VOTE STUDIES

Few Bills, but Many Nominees, Approved Last Year

Nothing worked for Democrats in 2014. setting records for its opposition to the presi- In the Senate, Majority Leader of dent. Of 66 House votes on which Obama Nevada tried to shield his caucus from tough had a view in 2014, only 10 went Obama’s MIRROR IMAGES votes, limiting amendments and keeping the way, a 15.2 percent success rate that is the President won on House agenda focused on only the issues that Dem- lowest in the 61 years that CQ Roll Call has votes at the lowest rate in the 61 years ocrats wanted to run on in November, such been tracking presidential success. The aver- that CQ Roll Call has been tracking as equal pay for women and an increased age Republican representative voted with presidential votes. Because of a glut minimum wage. It didn’t help. Endangered Obama 12 percent of the time, matching the of nomination votes, Obama’s Senate Democrats in the South and West were ham- record low that the party set in 2013. score was the second highest ever. mered in the midterm elections for sticking Because of the 60-vote threshold needed with Reid and President Barack Obama. to advance controversial legislation, Obama Share of votes on which the In the House, Republican Speaker John A. also had a bad year in the Senate on policy president took a clear position: Boehner of Ohio pushed through bill after votes. His 55 percent success rate on them House Senate bill designed to please the GOP’s base and was his lowest ever. 11.7% 39.6% pressure moderate Democrats to pick sides. But look at the Senate voting more broad- second-highest most since since The bills aimed to scale back government ly and it tells a different story. When confir- 1999 1968 regulation, overturn the 2010 health care law mation votes are added to the policy votes, and overhaul the bureaucracy. While they Obama succeeded 93.1 percent of the time, 66 out of 562 145 out of 366 died in the Senate, the GOP won its largest the second-highest success score in the his- Average for both chambers: 22.7% House majority since the 71st Congress of tory of CQ’s survey, trailing only Obama’s 1929-31. 98.7 percent score in 2009, when he enjoyed For Obama, it meant that 2014 was a lost a huge Democratic congressional majority. How often the president won: year for policy. With the Senate and House This time, it was the result of Senate Demo- House Senate unable to agree on substantive issues beyond crats’ 2013 decision to drop the threshold 93.1% 15.2% funding the government and a new farm bill, for approving most judicial and executive second- lowest on record highest Obama had little to sign and nothing to veto. branch nominees from 60 votes to a simple on record Gridlock on Capitol Hill was the dominant majority. theme, except in one respect: The Senate Reid took up 125 nominees, the most 10 out of 66 135 out of 145 voted to confirm a record number of judi- since CQ began tracking nomination votes Average for both chambers: 68.7% cial and executive nominees because a rule in 1988. The Senate confirmed 124 of them, change made it hard to filibuster. boosting senators’ presidential support When the government is divided, especial- scores on both sides of the aisle. Republicans Average chamber ly a government riven by polarized parties, it’s voted against Obama uniformly on the policy presidential support scores: a recipe for gridlock, says Scot Schraufnagel, votes where the president had a view, but House Senate a political scientist at Northern Illinois Uni- there were only 20 of those. Because many of 100% 100% 80 80 versity. “It’s easier for the parties to pass the the nominees were not controversial, the av- 60 60 buck and say they’re not accountable for the erage Republican senator voted with Obama 40 40 20 20 lack of action.” 55 percent of the time. That was the highest 0 0 In most ways, the votes that Congress level of support from GOP senators since D 81% D 95% took in 2014 on the issues that Obama cared Obama took office. Fourth-highest on record Second-highest on (Obama holds top six record (Obama holds about back up that point. The average Senate scores) top six scores) Democrat voted with Obama on 95 percent lITTlE TO SHOW R 12% R 55% Ties last year's record low Second-highest support of the votes on which the president had a Obama was surely happy to have his nomi- of a Democratic president position, close to the record score of 96 per- nees in place, but that didn’t alter the reality (to Clinton's 60% in 1997) cent in 2013. But the Republican House was that 2014 was one of the least productive

B-2 2013 CQ ALMANAC | www.cq.com SUMMARY / GUIDE TO ANALYSIS

Selecting votes CQ Roll Call bases its legislative years in modern times. vote studies on all floor votes for which The consensus politics that existed in the when CQ began its vote studies senators and House members were in 1953 is long over, as is the ideological overlap between the parties. The final remnants of asked to vote “yea” or “nay.” In 2014, it, the Southern Democrat and Northern Republican, are, with each election cycle, moving there were 562 such roll call votes in toward extinction. Without them, gridlock reigns, a function of polarization and an American the House and 366 in the Senate. The system of government that allows both parties to control levers of power at the same time. House total excludes the one quorum The ideological sorting of the electorate by region, combined with political parties that call in 2014 and one vote that was later vacated. are now associated with clear positions on the issues, has made it increasingly difficult for The House total counts all votes on pro- mavericks to stand apart. cedural matters, including votes to ap- Consider the situation of Senate Democrats in 2014. Examining how often a senator sup- prove the journal (eight in 2014). In the ports the position of a president from the same party on the votes where the president has Senate, there was one vote to instruct made his view known is usually a reliable way to separate the moderates from the partisans. the sergeant at arms to request senators But in 2014, that wasn’t so. A review of the leading scorers for presidential support reveals to come to the floor. some oddities. Sure, one would expect a party leader like Democratic Whip Richard J. Durbin The presidential support and party unity to head the list, and he did vote with Obama on every vote where the president took a posi- studies are based on a set of votes se- tion in 2014. But, according to CQ’s statistics, Democrat Tim Kaine of Virginia stuck just as lected according to the criteria detailed close to Obama as Durbin did. And Kaine was a hair more loyal to Obama than Democrats on pages 31 and 41. who might normally seem fiercer partisans, such as Barbara Boxer of California or Charles Individual scores Member scores are E. Schumer of New York. based only on the votes each actually In reality, every Democrat in the Senate was sharply partisan in 2014. The lowest scorer, Joe cast. This makes individual support and Manchin III of West Virginia, sided with Obama on 89 percent of votes. The differences be- opposition scores total 100 percent. The tween senators often came down to a vote on a single judge or executive branch appointment. same method is used to identify the It’s so hard to use the presidential support study to make meaningful distinctions between leading scorers on pages 30 and 40. Democratic senators in 2014 because Reid allowed so few votes on policy issues or amend- ments. The policy votes were typically on issues on which Democrats planned to run in 2014, Overall scores To be consistent with such as ensuring equal pay for women or raising the minimum wage. Without amendments previous years, calculations of average scores by chamber and party are based to make distinctions on tricky issues, those were easy yes votes for Democrats. on all eligible votes, whether or not all But Reid’s legislative strategy, in the end, was a bust. The campaign turned not on the is- members cast a “yea” or “nay.” The lack sues that Democratic senators tried to frame with their few policy votes but on Democrats’ of participation by lawmakers in a roll loyalty to Obama. And Republicans were eager to point out that on the vast majority of votes, call vote reduces chamber and party losing incumbents including Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and average support and opposition scores. Mark Begich of Alaska were aligned with the president. The nuance — that they’d hardly had As a result, chamber and party averages a chance to distinguish themselves from more liberal colleagues — was lost. are not strictly comparable with individ- “The electoral bet was that we can be Democrats like those in Minnesota or Massachusetts ual member scores, which are calculated and still win in Louisiana or Arkansas,” says Steven Schier, a political science professor at differently. (Methodology, 1987 Almanac, Carleton College in Minnesota. For Democrats, it was a losing bet. p. 22-C)

NO ROOM TO MANEUVER Rounding Scores in the tables that follow That’s not to say there was another way out for the endangered Senate Democrats. With for the House and Senate membership the Democratic Party now viewed by the public as the party of liberalism, even moderates with are rounded to the nearest percentage point. Rounding, however, does not raise voting records to back it up are having trouble persuading voters in red states and districts. any score to 100 percent, nor does it Consider the fate of those Southern Democrats in the House who did the opposite of their reduce any score to zero. Scores for the Senate counterparts, moving further away from Obama. It didn’t help their case. Republicans presidential and party support leaders beat up Democratic moderates again, defeating 11 incumbents and building their largest are reported to one decimal point in House majority since 1931. order to rank them more precisely. In the 2014 election, Nick J. Rahall II of West Virginia, who had survived for 19 terms in the coal country of southern West Virginia, couldn’t hold back the state’s increasing Republican tilt. The Democrat moved as far from Obama as he ever had, dropping his support score to 30 percent from 58 percent the year before. He still lost by 11 percentage points to Evan Jenkins, a longtime Democratic state legislator who switched parties and painted Rahall as a shill for Obama. It was a similar story for another Democrat, John Barrow, who failed to win a sixth term in a Georgia district around Augusta that had become more rural and Republican after the 2010 census. Although Barrow has long been one of Obama’s least reliable Democratic sup-

www.cq.com | 2013 CQ ALMANAC B-3 VOTE STUDIES

Presidential Position Votes Rise in2014 The share of roll call votes on which President Barack Obama took a clear position rose in 2014 to 22.7 percent, the high- est level of his presidency. The president took a position on 13.4 percent of House roll call votes and on 39.6 percent of Senate roll calls (but just 8.3 percent when 125 votes on nominations are excluded).

Percentage of Presidential Support Votes, for Congress as a whole

60% 1965: High: 59.7%

40 2014: 22.7% 1976: Low: 7.7% 20

0 1953 ’61 ’64 ’69 ’74 ’77 ’81 ’89 ’93 2001 ’09 Eisenhower Kennedy Johnson Nixon Ford Carter Reagan G. Bush Clinton G.W. Bush Obama

porters in the House — he voted with the president on less than one again threatened to shut down the Homeland Security Department. in four votes where Obama had a view in 2014 — he lost by 10 points In this case, they wanted to protest the president’s move to grant legal to Rick Allen, a Republican newcomer to politics who painted Barrow status to more illegal immigrants. and Obama as one and the same. This time, Boehner and McConnell decided to back down before As the parties have strengthened and as the members of each party the shutdown, passing funding bills without the immigration pro- have coalesced around certain issue stances, it’s harder for mavericks vision. In 2013, “the House pursued a tactic that never made any in either party to convince anyone that they’re the exception. Even if sense, had no chance of success,” says Dent, who’s in his sixth term they try, their opponents note that, in Washington, their presence is representing ’s old steel belt around Allentown and allowing far more conservative, or liberal, members to rule. Bethlehem. “By the same token, I don’t think this particular strategy What lies ahead are two parties clustered around the ideological ever had a chance of success either.” poles, dominated by liberals on one end and conservatives on the oth- But if 2016 proves to be a Democratic year, and Pennsylvanians feel er. The polarization, in and of itself, isn’t the reason for the gridlock ill-used by the GOP, history shows Dent’s protests may not matter. that pervades Washington. It’s also a system that allows for divided The fight over Homeland Security funding ended with legislation, government and for the minority to stand in the way of majority rule. but not the kind of compromise that McConnell had hoped for when But combine the two and little gets done. he announced his plans for breaking the gridlock. His theory is that if The new Senate majority leader, Republican Mitch McConnell of he allows votes, not just on the floor but also in the committee process Kentucky, plans to allow more votes on policy issues this year, poten- that precedes it, amendments will make more bills palatable to more tially mixing up the voting patterns a bit. And when he opposes an Democrats. They’ll vote for the final legislation, and the bipartisan- Obama nomination, he doesn’t need to bring it to the floor for a vote. ship will make it difficult for Obama to use his veto. Fewer confirmation votes will bring down support scores for “We’re not anxious to block anybody’s amendment,” McConnell Obama on both sides of the aisle. More policy votes will allow Senate said after taking over the Senate in January. “We’re wide-open.” Republicans in Democratic-leaning states who are up for re-election When the Senate debated Keystone that month, he was true to in 2016, such as Mark S. Kirk in Illinois and Kelly Ayotte in New his word, allowing votes on 41 amendments. Several drew bipartisan Hampshire, to distinguish themselves from more conservative col- support, and the final measure did as well. But it wasn’t enough to leagues. They’ve already taken the opportunity during the marathon get Obama to sign it; he issued his third veto as president. A Senate voting over the Keystone XL pipeline in January. Both voted for vote to override early this month fell five votes short of the 67 needed. amendments raising alarm about climate change, for instance. But It might have turned out better for McConnell if the 67th-most as the plight of Barrow and Rahall makes clear, it may not save them. conservative senator were a pragmatic moderate. In reality, the Re- The House’s few remaining moderate Republicans face similar publican caucus in the Senate, itself very conservative, will have to find worries in 2015. Charlie Dent, a Pennsylvanian who expressed shock liberal Democrats on most issues in order to pass bills and persuade in 2013 when his colleagues decided to allow the government to shut a liberal Democrat in the White House to sign them. It won’t happen down in order to take a stand on funding for the 2010 health care law, often. was gobsmacked again last month as the conservatives in his caucus The near shutdown of the Homeland Security Department is a

B-4 2013 CQ ALMANAC | www.cq.com OBAMA’S SUCCESS RATE Obama’s Success Rate Rebounds in 2014 President Barack Obama’s success rate on votes on which he took a clear position rose significantly in 2014, which is unusual for a presi- dent’s sixth year. Obama won on just 15.2 percent of House votes — a record low. But in the Senate, Obama won on 93.1 percent of votes, boosted by a rule change that gave Democrats full control over nominations. The data in the graphic combine House and Senate figures.

Fifth year of presidency 100 81.0%

75.7% 59.2% 68.7% 80 56.1% 50.6%

60

40

20

0 1953 ’60 ’61 ’63 ’64 ’68 ’69 ’74 ’74 ’76 ’77 ’80 ’81 ’88 ’89 ’92 ’93 ’00 ’01 ’08 ’09 ’14 Eisenhower Kennedy Johnson Nixon Ford Carter Reagan G. Bush Clinton G.W. Bush Obama

telling example of regular order’s limits. Republican senators begged zenry that didn’t want to put in the time to find out where particular Democrats to begin debate on the department’s funding bill, hold- politicians really stood. In turn, it was hard for voters to hold the ing four separate votes last month to bring it to the floor. If only parties accountable because votes on which members crossed party Democrats were willing to debate it and offer amendments, they lines were not unusual. If things weren’t going well in the country, might find the final product more palatable. But Democrats didn’t it wasn’t clear which party was to blame. buy that and preferred to embarrass their GOP counterparts. The From that vantage point, the current levels of polarization are result was a standstill followed by GOP capitulation. yielding some benefits. “Larger differences between the parties on salient issues tend to increase the level of engagement of voters and POlARIZATION’S BENEFITS the stakes of the election,” Abramowitz says. He points out that, by It seems no one has figured out how to break through the com- most survey measures, Americans are more interested in politics bination of polarization and divided government. than they were a generation ago, more people are taking an active “In no other democracy in the world do you see this kind of role in campaigns and the number of voters is also trending up a bit. divided party government, at least not where you have polarized par- The Congressional Research Service, in a mammoth report on the ties,” says Alan Abramowitz, a political science professor at Emory state of Congress issued in December, pointed out some of polar- University. “It just doesn’t work. The normal assumption is that you ization’s benefits from a different angle. Walter J. Oleszek, a senior elect a party or coalition and they govern.” specialist in American national government, wrote that lawmakers Voters have shown impatience in recent elections. After years of too willing to deal make compromises that “can produce inadequate relative stability, Democrats swept back into control in 2006, then laws that reflect the lowest common denominator of legislating.” Republicans bounced back in 2010 and 2014. In between, Obama By contrast, he noted, “partisan stalemates can prevent mistakes won two elections. Still, Obama has enjoyed only two years in office that could occur if bills were passed without adequate deliberation.” during which his party controlled both chambers of Congress. Republicans argue that Democratic hegemony in 2009-10 made In 1950, the American Political Science Association, the pro- it possible for Congress to enact a deeply flawed law with the health fessional society for political scientists, issued a landmark paper, care overhaul. “Toward a More Responsible Two-Party System,” arguing that But with Congress struggling to even perform its most basic func- greater polarization in the parties would actually be a good thing. tion of funding government agencies, the gridlock in Washington At the time, it wasn’t easy to distinguish politicians by their party doesn’t feel like a good thing. In 1950, the political scientists figured label alone. Most Southern Democrats were more conservative than that strong parties would be all the more eager to please the voters many Northern Republicans. On the main issues of the day, the and would engage in reasoned debate with the opposition to enact fight against communism and support for an activist government legislation. But reasoned debate seems to be the exception, rather role in managing the economy, most politicians agreed. than the rule, in Washington today. n The result, the political scientists argued, was a less engaged citi-

www.cq.com | 2013 CQ ALMANAC B-5 VOTE STUDIES Leading Scorers: Presidential Support

Support indicates those who, in 2014, voted most often for President Barack Obama’s position when it was clearly known. Opposition shows those who voted most often against his position. Scores are reported only to one decimal point; members with identical scores are listed alphabetically.

SENATE

SUPPORT OPPOSITION

DEMOCRATS REPUBLICANS DEMOCRATS REPUBLICANS Durbin, Richard J. 100 Collins, Susan 74.4 Manchin, Joe III 10.6 Risch, Jim 54.2 Kaine, Tim 100 Murkowski, Lisa 72.7 Heitkamp, Heidi 4.9 Roberts, Pat 54.1 Carper, Thomas R. 99.3 Alexander, Lamar 68.3 Reid, Harry* 4.9 Crapo, Michael D. 51.8 Feinstein, Dianne 99.3 Corker, Bob 67.1 Walsh, John 4.4 Shelby, Richard C. 51.1 Hirono, Mazie K. 99.3 Kirk, Mark S. 66.4 Gillibrand, Kirsten 4.3 Coburn, Tom 49.6 Johnson, Tim 99.3 Chambliss, Saxby 65.6 Landrieu, Mary L. 4.2 Lee, Mike 49.3 Klobuchar, Amy 99.3 Hatch, Orrin G. 65.4 Tester, Jon 3.6 Vitter, David 49.3 Leahy, Patrick J. 99.3 Coats, Dan 64.7 Warren, Elizabeth 3.5 Cruz, Ted 49.0 Bennet, Michael 99.2 Ayotte, Kelly 63.8 Pryor, Mark 3.2 Barrasso, John 48.0 Coons, Chris 99.2 Isakson, Johnny 63.8 Begich, Mark 3.1 Moran, Jerry 48.0 Levin, Carl 99.2 Flake, Jeff 63.1 Inhofe, James M. 47.6 Udall, Mark 99.2 Portman, Rob 63.1 Enzi, Michael B. 47.3 Warner, Mark 99.2 Paul, Rand 47.3 Rockefeller, Jay 99 Boozman, John 47.0 Rubio, Marco 47.0

HOUSE

SUPPORT OPPOSITION

DEMOCRATS REPUBLICANS DEMOCRATS REPUBLICANS Jordan, Jim Kildee, Dan 96.9 Gibson, Chris 36.3 Peterson, Collin C. 83.4 98.5 Salmon, Matt Price, David E. 96.9 Jones, Walter B. 33.9 McIntyre, Mike 78.5 98.5 Duncan, Jeff Wasserman Schultz, Debbie 96.7 Radel, Trey 25 Barrow, John 77.3 97.0 Huelskamp, Tim Bonamici, Suzanne 95.4 LoBiondo, Frank A. 22.7 Matheson, Jim 74.7 97.0 Gosar, Paul Hoyer, Steny H. 95.4 Fitzpatrick, Michael G. 20.3 Rahall, Nick J. II 69.7 96.3 DesJarlais, Scott Thompson, Mike 95.4 Amash, Justin 20 Cuellar, Henry 55.4 95.8 DeSantis, Ron Carson, Andre 95.3 Smith, Christopher H. 20 Gallego, Pete 50.0 95.4 Meadows, Mark Chu, Judy 95.3 Hanna, Richard 18.7 Murphy, Patrick 50.0 95.4 Posey, Bill 95.4 Conyers, John Jr. 95.3 Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana 17.7 Barber, Ron 43.8 Williams, Roger 95.0 Davis, Susan A. 95.3 Grimm, Michael G. 17.1 Owens, Bill 43.8 Bentivolio, Kerry 95.0 Johnson, Hank 95.3 Diaz-Balart, Mario 16.9 Sinema, Kyrsten 43.1 Bridenstine, Jim 94.0 Pelosi, Nancy 95.3 Herrera Beutler, Jaime 16.9 Garcia, Joe 39.4 Burgess, Michael C. Schakowsky, Jan 95.3 94.0 Maffei, Dan 39.4 Fleming, John Crowley, Joseph 95.2 94.0 Peters, Scott 39.4 Garrett, Scott Bass, Karen 94.9 94.0 Ruiz, Raul 38.8 Harris, Andy Dingell, John D. 94.8 94.0

B-6 2013 CQ ALMANAC | www.cq.com PRESIDENTIAL SUPPORT Presidential Support Background CQ Roll Call editors select presidential support votes each year based on clear statements by the president or authorized spokesmen. Success scores show the percentage of the selected votes on which the president prevailed. Support shows the percentage of roll call votes on which members of Congress voted in agreement with the president’s position.

Presidential Success by Issues

Defense/Foreign Policy Domestic Economic Affairs Overall 2014 2013 2014 2013 2014 2013 2014 2013 House 11.1% 7.1% 19.5% 20.8% 6.3% 31.6% 15.2% 20.9% Senate -- 75.0 54.5 73.7 55.6 71.4 55.0 85.2 Congress 11.1 22.2 26.9 34.7 24.0 48.5 24.4 56.7 Economic affairs includes votes on taxes, trade, omnibus and some supplemental spending bills, which may fund both domestic and defense and foreign policy programs. Confirmation votes in the Senate are included only in the chamber’s overall scores.

House Senate House Senate Democrats Republicans Democrats Republicans Democrats Republicans Democrats Republicans Eisenhower Reagan 1954 44% 71% 38% 73% 1981 42% 68% 49% 80% 1955 53 60 56 72 1982 39 64 43 74 1956 52 72 39 72 1983 28 70 42 73 1957 49 54 51 69 1984 34 60 41 76 1958 44 67 44 67 1985 30 67 35 75 1959 40 68 38 72 1986 25 65 37 78 1960 44 59 43 66 1987 24 62 36 64 Kennedy 1988 25 57 47 68 1961 73 37 65 36 G. Bush 1962 72 42 63 39 1989 36 69 55 82 1963 72 32 63 44 1990 25 63 38 70 Johnson 1991 34 72 41 83 1964 74 38 61 45 1992 25 71 32 73 1965 74 41 64 48 Clinton 1966 63 37 57 43 1993 77 39 87 29 1967 69 46 61 53 1994 75 47 86 42 1968 64 51 48 47 1995 75 22 81 29 Nixon 1996 74 38 83 37 1969 48 57 47 66 1997 71 30 85 60 1970 53 66 45 60 1998 74 26 82 41 1971 47 72 40 64 1999 73 23 84 34 1972 47 64 44 66 2000 73 27 89 46 1973 35 62 37 61 G.W. Bush 1974 46 65 39 57 2001 31 86 66 94 Ford 2002 32 82 71 89 1974 41 51 39 55 2003 26 89 48 94 1975 38 63 47 68 2004 30 80 60 91 1976 32 63 39 62 2005 24 81 38 86 Carter 2006 31 85 51 85 1977 63 42 70 52 2007 7 72 37 78 1978 60 36 66 41 2008 16 64 34 70 1979 64 34 68 47 Obama 1980 63 40 62 45 2009 90 26 92 50 2010 84 29 94 41 2011 80 22 92 53 2012 77 17 93 47 2013 83 12 96 40 2014 81 12 95 55

www.cq.com | 2013 CQ ALMANAC B-7 VOTE STUDIES 2014 Presidential Position Votes The following is a list of the 66 House and 145 Senate roll call votes in 2014 on which the president took a clear position, based on his statements or those of authorized spokespersons. A victory is a vote on which the president’s position prevailed.

HOUSE

Defense and Domestic Policy Economic Affairs and Trade Foreign Policy VOTE NUMBER DESCRIPTION VOTE VOTE NUMBER DESCRIPTION NUMBER DESCRIPTION 8 Victories 1 Victory 1 Victory 21 Omnibus spending 562 Tax policy 507 Defense policy 31 Farm bill 230 Domestic surveillance 15 Defeats 8 Defeats 378 Job training 69 Tax policy 185 Detainee policy 414 Transportation policy 85 Regulatory policy 233 Detainee policy 509 Continuing 90 Regulatory policy 240 Defense spending Resolution spending 211 Tax policy 254 Detainee policy 561 Omnibus spending 309 Tax policy 321 Detainee policy 563 Omnibus spending 323 Detainee policy 311 Tax policy 349 Regulatory policy 324 Detainee policy 33 Defeats 338 Defense spending 404 Tax policy 10 Environmental regulation 411 Regulatory policy 11 Health care 412 Regulatory policy 23 Health care 427 Regulatory policy 30 Health care 432 Tax policy 50 Water policy 449 Tax policy 54 Public lands 451 Tax policy 78 Regulatory policy 513 Regulatory policy 97 Health care 106 Regulatory policy 113 Regulatory policy 124 Executive power 129 Executive power 135 Health care 141 Environmental regulation 156 Health care 288 Domestic spending 297 Domestic spending 354 Energy policy 402 Domestic spending 461 Environmental regulation 463 Environmental regulation 468 Executive power 478 Immigration 489 Water policy 495 Health care 515 Energy policy 519 Energy policy 525 Environmental regulation 526 Environmental regulation 528 Environmental regulation 531 Environmental regulation 550 Immigration 553 Water policy

B-8 2013 CQ ALMANAC | www.cq.com PRESIDENTIAL POSITION VOTES

SENATE

Domestic Policy Nominations 128 George Jarrod Hazel 227 Ronnie L. White VOTE 124 Victories 129 Janice Marion Schneider 233 Julie E. Carnes NUMBER DESCRIPTION 1 Janet L. Yellen 130 Nancy L. Moritz 237 Andre Birotte, Jr. 6 Victories 7 Robert Wilkins 137 Indira Talwani 238 Robin L. Rosenberg 21 Farm bill 25 Max Baucus 138 James D. Peterson 239 John W. deGravelles 187 Veterans benefits 27 Richard Stengel 139 Nancy J. Rosenstengel 242 260 Workplace issues (cloture) 28 Sarah Sewall 141 Robin S. Rosenbaum 243 Robert Alan McDonald 270 Domestic spending 29 Charles Hammerman 147 Steven Paul Logan 257 Jill A. Pryor 280 Energy policy Rivkin 148 Joseph Tuchi 258 Henry J. Aaron 354 Omnibus spending 30 Tina S. Kaidanow 149 Diane J. Humetewa 265 Jeffery Baran 31 Daniel Bennett Smith 153 Rosemary Marquez 266 Stephen G. Burns 5 Defeats 32 Catherine Ann Novelli 154 Douglas L. Rayes 267 John R. Bass 103 Workplace issues (cloture) 37 Jeffrey Meyer 155 James Alan Soto 273 Randolph D. Moss 228 Health care (cloture) 39 James Maxwell Moody, Jr. 158 Gregg Jeffrey Costa 274 Leigh Martin May 252 Emergency spending 41 160 Stanley Fischer 281 Leslie Joyce Abrams 262 Workplace issues (cloture) 43 162 David Jeremiah Barron 288 Pamela Pepper 282 Domestic surveillance 47 Michael L. Connor 165 Keith M. Harper 289 Brenda K. Sannes (cloture) 50 Pedro A. Hernandez 167 Sharon Y. Bowen 290 Victor Allen Bolden 52 Pamela L. Reeves 171 Mark G. Mastroianni 293 Noah Bryson Mamet Economic Affairs 54 Timothy L. Brooks 172 Bruce Hendricks 294 Colleen Bradley Bell and Trade 56 Vince Girdhari Chhabria 173 Tanya S. Chutkan 297 Nani A. Coloretti VOTE NUMBER DESCRIPTION 58 Rose E. Gottemoeller 175 Sylvia Mathews Burwell 298 Robert S. Adler 5 Victories 67 Carolyn B. McHugh 179 M. Hannah Lauck 301 Charlotte A. Burrows 13 Omnibus spending 68 Matthew Leitman 180 Leo T. Sorokin 302 P. David Lopez 90 Unemployment benefits 69 Judith Ellen Levy 181 Richard Franklin 308 Joseph S. Hezir 101 Unemployment benefits 70 Laurie J. Michelson Boulware II 312 Joseph F. Leeson, Jr. 214 Job Training 71 Linda Vivienne Parker 188 Crystal Nix-Hines 316 Jeffery Martin Baran 231 Terrorism insurance 76 Caroline Diane Krass 189 Lael Brainard 317 Lauren McGarity 84 Christopher Reid Cooper 190 Jerome H. Powell McFerran 4 Defeats 85 M. Douglas Harpool 191 Stanley Fischer 320 Virginia Tyler Lodge 10 Unemployment benefits 86 Gerald McHugh, Jr. 195 Salvador Mendoza, Jr. 321 Ronald Walter (cloture) 87 Edward G. Smith 196 Staci Michelle Yandle 326 David Nathan Saperstein 24 Unemployment benefits 91 John B. Owens 197 Darrin P. Gayles 356 Vivek Hallegere Murthy (cloture) 94 Kevin Whitaker 199 Peter Joseph Kadzik 360 Sarah R. Saldana 117 Minimum wage (cloture) 95 John P. Carlin 201 Gustavo Velasquez 362 Antony Blinken 185 Student loans (cloture) 102 Neil Gregory Kornze Aguilar 366 Stephen R. Bough 104 Wanda Felton 206 Paul G. Byron 105 Terrell McSweeny 207 Carlos Mendoza 1 Defeat 108 Michelle T. Friedland 208 Beth Bloom 48 Debo P. Adegbile (cloture) 110 David Weil 209 Geoffrey Crawford 118 Sheryl H. Lipman 211 Leon Rodriguez 119 Stanley Bastian 216 Stuart E. Jones 120 Manish S. Shah 217 Cheryl Ann Krause 121 Daniel D. Crabtree 219 Julian Castro 122 Cynthia Ann Bashant 221 Shaun L. S. Donovan 123 Jon David Levy 224 Norman C. Bay 127 Theodore David Chuang 225 Cheryl A. LaFleur

www.cq.com | 2013 CQ ALMANAC B-9 VOTE STUDIES

1 2 3 2 Polis 88 12 91 IN THE HOUSE ALABAMA 3 Tipton 8 92 95 1 Byrne 11 89 92 4 Gardner 11 89 97 2 Roby 14 86 100 5 Lamborn 8 92 100 1. Presidential Support. Percentage of recorded votes cast in 3 Rogers 12 88 100 6 Coffman 12 88 100 2014 in which President Barack Obama took a position and on 4 Aderholt 12 88 91 7 Perlmutter 90 10 95 which the member voted “yea” or “nay” in agreement with the 5 Brooks 8 92 98 CONNECTICUT president’s position. Failure to vote does not lower an individual’s 6 Bachus 16 84 94 1 Larson 86 14 97 7 Sewell 88 12 98 2 Courtney 89 11 95 score. ALASKA 3 DeLauro 89 11 97 AL Young 14 86 97 4 Himes 92 8 98 2. Presidential Opposition. Percentage of recorded votes cast in 5 Esty 82 18 98 2014 in which President Barack Obama took a position and on 1 Kirkpatrick 76 24 94 DELAWARE which the member voted “yea” or “nay” in disagreement with the 2 Barber 56 44 97 AL Carney 93 7 89 3 Grijalva 88 12 98 FLORIDA president’s position. Failure to vote does not lower an individual’s 4 Gosar 4 96 80 1 Miller 10 90 95 score. 5 Salmon 2 98 98 2 Southerland 14 86 100 6 Schweikert 6 94 98 3 Yoho 9 91 100 3. Participation in Presidential Support Votes. Percentage of re- 7 Pastor 92 8 89 4 Crenshaw 14 86 100 corded votes cast in 2014 on which President Barack Obama took 8 Franks 8 92 97 5 Brown 91 9 100 9 Sinema 57 43 98 6 DeSantis 5 95 98 a position and for which the member was eligible amd present, ARKANSAS 7 Mica 12 88 100 and voted “yea” or “nay.” There were a total of 66 such recorded 1 Crawford 11 89 92 8 Posey 5 95 98 votes in the House. 2 Griffin 14 86 98 9 Grayson 91 9 98 3 Womack 14 86 100 10 Webster 14 86 97 4 Cotton 9 91 100 11 Nugent 8 92 98 CALIFORNIA 12 Bilirakis 14 86 98 1 LaMalfa 11 89 97 13 Jolly 12 88 100 2 Huffman 94 6 100 14 Castor 94 6 94 3 Garamendi 69 31 97 15 Ross 14 86 98 4 McClintock 6 94 97 16 Buchanan 16 84 95 5 Thompson 95 4 100 17 Rooney 11 89 98 6 Matsui 92 8 98 18 Murphy 50 50 100 7 Bera 67 33 100 19 Radel1 25 75 100 8 Cook 12 88 98 19 Clawson1 10 90 100 9 McNerney 82 18 98 20 Hastings 90 10 94 10 Denham 17 83 100 21 Deutch 94 6 98 11 Miller, George 91 9 98 22 Frankel 89 11 97 12 Pelosi 95 5 97 23 Wasserman 97 3 92 13 Lee 90 10 95 Schultz 14 Speier 89 11 95 24 Wilson 92 8 97 15 Swalwell 88 12 100 25 Diaz-Balart 17 83 98 16 Costa 62 38 95 26 Garcia 61 39 100 17 Honda 89 11 95 27 Ros-Lehtinen 18 82 94 18 Eshoo 91 9 98 GEORGIA 19 Lofgren 89 11 100 1 Kingston 11 89 83 20 Farr 92 8 100 2 Bishop 62 38 95 21 Valadao 17 83 100 3 Westmoreland 10 90 94 22 Nunes 14 86 100 4 Johnson 95 5 97 23 McCarthy 14 86 100 5 Lewis 90 10 91 24 Capps 88 12 100 6 Price 11 89 98 25 McKeon 15 85 94 7 Woodall 15 85 98 26 Brownley 67 33 100 8 Scott, A. 6 94 98 27 Chu 95 5 97 9 Collins 11 89 98 28 Schiff 94 6 98 10 Broun 9 91 98 29 Cardenas 88 12 98 11 Gingrey 10 90 95 30 Sherman 92 8 100 12 Barrow 23 77 100 31 Miller, Gary 8 92 61 13 Scott, D. 88 12 97 32 Napolitano 94 6 98 14 Graves 12 88 100 33 Waxman 92 8 95 HAWAII 34 Becerra 92 8 98 1 Hanabusa 81 19 80 35 Negrete McLeod 80 20 77 2 Gabbard 82 18 94 *The speaker votes at his discretion. Boehner voted on four presidential support 36 Ruiz 61 39 94 IDAHO votes in this session. 37 Bass 95 5 89 1 Labrador 14 86 95 38 Sánchez, Linda 92 8 91 2 Simpson 12 88 100 1Rep. Curt Clawson, R-Fla., was sworn in Jun. 25, 2014 to fill the seat vacated 39 Royce 12 88 98 ILLINOIS by Republican Trey Radel, who resigned Jan. 27. Radel was eligible for 4 presi- 40 Roybal-Allard 92 8 100 1 Rush 89 11 56 dential support votes in 2014. Clawson was eligible for 30 presidential support 41 Takano 89 11 100 2 Kelly 91 9 100 votes in 2014. 42 Calvert 14 86 97 3 Lipinski 71 29 100 43 Waters 89 11 95 4 Gutierrez 92 8 94 2Donald Norcross, D-N.J., was sworn in Nov. 12, 2014, to fill the seat vacated by 44 Hahn 91 9 100 5 Quigley 92 8 95 Democrat Robert E. Andrews, who resigned Feb. 18. Andrews was eligible for 45 Campbell 14 86 64 6 Roskam 14 86 100 8 presidential support votes in 2014. Norcross was eligible for 10 presidential 46 Sanchez, Loretta 77 23 97 7 Davis, D. 88 12 97 support votes in 2014. 47 Lowenthal 89 11 100 8 Duckworth 83 17 82 48 Rohrabacher 11 89 100 9 Schakowsky 95 5 98 3Rep. Dave Brat, R-Va., was sworn in Nov. 12, 2014, to fill the seat vacated 49 Issa 12 88 100 10 Schneider 67 33 95 by Republican Eric Cantor, who resigned Aug. 18. Cantor was eligible for 50 50 Hunter 11 89 100 11 Foster 83 17 98 presidential support votes in 2014. Brat was eligible for 10 presidential support 51 Vargas 88 12 100 12 Enyart 64 36 97 votes in 2014. 52 Peters 61 39 100 13 Davis, R. 14 86 97 53 Davis 95 5 98 14 Hultgren 12 88 100 COLORADO 15 Shimkus 14 86 100 1 DeGette 94 6 98 16 Kinzinger 14 86 100

B-10 2013 CQ ALMANAC | www.cq.com HOUSE VOTES

17 Bustos 68 32 98 MISSISSIPPI 8 Hudson 14 86 100 3 Johnson, S. 8 92 92 18 Schock 14 86 98 1 Nunnelee 15 85 51 9 Pittenger 12 88 98 4 Hall 12 88 79 INDIANA 2 Thompson 86 14 95 10 McHenry 14 86 98 5 Hensarling 11 89 95 1 Visclosky 85 15 100 3 Harper 14 86 97 11 Meadows 5 95 98 6 Barton 7 93 89 2 Walorski 12 88 100 4 Palazzo 13 87 95 12 Adams 80 20 100 7 Culberson 15 85 94 3 Stutzman 8 92 98 MISSOURI 13 Holding 11 89 100 8 Brady 15 85 94 4 Rokita 12 88 100 1 Clay 92 8 91 NORTH DAKOTA 9 Green, A. 89 11 94 5 Brooks 14 86 100 2 Wagner 14 86 98 AL Cramer 14 86 97 10 McCaul 14 86 100 6 Messer 12 88 98 3 Luetkemeyer 14 86 100 OHIO 11 Conaway 14 86 97 7 Carson 95 5 98 4 Hartzler 14 86 97 1 Chabot 8 92 100 12 Granger 15 85 92 8 Bucshon 14 86 100 5 Cleaver 91 9 88 2 Wenstrup 12 88 98 13 Thornberry 14 86 100 9 Young 12 88 100 6 Graves 15 85 92 3 Beatty 92 8 100 14 Weber 6 94 100 IOWA 7 Long 12 88 100 4 Jordan 2 98 100 15 Hinojosa 91 9 85 1 Braley 79 21 100 8 Smith 12 88 100 5 Latta 14 86 100 16 O’Rourke 86 14 100 2 Loebsack 71 29 98 MONTANA 6 Johnson 15 85 100 17 Flores 12 88 98 3 Latham 14 86 100 AL Daines 11 89 100 7 Gibbs 14 86 100 18 Jackson Lee 89 11 98 4 King 10 90 94 NEBRASKA 8 Boehner* 100 0 6 19 Neugebauer 8 92 100 KANSAS 1 Fortenberry 13 87 94 9 Kaptur 90 10 95 20 Castro 89 11 100 1 Huelskamp 3 97 100 2 Terry 9 91 98 10 Turner 14 86 98 21 Smith 13 87 97 2 Jenkins 12 88 100 3 Smith 12 88 100 11 Fudge 92 8 94 22 Olson 11 89 97 3 Yoder 12 88 98 NEVADA 12 Tiberi 14 86 100 23 Gallego 50 50 100 4 Pompeo 9 91 85 1 Titus 82 18 100 13 Ryan 88 12 91 24 Marchant 8 92 94 KENTUCKY 2 Amodei 12 88 89 14 Joyce 14 86 100 25 Williams 5 95 91 1 Whitfield 15 85 92 3 Heck 14 86 97 15 Stivers 15 85 94 26 Burgess 6 94 100 2 Guthrie 14 86 97 4 Horsford 82 18 98 16 Renacci 14 86 100 27 Farenthold 14 86 100 3 Yarmuth 92 8 100 NEW HAMPSHIRE OKLAHOMA 28 Cuellar 45 55 98 4 Massie 17 83 100 1 Shea-Porter 68 32 98 1 Bridenstine 6 94 100 29 Green, G. 72 28 92 5 Rogers 14 86 100 2 Kuster 74 26 100 2 Mullin 13 87 95 30 Johnson, E. 88 12 97 6 Barr 14 86 100 NEW JERSEY 3 Lucas 14 86 100 31 Carter 13 87 97 LOUISIANA 1 Andrews2 88 12 100 4 Cole 14 86 100 32 Sessions 14 86 100 1 Scalise 11 89 95 1 Norcross2 80 20 100 5 Lankford 9 91 88 33 Veasey 83 17 100 2 Richmond 94 6 80 2 LoBiondo 23 77 100 OREGON 34 Vela 66 34 98 3 Boustany 14 86 100 3 Runyan 16 84 92 1 Bonamici 95 5 100 35 Doggett 85 15 98 4 Fleming 6 94 100 4 Smith 20 80 98 2 Walden 14 86 97 36 Stockman 10 90 88 5 McAllister 13 87 97 5 Garrett 6 94 100 3 Blumenauer 90 10 91 UTAH 6 Cassidy 15 85 91 6 Pallone 91 9 98 4 DeFazio 85 15 100 1 Bishop 15 85 94 MAINE 7 Lance 14 86 100 5 Schrader 70 30 100 2 Stewart 15 85 100 1 Pingree 83 17 98 8 Sires 89 11 95 PENNSYLVANIA 3 Chaffetz 15 85 92 2 Michaud 82 18 100 9 Pascrell 91 9 100 1 Brady 91 9 100 4 Matheson 25 75 95 MARYLAND 10 Payne 92 8 98 2 Fattah 94 6 95 VERMONT 1 Harris 6 94 100 11 Frelinghuysen 14 86 100 3 Kelly 14 86 100 AL Welch 91 9 98 2 Ruppersberger 81 19 89 12 Holt 86 14 98 4 Perry 6 94 100 VIRGINIA 3 Sarbanes 94 6 100 NEW MEXICO 5 Thompson 17 83 100 1 Wittman 11 89 98 4 Edwards 94 6 95 1 Lujan Grisham 87 13 94 6 Gerlach 14 86 97 2 Rigell 14 86 97 5 Hoyer 95 5 100 2 Pearce 12 88 98 7 Meehan 14 86 100 3 Scott 91 9 100 6 Delaney 78 22 97 3 Lujan 89 11 98 8 Fitzpatrick 20 80 97 4 Forbes 14 86 100 7 Cummings 91 9 100 NEW YORK 9 Shuster 14 86 98 5 Hurt 9 91 97 8 Van Hollen 94 6 100 1 Bishop 91 9 100 10 Marino 14 86 100 6 Goodlatte 14 86 100 MASSACHUSETTS 2 King 15 85 98 11 Barletta 14 86 98 7 Cantor3 12 88 86 1 Neal 91 9 97 3 Israel 91 9 100 12 Rothfus 8 92 100 7 Brat3 0 100 100 2 McGovern 91 9 98 4 McCarthy 81 19 54 13 Schwartz 94 6 80 8 Moran 94 6 95 3 Tsongas 88 12 98 5 Meeks 94 6 94 14 Doyle 92 8 92 9 Griffith 14 86 98 4 Kennedy 91 9 100 6 Meng 87 13 95 15 Dent 12 88 100 10 Wolf 14 86 98 5 Clark 89 11 98 7 Velazquez 90 10 92 16 Pitts 12 88 98 11 Connolly 91 9 100 6 Tierney 85 15 98 8 Jeffries 91 9 97 17 Cartwright 89 11 100 WASHINGTON 7 Capuano 90 10 88 9 Clarke 91 9 98 18 Murphy 14 86 98 1 DelBene 83 17 100 8 Lynch 90 10 95 10 Nadler 92 8 97 RHODE ISLAND 2 Larsen 91 9 100 9 Keating 86 14 100 11 Grimm 17 83 97 1 Cicilline 91 9 97 3 Herrera Beutler 17 83 98 MICHIGAN 12 Maloney, C. 86 14 95 2 Langevin 86 14 100 4 Hastings 14 86 97 1 Benishek 14 86 97 13 Rangel 91 9 80 SOUTH CAROLINA 5 McMorris 14 86 100 2 Huizenga 12 88 100 14 Crowley 95 5 95 1 Sanford 17 83 100 Rodgers 3 Amash 20 80 98 15 Serrano 89 11 97 2 Wilson 14 86 95 6 Kilmer 85 15 100 4 Camp 14 86 95 16 Engel 92 8 98 3 Duncan 3 97 100 7 McDermott 91 9 98 5 Kildee 97 3 100 17 Lowey 92 8 100 4 Gowdy 6 94 98 8 Reichert 15 85 100 6 Upton 14 86 95 18 Maloney, S. 62 38 100 5 Mulvaney 6 94 94 9 Smith 94 6 76 7 Walberg 14 86 100 19 Gibson 36 64 100 6 Clyburn 92 8 97 10 Heck 91 9 97 8 Rogers 14 86 95 20 Tonko 91 9 100 7 Rice 14 86 97 WEST VIRGINIA 9 Levin 94 6 100 21 Owens 56 44 97 SOUTH DAKOTA 1 McKinley 12 88 100 10 Miller 14 86 100 22 Hanna 19 81 97 AL Noem 14 86 97 2 Capito 15 85 92 11 Bentivolio 6 94 100 23 Reed 15 85 98 TENNESSEE 3 Rahall 30 70 100 12 Dingell 95 5 88 24 Maffei 61 39 100 1 Roe 12 88 100 WISCONSIN 13 Conyers 95 5 97 25 Slaughter 90 10 91 2 Duncan 12 88 100 1 Ryan 14 86 100 14 Peters 67 33 100 26 Higgins 92 8 100 3 Fleischmann 12 88 98 2 Pocan 92 8 98 MINNESOTA 27 Collins 14 86 97 4 DesJarlais 4 96 71 3 Kind 94 6 100 1 Walz 70 30 95 NORTH CAROLINA 5 Cooper 83 17 97 4 Moore 94 6 98 2 Kline 14 86 100 1 Butterfield 92 8 98 6 Black 14 86 98 5 Sensenbrenner 8 92 100 3 Paulsen 17 83 100 2 Ellmers 14 86 100 7 Blackburn 9 91 100 6 Petri 13 87 97 4 McCollum 91 9 98 3 Jones. 34 66 85 8 Fincher 12 88 98 7 Duffy 12 88 91 5 Ellison 90 10 95 4 Price 97 3 100 9 Cohen 94 6 98 8 Ribble 6 94 100 6 Bachmann 7 93 91 5 Foxx 11 89 100 TEXAS WYOMING 7 Peterson 17 83 100 6 Coble 17 83 82 1 Gohmert 8 92 95 AL Lummis 8 92 95 8 Nolan 68 32 100 7 McIntyre 22 78 98 2 Poe 9 91 97

www.cq.com | 2013 CQ ALMANAC B-11 VOTE STUDIES

1 2 3 MONTANA IN THE SENATE ALABAMA Baucus1 100 0 54 Shelby 49 51 100 Walsh1 96 4 100 1. Presidential Support. Percentage of recorded votes cast in Sessions 53 47 97 Tester 96 4 98 NEBRASKA 2015 in which President Barack Obama took a position and on ALASKA Murkowski 73 27 94 Johanns 62 38 92 which the member voted “yea” or “nay” in agreement with the Begich 97 3 90 Fischer 57 43 100 president’s position. Failure to vote does not lower an individu- ARIZONA NEVADA al’s score. McCain 58 42 99 Reid 95 5 99 Flake 63 37 99 Heller 61 39 99 2. Presidential Opposition. Percentage of recorded votes cast ARKANSAS NEW HAMPSHIRE in 2015 in which President Barack Obama took a position and Pryor 97 3 88 Shaheen 99 1 99 53 47 78 Ayotte 64 36 97 on which the member voted “yea” or “nay” in disagreement Boozman CALIFORNIA NEW JERSEY with the president’s position. Failure to vote does not lower an Feinstein 99 1 99 Menendez 98 2 99 individual’s score. Boxer 98 2 93 Booker 97 3 97 COLORADO NEW MEXICO 3. Participation in Presidential Support Votes. Percentage of Udall 99 1 95 Udall 99 1 100 Heinrich 97 3 99 recorded votes cast in 2015 on which President Barack Obama Bennet 99 1 97 CONNECTICUT NEW YORK took a position and for which the member was eligible amd Blumenthal 98 2 99 Schumer 99 1 100 present, and voted “yea” or “nay.” There were a total of 145 such Murphy 99 1 100 Gillibrand 96 4 98 recorded votes in the Senate. DELAWARE NORTH CAROLINA Carper 99 1 99 Burr 58 42 96 Coons 99 1 97 Hagan 99 1 97 FLORIDA NORTH DAKOTA Nelson 99 1 96 Hoeven 60 40 100 Rubio 53 47 90 Heitkamp 95 5 99 GEORGIA OHIO Chambliss 66 34 88 Brown 99 1 99 Isakson 64 36 97 Portman 63 37 99 HAWAII OKLAHOMA Schatz 98 2 88 Inhofe 52 48 99 Hirono 99 1 100 Coburn 50 50 79 IDAHO OREGON Crapo 48 52 100 Wyden 98 2 100 Risch 46 54 99 Merkley 99 1 97 ILLINOIS PENNSYLVANIA Durbin 100 0 99 Casey 98 2 95 Kirk 66 34 99 Toomey 56 44 96 INDIANA RHODE ISLAND Coats 65 35 98 Reed 99 1 98 Donnelly 97 3 99 Whitehouse 99 1 99 IOWA SOUTH CAROLINA Grassley 57 43 100 Graham 60 40 94 Harkin 99 1 95 Scott 54 46 97 KANSAS SOUTH DAKOTA Roberts 46 54 94 Thune 56 44 99 Moran 52 48 83 Johnson 99 1 99 KENTUCKY TENNESSEE McConnell 55 45 99 Alexander 68 32 94 Paul 53 47 99 Corker 67 33 94 LOUISIANA TEXAS Landrieu 96 4 83 Cornyn 57 43 95 Vitter 51 49 90 Cruz 51 49 94 MAINE UTAH Collins 74 26 100 Hatch 65 35 98 King 96 4 99 Lee 51 49 95 MARYLAND VERMONT Mikulski 98 2 99 Leahy 99 1 99 Cardin 99 1 99 Sanders 94 6 96 MASSACHUSETTS VIRGINIA Warren 97 3 99 Warner 99 1 98 Markey 97 3 99 Kaine 100 0 99 MICHIGAN WASHINGTON Stabenow 99 1 99 Murray 99 1 100 Levin 99 1 95 Cantwell 98 2 100 MINNESOTA WEST VIRGINIA Klobuchar 99 1 100 Rockefeller 99 1 77 Franken 99 1 100 Manchin 89 11 98 MISSISSIPPI WISCONSIN Cochran 62 38 68 Johnson 54 46 99 Wicker 61 39 95 Baldwin 99 1 99 MISSOURI WYOMING McCaskill 98 2 90 Enzi 53 47 99 Blunt 57 43 93 Barrasso 52 48 99 1Sen. John Walsh, D-Mont., was sworn in Feb. 11, 2014 to fill the seat vacated by Democrat Max Baucus, who resigned Feb. 6. Baucus was eligible for 11 presiden- tial support votes in 2014. Walsh was eligible for 138 presidential support votes in 2014.

B-12 2013 CQ ALMANAC | www.cq.com PARTY UNITY

Standing Together Against Any Action

On paper, Republicans and Democrats in Congress look partly to blame. as polarized in their 2014 voting patterns as almost any point in recent So is the prolonged struggle between the narrowly divided Repub- history. lican and Democratic parties for control of Congress and the White In the House, a majority of Democrats split with a majority of Repub- House. Not to mention the voters, who have aligned themselves more licans 72.6 percent of the time, the fourth-highest rate ever in the House. rigidly in opposing political camps over the past two decades. Elec- In the Senate, party unity on roll call votes hit a near-record 66.7 toral splits carry disproportionate political weight because the most percent, and Democrats stuck together 93 percent of the time, just a ideologically motivated voters tend to be the ones who show up on single percentage point off their all-time peak. Election Day, research by the Pew Research Center shows. But this outward show of political polarization masks deeper divi- “The voters have sorted themselves much more distinctly between sions within both national parties on Capitol Hill, as recent turmoil the two parties,” says Sean Theriault, a government professor at the within the House Republican Conference over funding the Homeland University of Texas, Austin. “There is no such thing as a conserva- Security Department underscores. tive Democrat, and there is no such thing as a liberal Republican In 2014, as throughout the 113th Congress, House and Senate lead- anymore.” ers skirted divisive substantive issues, such as immigration and taxes, That helps explain why only eight House Democrats had party in favor of “messaging” votes designed to showcase party differences. unity scores lower than 75 percent in 2014. All were members of the “I think it would be fair to say the level of unity we see in roll call conservative Blue Dog Coalition, which last year totaled 19 members. votes exaggerates the extent to which the parties are really unified,” These included Collin C. Peterson of Minnesota, who voted with says Frances Lee, a professor of government and politics at the Uni- his Democratic colleagues just 48 percent of the time last year. Blue versity of Maryland. Dogs Mike McIntyre of North Carolina and John Barrow of Georgia The wide splits between the parties on floor votes also reflect insti- voted with their fellow Democrats 55 percent and 56 percent of the tutional changes in how Congress operates, Lee notes. These include time, respectively. McIntyre retired in 2014, and Barrow was defeated. the centralization of power into the hands of House and Senate lead- This year the Blue Dog Caucus has shrunk to 14 members, down from ers; the tendency to package multiple bills into one massive legislative a high of 54 in 2009. freight train; and the reliance on high-stakes deadlines to spur action, often in eleventh-hour deals struck under duress. SYMBOlISM TRUMPS SUBSTANcE Party polarization is real, of course. The shrinking political center The chasm between the parties was thrown into relief last year by a that has driven more Democrats and Republicans to the far left and series of highly scripted floor votes in both chambers. far right of their respective caucuses is well-documented. House On issues ranging from appropriations to border security and district lines drawn to create safe seats through gerrymandering are highway spending, Congress punted. Instead, House Republicans

Frequency of How often the Average chamber party unity votes: majority won: party unity scores: House Senate House Republicans Senate Democrats House Senate 100% 100% 80 80 72.6% 66.7% 86.5% 91.8% 60 60 fourth- down sixth- highest 40 40 highest from highest on 20 20 on record 2013 on record record 0 0 D 90% fourth- D 93% down a point 408 out of 562 244 out of 366 353 out of 408 224 out of 244 highest on record from 2013’s record high R 91% down a R 84% down from 2013 Average for both Average for both point from last chambers: 70.3% chambers: 88.5% year’s record high

www.cq.com | 2013 CQ ALMANAC B-13 VOTE STUDIES Both Parties Continue to Vote as Blocs Members from both parties on average voted with their caucus majorities at near-record rates. House Republicans voted with their caucus 91 percent of the time, just a point off the record set in 2013. Similarly, Senate Democrats had an average unity score of 93%, slightly off their 2013 peak of 94 percent. Senate Republicans dropped a couple points from 2013, largely due to the high number of nomination votes. Average party unity scores HOUSE Democrats high 2007, 2008: 92% 100 Democrats low 1970, 1972: 58% 90 Republicans low 80 1970: 60% Republicans high 70 2013: 92% 60

50 1956 ’60 ’70 ’80 ’90 '00 ’10 SENATE Democrats high 2013: 94% 100

90 Democrats low 1968: 51% 80 Republicans low 1970: 56% 70 Republicans high 2003: 94% 60 50 1956 1960 ’70 ’80 ’90 ’00 ’10

brought up bills designed to spotlight their differences with President Both lost on Election Day. Barack Obama, and Senate Democrats rubber-stamped bills aimed at “It’s hard to go to your moderate constituents when all you’ve voted labor union allies and women voters that had no chance of clearing for are messaging bills on the Democratic side,” says Josh Huder, a the House. senior fellow at Georgetown University’s Government Affairs Institute. In the Senate, Reid effectively papered over differences within his Then-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky ex- party by largely blocking GOP amendments and by showcasing Demo- acted slightly less unity from his ranks, with 84 percent of Republicans crats’ campaign themes. rallying together on roll call votes. That was 2 points lower on average Reid failed to muster the necessary 60 votes he would have needed to than the level of Senate GOP unity in 2013 and down from a 2010 overcome GOP filibusters on bills to bar gender-based wage discrimi- high of 89 percent. nation, raise the minimum wage, expand unemployment benefits and McConnell also presided over his party’s second-lowest victory rate amend the Constitution to limit political spending. in the Senate, winning 20 votes, or 8.2 percent of the total. Senate Democrats won on 224 votes, or 91.8 percent of the total — In the House, Boehner did his best to downplay ideological splits namely 244 votes. That beat Senate Democrats’ 2013 win rate of 84.2 within the GOP by invoking the so-called Hastert rule, initiated by for- percent and sits just below the record 92.3 percent victory percentage mer House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois. The rule unofficially they had in 2009. requires the speaker to bring to the floor only bills that a majority of Reid’s most loyal foot soldiers, not surprisingly, included such his party supports. leadership team members as Patty Murray of Washington, Charles E. That enabled Boehner to pull off a party unity rate of 91 percent, Schumer of New York and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, all of whom just 1 point down from the House GOP’s 2013 all-time high of 92 voted with their party 100 percent of the time. percent. Chris Gibson, who narrowly won re-election in New York’s Reid’s bid to downplay divisions within his party may in fact have Catskill Mountain region, split with his fellow Republicans 35 percent contributed to Democrats’ disastrous showing on Election Day, which of the time. knocked out several moderate Democrats and handed the majority to Even Walter B. Jones, a North Carolina Republican who has ques- Republicans. tioned whether Boehner should be speaker, voted with his party only Forced into a string of confirmation and messaging votes, such 71 percent of the time. Democrats as Louisiana’s Mary L. Landrieu and North Carolina’s Kay House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California presided over Hagan struggled to convince voters that they stood apart from Obama, a more unified caucus than the previous year, with 90 percent party whose popularity was at a low point. Landrieu voted with her party unity. That’s up from 88 percent in 2013 and only slightly below the 93 percent of the time, and Hagan’s party unity score was 98 percent. 91 percent recorded in Obama’s first year. B-14 2013 CQ ALMANAC | www.cq.com PARTY UNITY

Unity Vote Frequency Up in Senate and Down in House The number of Senate roll call votes in which a majority of Democrats opposed a majority of Republicans rose a bit in 2014 — while the frequency Party Unity Votes

1,200 Senate 422 Senate 266 House 635 House 730 1,000 Senate 244 House 408 800

600

400 Senate

200 House

0 1953 ’60 ’70 ’80 ’90 2000 ’10

Percentage of Party Unity Votes, for Congress as a whole 1995: High: 71.4% 2014: 70.3% 70% 1970: Low: 32.0% 50

30 1953 ’60 ’70 ’80 ’90 2000 ’10

Pelosi and her Democratic troops tallied 55 victories, or 13.5 percent within his conference, the process was messy. of the total. Boehner was repeatedly forced to pull bills from the floor at the last minute in 2014 amid objections from his party’s conservative bloc. And From Inaction to Gridlock? several issues that he pushed to the back burner in the previous session The tight messaging that heightened party unity scores last year also will hit deadlines for action in the 114th Congress. These include trans- translated into historically low levels of productivity. portation funding, the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank and The 113th Congress enacted only 286 laws, just three more than the the inevitable looming showdown over raising the debt limit yet again. record low set by the 112th Congress. Both sessions were far less pro- “He dodged a lot of bullets,” says Georgetown’s Huder. “The prob- ductive than the preceding 20 Congresses, which on average produced lem is, he only did it for the short term.” 564 bills signed into law. The recent House-Senate showdown over Obama’s executive action As with party unity scores, however, the way that Congress now to spare millions of illegal immigrants from deportation, which held conducts business exaggerated its actual inertia. The last-minute up funding for the Homeland Security Department, illustrates how “cromnibus” bill passed in December, a trillion-dollar piece of legis- hard it will be for Boehner to rally his troops. Boehner ultimately won lation that funded the government through September of this year, the votes to fund a “clean” DHS bill, which contained no riders block- included multiple tacked-on measures. ing Obama’s immigration action, only by breaking the Hastert rule These included financial regulations that loosened the Dodd-Frank and relying on Democratic votes. Wall Street rules enacted in 2010; $5 billion to fight Islamic terror; a “Legislating is different than messaging,” says Lee, of the University 1 percent pay raise for federal workers; and a surprise increase in the of Maryland. “You will often see a party under pressure, under great limits on campaign contributions to the national political parties. strain, coming apart at the seams, when it is truly trying to legislate.” n The cromnibus deal was the most heavily lobbied piece of legislation in 2014, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks political money. The bill triggered spending by 852 clients who paid lobbying firms to represent them, including health insurers, labor unions, banks and defense contractors. Congress-watchers expect last year’s high levels of party unity to drop in this Congress, particularly among Republicans in the House. While Boehner invoked the Hastert rule last year to avert civil war

www.cq.com | 2013 CQ ALMANAC B-15 VOTE STUDIES Leading Scorers: Party Unity Support indicates those who voted most often with a majority of their party against a majority of the other party in 2014. Opposition shows those who voted most often against their party. Lawmakers who left office or who missed half or more of the votes are not listed. Scores are reported only to one decimal point; members with identical scores are listed alphabetically. (Complete scores: Senate, p. 43, House pp. 44-45)

SENATE

SUPPORT OPPOSITION

Democrats Republicans Inhofe, James M. 96.7 Warner, Mark 2.5 Carper, Thomas R. 2.1 Cantwell, Maria 100% Fischer, Deb 98.7% Democrats Cardin, Benjamin L. 100 Lee, Mike 98.7 Manchin, Joe III 13.0% Republicans Harkin, Tom 100 Risch, Jim 98.7 Landrieu, Mary L. 7.0 Collins, Susan 57.4% Merkley, Jeff 100 Cruz, Ted 98.1 Heitkamp, Heidi 6.3 Murkowski, Lisa 54.6 Mikulski, Barbara A. 100 Crapo, Michael D. 97.9 Reid, Harry* 4.6 Ayotte, Kelly 26.8 Murray, Patty 100 Thune, John 97.9 Tester, Jon 3.4 Chambliss, Saxby 18.2 Rockefeller, Jay 100 Scott, Tim 97.8 Pryor, Mark 3.2 Flake, Jeff 18.1 Schatz, Brian 100 Roberts, Pat 97.6 Walsh, John 2.7 Isakson, Johnny 17.3 Schumer, Charles E. 100 Sessions, Jeff 97.4 Alexander, Lamar 16.8 Stabenow, Debbie 100 Johnson, Ron 97.0 Hatch, Orrin G. 16.4 Udall, Tom 100 Grassley, Charles E. 96.7 Heller, Dean 15.6 8 Senators 99.5 Kirk, Mark S. 15.5

HOUSE

SUPPORT OPPOSITION

Democrats Republicans Democrats Republicans Velazquez, Nydia M. 100% Scalise, Steve 99.5% Peterson, Collin C. 52.0% Gibson, Chris 35.5% Bass, Karen 99.7 Palazzo, Steven M. 99.4 McIntyre, Mike 45.5 Jones, Walter B. 29.2 Becerra, Xavier 99.7 Black, Diane 99.2 Matheson, Jim 44.7 Fitzpatrick, Michael G. 18.3 Chu, Judy 99.7 Huizenga, Bill 99.2 Barrow, John 44.4 LoBiondo, Frank A. 17.7 Edwards, Donna 99.7 Sessions, Pete 99.2 Rahall, Nick J. II 35.1 Hanna, Richard 16.4 Jeffries, Hakeem 99.7 Smith, Jason 99.2 Costa, Jim 30.9 Jolly, David 15.6 Lee, Barbara 99.7 Kingston, Jack 99.1 Barber, Ron 28.1 Runyan, Jon 14.1 McGovern, Jim 99.7 Pompeo, Mike 99.1 Cuellar, Henry 26.7 King, Peter T. 12.6 Nadler, Jerrold 99.7 Blackburn, Marsha 99.0 Sinema, Kyrsten 24.7 Reichert, Dave 12.6 Pocan, Mark 99.7 Fleming, John 99.0 Owens, Bill 24.6 Smith, Christopher H. 12.5 Schakowsky, Jan 99.7 Latta, Bob 99.0 Gallego, Pete 22.3 Grimm, Michael G. 12.4 Van Hollen, Chris 99.7 Bishop, Rob 98.9 Murphy, Patrick 20.4 Diaz-Balart, Mario 12.1 Waxman, Henry A. 99.7 LaMalfa, Doug 98.9 Schrader, Kurt 19.0 6 Representatives 98.7 Bishop, Sanford D. Jr. 17.6 Maffei, Dan 16.7

B-16 2013 CQ ALMANAC | www.cq.com PARTY UNITY Party Unity Background Roll call votes used for the party unity study are all those on which a majority of their party. In calculations of average scores by party and majority of Democrats opposed a majority of Republicans. Support chamber, a member’s failure to vote lowers the score for the group. indicates the percentage of the time that members voted in agreement The tables below also show the number of party unity votes on which with the majority of their party on such party unity votes. Opposition each party was victorious and the number of instances in which either indicates the percentage of the time that members voted against the party voted unanimously.

SUPPORT OPPOSITION 2014 2013 2014 2013 Democrats 90% 88% 5% 8% HOUSE Republicans 91 92 5 5 Democrats 93 94 1 4 SENATE Republicans 84 86 10 11 Democrats 91 89 5 8 CONGRESS Republicans 90 91 6 6

HOUSE SENATE CONGRESS

YEAR Democrats Republicans Democrats Republicans Democrats Republicans 2014 55 353 224 20 279 373 2013 50 389 171 32 221 421 2012 67 411 103 47 170 458 2011 82 634 87 33 169 667 2010 236 28 196 39 432 67 2009 473 29 264 22 737 51 2008 342 25 60 51 402 76 2007 658 72 179 87 837 159 2006 59 236 53 107 112 343 2005 50 278 47 182 97 460 2004 42 213 28 85 70 298 2003 39 310 56 250 95 560 2002 39 170 42 73 81 243 2001 27 177 95 115 122 292 2000 77 182 31 114 108 296 1999 58 177 77 211 135 388 1998 80 216 61 114 141 330 1997 58 261 46 104 104 365 1996 48 208 59 132 107 340

HOUSE SENATE CONGRESS

YEAR Democrats Republicans Democrats Republicans Democrats Republicans 2014 92 159 180 76 272 235 2013 97 152 106 62 203 214 2012 40 99 60 19 100 118 2011 76 209 55 31 131 240 2010 10 91 67 106 77 197 2009 29 144 79 74 108 218 2008 66 96 30 19 96 115 2007 170 177 102 35 272 212 2006 70 62 34 30 104 92 2005 82 91 69 59 151 150 2004 70 77 3 31 73 108 2003 94 109 32 130 126 239 2002 37 54 12 23 49 77 2001 1 66 37 55 38 121 2000 1 67 52 19 53 86 1999 11 59 100 63 111 122 1998 8 42 46 33 54 75 1997 11 63 35 38 46 101 1996 10 32 35 47 45 79

www.cq.com | 2013 CQ ALMANAC B-17 VOTE STUDIES Party Unity History The table below on the left shows how frequently during roll call votes a majority of Democrats aligned against a majority of Republicans. The tables in the center and at right show the average party unity support score for each party in each chamber.

Frequency of Unity Votes House Average Scores Senate Average Scores YEAR House senate Democrats republicans Democrats republicans Tallying Party 2014 72.6% 66.7% 90 91 93 84 2013 68.6 69.8 88 92 94 86 Unity Votes 2012 72.8 59.8 87 90 92 80 In the House in 2014, the two 2011 75.8 51.1 87 91 92 86 2010 40.0 78.6 89 88 91 89 parties aligned against each 2009 50.9 72.0 91 87 91 85 other on 408 of 562 roll call 2008 53.3 51.6 92 87 87 83 votes, or 72.6 percent of the 2007 62.0 60.2 92 85 87 81 time — the second-highest 2006 54.5 57.3 86 88 86 86 frequency of unity votes 2005 49.0 62.6 88 90 88 88 ever for the chamber, up 4 2004 47.0 52.3 86 88 83 90 percentage points from 2013. 2003 51.7 66.7 87 91 85 94 In the Senate, the parties 2002 43.3 45.5 86 90 83 84 opposed each other on 244 of 2001 40.2 55.3 83 91 89 88 366 roll calls, or 66.7 percent 2000 43.2 48.7 82 88 88 89 of the time — down a bit 47.3 62.8 83 86 89 88 1999 from last year’s 69.8 and far 1998 55.5 55.7 82 86 87 86 below the 78.6 percent peak 1997 50.4 50.3 82 88 85 87 in 2010. A list of roll call 1996 56.4 62.4 80 87 84 89 votes that pitted majorities 1995 73.2 68.8 80 91 81 89 1994 61.8 51.7 83 84 84 79 of the two parties against 1993 65.5 67.1 85 84 85 84 each other is available upon 1992 64.5 53.0 79 79 77 79 request from CQ Roll Call. 1991 55.1 49.3 81 77 80 81 1990 49.1 54.3 81 74 80 75 Calculations of average 1989 56.3 35.3 81 72 78 78 scores by chamber and party 1988 47.0 42.5 80 74 78 68 are based on all eligible “yea” 1987 63.7 40.7 81 74 81 75 or “nay” votes, whether or 1986 56.5 52.3 79 70 72 76 not all members participated. 1985 61.0 49.6 80 75 75 76 Under this methodology, 1984 47.1 40.0 74 71 68 78 average support and 1983 55.6 43.7 76 74 71 74 opposition scores are reduced 1982 36.4 43.4 72 69 72 76 when members choose not 1981 37.4 47.8 69 74 71 81 to vote. Because individual 1980 37.6 45.8 69 71 64 65 member scores are based 1979 47.3 46.7 69 73 68 66 1978 33.2 45.2 63 69 66 59 on the number of votes cast, 1977 42.2 42.4 68 71 63 66 party and chamber averages 1976 35.9 37.2 66 67 62 61 are not strictly comparable 1975 48.4 47.8 69 72 68 64 to individual member scores. 1974 29.4 44.3 62 63 63 59 (Complete member scores, 1973 41.8 39.9 68 68 69 64 pp. 43-45) 1972 27.1 36.5 58 66 57 61 1971 37.8 41.6 61 67 64 63 Also, in the member score 1970 27.1 35.2 58 60 55 56 tables, Sens. Angus King, 1969 31.1 36.3 61 62 63 63 I-Maine, and Bernard 1968 35.2 32.0 59 64 51 60 Sanders, I-Vt., were treated as 1967 36.3 34.6 67 74 61 60 if they were Democrats when 1966 41.5 50.2 62 68 57 63 calculating their support and 1965 52.2 41.9 70 71 63 68 opposition scores. Their votes 1964 54.9 35.7 69 71 61 65 1963 48.7 47.2 73 74 66 67 were not used to determine 1962 46.0 41.1 70 70 65 64 which roll calls were party 1961 50.0 62.3 72 73 69 68 unity votes, however, and 1960 52.7 36.7 65 70 60 64 they are not included in the 1959 55.2 47.9 79 77 67 72 Democratic Party averages 1958 39.8 43.5 66 65 71 64 for the Senate. 1957 59.0 35.5 70 67 66 69 1956 43.8 53.1 70 70 71 72

B-18 2013 CQ ALMANAC | www.cq.com SENATE VOTES

1 2 3 MONTANA ALABAMA Baucus1 100 0 100 Shelby 95 5 99 Walsh1 97 3 99 IN THE SENATE Sessions 97 3 96 Tester 97 3 98 ALASKA NEBRASKA Murkowski 45 55 91 Johanns 94 Roll 91 Begich 99 1 89 Call 1. Party Unity. Percentage of recorded votes cast in 2014 on Votes ARIZONA which a senator voted “yea” or “nay” in agreement with a major- Fischer 99 1 100 McCain 91 9 96 ity of his or her party. (Party Unity votes are those on which NEVADA Flake 82 18 100 Reid 95 5 100 a majority of voting Democrats opposed a majority of voting ARKANSAS Heller 84 16 97 Republicans.) Percentages are based on votes cast; thus, failure Pryor 97 3 91 NEW HAMPSHIRE to vote does not lower a member’s score. Boozman 97 3 82 Shaheen 98 2 99 CALIFORNIA Ayotte 73 27 98 Feinstein 99 1 89 NEW JERSEY Boxer 99 1 89 Party Opposition. Menendez 99 1 99 2. Percentage of recorded votes cast in 2014 COLORADO Booker 99 1 97 on which a senator voted “yea” or “nay” in disagreement with a Udall 99 1 91 NEW MEXICO majority of his or her party. Percentages are based on votes cast; Bennet 99 1 99 Udall 100 0 99 CONNECTICUT thus, failure to vote does not lower a member’s score. Heinrich 99 1 100 Blumenthal 99 1 100 NEW YORK Murphy 99 1 99 Schumer 100 0 99 DELAWARE Gillibrand 99 1 98 3. Participation in Party Unity Votes. Percentage of the Senate Carper 98 2 100 NORTH CAROLINA party unity votes in 2014 for which a senator was eligible and Coons 99 1 97 Burr 94 6 95 present and voted “yay” or “nay.” There were a total of 244 such FLORIDA Hagan 98 2 95 Nelson 98 2 97 recorded votes. NORTH DAKOTA Rubio 91 9 91 94 6 99 GEORGIA Hoeven 94 6 98 Chambliss 82 18 77 Heitkamp OHIO Isakson 83 17 97 Brown 99 1 97 HAWAII 89 11 94 Schatz 100 0 88 Portman OKLAHOMA Hirono 99 1 100 97 3 87 IDAHO Inhofe Crapo 98 2 100 Coburn 95 5 67 Risch 99 1 98 OREGON Wyden 99 1 100 ILLINOIS Merkley 100 0 98 Durbin 99 1 99 PENNSYLVANIA Kirk 85 15 95 Casey 98 2 97 INDIANA Toomey 91 9 94 Coats 87 13 98 RHODE ISLAND Donnelly 98 2 99 Reed 98 2 100 IOWA Whitehouse 99 1 99 Grassley 97 3 100 SOUTH CAROLINA Harkin 100 0 94 Graham 85 15 93 KANSAS Scott 98 2 95 Roberts 98 2 87 SOUTH DAKOTA Moran 96 4 83 Johnson 99 1 100 KENTUCKY Thune 98 2 99 McConnell 95 5 99 TENNESSEE Paul 94 6 97 Alexander 83 17 93 LOUISIANA 85 15 98 Landrieu 93 7 82 Corker TEXAS Vitter 90 10 91 92 8 95 MAINE Cornyn 98 2 90 Collins 43 57 100 Cruz UTAH King 95 5 99 84 16 95 MARYLAND Hatch Mikulski 100 0 92 Lee 99 1 95 Cardin 100 0 99 VERMONT MASSACHUSETTS Leahy 99 1 99 Warren 99 1 99 Sanders 96 4 84 Markey 99 1 96 VIRGINIA MICHIGAN Warner 98 2 98 Stabenow 100 0 96 Kaine 99 1 98 Levin 99 1 97 WASHINGTON MINNESOTA Murray 100 0 100 Klobuchar 99 1 99 Cantwell 100 0 100 Franken 99 1 99 WEST VIRGINIA MISSISSIPPI Rockefeller 100 0 81 Cochran 91 9 69 Manchin 87 13 98 Wicker 91 9 99 WISCONSIN 97 3 97 MISSOURI Johnson McCaskill 98 2 93 Baldwin 99 1 99 Blunt 93 7 94 WYOMING Enzi 97 3 99 Barrasso 97 3 98 1Sen. John Walsh, D-Mont., was sworn in Feb. 11, 2014 to fill the seat vacated by Democrat Max Baucus, who resigned Feb. 6. Baucus was eligible for 19 party unity votes in 2014. Walsh was eligible for 225 party unity votes in 2014.

www.cq.com | 2013 CQ ALMANAC B-19 VOTE STUDIES

1 2 3 2 Polis 93 7 89 IN THE HOUSE ALABAMA 3 Tipton 96 4 97 1 Byrne 99 1 94 4 Gardner 93 7 97 2 Roby 91 9 100 5 Lamborn 99 1 99 3 Rogers 97 3 99 6 Coffman 93 7 99 1. Party Unity. Percentage of recorded votes cast in 2014 on 4 Aderholt 94 6 90 7 Perlmutter 92 8 95 which a member voted “yea” or “nay” in agreement with a major- 5 Brooks 95 5 99 CONNECTICUT ity of his or her party. (Party Unity votes are those on which 6 Bachus 92 8 96 1 Larson 97 3 97 a majority of voting Democrats opposed a majority of voting 7 Sewell 92 8 98 2 Courtney 96 4 96 Republicans.) Percentages are based on votes cast; thus, failure to ALASKA 3 DeLauro 98 2 97 AL Young 89 11 98 4 Himes 94 6 99 vote does not lower a member’s score. ARIZONA 5 Esty 95 5 98 1 Kirkpatrick 88 12 92 DELAWARE 2 Barber 72 28 99 AL Carney 96 4 89 2. Party Opposition. Percentage of recorded votes cast in 2014 3 Grijalva 98 2 98 FLORIDA on which a member voted “yea” or “nay” in disagreement with a 4 Gosar 95 5 76 1 Miller 98 2 95 5 Salmon 97 3 97 2 Southerland 98 2 98 majority of his or her party. Percentages are based on votes cast; 6 Schweikert 96 4 99 3 Yoho 97 3 99 thus, failure to vote does not lower a member’s score. 7 Pastor 99 1 86 4 Crenshaw 92 8 99 8 Franks 99 1 97 5 Brown 96 4 97 9 Sinema 75 25 99 6 DeSantis 98 2 99 3. Participation in Party Unity Votes. Percentage of the House ARKANSAS 7 Mica 98 2 100 party unity votes in 2014 for which a member was eligible and 1 Crawford 92 8 90 8 Posey 93 7 99 2 Griffin 94 6 96 9 Grayson 97 3 98 present and voted “yay” or “nay.” There were a total of 408 such 3 Womack 93 7 100 10 Webster 94 6 98 recorded votes. 4 Cotton 99 1 99 11 Nugent 96 4 99 CALIFORNIA 12 Bilirakis 97 3 98 1 LaMalfa 99 1 96 13 Jolly 84 16 100 2 Huffman 99 1 98 14 Castor 98 2 95 3 Garamendi 92 8 97 15 Ross 97 3 98 4 McClintock 95 5 98 16 Buchanan 96 4 97 5 Thompson 98 2 100 17 Rooney 94 6 98 6 Matsui 99 1 97 18 Murphy 80 20 99 7 Bera 88 12 99 19 Radel1 100 0 100 8 Cook 98 2 99 19 Clawson1 97 3 99 9 McNerney 95 5 99 20 Hastings 98 2 91 10 Denham 91 9 99 21 Deutch 99 1 98 11 Miller, George 99 1 95 22 Frankel 98 2 97 12 Pelosi 99 1 89 23 Wasserman 96 4 95 13 Lee 99 1 97 Schultz 14 Speier 98 2 96 24 Wilson 99 1 98 15 Swalwell 97 3 99 25 Diaz-Balart 88 12 97 16 Costa 69 31 97 26 Garcia 89 11 93 17 Honda 99 1 96 27 Ros-Lehtinen 87 13 99 18 Eshoo 99 1 98 GEORGIA 19 Lofgren 98 2 99 1 Kingston 99 1 82 20 Farr 97 3 99 2 Bishop 82 18 96 21 Valadao 89 11 99 3 Westmoreland 97 3 96 22 Nunes 95 5 99 4 Johnson 98 2 93 23 McCarthy 97 3 99 5 Lewis 99 1 85 24 Capps 97 3 100 6 Price 99 1 98 25 McKeon 92 8 94 7 Woodall 97 3 98 26 Brownley 90 10 99 8 Scott, A. 98 2 99 27 Chu 99 1 98 9 Collins 98 2 96 28 Schiff 99 1 99 10 Broun 89 11 99 29 Cardenas 97 3 97 11 Gingrey 98 2 91 30 Sherman 96 4 99 12 Barrow 56 44 100 31 Miller, Gary 95 5 51 13 Scott, D. 92 8 96 32 Napolitano 99 1 95 14 Graves 98 2 99 33 Waxman 99 1 90 HAWAII 34 Becerra 99 1 95 1 Hanabusa 97 3 79 35 Negrete McLeod 97 3 84 2 Gabbard 93 7 96 36 Ruiz 86 14 96 IDAHO *The speaker votes at his discretion. Boehner voted on five party unity votes in 37 Bass 99 1 85 1 Labrador 94 6 98 this session. 38 Sánchez, Linda 98 2 94 2 Simpson 92 8 99 39 Royce 97 3 98 ILLINOIS 1 Rep. Curt Clawson, R-Fla., was sworn in Jun. 25, 2014 to fill the seat vacated 40 Roybal-Allard 99 1 99 1 Rush 98 2 57 by Republican Trey Radel, who resigned Jan. 27. Radel was eligible for 11 party 41 Takano 99 1 100 2 Kelly 99 1 99 unity votes in 2014. Clawson was eligible for 143 party unity votes in 2014. 42 Calvert 92 8 98 3 Lipinski 85 15 99 43 Waters 99 1 92 4 Gutierrez 99 1 88 2 Rep. Donald Norcross, D-N.J., was sworn in Nov. 12, 2014, to fill the seat 44 Hahn 98 2 100 5 Quigley 98 2 98 vacated by Democrat Robert E. Andrews, who resigned Feb. 18. Andrews was 45 Campbell 96 4 67 6 Roskam 95 5 98 eligible for 40 party unity votes in 2014. Norcross was eligible for 26 party unity 46 Sanchez, Loretta 94 6 97 7 Davis, D. 99 1 92 votes in 2014. 47 Lowenthal 99 1 100 8 Duckworth 92 8 91 48 Rohrabacher 92 8 99 9 Schakowsky 99 1 98 3 Rep. Dave Brat, R-Va., was sworn in Nov. 12, 2014, to fill the seat vacated by 49 Issa 97 3 98 10 Schneider 88 12 95 Republican Eric Cantor, who resigned Aug. 18. Cantor was eligible for 362 party 50 Hunter 96 4 99 11 Foster 93 7 99 unity votes in 2014. Brat was eligible for 26 party unity votes in 2014. 51 Vargas 96 4 99 12 Enyart 85 15 97 52 Peters 84 16 99 13 Davis, R. 91 9 97 53 Davis 97 3 98 14 Hultgren 98 2 100 COLORADO 15 Shimkus 92 8 100 1 DeGette 99 1 97 16 Kinzinger 91 9 99

B-20 2013 CQ ALMANAC | www.cq.com HOUSE VOTES

17 Bustos 85 15 99 MISSISSIPPI 8 Hudson 99 1 99 3 Johnson, S. 98 2 92 18 Schock 91 9 97 1 Nunnelee 98 2 51 9 Pittenger 99 1 99 4 Hall 95 5 87 INDIANA 2 Thompson 97 3 95 10 McHenry 98 2 97 5 Hensarling 98 2 99 1 Visclosky 96 4 99 3 Harper 96 4 98 11 Meadows 97 3 99 6 Barton 97 3 91 2 Walorski 95 5 100 4 Palazzo 99 1 92 12 Adams 100 0 100 7 Culberson 93 7 97 3 Stutzman 98 2 97 MISSOURI 13 Holding 99 1 99 8 Brady 98 2 95 4 Rokita 98 2 99 1 Clay 98 2 91 NORTH DAKOTA 9 Green, A. 97 3 89 5 Brooks 95 5 99 2 Wagner 96 4 97 AL Cramer 95 5 94 10 McCaul 98 2 99 6 Messer 97 3 98 3 Luetkemeyer 96 4 100 OHIO 11 Conaway 98 2 98 7 Carson 97 3 98 4 Hartzler 98 2 90 1 Chabot 99 1 100 12 Granger 96 4 97 8 Bucshon 95 5 99 5 Cleaver 98 2 88 2 Wenstrup 97 3 99 13 Thornberry 99 1 99 9 Young 94 6 99 6 Graves 97 3 96 3 Beatty 99 1 99 14 Weber 98 2 100 IOWA 7 Long 99 1 100 4 Jordan 97 3 100 15 Hinojosa 94 6 81 1 Braley 93 7 99 8 Smith 99 1 99 5 Latta 99 1 100 16 O’Rourke 98 2 99 2 Loebsack 90 10 99 MONTANA 6 Johnson 97 3 100 17 Flores 98 2 99 3 Latham 90 10 98 AL Daines 94 6 99 7 Gibbs 96 4 99 18 Jackson Lee 97 3 92 4 King 97 3 97 NEBRASKA 8 Boehner* 80 20 1 19 Neugebauer 99 1 100 KANSAS 1 Fortenberry 88 12 97 9 Kaptur 98 2 97 20 Castro 98 2 98 1 Huelskamp 95 5 98 2 Terry 95 5 99 10 Turner 91 9 99 21 Smith 99 1 98 2 Jenkins 98 2 100 3 Smith 99 1 99 11 Fudge 98 2 96 22 Olson 98 2 97 3 Yoder 97 3 99 NEVADA 12 Tiberi 94 6 99 23 Gallego 78 22 99 4 Pompeo 99 1 86 1 Titus 97 3 99 13 Ryan 98 2 91 24 Marchant 98 2 97 KENTUCKY 2 Amodei 92 8 87 14 Joyce 90 10 98 25 Williams 99 1 94 1 Whitfield 91 9 95 3 Heck 88 12 98 15 Stivers 93 7 95 26 Burgess 94 6 99 2 Guthrie 96 4 98 4 Horsford 96 4 98 16 Renacci 92 8 100 27 Farenthold 96 4 99 3 Yarmuth 98 2 99 NEW HAMPSHIRE OKLAHOMA 28 Cuellar 73 27 99 4 Massie 89 11 100 1 Shea-Porter 93 7 99 1 Bridenstine 98 2 99 29 Green, G. 86 14 93 5 Rogers 92 8 98 2 Kuster 91 9 99 2 Mullin 98 2 95 30 Johnson, E. 97 3 98 6 Barr 96 4 99 NEW JERSEY 3 Lucas 94 6 100 31 Carter 96 4 97 LOUISIANA 1 Andrews2 100 0 95 4 Cole 92 8 98 32 Sessions 99 1 100 1 Scalise 99 1 99 1 Norcross2 92 8 100 5 Lankford 98 2 81 33 Veasey 96 4 99 2 Richmond 97 3 81 2 LoBiondo 82 18 100 OREGON 34 Vela 86 14 96 3 Boustany 96 4 99 3 Runyan 86 14 89 1 Bonamici 99 1 100 35 Doggett 99 1 99 4 Fleming 99 1 100 4 Smith 88 12 98 2 Walden 92 8 97 36 Stockman 89 11 92 5 McAllister 94 6 93 5 Garrett 96 4 99 3 Blumenauer 99 1 92 UTAH 6 Cassidy 94 6 95 6 Pallone 99 1 99 4 DeFazio 97 3 97 1 Bishop 99 1 94 MAINE 7 Lance 94 6 100 5 Schrader 81 19 99 2 Stewart 95 5 97 1 Pingree 98 2 98 8 Sires 97 3 97 PENNSYLVANIA 3 Chaffetz 97 3 86 2 Michaud 94 6 100 9 Pascrell 99 1 100 1 Brady 99 1 99 4 Matheson 55 45 98 MARYLAND 10 Payne 99 1 98 2 Fattah 97 3 95 VERMONT 1 Harris 98 2 99 11 Frelinghuysen 91 9 98 3 Kelly 94 6 99 AL Welch 97 3 99 2 Ruppersberger 93 7 95 12 Holt 99 1 97 4 Perry 96 4 99 VIRGINIA 3 Sarbanes 99 1 99 NEW MEXICO 5 Thompson 90 10 97 1 Wittman 97 3 99 4 Edwards 99 1 96 1 Lujan Grisham 94 6 96 6 Gerlach 90 10 98 2 Rigell 94 6 99 5 Hoyer 96 4 98 2 Pearce 95 5 99 7 Meehan 91 9 99 3 Scott 97 3 99 6 Delaney 92 8 97 3 Lujan 97 3 99 8 Fitzpatrick 82 18 97 4 Forbes 95 5 100 7 Cummings 99 1 99 NEW YORK 9 Shuster 94 6 94 5 Hurt 98 2 96 8 Van Hollen 99 1 99 1 Bishop 94 6 100 10 Marino 94 6 99 6 Goodlatte 97 3 99 MASSACHUSETTS 2 King 87 13 99 11 Barletta 92 8 99 7 Cantor3 94 6 87 1 Neal 98 2 97 3 Israel 95 5 99 12 Rothfus 96 4 100 7 Brat3 92 8 100 2 McGovern 99 1 97 4 McCarthy 93 7 59 13 Schwartz 98 2 73 8 Moran 96 4 95 3 Tsongas 98 2 98 5 Meeks 98 2 94 14 Doyle 98 2 96 9 Griffith 92 8 99 4 Kennedy 98 2 99 6 Meng 98 2 97 15 Dent 89 11 99 10 Wolf 89 11 98 5 Clark 99 1 96 7 Velazquez 100 0 93 16 Pitts 97 3 98 11 Connolly 95 5 99 6 Tierney 97 3 98 8 Jeffries 99 1 98 17 Cartwright 98 2 99 WASHINGTON 7 Capuano 98 2 94 9 Clarke 99 1 95 18 Murphy 93 7 99 1 DelBene 94 6 99 8 Lynch 96 4 97 10 Nadler 99 1 98 RHODE ISLAND 2 Larsen 95 5 99 9 Keating 96 4 98 11 Grimm 88 12 95 1 Cicilline 99 1 98 3 Herrera Beutler 90 10 99 MICHIGAN 12 Maloney, C. 97 3 97 2 Langevin 98 2 99 4 Hastings 91 9 97 1 Benishek 93 7 94 13 Rangel 99 1 67 SOUTH CAROLINA 5 McMorris 98 2 99 2 Huizenga 99 1 99 14 Crowley 99 1 95 1 Sanford 90 10 99 Rodgers 3 Amash 89 11 99 15 Serrano 99 1 96 2 Wilson 99 1 94 6 Kilmer 94 6 97 4 Camp 95 5 97 16 Engel 97 3 97 3 Duncan 97 2 99 7 McDermott 99 1 97 5 Kildee 99 1 100 17 Lowey 98 2 99 4 Gowdy 98 2 98 8 Reichert 87 13 99 6 Upton 91 9 95 18 Maloney, S. 88 12 99 5 Mulvaney 95 5 94 9 Smith 97 3 85 7 Walberg 99 1 99 19 Gibson 65 35 99 6 Clyburn 96 4 99 10 Heck 97 3 97 8 Rogers 94 6 94 20 Tonko 98 2 100 7 Rice 96 4 96 WEST VIRGINIA 9 Levin 99 1 100 21 Owens 75 25 99 SOUTH DAKOTA 1 McKinley 91 9 100 10 Miller 96 4 100 22 Hanna 84 16 90 AL Noem 96 4 93 2 Capito 92 8 90 11 Bentivolio 96 4 99 23 Reed 90 10 96 TENNESSEE 3 Rahall 65 35 100 12 Dingell 98 2 85 24 Maffei 83 17 100 1 Roe 97 3 99 WISCONSIN 13 Conyers 99 1 97 25 Slaughter 98 2 90 2 Duncan 90 10 99 1 Ryan 98 2 99 14 Peters 89 11 97 26 Higgins 98 2 100 3 Fleischmann 97 3 99 2 Pocan 99 1 99 MINNESOTA 27 Collins 94 6 96 4 DesJarlais 97 3 75 3 Kind 94 6 99 1 Walz 87 13 97 NORTH CAROLINA 5 Cooper 88 12 99 4 Moore 99 1 98 2 Kline 97 3 100 1 Butterfield 96 4 98 6 Black 99 1 98 5 Sensenbrenner 95 5 100 3 Paulsen 96 4 99 2 Ellmers 93 7 100 7 Blackburn 99 1 99 6 Petri 93 7 99 4 McCollum 98 2 95 3 Jones 71 29 91 8 Fincher 98 2 97 7 Duffy 97 3 92 5 Ellison 99 1 93 4 Price 97 3 100 9 Cohen 98 2 99 8 Ribble 96 4 99 6 Bachmann 95 5 92 5 Foxx 98 2 100 TEXAS WYOMING 7 Peterson 48 52 100 6 Coble 98 2 85 1 Gohmert 96 4 95 AL Lummis 97 3 99 8 Nolan 93 7 99 7 McIntyre 55 45 96 2 Poe 96 4 95

www.cq.com | 2013 CQ ALMANAC B-21