Click here for the scorecards of U.S. House members by state.  (requires Adobe Acrobat)  

Click here to see how your Senator scored for the 106th Congress through November 3, 2000

National Right to Life Scorecard on Abortion and Other Right-to-Life Issues

U.S. House of Representatives 1999-2000
Published by the National Right to Life Committee, October 10, 2000

This is a compilation of the most significant congressional votes on abortion, assisted suicide, and other right-to-life issues that occurred in the U.S. House of Representatives during the 106^th Congress (1999 and 2000).

On November 7, 2000, American voters will elect the entire House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate for the 107^th Congress, as well as a new president.

This scorecard includes specific information on how each member of the House voted during 1999-2000 on the issues of key importance to the pro-life movement -- a total of 20 roll call votes.

Each member of the House has received a "score" for the entire two-year Congress, which is the percentage of times that he or she voted in accord with the position of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) on these issues (counting all of the pertinent roll call votes for which the lawmaker was present).

Overview of 1999-2000

During 1999 and 2000, the pro-life side usually prevailed on votes in the House of Representatives. The pro-life side had far less success in the Senate, where a bare majority of senators favor Roe v. Wade. But the pro-abortion side's greatest asset was the White House, where President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore remained strongly opposed to pro-life legislation. The positions of the Clinton-Gore Administration on specific issues are noted in the explanatory material on specific votes.

On the 20 House roll calls compiled here, the position supported by NRLC prevailed on 17. The House approved a succession of major bills supported by NRLC, including the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, the Child Custody Protection Act, and the Pain Relief Promotion Act. However, most of these bills were blocked in the Senate by threatened filibusters.

The Senate did approve the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, but only after attaching an amendment endorsing Roe v. Wade (51-47). On June 28, 2000, before a House-Senate conference committee could meet to reconcile the two different versions of the bill, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a 5-4 ruling striking down a Nebraska law banning partial-birth abortions. After studying that ruling, pro-life lawmakers decided to set aside the federal bill for the rest of the year and pursue other pro-life legislation.

Effects of Party Control

The general tenor of any Congress is determined in large part by which party holds majority control. During 1999-2000, both houses of Congress were under Republican majority control. At the end of the Congress, the Republican-Democrat ratios were 54-46 in the Senate and 222-209 in the House (with two House seats occupied by independents, and two vacancies).

The leaders of the majority party play the dominant role in setting the congressional agenda. In 1999-2000, the top leaders elected by congressional Republicans were all pro-life, including House Speaker Dennis Hastert (Il.), House Majority Leader Dick Armey (Tx.), House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (Tx.), Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (Ms.), and Senate Assistant Majority Leader Don Nickles (Ok.). The top leaders elected by congressional Democrats, House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt (Mo.) and Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (SD), were pro-abortion.

Members of the majority party occupy the chairs of congressional committees. In 1999-2000, the Republican chairmen of most (but not all) key committees and subcommittees were pro-life.

A large majority of congressional Republicans vote consistently pro-life, while a large majority of congressional Democrats vote consistently pro-abortion. During 2000, for example, at least 81% of Republicans voted pro-life on every NRLC-scored vote, and that percentage rose to 96% on the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Among House Democrats, the average percentage voting pro-life was 20%, rising to 37% on the partial-birth abortion bill.

In the Senate, the disparity between the parties was even sharper, as demonstrated by the roll call on the October 1999 vote on an amendment offered by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) to endorse Roe v. Wade. On that roll call, 85% of Republicans voted pro-life, while only 4% of Democrats (two out of 45 Democratic senators) voted pro-life.

However, lawmakers who vote contrary to the majority of their party can determine the outcome on many key pro-life issues. For example, while the great majority of House Democrats are pro-abortion, the votes of pro-life Democrats have been critical to pro-life successes in the House, because on most issues they more than exceed the number of pro-abortion Republican lawmakers who would otherwise be able to derail pro-life legislation.

On November 7, 2000, American voters will select a new president. In addition, the entire House of Representatives will stand for election, as will one-third of the Senate. The Democrats would gain control of the House if they achieve a net gain of six seats. In the Senate, it would require a net shift of four or five seats (depending on who is elected vice-president, the presiding officer of the Senate) to switch party control to the Democrats.

How to Interpret this Scorecard

This scorecard can be an important tool in helping you evaluate how your representatives in Congress are voting on some of the right-to-life issues that are important to you and to NRLC. However, it has limitations that you should keep in mind.

First, while roll call votes on the House and Senate floors determine the outcome of many important pro-life issues, they provide only a "snapshot" of how a lawmaker responded on the limited range of right-to-life issues that came before him for a recorded vote during one given year. For a more complete picture, you should also refer to reliable information regarding the lawmaker's positions on a broader range of pro-life issues -- for example, NRLC scorecards for earlier years, and reports on recent pro-life events in Congress that appear in most editions of the National Right to Life News, which is mailed to subscribers and donors and which is also posted on the NRLC website, www.nrlc.org.

Detailed information on various pro-life and pro-abortion legislative proposals is also available at the NRLC website under "Federal Legislation."

Second, while a lawmaker's percentage "score" for a year provides a useful reading of the representative's overall sympathy for pro-life legislation, it should not be stretched too far. The "score" is a simple calculation of how often the lawmaker voted in accord with NRLC's position on the roll calls for which he or she was present. Thus, each amendment or bill included in the scorecard is given the same weight in calculating the score. But in reality, some roll calls are on issues that are considerably more important than others. Thus, particularly with regard to lawmakers with "mixed" voting records, it is important to study the explanatory material in order to properly assess their overall degree of support for the pro-life cause.

Third, in order to accurately assess a lawmaker's performance, it is necessary to study the full pattern of his votes on any particular issue. In order to actually win passage of a pro-life bill, it is often necessary for pro-life forces to first defeat hostile procedural motions and/or a "substitute amendment" put forward by opponents of the bill. (" Asubstitute amendment" is an alternative proposal that, if it wins a majority vote, wipes out the entire original bill.) Sometimes, a lawmaker who is not truly supportive of a pro-life measure will join opponents in voting for hostile procedural motions or substitute amendments -- but, if these attacks fail, will then vote for passage of the pro-life bill.

For example, on the Child Custody Protection Act, nine House members voted for a motion/amendment that would have destroyed the bill, but when that motion failed, they turned around and voted to pass the bill.

Thus, roll calls on procedural questions and substitute amendments are included in this scorecard when they really amounted to votes on the basic content or fate of legislation. Such votes -- as well as those on final passage of bills -- should be examined closely to determine how supportive individual lawmakers really were in advancing pro-life legislation.

House Vote No. 1

1. On April 5, 2000, the House approved a bill to place a national ban on partial-birth abortion, except to save the life of the mother.

Similar bills were approved by Congress in 1996 and 1998, but were vetoed by President Clinton, with the approval of Vice President Gore. On each occasion, the House voted by more than the required two-thirds majority to override the veto, but in the Senate the vetoes were narrowly sustained.

In the 2000 vote shown here as Vote No. 1 (House roll call 104), the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (HR 3660) was approved 287-141 -- one vote above a two-thirds margin. Among Republicans, 209 lawmakers supported the bill, while eight opposed it. Among Democrats, 77 representatives supported the bill, but 132 opposed it.

Although the Senate approved a similar bill (S. 1692, sponsored by Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa.), it attached some undesirable amendments. On June 28, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a 5-4 decision invalidating a Nebraska law banning partial-birth abortions, which contained language similar (but not identical) to HR 3660. Pro-life lawmakers then decided to temporarily set aside the federal bill and to devote their energies to pushing other pro-life bills for the rest of the year.

2-3. On June 8, 1999, during consideration of the Fiscal Year 2000 Agriculture Appropriations bill (HR 1906), pro-life Congressman Tom Coburn (R-Ok.) offered an amendment to prohibit the Food and Drug Administration from using federal funds "for the testing, development, or approval . . . of any drug for the chemical inducement of abortion" (such as the RU-486 abortion pill). The Coburn Amendment passed, 217-214, shown here as Vote No. 2 (House roll call 173). This was a pro-life win. However, the Clinton-Gore White House declared that the amendment was "unacceptable," and it lacked sufficient support in the Senate, so it was dropped in a House-Senate conference committee.

On July 10, 2000, during consideration of the Fiscal Year 2001 Agriculture Appropriations bill (HR 4461), Dr. Coburn tried again, offering an amendment to prohibit the FDA from approving "any drug intended solely for the chemical inducement of abortion" (such as the RU-486 abortion pill).

Sixty-five House members were absent for this vote, because it occurred on a Monday evening on which bad weather delayed the flights of many House members, causing the amendment to fail, 182-197, shown here as Vote No. 3 (House roll call 373).

Abortion on Military Bases

4-5. These votes concerned the issue of whether U.S. military medical facilities should provide abortions. In 1996, Congress (over President Clinton's objections) enacted a ban on the performance of abortions at U.S. military medical facilities (except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest), even if the direct costs were paid by the clients. On June 9, 1999, pro-abortion Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Ca.) offered an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2000 Defense Authorization bill (HR 1401) to repeal the pro-life policy, and thereby require military facilities to provide abortion on request to military personnel and dependents, with clients paying the direct costs. The Sanchez Amendment failed, 203-225, shown here as Vote No. 4 (House roll call 184).

A year later, during consideration of the Fiscal Year 2001 Defense Authorization bill (HR 4205), Sanchez tried again, and her amendment failed again, 195-221, shown here as Vote No. 5 (House roll call 203).

In both 1999 and 2000, the Senate also rejected attempts to repeal the pro-life policy.

Transportation of Minors for Abortions Without Parental Knowledge
(Child Custody Protection Act)

6-7. The Child Custody Protection Act (HR 1218), sponsored by Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fl.), would make it a federal crime to transport a minor across a state line for an abortion, if this circumvents a state law requiring parental or judicial involvement in the minor's abortion decision. The bill would protect the effectiveness of the parental involvement laws of more than 20 states.

When HR 1218 came before the House on June 30, 1999, pro-abortion Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Tx.) offered what is called a "motion to recommit" the bill. If successful, this motion would have gutted the bill, replacing it with an alternative proposal under which adult brothers and sisters, grandparents, and any "religious leader of the minor" would be exempt from the law. Fortunately, the Jackson-Lee motion failed, 164-268, shown here as Vote No. 6 (House roll call 260).

The House then passed the Child Custody Protection Act on a vote of 270-159, shown here as Vote No. 7 (House roll call 261).

The Senate never took up either HR 1218 or a companion bill (S. 661) introduced by Senator Spencer Abraham (R-Mi.), due to threats of filibuster and the opposition of the Clinton-Gore Administration.

8-9. On July 15, 1999, the House took up the Fiscal Year 2000 appropriations bill for the Treasury Department and certain other federal agencies (HR 2490). The bill includes funding for the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) program. Pro-abortion Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Ct.) offered an amendment to remove a provision that continued a ban on coverage of abortions (except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest) under federal employees' health insurance plans. The federal government provides, on average, 72% of the cost of federal employees' health plans.

The DeLauro Amendment failed, 188-230, shown here as Vote No. 8 (House roll call 301) -- a pro-life win.

A year later, during consideration of the Fiscal Year 2001 Treasury Appropriations Bill (HR 4871) on July 20, 2000, DeLauro tried again. Her amendment failed 184-230, shown here as Vote No. 9 (House roll call 422).

United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)

10. During budget negotiations in October 1998, pro-life lawmakers were able to cut off U.S. funds for 1999 to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). The UNFPA participates in China's coercive population-control program and has promoted abortion in a variety of other ways.

However, on July 20, 1999, pro-abortion Congressman Tom Campbell (R-Ca.) offered an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2000 State Department reauthorization bill (HR 2415), to authorize resumption of funding of up to $25 million to the UNFPA in 2000 under certain conditions, including that the money not be spent in China. NRLC opposed the Campbell Amendment, but it was adopted 221-198, a pro-life loss shown here as Vote No. 10 (House roll call 312). This funding was part of the final bill that was signed into law by President Clinton in November 1999.

Foreign Aid for Abortion-Promoting Organizations

11-12. In a significant win for pro-life forces, for the first time in his seven years in the White House, in November 1999 President Clinton was forced to accept restrictions on U.S. funding of groups that promote abortion in foreign nations. In end-of-year budget negotiations with congressional Republican leaders, Clinton reluctantly agreed to language under which 96% of U.S. funds for population-control could be given only to groups that agreed not to perform abortions or campaign to legalize abortion in foreign nations.

This issue involves the U.S. "population assistance" program, which provides funding to groups to run population-control programs in less-developed countries. Much of the U.S. "population assistance" money goes to private organizations that operate in nations in which the laws protect unborn children, allowing abortion in only very rare circumstances. This applies, for example, to nearly all nations in Latin America and to many nations in Africa.

Under the so-called "Mexico City Policy" enforced by Presidents Reagan and Bush until 1992, U.S. "population assistance" funds could be given only to those private organizations that agreed not to perform abortions or lobby for abortions. In 1993, President Clinton nullified that pro-life policy. Subsequently, the Clinton-Gore Administration actively urged foreign nations to recognize abortion as a "fundamental human right,"* and funneled much of the U.S. aid to groups that actively promote legal abortion, such as the London-based International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF).

In 1999, Clinton accepted the pro-life language, authored by Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ), in return for nearly $1 billion in disputed "arrearages" (back dues) for the United Nations (UN) -- a top Administration foreign policy priority. The deal was part of a massive, $385 billion budget bill that was negotiated between the White House and congressional leaders, which Clinton signed into law on November 29, 1999.

An essential predicate to this pro-life victory was a roll call that occurred in the House of Representatives on July 29, 1999, shown here as Vote No. 11 (House roll call 349). The House approved, 228-200, an NRLC-backed amendment offered by Smith and Rep. James Barcia (D-Mi.) to the Fiscal Year 2000 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill (HR 2606) to cut off U.S. population-control assistance to any private organization that works to weaken foreign abortion laws.

A year later, on July 13, 2000, the House considered the Fiscal Year 2001 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill (HR 4811). As approved by the Appropriations Committee, the bill renewed the 1999 pro-life language described above. On the House floor, pro-abortion Rep. Jim Greenwood (R-Pa.) offered an amendment to remove the pro-life provision, but his amendment failed, 206-221, shown here as Vote No. 12 (House roll call 396). As a result, the bill passed the House with the pro-life provision intact.

This was an important pro-life win, but the final outcome has yet to be determined. While the House passed HR 4811 with the pro-life provision intact, there is no comparable language in the version of the bill approved by the Senate, and the Clinton-Gore White House strongly opposes the pro-life provision. The final resolution of the issue must be negotiated between congressional Republican leaders and Gore before Congress adjourns for the year.

Funding of Abortion by Bureau of Prisons

13-14. On August 4, 1999, the House considered an appropriations bill (HR 2670) that contained a provision to extend a ban on funding of abortions by the federal Bureau of Prisons, except where the life of the mother is endangered or in cases of rape. On Vote No. 13 (House roll call 373), the House rejected an amendment by pro-abortion Congresswoman Diana DeGette (D-Co.), to remove the pro-life provision, 160-268.

The following year, on June 22, 2000, during consideration of another appropriations bill (HR 4690), DeGette again offered her amendment, which again failed, 156-254, shown here as Vote No. 14 (House roll call 318).

Pro-life Bargaining Rights for Physicians

15. On June 30, 2000, during consideration of a bill called the Quality Health-Care Coalition Act (HR 1304), the House adopted a pro-life amendment offered by Congressman Tom Coburn (R-Ok.).

HR 1304 would allow doctors to bargain collectively with Health Maintenance Organizations and other providers of health insurance (which is currently prohibited by anti-trust laws). The Coburn Amendment provided that doctors would not be allowed to negotiate "specifically relating to requiring a health plan to cover abortion or abortion services."

The National Right to Life Committee supported the Coburn Amendment, without taking a position on HR 1304 itself. The Coburn Amendment was opposed by the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL), which said, "An amendment exempting abortion from negotiations between providers and managed-care entities would violate the entire concept of collective bargaining by health professionals . . . If a doctor cannot perform an abortion, he or she is not fulfilling the mission of providing complete care for the patient."

The Coburn Amendment was adopted, 213-202, shown here as Vote No. 15 (House roll call 371). The House then passed HR 1304 as amended, but the bill was not acted on by the Senate.

16-17. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act (HR 2436) would establish punishments for persons who injure or kill an unborn child while committing any of 70 already-established federal crimes of violence. NRLC was consulted in the drafting of the bill, which was introduced by Rep. Lindsey Graham (R-SC).

[For more information on the bill, see "Key Points on the Unborn Victims of Violence Act" at the NRLC website, www.nrlc.org. The full text of the bill also appears there.]

When the House took up the bill on September 30, 1999, opponents offered an alternative proposal, called a "substitute amendment," offered by Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Ca.). The Lofgren Amendment would have provided punishments for persons who, while committing violent crimes, cause "interruption to the normal course of the pregnancy" -- but without recognizing the unborn child as a victim of the crime.

In a letter to House members, NRLC strongly opposed the Lofgren Amendment because it "would codify the fiction that when a criminal assailant injures a mother and kills her unborn child, there has been only a compound injury to the mother, but no loss of any human life."

The Lofgren Amendment failed on a vote of 201-224, shown here as Vote No. 16 (House roll call 464).

The House then passed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (HR 2436) by a vote of 254-172, shown as Vote No. 17 (House roll call 465).

The bill was supported by 198 Republicans and 56 Democrats. It was opposed by 21 Republicans, 150 Democrats, and one independent.

The Senate did not take up either HR 2436 or a companion bill (S. 1673) has been introduced by Senator Mike DeWine (R-Ohio), due to a threatened filibuster and opposition by the Clinton-Gore Administration.

Pro-Life Free Speech About Federal Politicians
(Shays-Meehan "Campaign Finance Reform" Bill )

18. Vote No. 18 is the roll call by which the House passed the Shays-Meehan "campaign reform" bill (HR 417) on September 14, 1999, by a vote of 252-177 (House roll call 422).

NRLC strongly opposes the Shays-Meehan bill, because it would place sweeping restrictions on the right of citizen groups (such as NRLC and NRLC affiliates) to communicate with the public regarding the positions and votes of members of Congress and other federal politicians on pro-life issues, and regarding upcoming votes in Congress. The bill is also opposed by many other groups, including the Christian Coalition, Concerned Women for America, the National Rifle Association, the ACLU, and many major business groups.

[For additional information about the provisions of the Shays-Meehan bill that would adversely affect NRLC and other pro-life groups, see the NRLC website, www.nrlc.org, under "Campaign Finance Reform and Free Speech."]

The Shays-Meehan bill is strongly supported by President Clinton and Vice-president Gore. The prime sponsors of the bill are pro-abortion Reps. Chris Shays (R-Ct.) and Martin Meehan (D-Mass.). The bill was supported by 54 Republicans and 197 Democrats. It was opposed by 164 Republicans and 13 Democrats.

Of the 13 Democrats who opposed the bill, 10 regularly vote pro-life. They were: Jim Barcia (Mi.), Virgil Goode (Va.), Ralph Hall (Tx.), Chris John (La.), Alan Mollohan (WV), John Murtha (Pa.), Collin Peterson (Mn.), Nick Rahall (WV), Bart Stupak (Mi.), and James Traficant (Ohio).

Pain Relief Promotion Act

19-20. Votes No. 19-20 dealt with the Pain Relief Promotion Act (HR 2260), a bill to prevent the prescription of federally controlled drugs for assisted suicide or euthanasia, while fostering their use to alleviate pain.

This bill was made necessary by two events. First, the state of Oregon legalized physician-assisted suicide, a law that went into effect in November 1997. Second, U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno ruled that Oregon physicians would be allowed to use federally controlled drugs to assist suicides.

Under federal law and regulations, the use and prescription of certain narcotics and other dangerous drugs (collectively called "controlled substances") is generally prohibited, unless a doctor with a special federal "registration" to prescribe them does so for a "legitimate medical purpose." In November 1997, as the Oregon law legalizing assisting suicide came into effect, the federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) announced that since assisting suicide is not a "legitimate medical purpose," doctors' registrations to prescribe federally controlled drugs could be revoked if they used them to kill patients. However, in June 1998, Attorney General Reno reversed this ruling, saying that federally controlled drugs could be used to assist suicide in Oregon or other states that authorized such use by changes in state law.

In response to the Reno ruling, Congressman Henry Hyde (R-Il.), the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and Congressman Bart Stupak (D-Mi.), introduced the Pain Relief Promotion Act (HR 2260), with the strong support of NRLC. The bill would in effect restore the original DEA ruling barring the use of federally controlled drugs for assisted suicide or euthanasia, while clearly affirming that physicians may vigorously employ these drugs to control pain, even if this entails the secondary risk of shortening a patient's life. As a positive alternative to euthanasia, the bill authorizes $5 million annually to foster training of health care professionals in, and to collect and disseminate protocols to achieve, better pain management and palliative care."

When the House took up the bill on October 27, 1999, Congresswoman Nancy Johnson (R-Ct.) offered a "killer substitute" amendment -- that is, an amendment to wipe out the bill and replace it with an entirely different measure, which would have removed the provisions to prevent the prescription of federally controlled drugs for assisted suicide or euthanasia. NRLC opposed the Johnson substitute, which failed, 188-239, shown here as Vote No. 19 (House roll call 543).

The House then passed HR 2260 on a vote of 271 to 156, shown here as Vote No. 20 (House roll call 544). The bill was supported by 200 Republicans and 71 Democrats. It was opposed by 20 Republicans, 135 Democrats, and one independent. The Clinton Administration Justice Department opposed House passage of HR 2260.

Senator Don Nickles (R-Ok.) introduced and actively worked for a companion bill, S. 1272.

Thumbnail Descriptions of House Votes

Here are thumbnail descriptions of the basic issue for each roll call vote in the House of Representatives recorded in this scorecard. For more complete descriptions, please see the explanatory material above.

Vote 1: Should partial-birth abortions be banned, except to save the life of mother?

Votes 2-3: Should the Food and Drug Administration be prohibited from testing, developing, or approving drugs solely for chemically induced abortion?

Votes 4-5: Should U.S. military medical facilities be prohibited from performing abortions, except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest?

Votes 6-7: Should it be a federal crime for a non-parent to take a minor girl across state lines for an abortion, if this circumvents a state law that says her parents (or a judge) have a right to be involved in her abortion decision?

Votes 8-9: Should federal employees' health insurance plans be prohibited from covering abortions (except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest)?

Vote 10: Should the U.S. contribute to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), despite its support for China's coercive population-control program?

Votes 11-12: Should the U.S. foreign aid program for "population assistance" be prohibited from giving money to private organizations that perform abortions or that campaign to legalize abortion in foreign nations?

Votes 13-14: Should the federal Bureau of Prisons be prohibited from paying for abortions, except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape?

Vote 15: Should doctors be prohibited from collective bargaining to force a Health Maintenance Organization to cover abortion or abortion services?

Votes 16-17: When an unborn child is injured or killed during the commission of a violent federal crime, should that unborn child be legally recognized as a victim of a crime?

Vote 18: Should federal law restrict the right of citizen groups to freely criticize or praise the positions or voting records of members of Congress or other federal politicians in communications to the public?

Votes 19-20: Should a state be permitted to authorize the use of federally controlled drugs for assisted suicide or euthanasia?

X    Vote for pro-life policy (supported NRLC position)

O    Vote for anti-life policy (opposed NRLC position)

?     Absent or not voting

S    Speaker (usually exercises option not to vote)

I      Ineligible (not a House member at the time of the vote)

Click on your state for voting records.

Alabama          Idaho                  Minnesota          North Carolina       Texas            

Alaska             Illinois                 Mississippi        North Dakota         Utah

Arizona           Indiana                Missouri            Ohio                    Vermont

Arkansas         Iowa                    Montana            Oklahoma            Virginia

California          Kansas               Nebraska           Oregon                 Washington

Colorado           Kentucky           Nevada              Pennsylvania         West Virginia

Connecticut       Louisiana           New Hampshire  Rhode Island          Wisconsin

Delaware           Maine               New Jersey        South Carolina        Wyoming

Florida              Maryland            New Mexico       South Dakota

Georgia            Massachusetts    New York          Tennessee

Hawaii              Michigan           When you're on the page for a given state, you can click your "back" button to return to this page.

Click here for full explanation of votes.