HOW THEY VOTED: MAINE’S CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION, MAY 12-18, 2006 Budget, offshore drilling, immigration in the spotlight

loading...
House votes Democratic Reps. Michael Michaud and Tom Allen Vote 1: Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act, H.R. 4200: The House, on May 17, passed a bill sponsored by Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore., that allows the Departments of Agriculture and Interior to…
Sign in or Subscribe to view this content.

House votes

Democratic Reps. Michael Michaud and Tom Allen

Vote 1: Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act, H.R. 4200: The House, on May 17, passed a bill sponsored by Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore., that allows the Departments of Agriculture and Interior to act quickly after an emergency in a national forest or park, specifically providing for the removal of timber before it rots. Proponents argued that the bill was necessary to allow forest managers to act quickly in times of crisis, but still complies with environmental standards and allows the government to collect revenue from fallen trees. Opponents argued that the bill is unnecessary, so broadly defines a catastrophic event that one would be occurring in almost every forest on a daily basis, goes against peer-reviewed science and circumvents environmental laws. The vote was 243 yeas to 182 nays.

YEAS: Michaud

NAYS: Allen

Vote 2: Congressional Budget Resolution for Fiscal 2007, H.Con.Res. 376: The House on May 18, passed a resolution sponsored by Rep. Jim Nussle, R-Iowa, that sets a $2.7 trillion budget including $873 billion for regular appropriations bills for 2007. The bill also includes $50 billion in spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Proponents said the bill is fiscally responsible and promotes reform. Opponents said the bill is an irresponsible legacy of debt adding $348 billion to the deficit next year. The vote was 218 yeas to 210 nays.

NAYS: Michaud, Allen

Vote 3: Continuing Ban on Off Shore Drilling: The House, on May 18, rejected an amendment sponsored by Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, that would have allowed drilling off the coasts where it is now prohibited. Proponents argued that billions of barrels of oil and natural gas lie undiscovered under the Outer Continental Shelf that would reduce U.S. dependence on foreign energy imports. Opponents said that some of those coastal areas are frequently hit by hurricanes. Also, the areas are prime tourists spots with sensitive ecologies and the drilling would do nothing to relieve gas prices now, since it takes at least seven years for a drilling operation to become functional. The vote was 141 yeas to 279 nays.

NAYS: Michaud, Allen

Vote 4: Increasing the Price of Oil Leases: The House, on May 18, passed an amendment sponsored by Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., to the bill for Interior and Environment Appropriations for Fiscal 2007, H.R. 5386, that allows the government to refuse to issue new oil and gas drilling leases to companies that refuse to renegotiate some current leases. Leases on approximately 1,000 drilling sites do not have an escalating royalty clause if oil prices rise above $34 a barrel. Proponents said taxpayers are losing billions on oil taken from government-owned property. Opponents said the government signed a contract and should not try to renege on it. The vote was 252 yeas to 165 nays.

YEAS: Michaud, Allen

Senate votes

Republican Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins

Vote 1: Fencing U.S.-Mexican Border: The Senate, on May 17, accepted an amendment to the Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill, S. 2611, sponsored by Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., that adds or replaces 370 miles of triple fencing and 500 miles of vehicle barriers on the U.S.-Mexican border. Proponents said the fence was necessary to stop illegal entry into the country. Opponents argued that such fencing near San Diego had resulted in more border deaths as those seeking to gain entrance took more perilous routes. They argued that in addition to immigration reform to stop illegal entry, an electronic fence would be more effective than the proposed fence. The vote was 83 yeas to 16 nays.

YEAS: Snowe, Collins

Vote 2: Allowing Citizenship for Illegal Aliens: The Senate, on May 17, rejected an amendment sponsored by Sen. David Vitter, R-La., to the Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill, S. 2611, that would have eliminated provisions of the bill that allow illegal immigrants who have worked in the U.S. for five years or more to apply for legal status after paying a fine and back taxes and learning English. Proponents argued the provisions amounted to amnesty and that a biometric identification program coupled with enforcement measures would remove the incentive for illegal border crossing. Opponents argued that the provisions did not grant amnesty, defined as forgiveness, because of the penalties levied and that citing amnesty was nothing more than political pandering. The vote was 33 yeas to 66 nays.

NAYS: Snowe, Collins

Vote 3: Social Security for Past Work: The Senate, on May 18, tabled, thereby killing, an amendment sponsored by Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., to the Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill, S. 2611, that would have banned workers from claiming Social Security benefits on wages earned while they were in the country illegally. Proponents of tabling the amendment said that the individuals had paid into the system and should receive the benefits. Opponents of tabling the amendment said that allowing benefits for work done when workers were in the country illegally would place a strain on the system. The vote was 50 yeas to 49 nays to table the amendment.

NAYS: Snowe, Collins

Vote 4: English as the National Language: The Senate, on May 18, accepted an amendment sponsored by Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., to the Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill, S. 2611, that designates English as the national language and requires those applying for citizenship to demonstrate an understanding of U.S. history and culture. It allows exceptions when laws designated a second language as necessary, such as in court and for voting. Proponents said new immigrants need to learn English, government processes and American culture to assimilate. It would not allow someone to sue to get services in another language unless stipulated by law. Opponents said the amendment could create unnecessary division and such a decision should be left to states. The vote was 63 yeas to 34 nays.

YEAS: Snowe, Collins

Compiled by Targeted News

Service for the Bangor Daily News


Have feedback? Want to know more? Send us ideas for follow-up stories.

comments for this post are closed

By continuing to use this site, you give your consent to our use of cookies for analytics, personalization and ads. Learn more.