Senator Crapo (Jim Risch and Mike Simpson--all federal legislators) can help the people by changing the finance bill, in the committee and by offering legislation to stop financial recessions, after the bill passes into law.

 

Finance Bill that goes to conference committee:

This is what needs to be done:

(1) Incorporate into the finance bill the Marcy Kaptur amendments that propose a dramatic increase in hiring of white-collar crime specialists by the FBI and additional prosecutors. That would address one of the fundamental causes of this crisis, which is this epidemic of accounting control fraud.

(2) Change the accounting to eliminate accounting fraud.

(3) Take on the systemically dangerous institutions and regulate them.

(4) Deal with executive compensation and make it based on performance.

(5) Close the derivatives loophole.

 

You could close the derivatives loopholes under conference rules.  Precedents for adopting provisions that aren't formally in or aren't explicitly in either the House or the Senate bill exist. And that would be very good, because the loopholes left on derivatives sound small and are deliberately designed to sound small but are in fact—you could drive it through the loophole.

The things that are really a problem on derivatives will continue under the new House or Senate bill unless we change it dramatically in conference.

 

 

 

Kucinich shows that our monetary policy--health care, finance, war, trading system, banking system, and Federal Reserve--take money from the many and put money into the hands of a few. 

 

These are the structural problems we have these last 30 years.  Since 1989, the top 0.1% of incomes got twice as much growth as the bottom 90%.

 

 

 

 

 

Corrective Action Law  Analysis is here and here.

 

 

 

 

 

How does Mike Crapo help constituents? 

We had a video conference with the senator, asking for help with our alternative fuel project.  We got no help, even though the senator appointed two of his staff to help us. 

 

What Does Mike Crapo do for Financial Reform? 

I wrote to him about his vote No on the Senate bill.  He did not answer.  Risch did answer: said the senate bill was not strong enough.  Risch is right.  What will he do about it? (March 23, 2010)

 

Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act - Vote Passed (59-39, 2 Not Voting)

The Senate passed this bill that would overhaul the nation's financial regulatory system. The bill must now be reconciled with the House version.

Sen. Mike Crapo voted NO......send e-mail or see bio
Sen. Jim Risch voted NO......send e-mail or see bio

 

This is what is missing in the current Senate-House Bills

Derivatives: The final bill should implement the Volcker rule without delay.

Too Big to Fail: Resolution Procedures... By making banks pay for the risks they create, a resolution fund could also perform the important function of encouraging them to curtail their riskiest activities.

Protecting People, Consumers and Investors: The final bill should establish an independent agency with full rule-making and enforcement powers.

 

Senate-House Bill must stop Fraud

 

 

 

 

 

 

Background on Finance Industry Fraud

 

 

 

Background Information on the Finance Industry.

 

 

Who Thinks that Money Should Decide Elections? 

Senator Crapo heads into the primary election with a massive war chest — $2.8 million as of March 31, according to the Federal Election Commission.

Do you know where some of the money came from?

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, as of Dec. 31 Crapo had received $500,000 from the securities and investment industry, $387,950 from insurance, $169,428 from the real estate lobby, $159,256 from commercial banks, $151,320 from accountants, $66,617 from business services and $54,100 from financial credit companies.

Among the top donors to his campaign and political action committee, according to the Lewiston Tribune, were The Securities Industry and Financial Market Association ($49,000), Credit Suisse Group ($47,500), JPMorgan Chase and Co. ($42,732), Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu ($34,500), Ernst and Young ($33,400), Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers/America ($32,500), FMR Corp. ($32,300) and Goldman Sachs ($32,000).

Where the money comes from matters, because Crapo is the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Subcommittee on Financial Institutions, meaning he has a lot of say about financial reform and how banks are regulated.

Do you suppose the bankers’ contributions to Crapo’s campaign will affect what the Senator does to help ordinary people when financial reform is considered in the Senate?

 

Where Mike Crapo gets money.

Federal Election Commission

 

Shelby-Dodd Amendment; Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010 - Vote Agreed to (93-5, 2 Not Voting)

The Senate voted to remove a part of the financial reform bill that would have created a $50 billion fund for the FDIC to cover the cost of liquidating failing financial companies. The Senate voted on several other amendments, and will continue its work on the bill this week.

Sen. Mike Crapo voted YES......send e-mail or see bio
Sen. Jim Risch voted YES......send e-mail or see bio

 

(1) The 2010 election will be about substantive issues. 

(2) The candidates who support the people will be clear to all voters. 

(3) The days of public relations elections and lobby group elections are over.  The people will elect the candidate who clearly will help the people.

 

 

 

We Say That Senator Crapo Does Not Understand Economics, the Environment, and Energy.

Here is why we say he does not understand economics:

We Expect our Legislators to help the people.  Neither Craig nor Crapo voted to help the people, when they voted Yes for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which was a cause of this recession.  This bill was good for the finance industry and bad for the people.  We the people are paying for this with the TARP funds and other bail-out money. 

Crapo is a ranking member of Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee

• Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Financial Institutions
• Subcommittee on Securities, Insurance, and Investment

Senator Crapo should have known better. 

Senator Byron Dorgan knew better.

This is not a Republican or Democrat mistake.  It is a mistake by Senators who do not understand economics and who are not watching out for the people.  They are listening to finance-industry lobby groups.  Here and here is Byron Dorgan in 1999. 

7 Democrats like Byron Dorgan and 1 Republican voted No.  Crapo and Craig voted Yes. Risch was not there.  The senators who voted No are:

Boxer (D-CA) Bryan (D-NV) Dorgan (D-ND)

Feingold (D-WI) Harkin (D-IA) Mikulski (D-MD)

Shelby (R-AL) Wellstone (D-MN)

In the 106 congress 2^nd session (November 4, 1999), Crapo voted yes for S. 900 , the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act ) An Act to enhance competition in the financial services industry by providing a prudential framework for the affiliation of banks, securities firms, and other financial service providers, and for other purposes. This act repeals the Glass-Steagall  Act.  This opened the way for mergers in the finance industry.

This video is here.  Click here  and here for video summaries and what to do here.

Beginning in 2004, the finance industry became Crapo's biggest donors.  This has continued into 2010.

 

People with solution to the economy are Tom Ferguson, Sony Kapoor, Paul Krugman, Larry Summers, Jane D'Arista, Elizabeth Warren, and Joseph Stiglitz

Bill Clinton Signs Repeal of Glass-Steagall

The Long Demise of Glass-Steagall

Not everybody is serious about this mistake. 

We Say That Senator Crapo Does Not Understand Economics, the Environment, and energy.

Here is why we say he does not understand energy:

From Senator Crapo's website:

"This is an issue of changing the quality of life in America that will probably not be able to be fixed or reclaimed if we do not respond to it properly now."

      U.S. Senator Mike Crapo, July 2008

 

Text of Senate Floor Speech on Energy, Part One

Text of Senate Floor Speech on Energy, Part Two

Charts for Senate Energy Speech (Adobe PDF)

LISTEN to Mike's Energy Speech

VIEW Mike's Energy Speech: Segment One

VIEW Mike's Energy Speech: Segment Two

VIEW Mike's Energy Speech: Segment Three

VIEW Mike's Energy Speech: Segment Four

 

Notice what he says about alternative energy in Segment Three.  Then find what he has done for alternative energy.  We find no alternative energy bill that Crapo has sponsored or co-sponsored.  We find alternative energy bills where he has voted No.

 

 

Voting Record on Energy Legislation

 

Crapo on Vote Smart

Voted No on this energy legislation:

• a bill that changes mortgage and property tax laws and extends energy tax credits.
•  a conference report that appropriates $317.45 billion in new spending, increases federal bond limitations to $32.4 billion, and increases tax credits.
• a bill that continues funding at mostly the same levels as authorized in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 (HR 2764) and appropriates and additional $668.3 billion with $5.6 billion in rescissions for an additional net cost of $662.68 billion.
• the motion to take up debate on a bill that provides tax incentives for the production and use of alternative energy sources in addition to providing other tax incentives.
• A bill to provide energy price relief and hold oil companies and other entities accountable for their actions with regard to high energy prices, and for other purposes.
• a bill that changes mortgage and property tax laws and extends energy tax credits.
• To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to improve energy efficiency and production.
  

 

 

Voting Record on Important Legislation

 

Mike Crapo has voted with a majority of his Republican colleagues 90.9% of the time during the current Congress.

It is unlikely that either party can be on the right side of the people 90.9% of the time.  Does Senator Crapo vote for the people or for the party?

The Washington Post reports the votes by Mike Crapo on the most important bills, nominations and resolutions that have come before Congress. 

 

Mike Crapo voted No on (1) State Children's Health Insurance Program (2) American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (3) Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009  (4) Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009  (5) to move forward on a measure that would have registered the Senate's official opposition to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales  (6) cloture vote that would have moved the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 forward to an "up or down" vote on the Senate floor  (7) This $122 billion war spending bill calls for combat troops to begin withdrawing from Iraq this summer.

Mike Crapo voted Yes on (1) Sought to curtail the ability of plaintiffs to file class-action lawsuits against corporations by making cases that were filed in multiple states the responsibility of federal courts  (2) Made it harder for people to erase debt by declaring bankruptcy  (3) Cut nearly $40 billion from the federal budget by imposing substantial changes on welfare, child support and student lending programs  (4) Reauthorized a slightly modified version of the 2001 USA Patriot Act  (5) Extended the Bush tax cuts 

 

This table is from The Washington Post

The following list shows votes by Mike Crapo on the most important bills, nominations and resolutions that have come before Congress. The list is based on an analysis of the potential impact of the legislation on policy and politics. Post editors have compiled these key votes from the 109th Congress onward.

Date	Vote	Position	GOP opinion	DEM opinion
2/26/09	Vote 73: S 160: S. 160 As Amended; District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009	No	No	Yes
2/10/09	Vote 61: H R 1: H.R. 1 as Amended; American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009	No	No	Yes
1/29/09	Vote 31: H R 2: H.R. 2 as Amended; Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009	No	No	Yes
1/22/09	Vote 14: S 181: S. 181; Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009	No	No	Yes
8/3/07	Vote 309: S 1927: This amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 passed 60-28 on August 3. The bill gives U.S. spy agencies expanded power to eavesdrop on foreign suspects without a court order. The bill gives the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General authorization for periods up to one year, to information concerning suspected terrorists outside the United States. The existing Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act contained a 30-year-old statute requiring a warrant to monitor calls intercepted in the United States, regardless of their origin. The new Protect America Act amends this stipulation, allowing U.S. intelligence officials to monitor suspicious communication originating inside the U.S. The Bush administration argued that it needs the expanded power to confront terrorist threats. Civil liberties and privacy advocates argue the bill jeopardizes the Fourth Amendment privacy rights and allows for the warrantless monitoring of virtually any form of communication originating in the United States. Democrats managed a minor victory requiring a sunset clause effective 180 days after the bill is signed. In place of a court's approval, the National Security Agency plans to institute a system of internal bureaucratic controls. The bill passed in the House 227-183, and was sent to the White House soon after to be signed into law.	Yes	Yes	No
8/2/07	Vote 307: H R 976: In this 68 to 31 vote the Senate passed an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. The bill also passed the House by a vote of 265 to 159. The bill increases total funding for the program to $60 billion over the next five years and provides health insurance for 9 million currently uninsured American children. The $7 billion yearly expansions were a major sticking point for the White House and ultimately lead to the fourth presidential veto from the Bush administration. The measure is a key agenda item for the Democratic majority in Congress, and Democratic leaders have vowed to push for a veto override, which would require a two-thirds vote. White House press secretary Dana Perino criticized Democrats for sending the president a bill she said they knew would be dead on arrival. “They made their political point,” Perino said. The White House contended that the 61-cent increase in the federal tobacco tax would not be able to recoup the required funds needed to fund the bill. White House officials also argued the measure would push millions of children already covered by private health insurance into publicly financed health care program	No	No	Yes
7/26/07	Vote 284: H R 1: This amendment to the Homeland Security Act of 2002 was made in order to implement the recommendations made by the 9/11 commission. Different versions of the bill were passed in the House on Jan. 9 and in the Senate on July 9. A modified version of the bill, with conference report changes, was revisited on July 27 and passed by a vote of 85-8. The bill requires the inspection of all cargo traveling on passenger aircrafts and establishes the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. This panel, suggested by the 9/11 commission, is responsible for advising the president and senior White House officials maintaining respect for privacy laws and civil liberties. Other provisions of the bill include grants to states, urban areas, regions, or directly eligible tribes to be used to improve the ability for first responders to react to and prevent terrorist attacks, according to the Congressional Research Service. The bill also outlined details regarding the detention and treatment of captured terrorists. The bill was signed into law by President Bush on August 3.	Yes	Yes	Yes
6/11/07	Vote 207: On the Cloture Motion: With this vote Democrats and some Republicans in the Senate sought to move forward on a measure that would have registered the Senate's official opposition to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, whose tenure was plagued by controversy. The Washington Post reported that “Democrats fell seven votes short of the 60 needed to invoke cloture and begin the debate on a resolution condemning Gonzales.” Seven Republicans distanced themselves from the Bush administration and refused to support the attorney general who had been a target of sharp criticism for five months. Gonzales came under fire for his involvement in administration policies such as harsh interrogation policies, secret overseas prisons, and a domestic surveillance program. But his most controversial action was the firings of nine U.S. attorneys last year. The attorney general's critics claimed he fired the prosecutors for political reasons. If passed, the resolution would have done nothing more than send a public rebuke to Bush and Gonzales. But enough Republicans were able oppose "cloture," effectively killing the measure. As the Post reported, “Democrats were aware that victory on the vote was unlikely, but they claimed a symbolic triumph in getting more than a handful of Republicans to join the effort to publicly shame the attorney general.” Gonzales, who initially claimed he would not step down amid the controversies, announced his resignation on August 27.	No	No	Yes
6/7/07	Vote 204: On the Cloture Motion: This cloture vote would have moved the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 forward to an "up or down" vote on the Senate floor. But the cloture vote failed, 34 to 61, leaving the bill subject to unlimited debate and effectively killing it. The bill set forth border security measures and enforcement provisions which were seen as controversial on both sides of the aisle. The bill called for a crack down on the hiring of illegal immigrants and would have required $10-15 billion in total spending, GOP aides told The Washington Post. If passed, the bill would have, “tightened border security, cracked down on the hiring of illegal immigrants and provided a path for such immigrants to stay and work legally in the United States,” reported the Washington Post. The bill also allowed for a guest-worker program to be established after five years and explicitly made it “unlawful to knowingly hire, recruit, or refer for a fee an unauthorized alien” according to the Congressional Research Service. The bill was defeated by opposition from conservative and liberal causes alike. From the Democratic side, labor unions protested the guest-worker program as a threat to American jobs. For conservatives of both parties, the path-to-citizenship provision was interpreted as "amnesty" for lawbreakers. President Bush threw his full support behind this bill, even making a rare visit to Capitol Hill in hopes of bolstering support after it appeared doomed. Despite his attempts, Bush found his major domestic initiative blocked by most members of his own party as well as a few Democrats.	No	No	Yes
5/24/07	Vote 181: On the Motion: This $120 billion dollar package was passed in the Senate by an 80-14 vote on May 24. The bill primarily focuses on funding for the Iraq war but also addresses other unrelated topics. A previous war funding bill was vetoed by the president because it included troop withdrawal deadlines, which were largely supported by anti-war Democrats. Ten Democrats opposed this new bill with no withdrawal deadlines, while 37 supported its passage. Congress had to act to replace war funding that would have ended May 28. According to the Washington Post, this bill includes 18 “benchmarks that the Iraqi government must meet to continue receiving reconstruction aid.” One hundred billion dollars in funding is slated to support continuing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill says that the President and Congress must not take any action that will endanger the troops and that they provide any funds necessary for training, equipment and other types of support to ensure their safety and the effectiveness of their missions. The president is required to give a first report on the Iraqis' progress in meeting the benchmarks to Congress on July 15. Seventeen billion dollars in the package is for domestic spending. Out of this funding, $6.4 billion is for Gulf Coast hurricane relief efforts, $3 billion in emergency aid for farmers, $1 billion to upgrade port and mass transit security, $3 billion towards converting closing U.S. military bases to other uses, and $650 million to increase funding for children’s health care. A Congressional Research Service summary states that the “other domestic beneficiaries include state HIV grant programs, mine safety research, youth violence prevention activities, and pandemic flu protection.” Sens. Barack Obama (Ill.) and Hilary Clinton (N.Y.) were among the 14 who opposed the bill.	Yes	Yes	Yes
4/26/07	Vote 147: H R 1591: House and Senate conferees approved this legislation providing $124.2 billion primarily for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and setting benchmarks and a timetable for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, but President Bush vetoed the bill on May 1. The measure, which also addresses a wide variety of unrelated issues, makes emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30. The conference agreement on H.R. 1591 also aims to improve health care for returning soldiers and veterans. It addresses needs related to hurricane recovery for the Gulf Coast, bolsters homeland security programs and provides emergency drought relief for farmers. The legislation says that troops in Iraq would not have their service extended beyond a year for any tour of duty. It also mandates that the president must certify that the Iraqi government is meeting certain diplomatic and security benchmarks. If that certification is made, deployment would begin no later than Oct. 1, 2007, with a goal of completing the redeployment by within 180 days. Some U.S. forces could remain in Iraq for special counterterrorism efforts along with protection, training and equipping Iraqi troops. According to a bill summary provided by the House Appropriations Committee, the legislation seeks to make it possible for the U.S. military to focus resources on al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and to destroy his base of operations in Afghanistan. The conference report also provides $3 billion for special vehicles designed to withstand roadside bombs, and it increases from 20 to 270 the number of heavy and light armored vehicles authorized to be purchased for force protection purposes in Iraq and Afghanistan. It prohibits government funds from being used to establish any military installation or base for a permanent stationing of U.S. armed forces in Iraq and does not allow funds to be used to exercise U.S. control over any Iraqi oil resource. It does not fund two Joint Strike fighters and five of six electronic attack airplanes because lawmakers say they are not urgent. The conference agreement provides $268 million for the FBI, that’s about $150 million above the president’s request. The agency’s budget includes $10 million for the FBI to implement the Office of Inspector General’s recommendations about the use of special secret subpoenas called national security letters. On the homeland security front, it provides funding for port and mass transit security as well as other similar investments for a total of $2.25 billion. Meanwhile, farmers and ranchers would get $3.5 billion to help ameliorate agricultural disasters. The agreement also includes emergency funding for forest firefighting, low-income home energy assistance and pandemic flu preparations. The legislation includes $5 billion for health care for returning troops and veterans, $8.9 billion for victims of hurricanes Katrina and Rita. It also offers approximately $650 million for a children’s state health insurance program. It phases in a federal minimum wage increase to $7.25 an hour and applies the increase to the Northern Mariana Islands. It also amends tax law to allow certain benefits for small businesses that were not included in the House or Senate bills. It provides an additional $17 million for domestic violence programs. Among many other things, it makes additional fiscal 2008 appropriations for the U.S. Agency for International Development along with funding for a program aiding Africa, and monies for international narcotics control and enforcement, refugee assistance and international broadcasting operations.	No	No	Yes
3/29/07	Vote 126: H R 1591: This $122 billion war spending bill calls for combat troops to begin withdrawing from Iraq this summer. The 51-47 vote fell mostly along party lines. Two Republicans -- Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Gordon Smith of Oregon -- joined Democrats in support of the package, which would fund U.S. military activity in Iraq and Afghanistan. But Democrats also attached language that would start troop withdrawals within 120 days of passage, with a March 31, 2008, goal for completing the process. The bill addresses many unrelated issues. It offers funds for disaster relief and recovery stemming from hurricanes Katrina and Rita, funds influenza pandemic response programs, offers disaster assistance for livestock and crops, and makes appropriations to bolster Medicare and Medicaid. It also requires the secretary of Defense to inspect military medical treatment facilities and housing. It prohibits the use of funds in this or any other act to change essential services at Walter Reed Army Medical Center until certain requirements are met. It requires the Congressional Budget Office to report to appropriators on anticipated funds necessary for the departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs to continue providing health care to Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans. It also requires the Coast Guard to exercise competition for contracts related to the Integrated Deepwater System Program. Lastly, among many other things, it provides funds to assist Liberia, Jordan and Lebanon.	No	No	Yes
3/15/07	Vote 75: S J RES 9: This non-binding resolution would have revised U.S. policy on Iraq. However, it was defeated 48-50. The measure had directed the president to begin a phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq within 120 days of the resolution’s enactment. The measure’s main sponsor, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, sought redeployment by Mar. 31, 2008, of all U.S. combat forces from Iraq. It included exceptions for certain forces charged with protecting coalition members as well as those who support infrastructure, conduct training, equip Iraqi forces and conduct counter-terrorism operations. The resolution also had directed the president to report to Congress on the progress of the suggested plan. Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) did not vote.	No	No	Yes
2/1/07	Vote 42: H R 2: This bill would increase the federal minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $7.25 an hour over two years. It would increase the minimum wage in three increments. Sixty days after enactment, the minimum wage is to be raised to $5.85. A year after that it will be $6.55, and a year after that it will be $7.25. This would be the first change to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 since 1997 when the federal minimum wage was increased from $4.75 to $5.15 an hour. The bill would also apply the federal minimum wage to the Northern Mariana Islands, a territory of the United States. The legislation passed in the Senate on Feb. 1, 2007, on a 94-3 vote. The Senate measure includes about $8 billion over 10 years in tax breaks for businesses like restaurants, which is likely to be a sticking point when the chamber tries to reconcile its version with the House. The House passed its version of the bill on Jan. 10, 2007, with a vote of 315-116. Every House Democrat voted in favor of the proposal along with 82 Republicans.	Yes	Yes	Yes
1/18/07	Vote 19: S 1: The measure is designed to provide greater transparency in the legislative process and is commonly known as the “ethics reform” bill. The bill amends Senate rules in an effort to make more transparent legislative earmarks. It also aims to make clearer the relationship of lobbyists and lawmakers by changing rules governing meals and travel that lobbyists provide to lawmakers and their staff. The bill also makes some restrictions on post-employment for members and staff. For example, the bill amends a current rule so that if a member’s spouse or immediate family member is a registered lobbyist or works for a lobbyist, that the lawmaker’s staff is not allowed to have any official contact with the lawmaker’s spouse or immediate family member. Among other things, the measure requires all Senate bills or conference reports to include a list of earmarks in the measure, to list the lawmaker who introduced the earmark, and to explain why the earmark is essential. It also requires public disclosure of a senator’s intent to object to proceeding to a measure or matter. The bill also requires that conference reports be posted on the Internet for at least 48 hours before the Senate considers the report.	Yes	Yes	Yes
9/29/06	Vote 262: H R 6061: H.R. 6061; Secure Fence Act of 2006	Yes	Yes	Yes
9/28/06	Vote 259: S 3930: S. 3930 As Amended; Military Commissions Act of 2006	Yes	Yes	No
8/3/06	Vote 229: On the Cloture Motion: Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to Consider H.R.5970; Estate Tax and Extension of Tax Relief Act of 2006	Yes	Yes	No
7/18/06	Vote 206: H R 810: This legislation would allow federal funding for research on stem cell lines derived from embryos that would otherwise be destroyed.	No	No	Yes
6/27/06	Vote 189: S J RES 12: This vote would have given Senate approval to a proposed constitutional amendment that would give Congress the authority to ban 'desecration of the American flag.'	Yes	Yes	No
6/22/06	Vote 182: S 2766: This amendment called on the president to withdraw troops from Iraq, but set no firm deadline.	No	No	Yes
6/22/06	Vote 181: S 2766: This amendment to the annual defense appropriations bill would have set a firm deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.	No	No	No
6/7/06	Vote 163: On the Cloture Motion: A Senate cloture vote on the gay marriage amendment failed, effectively killing the amendment.	Yes	Yes	No
5/25/06	Vote 157: S 2611: Would tighten border security and establish guest worker and "path to citizenship" programs	No	No	Yes
5/11/06	Vote 118: H R 4297: Extended the Bush tax cuts.	Yes	Yes	No
3/2/06	Vote 29: H R 3199: Reauthorized a slightly modified version of the 2001 USA Patriot Act.	Yes	Yes	Yes
1/31/06	Vote 2: On the Nomination: Confirmation of Samuel A. Alito, Jr. to be an Associate Supreme Court Justice.	Yes	Yes	No
12/21/05	Vote 363: On the Motion: Cut nearly $40 billion from the federal budget by imposing substantial changes on welfare, child support and student lending programs.	Yes	Yes	No
10/5/05	Vote 249: H R 2863: Supported a ban on cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees held by U.S. forces and to requires the military to follow the Army field manual for interrogations.	Yes	Yes	Yes
9/29/05	Vote 245: On the Nomination: Confirmation of John G. Roberts, Jr., to be Chief Justice of the United States.	Yes	Yes
7/29/05	Vote 213: H R 6: Offered tax breaks and incentives in what supporters said was an effort to spur oil and gas companies to provide innovative wasy to reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil, conserve resources and reduce pollution.	Yes	Yes	Yes
6/30/05	Vote 170: S 1307: Established a free trade zone between the United States, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua; a separate agreement with the Dominican Republican was also included in the measure.	No	Yes	No
6/20/05	Vote 142: On the Cloture Motion: Blocked, for the second time, the confirmation President Bush's choice for U.N. Ambassador, John Bolton. Those opposed to the confirmation voted "no" on a measure to limit debate. Those in favor of the confirmation fell short of the 60 votes needed to limit debate and move the nomination process forward.	Yes	Yes	No
3/10/05	Vote 44: S 256: Made it harder for people to erase debt by declaring bankruptcy.	Yes	Yes	No
2/10/05	Vote 9: S 5: Sought to curtail the ability of plaintiffs to file class-action lawsuits against corporations by making cases that were filed in multiple states the responsibility of federal courts.	Yes	Yes	No

 

The Franken Amendment

The constitution gives everybody the right to due process of law.  Defense contractors cannot use fine print in their contracts to deny women like Jamie Leigh Jones of their day in court.  The Franken Amendment, on which Crapo and Risch voted No, insures that rape victims have the right to due process.  30 Republicans voted No.

In 2005, Jamie Leigh Jones was gang-raped by her co-workers while she was working for Halliburton/KBR in Baghdad. She was detained in a shipping container for at least 24 hours without food, water, or a bed, and “warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she’d be out of a job.” (Jones was not an isolated case.) Jones was prevented from bringing charges in court against KBR because her employment contract stipulated that sexual assault allegations would only be heard in private arbitration.

 

 

Senators from Idaho in the Democrat Party:

Charles C. Gossett

Bert H. Miller

Kirtland I. Perky

John F. Nugent

James P. Pope

David Worth Clark

Glen H. Taylor

Frank Church