(D)
vs.Roland(L)
vs.UT: Hatch(R)
vs.Howell(D)
VA: Kaine(D)
vs.Allen(R)
VT: Sanders(I)
vs.MacGovern(R)
WA: Cantwell(D)
vs.Baumgartner(R)
WI:Thompson(R) vs. Baldwin(D)
WV: Manchin(D)
vs.Raese(R)
WY: Barrasso(R)
vs.Chesnut(D)
|
Abortion
Budget/Economy Civil Rights Corporations Crime Drugs Education Energy/Oil Environment Families Foreign Policy Free Trade Govt. Reform Gun Control Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Jobs Principles Social Security Tax Reform Technology War/Peace Welfare Other Senators Senate Votes (analysis) Bill Sponsorships Affiliations Policy Reports Group Ratings |
|
Contact info: Email Contact Form Fax Number: 202-224-1724 Mailing Address: Senate Office SD-307, Washington, DC 20510 | |||