This morning I had a short chat with a student at SLAC. During the chat, it was mentioned that certain Presidential candidates didn’t event vote on the omnibus bill. This got me thinking about who did and who did not vote for it, and about who voted for and agaist. So, I hit the Library of Congress legislation search engine (THOMAS) and got the data [1] [2].
Let’s pick out some interesting facts. Starting with the Senate – the smaller of the two bodies – we make some interesting observations:
- None of the Presidential candidates who are also Senators voted: Clinton, Obama, Dodd, Biden, McCain. Personally, I’ll take this as a vote against science by all of these candidates. No, it’s not rational – I understand that this was a huge all-or-nothing bill. But how can these people sit in front of us and claim to be worthy of higher office when they cannot even fulfill their current legislative duties on such a critical matter?
- Those who voted against the measure (17) were:
Allard (R-CO)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bayh (D-IN)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (R-SC)Hagel (R-NE)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Voinovich (R-OH)
I am pleased to see one of my perennial favorites, Feingold, stand against this. He probably didn’t do it for science, but he did it.
- Of the members of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water, all but one voted for the bill. Only Wayne Allard voted against it. This is the same committee that up until the omnibus process put into the appropriations bill an increase of 18% for the Office of Science.
- All members of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Science, State, and Justice voted for the bill.
- Senator Feinstein of California was not even present for the vote.
Turning to the more populous House, we can try to tease out similar facts:
- There were 154 “nays”. Among them were Congresswoman Biggert, whose district include Argonne National Lab; Congressman Ehlers, a physicist by training;
- Interestingly, Congresswoman Eshoo – in whose district SLAC is located – voted for it.
- Of the members of the House Subcommittee on Research and Science Education, all the Democrats voted for the bill, except Congresswoman Hooley who didn’t vote at all; all but one of the Republicans voted against it.
- Of the members of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water, all but two (both Republicans) voted for the bill. This is the same group of people that originally committed to an 18% increase for the Office of Science.
- Of the members of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Science, State, Justice, and Commerce, all Democrats voted for the bill; all but one Republican voted against it. Interestingly, Congressman Honda and Congressman Schiff, strong supporters of basic research funding in the past, were among those Democrats who helped pass it.
- Congressman Kucinich and Congressman Tancredo voted against it; so far, the only Presidential candidates to vote AT ALL, and both opposed it.
- Congressman Holt, also a physicist by training,voted for the bill.
[1] Senate Roll Call
[2] House Roll Call
5 thoughts on “Roll Call!”
One of the nice things about vaguely having multiple addresses is the ability to contact many Senators.
Additionally, I’m going to see if I can get my step-father (a journalist) to write an article on this. In the past he received copies of Symmetry, so I think he can appreciate the levity of these cuts to science.
Nicole, that’s a great idea. I think that the only way to make progress on this issue is to make people broadly aware of the implications of this budget. If you need a sample letter, let me know and I can post it here.
After a little looking on loc.thomas.gov, I noticed that several votes were taken on H.R. 2764. The one to which you link (Roll No. 1171) was on Dec. 17 at 10:21 pm. However, I see another one (Roll No. 1186) that was taken on Dec. 19 at 5:26 pm. Since this second one is the last vote before the budget was sent to the White House, isn’t it the one we should be studying?
The two votes show several diffrences. For instance my Congressman (Pat Tiberi) voted Nay on 1171 and Yea on 1186. This may present a problem for me because I already sent a fax thanking him for voting “Nay.”
Sorry, the site is thomas.loc.gov
Hi Luke,
Yes, this **is** a problem. It’s actually a reflection of just how partisan this whole thing was. What happened was the following. In the first House vote, Democrats overwhelmingly voted for the omnibus while Republicans voted against. The idea was that the Democrats wanted to look proactive on the budget, like they were trying to pass it despite “tough odds” (and the upcoming vacation). Republicans voted against it to resist the Democrats’ efforts.
Then, when the bill came back from the Senate for final House approval, the whole thing reversed. Republicans wanted to look like they were for this because it was slim and trim and just what the President wanted (in size but certainly not in scope). Democrats resisted, showing that they were ready to take a stand against the tough demands of this President calling for more war spending but a smaller overall domestic budget. Of course, enough Democrats voted for it to pass, but those who voted against it were taking a partisan stand.
So what do we do? I guess we forget about thanking them or chastising them for their vote, because many of them flip-flopped for purely partisan reasons. Instead, we remind them that for years now, the Congress has been working hard to make innovation and science a highlight of their achievements. We remind them that academics and industry magnates alike have called for increased basic research budgets to grow the innovation agenda of this nation. We remind them that the America COMPETES Act was a clear declaration by the Congress last year that science and innovation are a key part of their vision for U.S. competitiveness and the economy. We then inform them that this budget can be taken as a clear message that none of this was important to them, and that if they are unwilling to make it a priority then perhaps we should all look elsewhere to sell the fruits of our scientific sowing.
Sigh.