Vern voted to reduce funding for the Department of Education by Millions of dollars

This amendment would also have reduced discretionary levels of funding for the Departments of Labor and Health & Human Services by the same amount. This amendment was soundly defeated, despite Vern's vote in favor.
(6-13-2000, Roll #0269, HR 4577)

Reducing funding for federal departments that oversee students, workers and health is, in my opinion, a terrible idea. I would have voted No on this amendment.

Vern voted in favor of federally funding private school vouchers.

This bill would allow states to use certain federal funds designated for elementary and secondary education to provide scholarships, or vouchers, to low-income families to send their children to private schools, including religious schools. This bill was soundly defeated, despite Vern's vote in favor.
(11-4-97, Roll #0569, HR 2746.)

Back to Top

I firmly oppose vouchers, and believe that they will eventually cause more problems than they could ever solve. I would have voted No on this bill.

Vern voted to mandate that the District of Columbia only get federal funds if they use a voucher program.

This amendment was intended to create a non-profit corporation to administer federally-funded vouchers for low-income children in the District of Columbia. This bill never became law.
(8-6-98, Roll #0411, HR 4380)

Congress controls the budget for the District of Columbia. This vote underscores Vern's belief that vouchers are a good idea and should be federally-funded. I disagree on both points, and would have voted No on this amendment.

Vern voted against increasing Pell Grants to top high school students.

This amendment was to increase Pell Grant awards during the first two academic years of college to students who finish in the top 10% of their high school graduating class. The amendment to the bill passed, and the bill became law on 10-7-98, no thanks to Vern.
(5-5-98, Roll #0124, HR 6)

As college costs continue to increase, we need to decide as a society where we want to spend our money. I believe it is in our long-term national interest to provide access to a quality education from pre-school through college. I would have voted Yes on this amendment.

Vern voted against extending the appropriations for the programs of the Elementary & Secondary Education Act of 1965

This was a vote on a bill to extend for 6 years the authorization of appropriations for the programs under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. The bill passed by an obviously bipartisan 161 votes, but Vern voted against it.
(3-24-94, Roll #0095, HR 6) Even if you believe that federal support of public education needs to be re-thought, cutting funding for a public school program that's been in place for a generation without having anything to replace it seems irresponsible. I would have voted Yes on this bill.

Back to Top

Vern voted against the Assault Weapon Ban.

This was a vote on a bill to make unlawful the transfer, sale or possession of 19 types of assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices. This bill passed by a razor-thin margin of two votes, but Vern voted against the ban.
(5-15-94, Roll #0156, HR 4296)

I believe people have the right to keep and bear arms. But I don't believe it is an unbounded right. In my view, there is no reason for a citizen to have access to the kinds of weapons that are discussed in this legislation. I would have voted Yes on this bill.

Vern then voted to repeal the Assault Weapon Ban.

This bill repealed the 1994 ban on semi-automatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feed devices. Although the bill died in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Vern's votes in this matter are indisputable and undeniable.
(3-22-96, Roll #0092, HR 125)

Today assault weapons are still available, largely through purchasing the pieces and parts and spending 30 minutes modifying a legal weapon into an assault weapon. I would work toward closing this loophole to ensure that assault weapons are not available in any form. Had I been in Congress at this time, I would have voted No on this bill.

Vern voted against all background checks at Gun Shows, except the 24-hour check where the sellers are the checkers.

These three amendments were offered on the same day. The first amendment would have required the FBI to prioritize background checks from gun shows first, and to try to do it in 24 hours. This amendment passed, but Vern voted No.

The second amendment increased the time for gun show background checks to 72 hours, and defined what exactly a Gun Show is. This amendment failed, in part because Vern voted No.

The third amendment called for an instant background check, with the sellers at gun shows being the instant checkers. This amendment failed by 133 votes, but Vern voted Yes.
(6-18-99, Rolls #0234, 0235, 0244, HR 2122)

I believe there should be background checks on all gun purchases, and waiting up to 3 days for a gun shouldn't be that much of a hardship for anyone. I would have voted Yes, Yes and No on these amendments.

Vern voted to block funds from being used to enforce the agreement between the Justice Dept and Smith & Wesson

On March 17, 2000, Smith & Wesson and the Justice Department came to an agreement over lawsuits filed against the company. Among other provisions, Smith & Wesson is immediately required to sell all guns with locks, tell dealers to complete background checks on buyers even if it takes longer than 72 hours, and ensure within two years that their guns cannot be operated by a child. Even though Vern voted Yes to block the funds from being used to enforce this agreement, this amendment was defeated.
(7-20-2000, Roll #0427, HR 4871)

We must come to our senses about guns and gun safety. Although this may be an imperfect agreement, it is clearly a step in the right direction. I would have voted No on this amendment.

Back to Top

Vern voted to reduce Medicare spending by $270 billion dollars

This bill set out to reduce Medicare spending by $270 billion over seven years. This bill mercifully never became law. Had it become law, our current health care crisis would be even worse, and Medicare spending would continue to be reduced for at least the next two years. Vern voted Yes to reduce Medicare spending.
(10-19-95, Roll #0731, HR 2425)

This vote I really don't understand. This was a pet Republican bill, and the only people it affected were the old and the poor. Vern went right along the Party Line. I would have voted No then, I would vote No today, and I would vote No tomorrow.

Vern voted against the Managed Care Patient Protection, aka The Patient Bill of Rights

This bill would mandate certain consumer protection measures for managed care patients. Popularly known as The Patient Bill of Rights, it enjoyed bipartisan sponsorship and would have enabled patients and doctors more control over health issues. This passed in the House by 124 votes, but Vern voted No.
(10-7-99, Roll #0490, HR 2723)

As a small business owner and a father, I understand the high cost of health care. I have personally felt the grip and influence of the insurance companies over doctors and emergency care. It is wrong to let insurance companies be in charge of deeming what is medically necessary, and consumer/patients need to have some recourse. I am in favor of the Patient Bill of Rights, and I would have voted Yes on this bill.

Vern voted against allowing disabled families in public housing to own pets

This bill would allow elderly or disabled families in public housing to own common household pets, subject to reasonable requirements of the public housing management authority or the owner of the assisted housing. This bill passed by a whopping 375-48, but Vern voted No.
(5-9-96, Roll #0159, HR 2406)

Study after study shows that pets provide a sense of family and promote better health for the elderly and disabled. Yet, for some reason, Vern's against it. This seems to me a no-brainer. I would have voted Yes on this.

Back to Top

Vern voted against nearly every single major piece of campaign finance reform.

This first bill would require House candidates to raise half their funds in their home district; reduce PAC contributions limits; and require labor unions to get the permission of all their members before making political contributions with union dues. Vern voted Yes, but the bill failed.
(7-25-96, Roll #0365, HR 3820)

Reducing PAC contributions sounds OK on the surface, but this bill would have allowed individuals to increase their total contributions to candidates, parties and PACs from $25,000 to $50,000. Simultaneously, though, it would have required Labor Unions to get permission from each member before spending union dues on political purposes. Sounds to me like the wealthier citizens get to contribute more while the Workers Unions get shut down. I would have voted No on this bill.

This alternative proposal includes voluntary limits on House election campaigns, with reduced broadcast and postal costs for those who comply; reduces PAC contribution limits; and limits how much a candidate can give or loan his or her campaign. Vern voted No, and this amendment failed.
(7-25-96, Roll #0363, HR 3820)

This amendment also increases campaign finance disclosure, prohibits the bundling of campaign contributions and prohibits most soft money contributions. Although not perfect, this is a step in the right direction, and I would have voted Yes.

This amendment to the Motor Voter Law would repeal the requirement for States to provide voter registration by mail. Also, a proof-of-citizenship requirement would be necessary in order to register to vote, and, when voting, a photo ID would be required. Vern voted Yes, but this amendment was rejected by 95 votes.
(7-30-98, Roll #0358, HR 2183)

We need to make it easier for people to vote, not harder. Repealing the Motor Voter Law makes no sense, and requiring proof-of-citizenship and a Photo ID when registering or voting only makes it tougher for many people to do so. I would have voted No on this amendment.

This amendment would have banned soft money, regulate express advocacy ads within 60 days of an election, and increase disclosure requirements. Vern voted No, but the amendment passed by 51 votes.
(8-3-98, Roll #0379, HR 2183)

Soft Money is money raised by national and state parties that is not regulated by federal campaign finance law because it is for general party building, not a specific candidate. But quite often, this money is funneled into ads that support or tear down a specific candidate under the guise of general party building. It has to end, and I would have voted Yes on this.

This bill would amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 by banning soft money and imposing restrictions on issue advocacy campaigning. Vern voted No, even though bipartisan support gave it a 75-vote victory margin.
(9-14-99, Roll #0422, HR 417)

Again, soft money has to be reined in. Issue advocacy ads need to be restricted in some ways. And again, although not a perfect piece of legislation, I would have voted Yes on this amendment.

We must have serious campaign finance reform and we need it now.

Back to Top

Vern voted to reduce funding for the Departments of Labor and Health & Human Services by millions of dollars.

This was a vote on an amendment to reduce discretionary funding for the Departments of Labor, Education and Health & Human Services. Vern voted Yes, but the amendment failed by 50 votes.
(6-13-2000, Roll #0269, HR 4577)

Reducing funding for departments that oversee workers, students and health seems to me a terrible idea. I would have voted No on this amendment.

Vern voted to take $25 million from the OSHA budget to fund the 21st Century Teacher Scholarship Act

This amendment would have provided $25 million in funding for the programs outlined in the 21st Century Teacher Scholarship Act if it becomes law. But the money would come from the Occupational Safety & Health Administration's budget. Vern voted Yes, but this amendment failed by 111 votes.
(6-13-2000, Roll #0267, HR4577)

On the surface, funding a teacher scholarship sounds like a good idea. But taking the money from the agency that oversees worker's safety is a bad idea. I would have voted No on this amendment.

Vern voted in favor of exempting certain workers from overtime pay requirements.

This bill would exempt inside sales people who have specialized or technical knowledge, whose sales are mostly to previous customers, who earn at least a part commission, and who earn no more than $22,500 from earning overtime pay. Vern voted Yes, and this bill passed, but never became law.
(3-26-98, Roll #0078, HR 2888)

It seems to me that those workers specifically need to be compensated for overtime. I would have voted No.

Vern voted to require anyone hired by Federal Government is subject to random, unannounced drug testing

This amendment requires that anyone hired by the Federal Government can be randomly tested for drug use, without warning. Vern voted Yes, but this amendment failed by 158 votes.
(9-16-98, Roll #0443, HR 4550)

A case can easily be made that mandatory and unannounced drug testing of employees is a Constitutional violation. Even if it's not, there is no reason to have this kind of a policy. I would have voted No.

Back to Top

Vern introduced an amendment to abolish the National Endowment for the Arts, and provide $80 million in block grants to the states

Vern's amendment would have completely eliminated the NEA. In its place would have been block grants that the states would dole out, but the funds could not be used for art that is obscene or sexually explicit. Vern obviously voted Yes, but this was defeated by 116 votes.
(7-11-97, Roll #0266, HR 2107)

Vern doesn't introduce a lot of legislation, but when he does, it provides a glimpse into how he really thinks. A bipartisan vote here underscores the folly of this amendment. To abolish the NEA and replace it with arts funding that will be even more controversial-after all, who is to decide what is obscene?-seems to me to be incredibly counterproductive. I would have voted No.

Back to Top

Vern voted for a Constitutional Amendment for Term Limits-twice!

The first bill proposed a Constitutional Amendment that would term limit members of the House and Senate to a total of 12 years each. Vern voted Yes, but the bill did not pass by a large enough margin regarding a Constitutional Amendment.
(3-29-95, Roll #0277, H Joint Res 73)

The second bill was the same as the first, with the exact same outcome.
(2-12-97, Roll #0021, H Joint Res 2)

I have always believed Term Limits were a bad idea. We've always had term limits-when voters decide to elect a new representative. Today, Vern is not sold on the idea of term limits. But I believe that if you feel so strongly about an issue that you want to amend the United States Constitution, you ought to have the courage of that conviction three years later.

Vern voted for a Constitutional Amendment for Supermajority to Raise Taxes-five times!

This legislation, offered each year, proposes amending the Constitution to require any legislation that would increase federal revenue, including raising taxes, to be approved by a 2/3 majority vote of the entire House and Senate. Vern voted Yes each time, and each time it failed to reach the required 2/3 vote regarding a Constitutional Amendment.
(4-15-96, Roll #0117, H Joint Res 159…4-15-97, Roll #0078, H Joint Res 62…4-22-98, Roll #0102, H Joint Res 111…4-15-99, Roll #0090, H Joint Res 37…4-12-2000, Roll #0119, H Joint Res 94)

If we really want to have a balanced budget, and be able to adjust our economic priorities when times are not as good as they are now, it makes no sense to have a Constitutional Amendment that would tie the hands of the Congress. And there has not been even once where a 2/3 majority has voted in favor of this idea. I would vote No every time this came up.

Vern voted four times to impeach President Clinton

A recap: Article One was for committing perjury before a federal grand jury; Article Two was for committing perjury in the Paula Jones civil lawsuit against the President; Article Three was for Obstruction of Justice; Article Four was for abuse and misuse of power and for committing perjury before Congress.

Vern voted to impeach the President on all four counts. But only Articles One and Three made it out of the House. And in the Senate, neither article even reached a simple majority.
(12-19-98, Rolls #0543-0546, H Res 611)

These are the votes that set in motion my run for Congress. Whatever you think about President Clinton's behavior, it was a private matter. It was-and remains-none of my business. Impeaching the president for this private behavior also dummies down the entire idea of what impeachment is, and leaves open future political motivations for impeachments on similar grounds. Vern disregarded the advice of 300 Constitutional scholars, every living available former President, including Gerald Ford, who advocated censure, not impeachment, and the overwhelming majority of Americans. Every elected public official must have a zone of privacy in which to retreat. I would have voted No on each count of Impeachment.

Back to Top