2016
CAP
UAW NATIONAL
COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM (CAP)
WASHINGTON, D.C. • January 24-27, 2016
2016
CAP
2016 CAP
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2016
CAP
A Message from Dennis Williams
Issues.................................................................................................. 1
Political Almanac............................................................................ 28
Roll Call ............................................................................................57
UAW NATIONAL COMMUNITY
ACTION PROGRAM (CAP)
WASHINGTON, D.C. Jan. 24-27, 2016
2016
CAP
2016
CAP
A MESSAGE FROM DENNIS WILLIAMS
Greetings fellow UAW activists:
Our UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) exists to make sure what
is won at the bargaining table is not taken away in Washington or the state capitols.
Its importance to our efforts to build a better tomorrow for all American workers cannot be overstated. Without the tireless work of UAW CAP activists in 2008
and 2012, President Obama might not have been elected and re-elected. Without
President Obama – and the hard work of tens of thousands of UAW members – the
domestic auto industry would not have come back in such dramatic fashion from
the dark days of 2008-2010, if at all.
This presidential election year is just as critical for our members. Will we elect
a president who believes that unions have a critical role to play in the life of working Americans and in the future of our nation? Will our next president ensure that
her or his Supreme Court and National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) nominees
understand the impact of their decisions on the average American worker? Or will
we sit on the sidelines and let wealthy neo-conservatives determine who is the next president is and
how they will further degrade the union movement, depress wages, and worsen economic inequality?
Beyond the high-profile presidential election – but just as important – is the makeup of the next
Congress. As we have discovered, having a Congress that can accomplish something for the American worker is just as important as having a president who believes in them. Will we elect lawmakers
who understand that compromise and negotiation is a part of the legislative process and healthy for
democracy? Or will we have the same lawmakers who shut down the federal government and were
responsible for the gridlock that Washington has been in for most of the last eight years? Will our
work in state capitals and local communities assure that statewide and local officeholders honor our
views on the rights of working men and women?
The record of the 114th Congress, which is detailed in this book, isn’t one that contains a lot of
victories for working Americans. Without President Obama’s veto pen, it could have been much
worse. Our union has a crucial part to play in the 2016 elections. We have to ensure that future appointments to the NLRB understand workers’ rights and will uphold them in their decisions. We need
lawmakers who understand that the Trans-Pacific Partnership will destroy decent-paying jobs in this
country even worse than NAFTA did. We need all elected officials to understand that low-paid, temporary work hurts workers and our nation.
The influence of the Koch Brothers and other wealthy ultra-conservatives has been demonstrated
time and time again in the state capitals. So-called right-to-work legislation has advanced into the industrial heartland. Decades of progress on issues such as health and safety, workers’ compensation and
others is in peril.
We must be the tip of the spear that helps cut through the political gridlock and anti-worker legislation that right-wing ideologues have mired our nation in. We do this through actively participating in
the electoral process. We educate our co-workers on the benefits of electing pro-worker candidates and
the dangers of complacency. We work for pro-worker candidates by phone banking, door knocking,
holding conversations in the workplace and at the dinner table, and on social media. We thank you for
what you have done in the past and for what we know you will do in this election year. We ask for your
continued participation in your union, its CAP program and in your community to make a better future
for all Americans.
In Solidarity,
Dennis Williams
2016
ISSUES
2016
CAP
The Right to Organize and Bargain Collectively.............................2
International Trade ...........................................................................4
Jobs and the Economy......................................................................7
2016
The Federal Budget and Taxes....................................................... 10
CAP
Health Care...................................................................................... 12
Energy and the Environment.......................................................... 16
Retirement Security......................................................................... 18
Higher Education and Training ..................................................... 20
Defending Our Civil Rights............................................................ 22
Worker and Consumer Protections............................................... 26
2016
CAP
2016
CAP
ISSUES
THE RIGHT
TO ORGANIZE AND
BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY
America needs a strong labor movement to strengthen
and expand our economy. As income, wealth and power
become increasingly concentrated among a few billionaires, it is more important than ever that we join to raise
our standard of living and win justice for all. That is
true in the workplace, where a union voice raises wages
and benefits and provides fair treatment. It is also true
in the broader political sphere, where strong unions are
an essential check on unaccountable corporate power. The far right knows this. That is why the right
to organize and bargain collectively is under unprecedented political attack nationwide. The harder it is
to organize and the more limits placed on unions and
collective bargaining, the tougher it will be to advance
a broad agenda for democracy and economic justice.
When unions are weaker, corporate power can dominate
people power at the expense of the middle class. Our
fight for the right to organize and bargain collectively is
really a fight for the future of our democracy. What’s at Stake for UAW Members? As working people, unions are our vehicle to improve
our lives. Through our union, we can fix issues in
the workplace – from abusive supervisors to health
and safety problems and unfair scheduling policies.
Through our union, we can bargain for better wages
and benefits. Through our union, we can win political
change to create greater fairness for all workers. Like any union, we are only as strong as our solidarity at the workplace and our density in our core sectors. When we do not stand together at the workplace,
employers do not see the union as a powerful force
– and workplace issues do not get fixed. When density
falls in our sectors, so does our power to set standards.
The employers we bargain with can point to their
nonunion competition as a reason to hold down wages
and benefits. That is exactly what has happened in auto
over the last 30 years as union density has fallen. In
the United States, union automakers now make just 55
percent of the cars.
2
That is why organizing – internally within our own
workplaces, as well as at non-union workplaces in our
industries – is so important to all of us. Within the last
two years, thousands of workers across diverse sectors
of our economy have organized with our great union
and decided to speak with one voice – including graduate employees and faculty at universities, gaming workers at casinos, auto workers (including the parts industry) and more. The gains we make – when we organize
and then bargain – lift us all. We are all in this together. Background on the Issues In 2014, only 11.1 percent of wage and salary workers
belonged to a union. In the private sector, the percentage was even lower – just 6.6 percent. However, every
American has a direct stake in strengthening the labor
movement. A wealth of evidence shows that where
unions and collective bargaining are stronger, poverty
is reduced, middle-class incomes are higher, and the
distribution of income is more equitable. So why is union membership so low?
The biggest obstacle to organizing is employer
opposition. Our weak labor laws allow employers to
use a variety of legal and illegal tactics to stop workers
from organizing. In addition, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which is an independent agency
charged with conducting elections for labor union
representation and with investigating and remedying unfair labor practices, is under constant attack by
the right-wing. Attacks on the NLRB, including budget
cuts, have further weakened enforcement of our already weak laws. Understaffing at NLRB offices means
even longer delays for workers seeking justice against
employer retaliation – and for illegally fired workers,
justice delayed is justice denied. The result is that most
workers are blocked from exercising their democratic
and legal rights to engage in freedom of speech and association by forming unions.
In April 2014, new NLRB rules went into effect
that simplified the process of holding union elections,
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
ISSUES
giving workers a more streamlined process to exercise
their rights with less time for the boss to run an antiunion campaign leading up to the election. Because
of mandated efficiencies, elections can now be held in
as little as 11 days – compared with an average of 38
days. Republicans tried to block the new regulations in
both the Senate and the House, but President Obama
protected the rules when he signed a memorandum
of disapproval (which has the same effect as a veto).
The regulations are a step in the right direction, but we
have quite a far way to go in leveling the playing field
between workers and anti-union bosses. To make matters worse, many in Congress are putting forward legislation to weaken collective bargaining
rights even further. On Nov. 17, the House of Representatives passed a bill that strips federal labor rights
from people working for tribal casinos. This misguided
bill would deny protection to hundreds of thousands of
workers employed by tribal casinos and other businesses, including well over 1,200 UAW members.
Historically, federal rules have made it virtually
impossible for workers employed by a staffing agency
to organize in the same unit as “permanent” workers.
But, two recent federal rulings could change that and
create enormous organizing opportunities The first of
these rulings establishes that McDonald’s Corp. is,
along with its franchisees, a joint employer, the second,
known as Browning-Ferris, changes how the law looks
at cases involving temporary workers, making it easier
for temporary workers and direct hires to form unions
together. Direct hires and temporary workers could
be brought into the same unit, providing stability for
temporary workers and discouraging employers from
whipsawing workers against one another. This could
open up important organizing opportunities for workers in the auto industry, where the problem is especially
acute. There has been a seven-fold increase in temporary laborers in automotive assembly between 2006 and
2013. Nissan, BMW, and many others utilize temporary
workers extensively. Predictably, anti-worker interest
groups and politicians are now pushing legislation in
Congress to reverse Browning-Ferris and deny workers the right to negotiate with their real boss. The UAW
is strongly opposed to legislation that would reverse
Browning-Ferris. Fortunately, some members of Congress are working to strengthen rather than weaken rights for working
people. This Congress, Rep. Robert “Bobby” Scott, a
Democrat representing Virginia’s 3rd District, and Sen.
Patty Murray, D-Washington, introduced The Workplace Action for a Growing Economy Act (WAGE
Act). The bill strengthens protections for working people by requiring swift reinstatement when workers are
fired or retaliated against for exercising their rights. The
WAGE Act would give mistreated workers more legal
protections. This bill is one of many reforms needed in
order to give working people a fair shot at winning the
wages and working conditions they deserve.
2016
CAP
2016
CAP
Right to Work In the past few years, we have seen it in Indiana,
Michigan, and Wisconsin, when Republican legislatures
passed the so-called “right-to-work” (RTW) laws over
strong grassroots opposition. We see the fight now playing out in Ohio.
RTW laws make it illegal for workers to bargain for
union security in their collective agreements. The intent
is to weaken unions financially, making
them less effective as a counterweight
to corporate power in the workplace
and the political system. Although RTW
backers often frame their arguments
in terms of workers’ right to choose,
nothing could be farther from the truth.
Unions exist because the majority of
workers within a workplace have overcome incredible odds to win a collective voice. Under our law, an individual
worker who disagrees with his or her
union cannot be forced to remain a
member. They can, however be required
to share in the cost of bargaining and
administering their contract. That is
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
3
ISSUES
2016
CAP
what a union security clause does: require everyone
CAP who benefits from representation pay his or her fair
share of representation costs. By outlawing union security, RTW denies workers the right to decide how they
want to fund their own union. Even if RTW laws are anti-democratic, do they at
least encourage economic growth? RTW backers often
cite Oklahoma, which passed a RTW law in 2001, as
an economic success story – but economists who have
studied the state disagree. There is no evidence that
the law improved the state’s unemployment rate or job
growth performance. Instead, Oklahoma’s economic
ups and downs since 2001 simply track those of its six
neighboring states (three of which have RTW laws,
and three of which do not). In fact, contrary to claims
that RTW would be a major influence on corporate site
selection, the number of announcements of major new
manufacturing and service facilities opening in the state
actually fell in the decade after RTW was passed.
2016
Key Talking Points and Actions You
Can Take •
The right to organize and bargain collectively is a
basic human and democratic right. •
Unions and collective bargaining are essential to
maintaining a strong economy. •
Attacks on unions and collective bargaining are part
of a broader right-wing agenda to increase corporate power at our expense. •
Right-to-work laws are anti-democratic and do not
increase economic growth. They are politically motivated attacks on unions that will further weaken
the economy and the rights of workers.
•
ACTION: Urge public officials at all levels (local,
state, federal) to support workers who are organizing by speaking out and participating in public
rallies and other actions. •
ACTION: Urge Congress to pass the WAGE Act.
•
ACTION: Urge Congress to support full funding
for the NLRB and give it the necessary tools to
enforce our labor laws. •
ACTION: Tell state legislators to oppose RTW and
other attacks on collective bargaining. •
ACTION: Participate in rallies and actions to
defend workers’ rights and defeat RTW and other
attacks on collective bargaining, and encourage coworkers, friends, and neighbors to do the same. •
ACTION: Spread the word by talking with friends
and neighbors who are not union members about
what collective bargaining means for them. INTERNATIONAL
TRADE
We live in a global economy. International trade –
imports and exports combined – account for roughly
30 percent of the U.S. economy and impact millions
of jobs. In this interconnected world, the issue is not
whether one is “for” globalization or “against” it, but
what form globalization will take. The UAW supports
trade policies that strengthen, not weaken, worker and
consumer rights both domestically and abroad. Conversely, we oppose trade agreements that lead to lost
jobs and lower wages.
4
Unfortunately, Congress is debating the Trans
Pacific Partnership (TPP). This free-trade agreement
goes in the wrong direction and puts corporations in the
driver’s seat. TPP, regrettably, repeats many of the mistakes of prior trade agreements that have contributed
to stagnant wages, rising income inequality, and plant
closings throughout the United States.
The TPP will cost U.S. jobs and lead to more manufacturing in Asia and fewer manufacturing jobs in the
United States in future years. TPP participants include
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
ISSUES
the U.S., Japan, Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Chile,
Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Canada,
Mexico and Vietnam. These nations cover 40 percent
of the world’s GDP. The scope of the agreement will
increase, as Indonesia, China, South Korea, Thailand
and other nations could join over time.
What’s at Stake for UAW Members?
If ratified, TPP will impact our nation for generations to
come. It touches nearly every aspect of our daily lives.
Our food, air quality, medicine availability, and the cars
we drive will all be affected.
Sadly, the TPP is counterproductive and undermines
the future of domestic manufacturing. Competitive pressures from low-wage countries will increase as remaining U.S. tariffs on manufactured goods are eliminated.
The Wall Street Journal projects the combined U.S.
trade deficit in manufacturing, including autos and auto
parts, will increase by $55.8 billion under the TPP over
the next 10 years. The impact will probably be worse.
Countries from around the world sell cars in America without trade barriers. The same cannot be said for
many countries in the TPP. For example, Japan imports
less than 7 percent while undervaluing their currency to
make their exports cheaper. Currency manipulation has
already cost millions of American jobs. Vehicles built
overseas are routinely well over $5,000 cheaper because of undervalued currencies. Unfortunately, despite
our efforts, enforceable provisions to stop currency
manipulation are nowhere to be found in the TPP.
Many of the manufacturing industries in which
UAW members work have been hit especially hard by
bad trade policies. In the broader economy, manufacturing jobs are falling behind as 600,000 manufacturing
workers make just $9.60 per hour or less and 1 out of
every 4 make less than $12. Many of our employers
continue to outsource work and build new plants outside
of the United States. Instead of building new plants in
the United States to supply the U.S. market, automakers
continue to build new plants in Mexico. Low wages and
favorable investment standards incentivize manufacturers to relocate. The average autoworker in Mexico makes
around $3.95 an hour (excluding benefits). Workers
in Mexico are often members of employer-dominated
unions with “protection contracts” that they have never
bargained, read, or ratified. When workers try to form
their own independent unions, they are met with repression and even violence. The TPP does not mandate the
sweeping labor reforms that are needed in Mexico.
Mexico’s share of total North American vehicle assembly more than doubled under NAFTA and is poised
to grow even more. Most of that production is for export, primarily to the United States. These are assembly
jobs that either left or could have been in the United
States. The TPP could accelerate this harmful trend.
Offshoring of jobs is a huge problem for working
families as all too many companies game the system by
shifting more and more work to low-wage countries.
The Auto Rule of Origin is the domestic content requirement in the TPP for motor vehicles and parts (see
Glossary of Terms). The UAW has advocated a strong
Rule of Origin (ROO) because this would incentivize
production in the United States and other TPP countries. Unfortunately the ROO standard in the TPP is
considerably less stringent than NAFTA 62.5 percent as
more than half of the value of a finished vehicle could
be built by countries that are not participating in the
agreement. Cars primarily built in non-TPP countries
like China, the Philippines, or Thailand will unjustly
receive benefits, punishing good actors and rewarding
bad ones. To make matters worse, the ROO threshold
for many important parts is less than 45 percent with
some being close to 30 percent. Low thresholds for
parts could allow vehicles to qualify for duty-free treatment that, in fact, could be largely built in countries that
are not in the TPP.
It is important to note that additional countries
could “dock on” to this agreement in the future. Therefore, the ROO standard could prove to be weakened
over time as more production is shifted to non-TPP
countries.
More generally, the “dock-on” provisions could
lead to the trade agreement expanding considerably
over time. Indonesia, Thailand, and South Korea any
many other countries could join over time. The agreement will likely include more countries with closed
markets and poor human rights records.
The impact of the TPP is not limited to UAW members in manufacturing. Because manufacturing has extensive linkages to other sectors of the economy, job losses
in manufacturing send ripples through the rest of the
economy and weaken the tax base of our communities.
In addition, the TPP allows foreign corporations to
challenge U.S. law in private courts so environmental,
worker, and consumer protections could be jeopardized
in the future. “Buy American” laws could be particularly vulnerable.
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
2016
CAP
2016
CAP
5
2016
CAP
2016
CAP
ISSUES
Currency Manipulation
Environmental Goods
By keeping the value of their currency artificially low,
countries can create an artificial advantage for their own
exports, while raising the cost of goods imported from
other nations. A number of U.S. trading partners, including Japan and China, have engaged in this practice
on many occasions over the past several years.
Bills have been introduced in both the House and
Senate to strengthen the ability of the U.S. government
to respond to trading partners who unfairly manipulate
their currency. The legislation would strengthen U.S.
trade laws to address the economic damage caused by
currency manipulation and toughen enforcement actions against countries that refuse to adopt policies to
eliminate currency misalignment. The UAW supports
legislation to curb this harmful unfair trade practice.
Under the auspices of the World Trade Organization
(WTO), the U.S. is involved in negotiations with dozens of countries on an agreement to eliminate a finite
list of products that have environmental benefits. The
countries have already tentatively agreed on 55 products. Currently, the agreement would have a minimal
impact on our core industries. . We are monitoring the
negotiations closely and have expressed concerns about
the elimination of tariffs on auto parts.
The Transatlantic Trade and
Investment Partnership (TTIP)
TTIP is a free-trade agreement being negotiated between the European Union and the United States. Negotiations are ongoing.
The auto industries on both sides of the Atlantic
support TTIP and have been urging regulatory coordination to reduce compliance costs. U.S. automakers
want regulators in Europe to honor U.S. safety and
environmental standards when appropriate. The EU applies a 10 percent tariff on cars and 22 percent on light
trucks. (The U.S. has a 2.5 percent tariff and 25 percent
tariff respectively.) We are monitoring the negotiations
closely and have advocated for policies that support
labor rights and domestic manufacturing.
6
Key Talking Points and Actions You
Can Take
•
The UAW supports fair-trade agreements with
strong protections for workers, consumers, and the
environment.
•
ACTION: Urge Congress to OPPOSE the TPP
because it will lead to the offshoring of more of our
jobs. It is a bad deal for workers and consumers. It
will likely be detrimental to U.S. manufacturing.
•
ACTION: Urge Congress and President Obama to
take decisive enforcement actions to stop countries
from manipulating their currency to gain an unfair
competitive advantage.
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
ISSUES
JOBS AND THE
ECONOMY Our goal is to ensure we have economic stability and
a country where working people earn wages on which
they can sustain a family and retire comfortably. Spurring job creation, raising wages and living standards,
and combating income inequality remain our most
urgent economic priorities. Although the recession
officially ended in June 2009, the labor market for
prime-age employment (workers aged 25-54) continues
to suffer as a large percentage of the jobs lost between
December 2007 and late 2011 have not been regained.
Many of the jobs that are being created are low-paid,
in fields like retail, food preparation, and temporary
staffing – jobs where hourly wages are often low, benefits few and far between, and a union voice is usually
absent.
With wages lagging, the purchasing power of the
median household has continued to fall even as the
economy recovers. While working people have been
struggling to stay afloat, the benefits of recent economic growth have gone disproportionately to the very
wealthy. According to the Economic Policy Institute,
between 2009 and 2012, the top 1 percent captured 95
percent of total income growth. The bottom 99 percent
experienced slight income gains in 2013, but given
trends in wage growth, it may be a while before we see
much stronger gains in income for the rest of us. What’s at Stake for UAW Members? The single best way to raise wages is through the power
of a union. The right to organize and bargain collectively is central to a broader strategy to raise wages, reduce
economic inequality and expand the middle class.
The upward redistribution of income and wealth
to the top 1 percent increases their political power
as well as their economic power. They are using that
political power to push for policies to perpetuate their
privileged position and stop us from speaking with one
voice. It is no secret that unions are the most effective
way for workers to win economic justice and fairness
on the job. That means our fight to improve our lives
by strengthening our union is inextricably linked to the
fight against growing inequality. We cannot win one
without taking on the other. 2016
CAP
2016
CAP
Economy Out of Balance We need constructive programs to create good jobs and
invest in infrastructure improvements that will strengthen the economy for years to come. Though our country
is much richer today than it was in the mid-1960s, we
are investing less in our future now than we did then.
No wonder the American Society of Civil Engineers
gives the nation’s infrastructure an overall grade of
“D+,” and calculates it will take $3.6 trillion in investment through 2020 to bring it to an acceptable standard.
A stepped-up program of public investment by the federal government would create jobs immediately, many
of them well-paid construction jobs. Just as important,
it would enhance the nation’s productive potential. An
outdated, unreliable transportation system makes it
harder to manage parts, supplies, and inventory effectively. The UAW supports comprehensive measures to
boost the nation’s infrastructure. We support an agenda
to create public service jobs directly, particularly for
disadvantaged workers in high-unemployment communities. High youth unemployment rates – particularly
for young people of color – mean that many young
people are failing to gain a toehold on a meaningful
career ladder. Raising Wages and Combating
Inequality Government at every level (federal, state and local)
must use all of the tools at their disposal to raise wages
for working Americans. The purchasing power of the
federal minimum wage, which has been stuck at $7.25
since 2009, is lower today than it was in the 1960s.
The minimum wage should be $15 per hour and we
support initiatives that move us in the right direction.
We endorsed President Obama’s executive order that
raises the minimum wage to $10.10 for federal contract workers, which will benefit nearly 200,000 workers. We also support a stepped increase in the federal
minimum wage to $12 per hour over the next five years,
as proposed by Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington, and
Rep. Robert “Bobby” Scott, D-Virginia, in the Raise
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
7
2016
CAP
ISSUES
the Wage Act of 2015. Their modest plan would mean a
CAP pay raise for more than 35 million workers – more than
1 in 4 U.S. workers – who would receive an additional
$80 billion in their paychecks over the phase-in period.
In June 2015, President Obama issued a proposed rule
to raise the overtime threshold. The current overtime
rules were last updated in 2004 and a revision is long
overdue. Under the current rules, certain workers are
“exempt” from overtime if their job responsibilities
satisfy a “duties test” and they earn more than $23,660
per year, or $455 per week. A person can be working
50 hours a week and not be getting paid for all of their
extra hours – because of how their job is classified. The
proposed changes would more than double the minimum salary threshold for exempt workers, requiring
compensation of $50,440 per year, or $970 per week.
2016
Good Jobs Support Economic
Stability We can and should use our tax dollars to support
“high-road” domestic production by employers that
pay good wages, provide decent benefits, maintain safe
workplaces, offer direct, full-time (and not temporary)
jobs and respect workers’ right to organize and bargain
collectively.
We support common-sense policies to help working
families, like earned paid sick time. California, Massachusetts, Washington D.C., and Oregon all have paid sick
time laws on the books. It is time to expand these rational
policies at the federal level by supporting measures like
the Healthy Families Act (S. 497 and H.R. 932). Temporary work, sometimes called contingent
work, in the United States has hit an all-time high – 2.9
million workers – more than all Walmart employees
globally. On average these workers earn 47.9 percent
less over the course of a year than standard workers.
Forming or joining a union is often difficult, and at
many worksites, agencies employ such large numbers
of the workforce – sometimes a majority – it is impossible for anyone in the shop to organize a union. We need
policies that ensure people get good jobs where they are
paid well and treated with respect for the work they do.
A Manufacturing Economy that
Works for All The U.S. auto industry is back and is once again a leading manufacturing export sector. Today, manufacturing
is on the upswing – but we still have not recovered all
of the jobs lost during the recession. Between its 1998
peak and the end of 2007, U.S. manufacturing lost 3.9
million jobs, roughly 1 in every 5. When the economy
crashed in 2008, the losses accelerated. In 2009, U.S.
manufacturing employment fell below 12 million for
the first time since 1946. We badly need a coordinated manufacturing jobs
strategy that takes into account the impact of trade,
education and taxation policy. Historically, manufacturing work has been a pathway to economic opportunity.
Auto, aerospace, agricultural implement and other manufacturers supported not only their workers, but entire
communities who thrived off the income these factories
produced. Today, too many manufacturing jobs are
falling behind. In fact, 600,000 manufacturing workers
make just $9.60 per hour or less and 1 out of every 4
make $11.91 or less. Those wages are so low that many
8
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
ISSUES
workers must rely on public assistance to make ends
meet. For generations, manufacturing jobs helped pull
workers up by strengthening the economy and putting
money into our local communities. We cannot afford to
go backwards. 2016
CAP
2016
CAP
Key Talking Points and Actions You
Can Take •
We need an economy that creates good, middleclass jobs now. Too many people cannot find a job
despite looking for years. We need to invest in infrastructure improvements that will create jobs now
and improve our economy for the future. •
The problem isn’t just that there aren’t enough
jobs – it’s also what those jobs pay. Low wages and
falling incomes are hurting our families and our
economy. •
A strong economy depends on rising wages for the
majority of workers – that’s what builds a strong
middle class and strong consumer demand. When
most of the income gains go to just 1 percent of the
population, economic growth is not sustainable. •
The most effective way to fight poverty, reduce
inequality and create a better life for working families is to protect the right to organize and bargain
collectively. •
To support a strong economy, we need stable – not
temporary – jobs.
•
ACTION: Urge Congress to support the Raise the
Wage Act to raise the minimum wage and expand
overtime pay. •
ACTION: Urge Congress to support long-term
infrastructure investments with stable funding.
•
ACTION: Hold elected officials accountable so
when taxpayer dollars are used to subsidize corporations, new jobs are good jobs.
•
ACTION: Demand that elected officials support
workers by protecting their right to organize and
bargain collectively. •
ACTION: Urge lawmakers to support broadening
the definition of joint employment to expand the organizing rights of temporary and contingent workers,
and to support the WAGE Act and other legislation
that holds companies responsible for the working
conditions of everyone that works in their facility. •
ACTION: Support coalition-based campaigns to
raise wages and living standards, such as the ongoing
efforts by workers across industries, including fast
food, temporary staffing, retail and manufacturing.
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
9
2016
CAP
2016
CAP
ISSUES
THE FEDERAL BUDGET
AND TAXES
The federal budget and tax policies have a significant
impact on our economy. The battle over the federal
budget is really about competing visions and priorities for America’s future. What kind of country do we
want today, and what kind of future do we want for our
children and grandchildren? Do we value work and
workers? Do we believe that everyone, and not just the
wealthiest, should share in the benefits of economic
growth? How much are we prepared to invest today
in healthcare, education, infrastructure, scientific and
medical research, and other building blocks of future
prosperity? Do we see the elderly, the sick and the poor
as economic burdens or as parts of our community?
We hold the view that our tax dollars should not be
wasted and must be spent wisely but withholding funds
for needed investments is penny-wise and pound-foolish. We strongly believe that we must not neglect the
most vulnerable in our society because to do so would
run counter to our values as a people.
UAW members have always been committed to
social and economic justice and we believe budgetary
and tax policies should reflect that. That is why we support funding for basic human needs, public investments
in education and infrastructure, strong enforcement of
workplace protections, and programs that help strengthen the middle class and support good wages. Finally,
we always look ahead to the future. We advocate for
increased federal investment in manufacturing, physical
infrastructure, human capital and scientific knowledge.
Unfortunately, many right-wing members of Congress have a different view. Ten-year budget blueprints
passed by the House and Senate last spring created another vision. Fortunately, they did not have the force of
law and were opposed by President Obama. Nevertheless, they provided a glimpse of what could be expected
if the right-wing gains control of the Congress and the
White House. It does not present a pretty picture.
The House and Senate budget blueprints drastically slashed funding for federal programs benefitting
working families and gutted funding to protect our
environment and rights at work, while at the same time
handing out tax breaks to corporations and millionaires.
Funding for K-12 education programs, Pell Grants that
help working families send their children to college, and
10
Head Start programs for our nation’s children would all
take a major hit. The budget blueprints took away health
care for tens of millions by repealing the Affordable
Care Act and slashing Medicaid, the healthcare program for low-income Americans. Funding cuts for the
National Labor Relations Board and the Environmental
Protection Agency would make it even more difficult to
enforce laws that protect our voice at work and public
health. The list goes on and on — all while calling for
more tax breaks for corporations and the rich!
In late October, Congress passed a two-year budget
and debt-ceiling agreement. The administration negotiated the agreement with then-Speaker John Boehner,
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Minority Leader
Nancy Pelosi and Minority Leader Harry Reid. The
agreement reduces the likelihood of a government
shutdown over the next year and Congress will not need
to raise the debt ceiling until 2017. It also raises the discretionary spending caps by $50 billion in fiscal 2016
and $30 billion in 2017.
What is at Stake for UAW Members?
Every UAW member, as an American and as a worker,
has a direct stake in the federal budget. Maintaining and
improving social insurance and safety net programs like
Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Unemployment
Insurance, and other programs provides a basic level of
economic security and dignity for all of us.
•
Without Social Security, millions of seniors and
disabled Americans, including many UAW members, would fall below the poverty line.
•
At a time when employers are dropping health care
coverage for their retirees, a strong Medicare program is more essential than ever.
•
UAW families who are already agonizing over a
parent with Alzheimer’s disease or a child with
a devastating disability would face financial ruin
without the safety net provided by Medicaid, the
federal/state health insurance program that pays
for one-half of long-term health care costs in this
country.
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
ISSUES
•
Trade Adjustment Assistance
provides opportunities and financial support for people who lose
their jobs because of bad trade
deals and globalization.
•
Head Start and other early
childhood education, nutrition,
health, and parent involvement
programs give families the tools
needed to succeed in school and
live healthy lives in strong communities.
•
Pell Grants help families, who
otherwise may not be able to afford tuition and other costs, send
their children to college.
2016
CAP
2016
CAP
For many of us, decisions on the federal budget determine whether we will be working, laid off, or facing demands for concessions from our employers. For example,
budget uncertainty threatens the job security of UAW
workers at employers that serve as suppliers for the Department of Defense and other federal agencies. Cuts in
federal support for the National Institutes of Health mean
fewer positions for UAW post-doctoral scholars doing
groundbreaking research in university labs. Attacks on
funding for the Legal Services Corporation and Federal
Defenders would eliminate the jobs of UAW-represented
attorneys and support staff, not to mention would leave
ordinary Americans who cannot afford an attorney no
way of obtaining legal representation.
Many have been already hurt by budget cuts. For
example, members who work in state and local government across the country have been hit hard by shrinking
federal support.
Entitlements
Much of the current budget debate has focused on
“entitlements.” These are programs like Social Security,
Medicare, and Medicaid which must, by law, provide
specific benefits to individuals who meet eligibility
standards. While the right-wing has done their best
to turn “entitlement” into a dirty word, these specific
programs continue to receive strong support from
voters, with public polling consistently documenting
overwhelming opposition to cutting Social Security
and Medicare benefits or privatizing the programs. We
strongly oppose drastic cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid benefits.
Taxes
Tax policy and the impact on revenues is the other end
of the budget equation. Tax fairness is essential because
when corporations and the rich pay less, the middle
class is left to pay the difference. Our taxes go up and
our jobs are threatened.
Raising adequate revenues in a fair way is essential
to a budget that reflects our values. Tax policy should
not increase economic inequality and harm the middle
class. Those with the greatest ability should contribute
the most. After all, our defense programs, infrastructure
and education system provide businesses the workforce
and environment necessary to prosper. It is not as if
they cannot afford it. The share of the country’s wealth
owned by the top 0.1 percent has tripled since the 1970s
to over 20 percent, while the share owned by the bottom
90 percent of us has steadily declined over the last 30
years. The most progressive federal tax we have under
current law is placed on inheritance for the wealthiest
families (also known as the estate tax). The right-wing
and super wealthy have sought to permanently eliminate it for years and today it impacts only the richest 0.2
percent of estates, about 5,400 nationwide in 2015.
The estate tax was established by President Teddy
Roosevelt, a Republican, early in the last century. We
support strengthening the estate tax by closing loopholes and applying it to more of the wealthiest families.
Repealing the tax would add nearly $250 billion to the
deficit and would give an average tax break of over $2.5
million to the richest 0.2 percent of estates.
We also support adding a small tax on financial
transactions, which could raise significant revenue
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
11
ISSUES
2016
CAP
while serving as a necessary “speed bump” for highCAP speed financial speculation.
Declining contributions by corporations to the federal treasury have hurt our country. Corporate income
taxes as a share of total federal tax revenues have fallen
from over 25 percent in the 1950s to around 10 percent
today. Loopholes benefiting corporations that move
work to other countries must be closed, and proposals
to expand these loopholes rejected. We also support
using tax incentives to create fairly paid, permanent,
skilled and safe jobs where workers have a voice.
2016
Key Talking Points and Actions You
Can Take
•
Budgets are moral documents – the fight over the
federal budget is really a fight over the kind of
country we want to live in and what we value as a
society.
•
Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security benefits
should be strengthened and not cut.
•
Corporations and the wealthy have monopolized the
benefits of economic growth in recent years, and
can easily afford to pay more for the common good.
•
ACTION: Tell Congress absolutely no cuts to
Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security benefits.
This includes opposing any proposals to increase
the eligibility age for Medicare or Social Security.
•
ACTION: Ask members of Congress to commit to
progressive revenue sources like a robust estate tax
and taxing capital gains and dividends like ordinary
income.
•
ACTION: Tell Congress that corporations must pay
their fair share of taxes. Demand that they close
loopholes that benefit companies guilty of shifting
work overseas.
•
ACTION: Build support in your community for a
financial transactions tax that would raise revenue
from Wall Street.
•
ACTION: Support tax incentives for good-paying,
permanent jobs that lift working families into the
middle class and benefit the economies of our communities.
HEALTH CARE The UAW has always advocated for universal health
care coverage to ensure that every man, woman and
child in our country has access to quality, affordable
health care. No one should face financial ruin because
of a serious illness or have their insurance canceled
because they get sick. Despite having the most expensive healthcare system in the developed world, tens
of millions of Americans go without health insurance
every day, and many have been denied coverage due to
pre-existing conditions. This is simply unacceptable.
Health care must be a right for all and not a privilege
for the few. The UAW worked to help pass and continues to
support the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also called
“Obamacare,” which was signed into law in March
12
2010. While the law is not perfect and we would have
preferred a single-payer system (like our Medicare
system), it is a major step in the right direction. This
historic law took critical steps in addressing the health
care needs of everyday Americans.
In fact, in the five years after the passage of the
ACA,  more than 16 million Americans gained health
care coverage. Since 2013, our country has seen the
largest decline in the uninsured rate in decades, which
is now at the lowest level on record. Health care costs
have risen at the slowest rate in nearly 50 years thanks
to exceptionally slow growth in per-person costs
throughout our health care system. The law has helped improve the quality of health
care, contributing to 50,000 fewer patient deaths in
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
ISSUES
hospitals due to avoidable harms, such as infections or
medication errors. Now we need policymakers to take
additional action to expand coverage and fix problems
with our system. We also need Congress to reject any
efforts to take away coverage from seniors and people
living paycheck to paycheck.
What’s at Stake for UAW Members? The ACA not only helps people who were unable to
afford insurance in the past, but it is also having a
positive impact on our health status and our wallets.
Children can now stay on their parents’ plans until they
turn 26 – a boon to many members and their families.
Annual and lifetime limits on benefits are a thing of the
past. Insurers are now required to cover recommended
preventive services with no out-of-pocket costs for the
patient. New hires must be added to employer plans
after 90 days. Retirees who rely on Medicare Part D
for their prescription drugs are getting help with the
notorious “doughnut-hole” coverage gap, which will be
closed completely by 2020.
We all know that the cost of health care is an issue
whenever we sit down to bargain with employers. In
many of our workplaces, health care costs have been
squeezing out wage increases; in others, we are being
forced to shoulder more of the cost of their coverage in
the form of higher premium contributions, deductibles,
and co-pays. This is why we all have a stake in reforming our dysfunctional health care system to bring down
costs, improve the quality of care, and guarantee universal coverage. Despite these facts, many right-wing
politicians seek to destroy the law and return to the bad
old days. Active and retired members also have a big stake
in maintaining and strengthening the Medicare and
Medicaid programs. Medicare is the federal health care
program for individuals over 65. Medicaid helps pay
for nursing home and other long-term care, which is
a vital safety net for millions of middle-class families
who have exhausted their resources paying for these
services. (See the Almanac for a more detailed description of both Medicare and Medicaid.)
Medicaid is the single largest payer for long-term
care in the United States, covering nearly 70 million
Americans – including 33 million children. Both of
these programs can always potentially be impacted by
changes in the federal budget (see Budget and Economy
overview). Background on the Issues
Affordable Care Act 2016
CAP
2016
CAP
The ACA has been the target of right-wing attacks since
it was first proposed in 2009. After repeatedly trying
and failing to repeal it by normal legislative means, Tea
Party Republicans in the House of Representatives went
so far as to shut down the federal government and push
the country to the brink of default in an unprecedented
effort to nullify a law that had passed both houses of
Congress, had been signed by President Obama, reaffirmed by voters in a presidential election, and judged
constitutional by the Supreme Court – more than once.
The ACA is unquestionably a complicated law. That
is because our health care system is complicated. Most
Americans get health insurance through their employer,
something that will not change under the ACA. Many
others rely on public programs, such as Medicare and
Medicaid; some buy individual policies on their own;
and far too many have no coverage at all. The ACA
sought to build on the strengths of our system and fix
its biggest weaknesses. In particular, it created a functioning individual insurance market to meet the needs
of Americans who previously fell through the cracks:
those who lack employer coverage but are too young for
Medicare and not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid. Key components of the law: • It reformed the insurance industry by ending abusive and discriminatory practices, such as charging
women higher rates than men or canceling coverage
when someone is diagnosed with a serious illness.
•
Insurers are required to spend at least 80 percent of
premium dollars on medical care (including activities to improve the quality of care), and not on CEO
salaries, advertising, and other costs that do not
help patients. •
All insurance policies – those sold on the new
insurance marketplaces, group coverage purchased
by employers, and self-insured employer coverage – now pay for recommended preventive and
screening services in full, with no out-of-pocket
costs. Plans can no longer cut off coverage when an
individual reaches an annual or lifetime maximum. •
Lacking the purchasing clout of large companies,
small employers and their workers faced particularly high costs in the pre-reform insurance market.
Typically, this meant that workers at small companies paid high costs for inadequate coverage – if
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
13
ISSUES
2016
CAP
they had any at all. Under the ACA, small employers can now purchase insurance at competitive rates
through the new insurance marketplaces. 2016
CAP
•
It requires that individuals maintain health insurance coverage or pay a “shared responsibility” tax
penalty (with exceptions for cases of financial hardship). The “individual mandate” is the ACA provision most seized-upon by the law’s opponents. It’s
worth noting that some of the most widely popular
provisions of the ACA, including the guarantee
that no one can be denied coverage because of a
pre-existing condition, would simply not work if individuals could wait until they were sick or injured
to enroll. •
The ACA included provisions to expand Medicaid
(which is funded by both state and federal dollars)
coverage to all low-income individuals and families. Eligibility for Medicaid varies widely from
state to state; not only do income requirements
differ, but in many places, childless adults are ineligible no matter how low their income. A number
of right-wing governors have declined to expand
Medicaid in their states despite the federal government paying the complete cost (stepping down to
90 percent in 2020 and beyond).
•
Medicare beneficiaries can now receive mammograms, colonoscopies, and other recommended
screening procedures at no out-of-pocket cost.
When given the facts most Americans support the key
components of the law. We will continue to work to defend the ACA, build on its reforms, and fix its problems.
14
Excise Tax Created as part of the ACA, the so-called “Cadillac tax”
on high-cost health plans is scheduled to take effect in
2018. This provision remains a concern for the UAW
and we are working hard to prevent the tax from being
implemented. The excise tax would assess a 40 percent
tax on the cost of coverage for health plans that exceed
$10,200 for individual coverage and $27,500 for self
and spouse or family coverage. If implemented, hundreds of thousands of us would receive less coverage
and face higher out of pocket costs. Many of our major
employers would get hit by the tax given the high cost
of health care and medical inflation. It would also impact the plans of workers all over the country, including
white collar workers. It is incumbent upon Congress to
figure out a way to prevent this tax from taking effect.
We support legislation introduced in the House and
Senate to repeal it. Medicare It is true that health care spending is the largest driver
of future deficit projections. The problem is not Medicare. The truth is that the broader cost of U.S. health
care, which is by far the highest in the world, is driving
up these projections. Cutting Medicare benefits will not
lower the burden of health care costs on our economy. It
just shifts them onto seniors and middle-class families. In
fact, some proposed Medicare changes – such as increasing the Medicare eligibility age above its current level of
65 to 67, would actually increase the total cost of providing health care. This is because the cost of coverage
through employers, VEBAs, and the individual market is
generally higher than the cost through Medicare. Proposals to raise the Medicare eligibility age are of particular
concern to the UAW because of the
impact this change would have on
negotiated retiree coverage and the
finances of VEBA trusts. When a
retiree becomes eligible for Medicare, it becomes their primary insurance, supplemented by employer (or
VEBA) coverage. Raising the eligibility age to 67, for example, would
require employers or the VEBA to
pay the full cost of coverage for an
additional two years. This would
increase the already intense pressure
on retiree health insurance. UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
ISSUES
Over and over again, Republicans have passed budget proposals that would turn Medicare into a voucher
program. Their proposal would undermine affordable
and accessible health care and would undoubtedly force
many seniors to pay more. Fortunately, the proposal
has not been passed into law. However, it once again
illustrates the dangers we face. It is critical that we
oppose proposals that would be detrimental to our current and future retirees. Bipartisan legislation has been
introduced that aims to ensure that seniors and person
with disabilities who face the high cost of certain drugs
under Medicare Part D have the right to appeal for
lower cost sharing.
The attacks on Medicare are likely to get louder: this
past summer, Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor
seeking the Republican presidential nomination, commented that we need to phase out Medicare. There are
sensible ways to reduce Medicare costs and strengthen
the program’s finances without harming beneficiaries.
An example would be requiring Medicare to negotiate
the cost of drugs with the drug manufacturers, just as
the Veterans Administration already does. Key Talking Points and Actions You
Can Take •
The Affordable Care Act has already benefited
millions of Americans. More than 16 million previously uninsured individuals now have coverage.
The number of young adults who are uninsured has
fallen dramatically, thanks to the ability of parents
to keep children on their plans until they turn 26.
More than 9 million Medicare beneficiaries have
saved over $15 billion on prescription drug costs.
Many others have benefited from free preventive
care and the elimination of annual and lifetime
benefit limits. •
Raising the Medicare eligibility age does not save
money, it just shifts costs onto families and employers. In fact, by shifting costs away from a huge,
highly efficient public program and onto smaller
payers and for-profit companies, it actually increases the nation’s total health care bill. •
Raising the Medicare eligibility age would weaken
the VEBA trusts that many UAW retirees rely on
for their health care. It would also encourage even
more employers to cut back on retiree coverage. •
It is incumbent upon Congress to figure out a way
to prevent the excise tax from taking effect. Requiring workers to pay more and get less coverage is
not an acceptable or viable solution. Opposing the
excise tax does not mean you are against the ACA
– just the opposite. It means you believe hardworking Americans deserve the coverage they need to
protect the health of their families. •
ACTION: Educate yourself on the Affordable Care
Act and provide friends and family with the truth
about the law – expose myths and fearmongering as
the falsities that they are. •
ACTION: Tell your members of Congress to oppose efforts to delay, defund or otherwise weaken
the Affordable Care Act. •
ACTION: Urge Congress to repeal the excise tax.
•
ACTION: Tell Congress to oppose cuts in Medicare
benefits, reject efforts to increase the eligibility age,
shift costs to seniors, and to fight turning Medicare
into a voucher program. •
ACTION: Tell Congress to oppose cuts in Medicaid benefits. If you live in a state that has so far
failed to expand its Medicaid program to cover all
low-income citizens, tell your governor and state
legislators to expand it. UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
2016
CAP
2016
CAP
15
2016
CAP
2016
CAP
ISSUES
ENERGY AND THE
ENVIRONMENT
From extreme weather events that have devastated
entire communities, polluted air, despoiled land, and
oil-slicked waters, the need to develop a forward-looking energy policy is clear. We all have a role to play in
reducing America’s use of fossil fuels, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and protecting our environment.
Less than 5 percent of the world’s population lives in
the United States, but we account for roughly 17 percent of worldwide carbon dioxide emissions.
What’s at Stake for UAW Members?
Acting as though climate change does not exist sets our
country on an unsustainable course. It not only threatens our security and our planet, but it is also a direct
threat to our jobs, and an even bigger threat to the jobs
and quality of life enjoyed by our children and grandchildren in the future.
We reject the false claim that protecting the environment hurts our economy. Smart regulations are a
win-win because they create new jobs and promote development of advanced technologies while also protecting the environment. Hundreds of thousands of UAW
members work in industries impacted by fuel efficiency
and emissions standards such as the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) and the upcoming Phase
II heavy truck emission and fuel efficiency regulations. These environmental regulations help reduce the
environmental impact of our car and truck fleets. At the
same time, they must be structured to allow manufacturers flexibility in meeting stringency standards in an
effort to avoid job losses for UAW members. Unfortunately, some of our brothers and sisters have lost jobs in
the past when the balance was not achieved.
Initiatives to improve energy efficiency and develop sustainable energy sources can spur technological
innovations that create new jobs for American workers. Countries around the globe are racing to develop
renewable energy sources and are investing in technologies that will create new industries and new manufacturing jobs. Our trading partners see the economic
potential of green energy. China, in particular, has
identified it as a strategic emerging industry and made
it a cornerstone of its manufacturing policy. If we fail to
16
rise to the challenge, we will be ceding the jobs of the
future to countries outside the United States. We cannot
let this happen.
Background on the Issue
The connection between fossil fuel consumption, rising
carbon dioxide levels in the Earth’s atmosphere, and
climate change has been well established by the scientific community. Climate change is real and is caused
in large part by human activity. Scientists continue to
research the impact of carbon emissions, but even the
“best case” models are sobering – and the worst are
catastrophic. According to the latest report from the
United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, the problems created by climate change are
grave and include increased risk of extinction for many
species, risks to fisheries and crops, reduced access
to fresh water, and more extreme storms that destroy
homes and threaten to devastate coastal cities. By midcentury, storms like Katrina in 2005 or Sandy in 2012
may become regular occurrences. Fortunately, world
leaders are finally taking steps in the right direction.
This past December,one hundred and ninety five nations reached a landmark accord that will, for the first
time, commit nearly every country to lowering planetwarming greenhouse gas emissions to help stave off the
most drastic effects of climate change. The entire world
must act now.
Improving energy efficiency and using renewable
energy sources offer a future path that is environmentally sustainable and economically beneficial. To see how
policies that reduce fossil fuel consumption can support
good jobs, look no further than the auto industry.
The UAW, along with environmental advocates,
manufacturers, the National Highway Transportation
Safety Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency, worked to finalize new CAFE standards
to raise the average fuel economy of passenger vehicles
sold in the U.S. to the equivalent of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025, doubling the 2010 standard. By providing
regulatory certainty, the 2017-2025 standards have already spurred investments in new products that employ
thousands of UAW members. At the same time, they
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
ISSUES
will reduce emissions by 6 billion metric tons, reduce
oil consumption by 2 million barrels a day, and save a
typical consumer $8,000 in fuel costs over the life of
his or her vehicle.
The Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing
(ATVM) program has complemented this effort by supporting domestic investments in advanced technologies
that improve fuel efficiency. The Department of Energy
oversees the program and to date the bipartisan program
has provided over $8 billion in loans — matched by
over $14 billion in private investment — to 18 facilities
in eight states, many of them employing UAW members.
The Obama administration finalized the first-ever
fuel economy and emission standards of heavy-duty
trucks, heavy-duty pickups, buses, and vans for model
years 2014-2018. It is estimated that those standards
will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by approximately
270 million metric tons and save 530 million barrels of
oil, while cutting consumer and industry fuel costs by
nearly $50 billion.
The administration is now working to finalize the
second-stage rule concerning standards for model years
beyond 2018. President Obama wants to finalize heavy
truck rules as part of his climate change/energy agenda.
We are working to support a sensible standard that will
create jobs and better protect the environment. It is important that we strike the right balance by putting rules
in place that allow the industry to grow, while strengthening fuel efficiency and emission standards. We also
support the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS), which is
the use of ethanol and other renewable fuels blended
into the nation’s gas supply. The RFS is another winwin policy. It is especially important for our members
in the Agricultural Implement industry. These positive
experiences should be replicated more often by other
industries.
•
Other countries are investing in sustainable energy
and other green technologies. If we continue to fail
to do the same, we will find ourselves left behind
and lose out on the opportunity to develop new
industries that could provide good jobs for U.S.
workers.
•
Fuel economy standards for the auto industry show
that when stakeholders work together in good faith,
workers, consumers, and the environment can all
benefit.
•
ACTION: Support sensible fuel economy and
emission standards for heavy-duty trucks, heavyduty pickups, buses and vans in the Environmental
Protection Agency and National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration’s Phase II regulations.
•
ACTION: Tell Congress to support the Advanced
Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM)
program and oppose efforts to dismantle it. Support federal incentives that create good jobs in the
advanced technology sectors of our economy.
•
ACTION: Tell Congress to support the Renewable
Fuels Standard (RFS) because greater use of cornbased ethanol and other alternative fuels are good
for our economy and environment.
2016
CAP
2016
CAP
Key Talking Points and Actions You
Can Take
•
Climate change caused by carbon pollution is real:
There is no longer any factual scientific debate
about that. It is true we do not know exactly what
the impact will be. However, even the “best case”
scenarios are troubling (and the “worst case”
scenarios are catastrophic). In these circumstances,
acting to reduce carbon pollution is the prudent
thing to do.
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
17
2016
CAP
2016
CAP
ISSUES
RETIREMENT SECURITY
The expectation of having the economic security needed to enjoy our retirement years is a key part of the American Dream. Unfortunately, that dream has become out of reach for many of us over the last several decades. It has
become far too common for working people to reach retirement only to find they do not have enough money to live
comfortably. In response, some choose to postpone
meet and cover necessities. To make matters worse,
their retirement; others may not have that option. This
Congress has raised premiums on DB plans to help pay
is a serious problem, as almost one-third of all workers
for unrelated pieces of legislation. Higher premiums
have no savings at all. Median household retirement
undermine DB plans.
savings for people aged 55 to 64 in 2013 amounted to
Many employers have moved from DB plans to
only $14,500. We are facing a growing retirement sedefined-contribution plans such as 401(k)s, where retircurity crisis, and the problem cannot be ignored by our
ees are subjected to the difficulties of the stock market.
elected leaders.
Americans lost trillions of dollars in wealth during the
Great Recession. Many lost all or most of their retirement savings.
What’s at Stake for UAW Members?
For decades, workers achieved retirement security from
a combination of employer-sponsored pensions, Social
Security and personal savings. However, today, fewer
and fewer employers are providing defined-benefit pensions with a guaranteed benefit. Instead, more workers
are left with retirement plans based solely on unpredictable financial markets. Social Security alone is often
insufficient to make ends meet.
To make matters worse, right-wing attacks on
Social Security (often disguised as “reforms”), and antiworker policy proposals such as increasing the retirement age and cutting public pensions, have become
more prevalent, worsening the crisis. Social Security
has long been a target for anti-worker lawmakers who
propose benefit cuts and the program’s privatization.
Privatizing Social Security is a back-door way to weaken it, imposing benefit cuts and insecurity by exposing
our seniors to stock market fluctuations.
We also have to be vigilant over the attacks on pensions. Although there are laws protecting public pensions and defined-benefit plans, the recent bankruptcy
in Detroit showed us that courts are prepared to waive
that legal protection – taking away the hard-earned
benefits that public sector workers were promised.
In the past, defined-benefit pension plans (or DB)
where the employer sponsors the plan and takes on all
the investment risk, were the norm. Under DB plans, a
formula using factors such as salary history and duration of employment determines the amount of money a
person receives. The percentage of workers covered by
a traditional DB pension plan has been steadily declining over the past three decades. The decline of DB
plans has made it even harder for millions to make ends
18
Social Security: Preserving,
Strengthening and Protecting
In August 2015, Social Security enjoyed its 80th anniversary – eight decades of phenomenal success. Social
Security is by far the most effective anti-poverty program in our history, our most important family income
protection program, and the cornerstone of retirement
security. Today, nearly two-thirds of retirees rely on
Social Security for half or more of their retirement
income. For more than 3 in 10, Social Security is 90
percent or more of their income, keeping many of our
seniors out of poverty. Social Security remains hugely
popular across partisan and generational divides.
As private pensions are in decline, Social Security
benefits become a more significant portion of retirement income. Social Security benefits are modest,
averaging about $15,600 per year for all workers.
Congress should support increasing Social Security
benefits – not cutting them.
Congress should oppose all efforts to privatize Social
Security. Privatization diverts money out of the program into individual accounts, threatening the future of
Social Security.
The UAW is also opposed to raising the retirement
age to receive Social Security, which is an across-theboard benefit cut. No matter the age at which workers
retire, their Social Security benefit would be lower
than under current law, and they would have to work
longer to receive the same benefit. The differences can
be huge. If, under the current cutoff, you are eligible
for $1,000 at age 67, you could instead choose to get a
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
ISSUES
$700 a month benefit for retiring at 62 or $1,240 monthly for retiring at 70. If the retirement age is increased to
70 – a number mentioned by multiple GOP presidential
hopefuls, the $1,000 benefit at 67 becomes $800, the
$700 benefit at 62 becomes $565, and the $1,240 benefit at 70 becomes $1,000.
meaning firms operating under a variety of business
models to comply. This plan represents a step in the
right direction.
Workplace Pension Plans
•
Social Security is the most effective anti-poverty
program in our history. We must protect it, strengthen it and increase benefits.
•
Attempts to privatize Social Security are attempts
to weaken it. Privatization creates funding problems, leads to benefit cuts and exposes our seniors
to the risks of stock market fluctuations.
•
Increasing the retirement age is an across-the-board
benefit cut.
•
Public sector pensions are important economic
drivers. Attacks on public pensions are based on
lies. Cuts hurt all workers – including those in the
private sector.
•
Defined-benefit plans provide economic stability
for working families and should increase.
•
Financial advisors should be required to work in the
best interests of their clients.
•
ACTION: Urge lawmakers to oppose Social Security privatization and benefit cuts. Tell them we
need to increase benefits – not cut them.
•
ACTION: Talk to your friends and family about the
importance of Social Security.
•
ACTION: Urge lawmakers to oppose so-called
“transparency” efforts for public pensions designed
to destroy the funds.
•
ACTION: Oppose efforts to weaken protections for
retirees with defined-benefit plans.
•
ACTION: Oppose premium increases for definedbenefit plans.
•
ACTION: Support common sense rules for financial advisors to help guard against bad actors who
threaten our retirement savings and investments.
UAW members have fought hard to establish employerbased retirement plans. Defined benefit plans have
helped millions around the country have economic
security during their senior years. We need to build on
this success and enact public policies that would lead to
the creation of more stable retirement plans that deliver
promised and adequate benefits.
Retirement Security for Public
Employees
Tens of thousands of UAW members serve in the public
sector in state, county and local governments. They are
our parole probation officers, our social service caseworkers, our librarians and our nurses. In recent years,
the retirement benefits of public sector employees have
been a recurring target for the right-wing, exploiting
the growing anxiety among private-sector employees as they witness their retirement benefits diminish.
This tactic divides workers and hurts us all. Despite
the hysteria, most state and local government pension
plans are not in crisis, and taxpayers do not shoulder
the bulk of pension funding, nor are pension obligations
a large portion of state and local budgets. In fact, state
and local government pensions are important economic
drivers, stimulating the U.S. economy as retirees have a
steady income to spend in their local communities. We
oppose legislation to impose first-time federal requirements for state and local pension plans. These requirements, disguised as transparency efforts, are really
about facilitating the end of public pensions.
Department of Labor’s Proposed
Conflict of Interest Rule
In April 2015, the Department of Labor proposed a
Conflict of Interest Rule designed to strengthen protections for working families and retirees by requiring the
financial professionals they turn to for retirement investment advice to act in their best interests. It provides
much needed new protections for retirement savers
while providing the flexibility necessary to enable well-
2016
CAP
2016
CAP
Key Talking Points and Actions You
Can Take
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
19
2016
CAP
2016
CAP
20
ISSUES
HIGHER EDUCATION
AND TRAINING
Overview
What’s at stake for UAW members?
Our country’s higher education system, vocational
training and workplace apprenticeship programs prepare us for the jobs of tomorrow. In a global market,
American workers must continue to lead the way in
productivity, service and quality. Advanced technology
jobs, whether they are in manufacturing, health care,
government or any other UAW sector, require advanced
knowledge and training. By 2020, nearly two-thirds of
all jobs will require at least some higher education, up
from 59 percent in 2007. However, based on current
trends, our educational system will not keep pace with
rising demands for educated workers and by 2020, we
will graduate 5 million fewer students than the labor
market will demand. Our country needs our elected
leaders to tackle this challenge head on.
Our country is justifiably proud of its institutions of
higher education, community colleges and apprenticeship programs that serve traditional and non-traditional
students. Our universities attract students and researchers from around the world. Our educational system is
powering research developing technologies that will
be the basis for new jobs and new industries, finding
cleaner ways to power our economy, improving our
health and quality of life and making other contributions to a healthier, more prosperous and sustainable
future. Community colleges provide avenues for muchneeded vocational training.
While our colleges and universities are incredible
national resources, they face growing challenges that
must not be ignored by policymakers. Budget cuts,
skyrocketing tuition, increasing student loan debt and a
squeeze on academic workers by school administrations
threaten the quality and accessibility of higher education, as well as the success of the academic research
enterprise. A four-year degree, associate’s degree or
vocational certificate is out of reach for many working families. Increased funding of education, including
vocational education partnerships with community colleges as well as apprenticeship programs, is critical for
our future.
Vocational training programs for skilled production
work and apprenticeships prepare us for the jobs of
tomorrow. We have managed highly successful apprenticeship programs with many of our employers for
decades. UAW joint programs have enabled tens of
thousands of our members to upgrade their skills. However, as a country we need to make much bigger commitment, and expanded funding for vocational training
will help us meet the manufacturing challenges and
opportunities in this country. Apprenticeships in skilled
trades and high-growth fields such as advanced manufacturing are an investment in our country’s future.
Apprenticeships that partner employers, labor, schools,
and local governments are a proven path to a better
life, as 87 percent of apprentices are employed after
completing their programs, with an average starting
wage of over $50,000. Many countries throughout the
world have recognized the importance of apprenticeship
training programs for decades and it is long past time
we do so as well.
More than50,000 of us work in higher education,
as faculty, postdoctoral researchers, graduate student
employees and clerical, technical and support staff.
Federal support for education and research has a direct
impact on wages, benefits and job security. Attacks by
some university administrators on the right to organize
are denying workers in higher education a voice when
we need it most.
Many of us are paying off student loan debt – others are struggling to make tuition payments; still others
are looking ahead and worrying about how we will
afford ever-rising tuition bills when our own children
reach college age. With a post-secondary degree becoming an increasingly important credential, the cost
and quality of higher education and the availability of
student financial aid are key economic concerns for all
working families.
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
ISSUES
Background on the Issues
2016
CAP
2016
CAP
A Union Voice for the Higher Education
Workforce
Low-paid workers with limited or no job security
increasingly do the world-leading teaching and research
conducted in our colleges and universities. Academic
workers often carry the burden of low pay, limited benefits and a lack of employment security. Poor working
conditions make academic careers less and less attractive, and put the long-term future of higher education
and research at risk. Graduate teaching assistants and
part-time or adjunct faculty, paid by the course, now
represent over 60 percent of total instructional staff.
Graduate research assistants and postdoctoral scholars
with short-term appointments conduct a growing share
of academic research. The key to improving conditions
for academic workers is the right to organize and bargain collectively. We will continue to fight for bargaining rights for all academic workers.
Accessibility and Affordability of Higher
Education
Even as states restore some funding, support for higher
education remains well below pre-recession levels.
Funding cuts have driven up tuition as states shift costs
onto students, causing an explosion in student loan debt
that is weighing down an entire generation. The average student loan debt was close to $30,000 in 2014.
President Obama has worked aggressively to address
this problem by raising the Pell Grant maximum – the
number of Pell Grant recipients thus expanded by 50
percent. Now, it is time for Congress to do its part by
investing more money to make college affordable and
reduce crippling student debt.
Research Funding
The colleges and universities that carry out much of
the research funded by the National Institutes of Health
(NIH), the largest single source of research money
for universities, have been starved of resources for more
than a decade. We support increasing federal investments for NIH and the increase should not be financed
by reducing other critical programs. We also call on
federal agencies to ensure adequate pay and benefits for
workers on federal grants.
Funding Vocational Education at
Community Colleges
As the world economy becomes more competitive,
the strength of our nation depends on the education
and skills of our workforce. We support President
Obama’s proposed American Graduation Initiative that
was introduced in July 2014 to aid American workers
in attaining the skills and training we need to succeed.
Under the program, community colleges could build
partnerships with businesses and the workforce investment system to create career pathways by building essential skills relevant to local labor markets. Apprenticeships
The United States needs more skilled workers. Apprenticeship – the worker-training model that combines on-the-job training with classroom instruction –
is common around the world, yet relatively underused
in the United States. Apprenticeships in skilled trades
and high-growth fields, such as advanced manufacturing, are an investment in our country’s future. Apprenticeships that partner employers, labor, schools and
local governments are a proven way to a better life, as
87 percent of apprentices are employed after completing their programs with an average starting wage of
over $50,000. We support President Obama’s actions
to increase federal funding for apprenticeships and
believe that states should establish these proven workforce development tools.
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
21
ISSUES
2016
CAP
Key Talking Points and Actions You
CAP
Can Take
2016
•
The exploitation of many academic workers is
putting the quality of American higher education at
risk. Workers in higher education need and deserve
a union voice.
•
Apprenticeships are critical to expanding our
skilled trades and creating well-paying jobs that
support our local and national economies.
•
ACTION: Call on public officials at all levels
to support the right of all academic workers to
organize and bargain collectively.
•
Federal programs to make college accessible must
be expanded.
•
ACTION: Tell Congress to act to invest in mak-
•
Academic research is an important driver of innovation and economic growth – it is an investment in
our future as a country. Increased funding is necessary and should not come at the price of academic
freedom.
•
ACTION: Tell Congress to increase federal sup-
•
ACTION: Urge Congress to support workertraining initiatives and invest in apprenticeship
programs to help American workers compete in a
global economy.
•
We need to help our community colleges develop,
improve and provide education and training to meet
our economic needs for a skilled workforce. ing college affordable.
port for research funding that is not financed
by cuts to other critical programs and to ensure
adequate pay and benefits for workers on federal grants.
DEFENDING OUR
CIVIL RIGHTS
The UAW has fought for civil rights throughout our history because civil rights are essential for a democratic
and just society. Unfortunately, they are under attack as
bad court decisions and legislative maneuvers have narrowed the democratic voting rights of ordinary people
and expanded power for the wealthy and well-connected. Unchecked corporate power continues to erode the
principles of democracy that we all believe in.
The news is not all bad, as we scored a major victory last summer when the Supreme Court guaranteed
the freedom to marry for all Americans in the landmark Obergefell vs. Hodges decision. While we have
achieved some significant improvements over the last
several decades, we still have work to do.
We must fix our broken immigration system that is
tearing families apart and our criminal justice system
that offers little chance for rehabilitation. The effects of
22
these policy failures extend far beyond those who are
directly impacted. When immigrants eager to contribute
to society are exploited by unscrupulous employers, we
all suffer. When our criminal justice system offers little
hope for rehabilitation, we all suffer. When people of
color and youth are kept from exercising their right to
vote, we all suffer. When our laws do not protect us all
from discrimination, we all suffer.
What’s at Stake for UAW Members?
Union membership connects us – to each other, to
our communities, and to all working people. As UAW
members, we believe that all people deserve to be treated fairly, with respect, dignity and equal rights under
the law. A commitment to civil rights for all people is at
the core of what makes us proud to be union.
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
ISSUES
The UAW has long believed that unions have the power
to improve the lives of all working-class Americans,
and the potential to change the world for all by following the path set forth by President Walter Reuther, who
strongly advocated for civil rights for all.
The Right to Vote
For the last 50 years, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 has
put real legal protections and power behind the effort
for political participation by people of color. But today,
two years after the Supreme Court issued a decision that
struck down a key part of the Voting Rights Act (Shelby
County vs. Holder), our country has witnessed some of
the most extreme voter suppression attempts in decades.
During this time, multiple states have passed voter ID
laws intended to put obstacles in the path of potential
voters. Citing (but not documenting) the threat of voter
fraud, these measures selectively target certain groups,
especially people of color, young people, students and
seniors. We have had some success blocking state-based
voter suppression in court, but litigation cannot be the
only solution.
By taking up the Voting Rights Advancement Act
(H.R. 2867 and S. 1659), Congress can curtail voter
discrimination. If Congress fails to act, there is little
doubt that some voters in 2016 will face barriers they
have encountered in almost half a century. Restrictive voting laws and schemes to suppress voters were
already problems in many places before this misguided
Supreme Court decision.
These efforts disproportionately target people of
color. Unlike in most democratic countries,
where citizens are automatically eligible and
registered to vote, the United States complicates
the process, putting the burden of following the
various registration requirements on individual
citizens. The Brennan Center for Justice developed a roadmap to strengthen our democracy. A
handful of states have acted to implement some
of the policies: automatic registration, portability
of registration within one’s state, online access
to registration records, and the ability to correct errors on the rolls or register before and on
Election Day. It is time for federal modernization
of our voter registration system so all Americans
can benefit from advances in technology.
We also need to reform how our districts
are drawn (and redrawn). Several states have
enacted highly partisan redistricting plans that
weakened representation of workers and people
of color while protecting entrenched interests. The process of artificially drawing legislative districts to carry
out a political objective is known as “gerrymandering.”
2016
CAP
2016
CAP
Money in Politics
The increased role of money in politics threatens the
core of our democracy as the political process becomes
another way for the wealthy to rig the economy in their
favor. Money from corporations and wealthy individuals now plays a larger role in our political system than
it has throughout much of our history – often by way of
shadowy and unaccountable “super PACs.”
The 2014 election brought a wave of undocumented
secret money into a system already dominated by large
donors. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens
United, which gutted campaign finance law by broadly
equating money with free speech, opened the floodgates
by allowing unlimited corporate contributions to political campaigns. In the 2014 elections, super PACs raised
at least $696 million – the top 1 percent of the donors
contributing 69 percent. If we are to restore the voice
of the average citizen, we must reduce the role of big
money in politics.
We need campaign finance reform to ensure that
our voices – not their dollars – are heard in debates
that matter to UAW families. Congress must act by
overturning Citizens United, requiring corporations to
disclose their political contributions, and by closing
loopholes in our law that permit nonprofit front organizations and trade associations to anonymously spend
money on politics.
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
23
2016
CAP
2016
CAP
24
ISSUES
Immigration
Our broken immigration system hurts all of us. The status quo creates divisions, depresses wages and weakens
labor standards for all workers. Out of fear of being
deported, undocumented workers have little recourse
against wage theft and other employer abuses. When
businesses can exploit immigrant workers, it lowers the
wages of all workers.
There are an estimated 11.3 million undocumented
immigrants in the United States. The vast majority are
here because they want a better life for their families
and faced economic and political oppression back
home. Often, these individuals come from undemocratic countries that lack even the most basic rights for
working families.
Despite political rhetoric and fearmongering, most
ardent opponents of immigration acknowledge there is
no feasible way to force millions of people to leave a
country that, for many, has been home for much of their
lives. It would also be immoral and extremely harmful
to our economy. The real choice is between creating a
responsible way for many to legalize their status and
eventually become citizens or continuing the exploitation of workers.
We support comprehensive immigration reform
and it has been at the top of President Obama’s agenda
for some time. Unfortunately, opposition by the far
right has blocked sensible bipartisan solutions and
Congress has failed to act. In response, the president
issued an executive order in late 2014 that sought to
keep families together and allow many to live without
fear of deportation. It did not create a path to citizenship, as only Congress can overhaul our visa system.
Under President Obama’s Deferred Action for Parents,
4.1 million people would be able to qualify for relief
from deportation. The program was designed for people
who have been in the U.S. for longer than five years,
and are parents of children that are U.S.-born or are
Legal Permanent Residents. It has been only partially
implemented due to legal challenges from opponents of
reform. The Deferred Action plan is good for America
and should be implemented.
When 5.2 million individuals are able to work
legally and live without fear of deportation, they will
have better opportunities and be less vulnerable to
wage theft and exploitation. It would help boost workers’ wages throughout the economy (not just those who
qualify for the program). Experts predict it would give
a boost to our economy by creating jobs and increasing
our GDP by $230 billion over the next 10 years. Yet,
this is only a partial solution and the President himself
admits the program has limitations. Due to only Congress having the power to overhaul all of our immigrations laws, we need Congress to take action to bring
undocumented workers out of the shadows and under
the protection of the law.
Criminal Justice Reform
America is home to 5 percent of the world’s population, but 25 percent of the world’s prisons. AfricanAmericans and Latinos make up only 30 percent of the
U.S. population, but 60 percent of American inmates.
Far too many non-violent offenders fill our prisons. No
one disputes that people should be held accountable for
breaking the law and those who pose a violent threat
should remain behind bars. Still, once people have
served their time, we must increase the possibility that
they can turn their lives around and contribute to our
society. In the words of President Obama, “Justice is
not only the absence of oppression; it’s the presence of
opportunity.”
Leaders on both sides of the aisle are finally acknowledging after decades of failed policies, that we
imprison too many people for too long for non-violent
offenses. We need to do much more in providing real
opportunities for those formerly incarcerated to reintegrate into society — rather than recidivate (go back
to prison) — after they leave prison. President Obama
and some in Congress have called for reducing or
eliminating mandatory minimum sentences, reviewing
the use of solitary confinement, and barring employers
from asking job applicants about their criminal history,
among other things. Finally, people who served their
time should not automatically lose their democratic
right to vote.
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
ISSUES
Key Talking Points and Actions You
Can Take
•
ACTION: Participate in voter registration drives in
your workplace and community.
•
Inequality in our political system is bad for our
democracy and working people. We need to broaden political participation by making it easier for
citizens to vote and by reducing the role of money
in politics.
•
ACTION: Give friends, co-workers, and neighbors
the facts about immigration reform. Immigration is
a tough issue for many Americans, and taking the
time to engage in one-on-one conversations can
dispel myths and win support for reform.
•
Voter ID requirements, restrictions on early voting,
long lines at the polls and other barriers to voting
are motivated by partisan politics, not by evidence
of fraud.
•
ACTION: Urge Congress to immediately pass comprehensive immigration reform that includes a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.
•
ACTION: Urge Congress to support criminal justice reform.
•
Our voter registration system is restrictive in
comparison to most other democratic countries.
Same-day registration and other policies that make
voting easier have been proven to work and should
be expanded.
•
Our immigration system is broken and drives down
wages and working standards for all workers. We
need comprehensive immigration reform – one that
creates a pathway to citizenship and makes keeping
families together a priority.
•
Smart policies reduce recidivism and make communities safer. When people have served their time,
we must increase their chances of turning their lives
around and becoming contributing members of
society.
•
ACTION: Oppose state-level voter suppression
measures.
•
ACTION: Urge Congress to support national election reform, including online and same-day voter
registration, setting national standards for voting
machines, and ending the disenfranchisement of
felons who have served their sentences.
•
ACTION: Support campaign finance reform to limit
the role of money in politics and increase disclosure
of corporate contributions.
•
ACTION: Support V-CAP and encourage your coworkers to do so, too.
•
ACTION: Bargain for time off for voting and support efforts to make Election Day a federal holiday.
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
2016
CAP
2016
CAP
25
2016
CAP
ISSUES
WORKER AND
CONSUMER
PROTECTIONS 2016
CAP
Overview Common-sense worker and consumer protections are
necessary for a modern society to function. Regulations protecting communities, workers and public safety
more broadly are needed to establish and enforce rules
that put societal interests before corporate interests.
Unfortunately, attacks on the regulatory process are part
of a broader attack on working families by the far right.
In the absence of effective regulations, there would
be no check on corporations’ abilities to pollute the
environment, expose workers to hazardous conditions
on the job, deceive consumers, or manipulate financial
markets. One tactic used by right-wing members of Congress
to weaken regulatory agencies and rules is a “policy
rider” that gets attached to a piece of must-pass legislation that moves through Congress. This most often
occurs on spending bills to fund the government. In
this context they are typically designed to prevent rules
from being created and enforced.
What’s at Stake for UAW Members? According to the most recent annual statistics available (2014), there were almost 4,700 American workers
killed on the job; an estimated 50,000 died of occupational diseases; and almost 3.8 million suffered a nonfatal occupational injury or illness. Since many injuries are not reported, the true number of work-related
injuries or illnesses may really be much larger. Many
of these deaths and injuries could have been prevented
by stronger workplace health and safety regulations.
However, Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) offices are underfunded and understaffed.
It would take OSHA inspectors more than 90 years to
inspect every worksite in their jurisdiction just once.
For workers, the problem is not excessive regulations.
Rather, it is a lack of protections. For UAW members, strong regulations and strict
enforcement paired with the power of collective bar26
gaining and strong health and safety committees are the
best tools to prevent injuries and illnesses at work. Our
goal is to eliminate hazards before any of our co-workers get hurt or develop a job-related illness. Just one
injury or fatality at work is one too many.
The right-wing has also taken aim at weakening the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which
was created by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act of 2010. The CFPB protects
us against deceptive and abusive financial practices
that are partially responsible for the Great Recession.
Finally, tying the hands of agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug
Administration forces us all to breathe dirtier air and
drink dirtier water, and places us at risk of consuming
harmful medications and poisoned food. We oppose efforts to weaken or roll back regulations
under the banner of so-called “regulatory reform.”
Background on the Issues Once Congress passes a law, like the Occupational
Safety and Health Act or the Dodd-Frank Act to reform
our banking laws, agencies in the executive branch are
tasked to design and implement specific rules. These
executive agencies give force to the law and keep it current. The rulemaking process is lengthy. Interest groups
from across the political spectrum (as well as individual
citizens) have ample opportunity to comment, raise
questions and make suggestions on proposed rules
before they are finalized. Of course, powerful special
interest groups have more resources than working
families to influence the process. The extreme right has
launched an aggressive attack on the regulatory process
itself in order to block the implementation of dulypassed laws that they oppose. Many workplace and
consumer protections are on hold because of delaying
tactics or lack of funding.
Recent examples show the need for effective regulation. The anti-democratic nature of regulatory opponents can be found in the fight over OSHA’s proposed
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
ISSUES
rule on silica dust and the long, difficult process of
implementing the Dodd-Frank Act to stabilize our financial system and protect consumers from Wall Street
abuses.
The dangers of silica dust have been well-known
since the 1930s: Breathing the particles causes silicosis, lung cancer and other respiratory diseases, as well
as kidney disease. And yet, the current exposure limits
have not been updated in 40 years. In 2013, OSHA
finally proposed an updated silica standard that would
save nearly 700 lives a year. Even so, the proposed rule
faces strong opposition from corporations and trade
associations who are demanding more time to “review”
findings that have already been studied to death (literally, in the case of the 700 additional workers who will
die at current exposure levels). Their allies in Congress
have been attempting to use riders to delay the implementation of the proposed standard. We will continue
to fight against their efforts to derail the progress we
have made. Now right-wing ideologues want to erect even more
roadblocks to effective regulation. The centerpiece of
their effort is the so-called REINS Act (for “Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny”), which
would require all major rules to be approved by both
houses of Congress within 70 legislative days. Failure
to pass a joint resolution within that window would kill
the proposed rule. It is fair to say this bill would effectively wipe out decades of hard fought protections that
benefit us all. The REINS Act passed the House on a largely
party-line vote in July 2015. With Republicans in the
majority, this legislation could get voted on in the Senate, where it would require 60 votes. Even if the REINS
Act passed the Senate, President Obama is highly
unlikely to sign it into law.
The threat of bad regulatory reform legislation
remains very real in Congress. Instead of continuing
on their current anti-regulatory path, Congress should
seek ways to make sure that federal agencies are able to
effectively enforce the laws that protect our workplaces,
food safety, air and water quality, and financial security.
We do not need additional hurdles in the implementation of policies the American people need and support. 2016
CAP
2016
CAP
Key Talking Points and Actions You
Can Take •
Regulatory reform is not about economic efficiency
– it’s a power grab by corporations to gain a free
hand at our expense. •
Public protections of consumers and workers are
necessary in a modern democratic society. •
ACTION: Urge Members of Congress to oppose
legislation that would freeze or obstruct the federal
regulatory process and support legislation and
regulations that would strengthen protections for
the American public. UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
27
2016
Political Almanac
2016
CAP
Year in Review - 2015..................................................................... 29
The Bill of Rights............................................................................. 30
The Presidency of the United States.............................................. 31
Power of the President................................................................... 32
2016
Importance of the Supreme Court................................................. 33
CAP
2016 Governors’ Races................................................................... 34
2016 Senate Races......................................................................... 35
House of Representatives 114th Congress....................................37
The Powers of Congress................................................................ 42
Who Controls Congress?................................................................ 43
What is V-CAP?............................................................................... 44
Glossary of Legislative Terms.........................................................47
How a Bill Moves Through Congress............................................ 56
POLITICAL ALMANAC
POLITICAL ALMANAC
2016
CAP
2016
CAP
This section contains detailed information and reference materials to help CAP activists understand our federal government, the legislative process and the issues being debated in Washington.
The Political Almanac lists the most recent election results, outlines the leadership structure in the
U.S. House of Representatives and Senate, and provides a quick look forward to the next election
cycle. Please note the issue papers contain detailed policy and background information on the
specific policy issues we are seeking to address.
YEAR IN REVIEW – 2015
I
n 2015, Congress was engaged in several heated
debates over domestic and foreign policy, but made
little progress in addressing the most significant domestic issues of our time: staggering income inequality and
an ever-shrinking middle class. Paralysis and dysfunction continued to be the norm in Congress.
At the start of the 114th Congress of the United
States, right-wing members of the House and Senate
pursued radical policies that put the interests of the
wealthiest Americans and corporations before working people. Nothing illustrates this point better than the
battle over the federal budget. In the spring of 2015,
the House and Senate passed competing 10-year budget
plans. (The federal budget does not have the force of
law but instead sets parameters for annual spending
bills and outlines changes to our tax code and key programs such as Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare.)
Last year’s budget blueprints called for cutting federal
spending by several trillion dollars, taking away health
care coverage for over 16 million by repealing the Affordable Care Act, cutting Medicare benefits, and turning it into a voucher program. The same budget slashed
tax rates for the wealthy and corporations. Fortunately,
it was not enacted due to unanimous opposition from
congressional Democrats and President Obama. We opposed these draconian proposals and instead advocated
for policies that would create jobs and help grow the
middle class.
The 114th did have some notable cooperation. In the
fall of 2015, Congress and the Obama Administration
agreed to a two-year budget agreement and a six-year
transportation bill. Unfortunately, some the results of
their work could prove harmful for working people and
our nation. The debate over U.S. trade policy took center stage on Capitol Hill during the spring and summer
months of 2015. After a lengthy and bruising battle,
Fast Track (Trade Promotion Authority — TPA) was
narrowly passed into law in late June.
Fast Track authority will last for six years and the
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) could be voted on
during the first quarter of 2016. The TPP is a sweeping
trade agreement that includes 12 countries and covers
40 percent of the world’s economic activity. It includes
countries with closed markets and terrible labor rights
records.
Fast Track only gives elected leaders an up-or-down
vote, and abolishes the use of the filibuster when voting
on any free-trade agreement over the next several years.
TPA makes it even more difficult to address troubling
provisions in current and future trade agreements. We
strongly opposed Fast Track. It is a policy that has
resulted in bad trade deals that have left millions of
American workers out of work. We are still feeling the
negative impacts of NAFTA, which was fast tracked,
contributed to a net loss of nearly 700,000 jobs in the
United States, and led to a huge upheaval in Mexico in
which more than two million subsistence farmers were
forced from their land.
This year promises to be an important time on
Capitol Hill for us all.
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
29
2016
CAP
2016
CAP
POLITICAL ALMANAC
THE BILL OF RIGHTS
These articles were ratified Dec. 15, 1791.
Article I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Article II
A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security
of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear
Arms, shall not be infringed.
Article III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any
house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of
war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Article IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable
searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no
Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things
to be seized.
Article V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or
otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment
or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising
in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in
actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall
any person be subject for the same offence to be twice
put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled
in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,
nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor shall private property be taken for
public use, without just compensation.
30
Article VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the
right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of
the State and district wherein the crime shall have been
committed, which district shall have been previously
ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature
and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the
witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for
obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
Article VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy
shall exceed $20, the right of trial by jury shall be
preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise
re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Article VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines
imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Article IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights,
shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Article X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
POLITICAL ALMANAC
THE PRESIDENCY OF
THE UNITED STATES
E
very four years, on the first Tuesday after the first
Monday in November, millions of Americans go
to the polls to choose a new leader in a free and open
election.
The candidates, nominated during the preceding
summer at the conventions of their respective political
parties, wage vigorous campaigns. Through radio, television, newspapers, magazines, blogs, Twitter feeds and
digital media, they make known their views on national
and international affairs, becoming familiar faces to the
people of the nation.
On Inauguration Day, the successful candidate for
president of the United States takes this oath of office:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully
execute the Office of President of the United States,
and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and
defend the Constitution of the United States.”
This is the same oath that has been taken by every
American president since George Washington. Yet, in
the two centuries since the first president was inaugurated, the obligations and duties implied in the oath
have changed. The key to the change lies in the words
“the Office of the President.” Exactly what is the Office
of the President? What was it originally intended to be?
What has it become?
The Growth of the Presidency
The men who wrote the Constitution of the United
States were opposed to monarchies and the idea of an
all-powerful head of state. America’s Founding Fathers
thought of the presidency as an office of great honor
and dignity but one with little real power. The American
colonists in general favored the parliamentary system
of government but did not believe that all governmental
powers should rest within any one body. So, in framing the Constitution, they provided for three separate
branches: legislative, executive and judicial.
Article I of the Constitution deals with the functions of the House of Representatives and the Senate.
Not until Article II is any mention made of the president. This article states that the president shall be the
head of the executive branch of the government. But,
to limit and restrict the office, the Constitution provides
2016
CAP
2016
CAP
Congress with checks against any president who may
try to assume too much authority.
The framers of the Constitution believed that in the
presidency they had created an office of prestige but
little power. They would be astounded if they knew the
changes that have occurred. The powers and responsibilities of the president have grown enormously. The
president has become the leader of the country in fact as
well as in name. His words and deeds affect the course
of history not only in the United States, but also in
every country throughout the world.
The men who were presidents early in the history
of the republic were able to carry on the duties of their
office with little assistance. When George Washington
served as the first president of the United States, his
staff consisted of a secretary, one or two clerks, and
household servants who acted as messengers. But with
the enormous growth in presidential power and responsibilities, the office of the presidency now must be run
by a large staff. Today the president of the United States
requires the assistance of more than 1,500 people.
The employees assigned to jobs directly relating
to the office of the presidency are staff members of the
Executive Office of the President. The Executive Office
was created by Congress, but it can be reorganized by
the president through executive orders.
The Cabinet
The president’s Cabinet is one of the most important
parts of the executive branch of the government. The
Cabinet was not provided for by the Constitution, nor
was it created by an act of Congress. It developed
through necessity. The Cabinet traces its beginnings to
George Washington’s assembling his department heads
in 1793 to discuss U.S. neutrality in the French Revolutionary wars.
The Cabinet is made up of the heads of the 15 departments of the government. Its function is to advise
the president on matters of the greatest importance.
One of the first tasks of a new president is to select a
Cabinet.
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
31
2016
CAP
POLITICAL ALMANAC
The first executive posts, which became the presiCAP dent’s Cabinet, were created in 1789. They were the
following:
• Secretary of Foreign Affairs (State)
• Secretary of War
• Secretary of the Treasury
• Attorney General
2016
The present-day Cabinet includes the following
heads of executive departments:
• Secretary of State
• Secretary of the Treasury
• Secretary of Defense
• Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security
• Attorney General (Justice Department)
• Secretary of the Interior
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Secretary of Agriculture
Secretary of Commerce
Secretary of Labor
Secretary of Health and Human Services
Secretary of Education
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
Secretary of Transportation
Secretary of Energy
Secretary of Veterans Affairs
The president may also choose other members of
government to serve in the Cabinet; the vice president,
the White House chief of staff, and the director of the
Office of Management and Budget may all join the
Cabinet at the president’s discretion.
POWER OF THE
PRESIDENT
W
hen we see the president on TV or mentioned in
the newspaper, it is often coverage of ceremonial
duties, such as welcoming foreign dignitaries, awarding medals, making proclamations, signing legislation,
or addressing Congress. While our attention is focused
on these activities, it is easy to overlook the enormous
powers we grant to the chief executive when we cast
our votes. The president of the United States is the most
powerful elected executive position in the world.
As chief executive officer of the United States, the
president executes the legislation he signs into law and
manages his Cabinet, which oversees the myriad departments and agencies created to conduct the business
of the federal government. The president’s ideas will
be incorporated into policies and acts that will affect
the life of every citizen. In addition to his responsibility
for upholding the Constitution and enforcing the laws
of the land, he has extensive powers in the following
areas:
32
Foreign Policy
The president formulates foreign and military policy
that determines issues of war and peace. As commander-in-chief of the armed forces and chief executive of
the nation, the president has extensive power to act independently of Congress. Without consulting Congress,
President Harry S. Truman ordered the atomic bombing
of Japan; President John F. Kennedy approved the Bay
of Pigs invasion of Cuba; President Ronald Reagan sent
troops to Lebanon, invaded Grenada, stationed troops
in Central America and adopted a “re-flagging” policy
in the Persian Gulf. While Congress gave President
George W. Bush the authority to use force in Iraq, he
determined the level and intensity. There are many
volatile areas in the world today and the Obama Administration has been actively engaged around the globe.
The 2015 agreement to end Iran’s nuclear program and
killing of Osama bin Laden by Navy Seals in 2011 are
two prominent examples.
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
POLITICAL ALMANAC
Legislation
The president helps set the legislative agenda for Congress and a budget for the nation.
The president may:
• Personally lobby for or against bills.
• Veto bills that he opposes. (Vetoes are seldom overturned.)
• Formulate and propose a budget for the federal
government.
• Impound funds already appropriated by Congress
against his wishes (Presidents Gerald Ford and
Richard Nixon impounded billions of dollars.)
Appointments
A new president appoints between 3,000 and 4,000
people to high-ranking posts in government agencies.
That includes many positions in agencies that are important to working families, such as OSHA, the National Labor Relations Board, the Environmental Protection
Agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the
Federal Trade Commission, and many offices within
the Department of Labor. The president also appoints
federal judges and justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.
The nominations are subject to confirmation by the
Senate. A president may make a recess appointment
while Congress is not in session, which circumvents the
confirmation process, but only until the next Congress
is sworn in.
2016
CAP
2016
CAP
Shaping Public Opinion
Presidents mold public opinion in support of their ideas,
programs, and policies through television appearances,
news conferences and speeches to the nation, and to
joint sessions of Congress.
For example, President Obama has made the case
for economic fairness, including tax and budget policies that protect and expand the middle class. While
the president cannot personally introduce bills in Congress, he certainly can make sure that Congress hears
from him, and encourage citizens to make their voices
heard as well.
Events in Washington also contribute to public
opinion. Public opinion of Congress has reached historic lows in recent years, signaling a frustration and
antipathy with the stalemate and actions of Washington.
IMPORTANCE OF
THE SUPREME COURT
T
he U.S. Supreme Court, which convenes the first
Monday in October for a session that typically runs
through June, often has the last word on controversial
policy disputes. As the highest court in the land, the
Supreme Court is charged with determining the constitutionality of our laws and reviewing decisions made
by lower courts. It is where the most serious civil and
voting rights disputes, labor and employment rules, and
federal laws go for final settlement. The court decides
about 150 cases of great national importance and interest every year. Decisions by the Supreme Court can
expand our democracy and make it more inclusive – or
they can harm working families and increase the power
of wealthy corporate interests.
The sitting justices consist of two appointed by
President Reagan, one appointed by President George
H.W. Bush, two by President Clinton, two by President George W. Bush and two by President Obama.
President Obama made history by appointing to the
court its first Latina justice, Sonya Sotomayor. Chief
Justice Roberts was appointed by George W. Bush. The
Roberts court has actively pursued cases that have had a
long lasting and profound impact on our country.
In 2015, the Court decided in King vs. Burwell
to uphold the Affordable Care Act by concluding that
tax subsidies were being provided lawfully in three
dozen states that had decided not to run marketplaces
for insurance coverage. The Supreme Court also ruled
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
33
2016
CAP
POLITICAL ALMANAC
5-4 that same-sex partners have a constitutional right
CAP to marry, sweeping away state bans on gay unions and
extending marriage equality nationwide. The decision
struck down restrictions on same-sex marriage in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee that a Cincinnatibased federal appeals court upheld last year. It also
validated a series of lower court opinions that expanded
the institution across much of the nation since 2012.
Under the leadership of Chief Justice John Roberts,
the U.S. Supreme Court has also issued rulings that are
deeply problematic for our country. For example, this
court struck down the coverage formula used by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This decision
allowed nine states, mostly in the South, to change their
election laws without advance federal approval. The
Voting Rights Act has been one of the most important
pieces of federal legislation in combating entrenched
2016
racism. By ending federal oversight of local voting
practices, the court’s decision opened the door to a new
wave of anti-democratic practices. Specifically, voting
ID laws have been shown to disproportionately disenfranchise young, minority and poor voters. The court
also struck down many of our campaign finance laws
in the infamous Citizens United decision that allowed
the wealthy and corporations to spend an unprecedented
amount of money in order to impact elections and the
public discourse.
Working people have an enormous stake in Supreme Court appointments. Our fundamental right to
fairness on the job and in the political system can hinge
on a single vote. The composition of the Supreme Court
– where many justices serve for decades – is one of the
most important legacies of any presidency.
2015-2016
GOVERNORS’ RACES
T
hree states held gubernatorial elections in 2015:
Kentucky, Louisiana, and Mississippi. In Mississippi, Republican Governor Phil Bryant easily won
re-election with 66 percent of the vote. In Kentucky,
UAW-endorsed candidate Jack Conway lost this contentious race to Matt Bevin, a Tea Party candidate. Bevin’s
campaign platform included his support for right-towork legislation. Democrats still control the statehouse
and can work to defeat this type of legislation that
would ultimately affect thousands of UAW members.
With a big victory in Louisiana, UAW-endorsed
candidate and Democrat John Bel Edwards defeated
Republican candidate U.S. Sen. David Vitter with 55
percent of the vote. Edwards is the first Democrat to
win statewide since 2008. Vitter has since indicated
that he will resign from the Senate in 2016 at the end
of his term.
In 2016, there will be 12 gubernatorial contests.
There is a lot at stake for UAW members. Governors
can utilize their leadership position to make changes to
34
state labor laws and make it more difficult for unions to
operate.
Currently, Democrats are the incumbent party in
eight of the 12 races: Washington, Oregon, Montana,
New Hampshire, Missouri, West Virginia, Vermont and
Delaware. Missouri, New Hampshire and West Virginia
are considered to be highly competitive. Early indicators show that Delaware, Oregon, Vermont and Washington are much more likely to keep the incumbent
party in power.
Republican Governor Pat McCrory is running for
re-election in North Carolina. This will be a highly
competitive race. North Carolina is also a top battleground state for the presidential race.
North Dakota, Indiana and Utah will also hold elections this fall. All three Republican governors of these
states will not run for re-election.
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
POLITICAL ALMANAC
2016 SENATE RACES
S
ometimes called “the world’s greatest deliberative
body,” the U.S. Senate consists of two senators
elected statewide from each of the 50 states, resulting in 100 members. The Senate is divided into three
groups or classes, according to what year they stand
for election or re-election to their six-year terms. Onethird of the seats are up for re-election every two years,
and occasionally additional seats become open due to
retirements, deaths or senators seeking other offices.
Open senate seats are filled according to the laws of that
senator’s state, either by appointment, special election,
a combination of both or an appointment until a special
election is held.
The U.S. Senate began the 114th session with
Republicans holding a 54-46 majority (including two
independents that caucus with the Democrats). The
Republicans gained control of the Senate following
the 2014 midterm elections where they picked up nine
seats. They picked up seats in Alaska, Arkansas, Colo-
View of 2016 Elections
The 2016 elections will determine who controls the
Senate. Among the seats currently up for election in
2016, there are 10 held by Democrats and 24 held by
Republicans. Six different senators have announced
they will not seek re-election in 2016. These include
Republicans Dan Coats of Indiana, David Vitter of
Louisiana and Marco Rubio of Florida, and Democrats Barbara Boxer of California, Barbara Mikulski of
Maryland and Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.
Below is a complete list of all of the U.S. senators who
will be serving in the 114th Congress as determined by
the 2014 election. States are listed in alphabetical order.
Senators whose seats are up for re-election in 2016 are
marked with an asterisk:
Colorado
Idaho
Alaska
Connecticut
Illinois
Arizona
Delaware
Indiana
Arkansas
Florida
Iowa
California
Georgia
Kansas
Hawaii
Kentucky
Lisa Murkowski (R)*
Dan Sullivan (R)
John McCain (R)*
Jeff Flake (R)
Tom Cotton (R)
John Boozman (R)*
Dianne Feinstein (D)
Barbara Boxer (D)*
Cory Gardner (R)
Michael Bennet (D)*
Chris Murphy (D)
Richard Blumenthal (D)*
Tom Carper (D)
Chris Coons (D)
Bill Nelson (D)
Marco Rubio (R)*
David Perdue (R)
Johnny Isakson (R)*
Brian Schatz (D)*
Mazie Hirono (D)
2016
CAP
rado, Iowa, Louisiana, Montana, North Carolina, South
Dakota and West Virginia.
Alabama
Richard Shelby (R)*
Jeff Sessions (R)
2016
CAP
Mike Crapo (R)*
Jim Risch (R)
Dick Durbin (D)
Mark Kirk (R)*
Joe Donnelly (D)
Dan Coats (R)*
Chuck Grassley (R)*
Joni Ernst (R)
Pat Roberts (R)
Jerry Moran (R)*
Mitch McConnell (R)
Rand Paul (R)*
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
35
2016
CAP
2016
POLITICAL ALMANAC
Louisiana
New Hampshire
South Carolina
David Vitter (R)*
Jeanne Shaheen (D)
Kelly Ayotte (R)*
Maine
New Jersey
South Dakota
Maryland
New Mexico
Tennessee
Massachusetts
New York
Texas
Michigan
North Carolina
Utah
Minnesota
North Dakota
Vermont
Mississippi
Ohio
Virginia
Missouri
Oklahoma
Washington
Montana
Oregon
West Virginia
Nebraska
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
Nevada
Rhode Island
Wyoming
CAP Bill Cassidy (R)
Angus King (I)
Susan Collins (R)
Barbara Mikulski (D)*
Ben Cardin (D)
Edward Markey (D)
Elizabeth Warren (D)
Gary Peters (D)
Debbie Stabenow (D)
Amy Klobuchar (D)
Al Franken (D)
Thad Cochran (R)
Roger Wicker (R)
Claire McCaskill (D)
Roy Blunt (R)*
Steve Daines (R)
Jon Tester (D)
Deb Fischer (R)
Ben Sasse (R)
Harry Reid (D)*
Dean Heller (R)
36
Robert Menendez (D)
Cory Booker (D)
Martin Heinrich (D)
Tom Udall (D)
Charles Schumer (D)*
Kirsten Gillibrand (D)
Richard Burr (R)*
Thom Tillis (R)
Heidi Heitkamp (D)
John Hoeven (R)*
Sherrod Brown (D)
Rob Portman (R)*
Jim Inhofe (R)
James Lankford (R)*
Ron Wyden (D)*
Jeff Merkley (D)
Bob Casey Jr. (D)
Pat Toomey (R)*
Jack Reed (D)
Sheldon Whitehouse (D)
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
Lindsey Graham (R)
Tim Scott (R)*
Mike Rounds (R)
John Thune (R)*
Lamar Alexander (R)
Bob Corker (R)
Ted Cruz (R)
John Cornyn (R)
Orrin Hatch (R)
Mike Lee (R)*
Patrick Leahy (D)*
Bernie Sanders (I)
Tim Kaine (D)
Mark Warner (D)
Patty Murray (D)*
Maria Cantwell (D)
Shelley Moore Capito (R)
Joe Manchin (D)
Tammy Baldwin (D)
Ron Johnson (R)*
Mike Enzi (R)
John Barrasso (R)
POLITICAL ALMANAC
U.S. HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES
2016
CAP
2016
CAP
114TH CONGRESS
2016 House Races
Republicans maintained majority control after the 2014
elections, growing their majority from 234-201 in the
113th Congress to 247-188 in the 114th.
Since the start of the 114th Congress, Reps. Michael Grimm, R-New York, 11th District, Aaron
Schock, R-Illinois, 18th District, and Speaker John
Boehner, R-Ohio, 8th District, resigned. Rep. Alan
Alabama
(6-1 Republican)
1. Bradley Byrne (R)
2. Martha Roby (R)
3. Mike Rogers (R)
4. Robert Aderholt (R)
5. Mo Brooks (R)
6. Gary Palmer (R)
7. Terri Sewell (D)
Alaska
(1 Republican)
At-Large. Don Young (R)
Arizona
(5-4 Republican)
1. Ann Kirkpatrick (D)
2. Martha McSally (R)
3. Raul Grijalva (D)
4. Paul Gosar (R)
5. Matt Salmon (R)
6. David Schweikert (R)
7. Ruben Gallego (D)
8. Trent Franks (R)
9. Krysten Sinema (D)
Nunnelee, R-Mississippi, 1st District, died and a special
election was held in June 2015. As representatives are
elected to two-year terms, there will be contests in
every district. Incumbents in 28 districts are retiring or
running for other elected office.
Below is a complete list of the members who are
serving in the House of Representatives in the 114th
Congress, listed by district. States are listed in alphabetical order.
Arkansas
(4-0 Republican)
1. Rick Crawford (R)
2. French J. Hill (R)
3. Steve Womack (R)
4. Bruce Westerman (R)
California
(36-14 Democrat)
1. Doug LaMalfa (R)
2. Jared Huffman (D)
3. John Garamendi (D)
4. Tom McClintock (R)
5. Mike Thompson (D)
6. Doris Matsui (D)
7. Ami Bera (D)
8. Paul Cook (R)
9. Jerry McNerney (D)
10. Jeff Denham (R)
11. Mark DeSaulnier (D)
12. Nancy Pelosi (D)
13. Barbara Lee (D)
14. Jackie Speier (D)
15. Eric Swalwell (D)
16. Jim Costa (D)
17. Mike Honda (D)
18. Anna G. Eshoo (D)
19. Zoe Lofgren (D)
20.Sam Farr (D)
21. David Valadao (R)
22.Devin Nunes, Devin (R)
23.Kevin McCarthy (R)
24.Lois Capps (D)
25.Stephen Knight (R)
26.Julia Brownley (D)
27.Judy Chu (D)
28.Adam B. Schiff (D)
29.Tony Cárdenas (D)
30.Brad J. Sherman (D)
31. Pete Aguilar (D)
32.Grace F. Napolitano (D)
33.Ted Lieu (D)
34.Xavier Becerra (D)
35.Norma J. Torres (D)
36.Raul Ruiz (D)
37.Karen Bass (D)
38.Linda Sánchez (D)
39.Ed R. Royce (R)
40.Lucille Roybal-Allard (D)
41. Mark Takano (D)
42.Ken Calvert (R)
43.Maxine Waters (D)
44.Janice Hahn (D)
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
37
2016
CAP
POLITICAL ALMANAC
45.Mimi Walters (R)
CAP 46.Loretta Sánchez (D)
47.Alan Lowenthal (D)
48.Dana Rohrabacher (R)
49.Darrell E. Issa (R)
50.Duncan Hunter (R)
51. Juan Vargas (D)
52.Scott H. Peters (D)
53.Susan A. Davis (D)
2016
Colorado
(4-3 Republican)
1. Diana DeGette (D)
2. Jared Polis (D)
3. Scott Tipton (R)
4. Ken Buck (R)
5. Doug Lamborn (R)
6. Mike Coffman (R)
7. Ed Perlmutter (D)
Connecticut
(5 Democrat)
1. John Larson (D)
2. Joe Courtney (D)
3. Rosa DeLauro (D)
4. Jim Himes (D)
5. Elizabeth Esty (D)
Delaware
(1 Democrat)
At-Large. John Carney (D)
14. Kathy Castor (D)
15. Dennis Ross (R)
16. Vern Buchanan (R)
17. Thomas Rooney (R)
18. Patrick Murphy (D)
19. Curt Clawson (R)
20.Alcee Hastings (D)
21. Ted Deutch (D)
22.Lois Frankel (D)
23.Debbie Wasserman Schultz
(D)
24.Frederica Wilson (D)
25.Mario Diaz-Balart (R)
26.Carlos Curbelo (R)
27.Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R)
Georgia
(10-4 Republican)
1. Earl “Buddy” Carter (R)
2. Sanford Bishop (D)
3. Lynn Westmoreland (R)
4. Hank Johnson (D)
5. John Lewis (D)
6. Tom Price (R)
7. Rob Woodall (R)
8. Austin Scott (R)
9. Doug Collins (R)
10. Jody Hice (R)
11. Barry Loudermilk (R)
12. Rick Allen (R)
13. David Scott (D)
14. Tom Graves (R)
Florida
(17-10 Republican)
1. Jeff Miller (R)
2. Gwen Graham (D)
3. Ted Yoho (R)
4. Ander Crenshaw (R)
5. Corrine Brown (D)
6. Ron DeSantis (R)
7. John Mica (R)
8. Bill Posey (R)
9. Alan Grayson (D)
10. Daniel Webster (R)
11. Richard Nugent (R)
12. Gus Bilirakis (R)
13. David Jolly (R)
38
Hawaii
(2 Democrat)
1. Mark Takai (D)
2. Tulsi Gabbard (D)
Idaho
(2 Republican)
1. Raul Labrador (R)
2. Mike Simpson (R)
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
Illinois
(10-8 Democrat)
1. Bobby Rush (D)
2. Robin Kelly (D)
3. Dan Lipinski (D)
4. Luis Gutierrez (D)
5. Michael Quigley (D)
6. Peter Roskam (R)
7. Danny Davis (D)
8. Tammy Duckworth (D)
9. Jan Schakowsky (D)
10. Robert Dold (R)
11. Bill Foster (D)
12. Mike Bost (R)
13. Rodney Davis (R)
14. Randy Hultgren (R)
15. John Shimkus (R)
16. Adam Kinzinger (R)
17. Cheri Bustos (D)
18. Darin LaHood (R)
Indiana
(7-2 Republican)
1. Pete Visclosky (D)
2. Jackie Walorski (R)
3. Marlin Stutzman (R)
4. Todd Rokita (R)
5. Susan Brooks (R)
6. Luke Messer (R)
7. Andre Carson (D)
8. Larry Bucshon (R)
9. Todd Young (R)
Iowa
(3-1 Republican)
1. Rod Blum (R)
2. David Loebsack (D)
3. David Young (R)
4. Steve King (R)
Kansas
(4 Republican)
1. Tim Huelskamp (R)
2. Lynn Jenkins (R)
3. Kevin Yoder (R)
4. Mike Pompeo (R)
POLITICAL ALMANAC
Kentucky
(5-1 Republican)
1. Ed Whitfield (R)
2. Brett Guthrie (R)
3. John Yarmuth (D)
4. Thomas Massie (R)
5. Hal Rogers (R)
6. Andy Barr (R)
Louisiana
(5-1 Republican)
1. Steve Scalise (R)
2. Cedric Richmond (D)
3. Charles Boustany (R)
4. John Fleming (R)
5. Ralph Lee Abraham (R)
6. Garret Graves (R)
Maine
(2 Democrats)
1. Chellie Pingree (D)
2. Bruce Poliquin (R)
Maryland
(7-1 Democrat)
1. Andy Harris (R)
2. Dutch Ruppersberger (D)
3. John Sarbanes (D)
4. Donna Edwards (D)
5. Steny Hoyer (D)
6. John Delaney (D)
7. Elijah Cummings (D)
8. Chris Van Hollen (D)
Massachusetts
(9 Democrat)
1. Richard Neal (D)
2. Jim McGovern (D)
3. Niki Tsongas (D)
4. Joe Kennedy, III (D)
5. Katherine Clark (D)
6. Seth Moulton (D)
7. Michael Capuano (D)
8. Stephen Lynch (D)
9. William Keating (D)
Michigan
(9-5 Republican)
1. Dan Benishek (R)
2. Bill Huizenga (R)
3. Justin Amash (R)
4. John Moolenaar (R)
5. Dan Kildee (D)
6. Fred Upton (R)
7. Tim Walberg (R)
8. Mike Bishop (R)
9. Sandy Levin (D)
10. Candice Miller (R)
11. David Trott (R)
12. Debbie Dingell (D)
13. John Conyers (D)
14. Brenda Lawrence (D)
Minnesota
(5-3 Democrat)
1. Tim Walz (D)
2. John Kline (R)
3. Erik Paulsen (R)
4. Betty McCollum (D)
5. Keith Ellison (D)
6. Tom Emmer (R)
7. Collin Peterson (D)
8. Rick Nolan (D)
Mississippi
(3-1 Republican)
1. Trent Kelly (R)
2. Bennie Thompson (D)
3. Gregg Harper (R)
4. Steven Palazzo (R)
Missouri
(6-2 Republican)
1. William Clay (D)
2. Ann Wagner (R)
3. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R)
4. Vicky Hartzler (R)
5. Emanuel Cleaver (D)
6. Sam Graves (R)
7. Bill Long (R)
8. Jason Smith (R)
Montana
(1 Republican)
At-Large. Ryan Zinke (R)
2016
CAP
2016
CAP
Nebraska
(2-1 Republican)
1. Jeff Fortenberry (R)
2. Brad Ashford (D)
3. Adrian Smith (R)
Nevada
(3-1 Republican)
1. Dina Titus (D)
2. Mark Amodei (R)
3. Joe Heck (R)
4. Cresent Hardy (R)
New Hampshire
(1-1 Republican/Democrat)
1. Frank Guinta (R)
2. Ann Kuster (D)
New Jersey
(6-6 Democrat/Republican)
1. Donald Norcross (D)
2. Frank LoBiondo (R)
3. Thomas MacArthur (R)
4. Chris Smith (R)
5. Scott Garrett (R)
6. Frank Pallone (D)
7. Leonard Lance (R)
8. Albio Sires (D)
9. Bill Pascrell, Jr. (D)
10. Donald Payne, Jr. (D)
11. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R)
12. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D)
New Mexico
(2-1 Democrat)
1. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D)
2. Steve Pearce (R)
3. Ben Luján (D)
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
39
2016
CAP
2016
POLITICAL ALMANAC
New York
CAP (18-9 Democrat)
1. Lee Zeldin (R)
2. Peter King (R)
3. Steve Israel (D)
4. Kathleen Rice (D)
5. Gregory Meeks (D)
6. Grace Meng (D)
7. Nydia Velázquez (D)
8. Hakeem Jeffries (D)
9. Yvette Clarke (D)
10. Jerrold Nadler (D)
11. Daniel Donovan, Jr. (R)
12. Carolyn Maloney (D)
13. Charles Rangel (D)
14. Joseph Crowley (D)
15. Jose Serrano (D)
16. Eliot Engel (D)
17. Nita Lowey (D)
18. Sean Maloney (D)
19. Chris Gibson (R)
20.Paul Tonko (D)
21. Elise Stefanik (R)
22.Richard Hanna (R)
23.Tom Reed (R)
24.John Katko (R)
25.Louise Slaughter (D)
26.Brian Higgins (D)
27.Chris Collins (R)
North Carolina
(10-3 Republican)
1. G. K. Butterfield (D)
2. Renee Ellmers (R)
3. Walter Jones (R)
4. David Price (D)
5. Virginia Foxx (R)
6. Mark Walker (R)
7. David Rouzer (R)
8. Richard Hudson (R)
9. Robert Pittenger (R)
10. Patrick McHenry (R)
11. Mark Meadows (R)
12. Alma Adams (D)
13. George Holding (R)
40
North Dakota
(1 Republican)
At-Large. Kevin Cramer (R)
Ohio
(11-4 Republican)
1. Steve Chabot (R)
2. Brad Wenstrup (R)
3. Joyce Beatty (D)
4. Jim Jordan (R)
5. Bob Latta (R)
6. Bill Johnson (R)
7. Bob Gibbs (R)
8. Open Seat (John Boehner
retired 10/15; Special Election in June 2016)
9. Marcy Kaptur (D)
10. Michael Turner (R)
11. Marcia Fudge (D)
12. Pat Tiberi (R)
13. Tim Ryan (D)
14. David Joyce (R)
15. Steve Stivers (R)
16. Jim Renacci (R)
Oklahoma
(5 Republican)
1. Jim Bridenstine (R)
2. Markwayne Mullin (R)
3. Frank Lucas (R)
4. Tom Cole (R)
5. Steve Russell (R)
Oregon
(4-1 Democrat)
1. Suzanne Bonamici (D)
2. Greg Walden (R)
3. Earl Blumenauer (D)
4. Peter DeFazio (D)
5. Kurt Schrader (D)
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
Pennsylvania
(12-6 Republican)
1. Bob Brady (D)
2. Chaka Fattah (D)
3. Mike Kelly (R)
4. Scott Perry (D)
5. Glenn Thompson (R)
6. Ryan Costello (R)
7. Pat Meehan (R)
8. Mike Fitzpatrick (R)
9. Bill Shuster (R)
10. Tom Marino (R)
11. Lou Barletta (R)
12. Keith Rothfus (R)
13. Brendan Boyle (D)
14. Michael Doyle (D)
15. Charlie Dent (R)
16. Joseph Pitts (R)
17. Matthew Cartwright (D)
18. Timothy Murphy (R)
Rhode Island
(2 Democrat)
1. David Cicilline (D)
2. James Langevin (D)
South Carolina
(6-1 Republican)
1. Mark Sanford (R)
2. Joe Wilson (R)
3. Jeff Duncan (R)
4. Trey Gowdy (R)
5. Mick Mulvaney (R)
6. James Clyburn (D)
7. Tom Rice (R)
South Dakota
(1 Republican)
At-Large. Kristi Noem (R)
POLITICAL ALMANAC
Tennessee
(7-2 Republican)
1. Phil Roe (R)
2. John Duncan (R)
3. Chuck Fleischmann (R)
4. Scott DesJarlais (R)
5. Jim Cooper (D)
6. Diane Black (R)
7. Marsha Blackburn (R)
8. Stephen Fincher (R)
9. Steve Cohen (D)
Texas
(25-11 Republican)
1. Louie Gohmert (R)
2. Ted Poe (R)
3. Sam Johnson (R)
4. John Ratcliffe (R)
5. Jeb Hensarling (R)
6. Joe Barton (R)
7. John Culberson (R)
8. Kevin Brady (R)
9. Al Green (D)
10. Michael McCaul (R)
11. Mike Conaway (R)
12. Kay Granger (R)
13. Mac Thornberry (R)
14. Randy Weber (R)
15. Ruben Hinojosa (D)
16. Beto O’Rourke (D)
17. Bill Flores (R)
18. Sheila Jackson Lee (D)
19. Randy Neugebauer (R)
20.Joaquin Castro (D)
21. Lamar Smith (R)
22.Pete Olson (R)
23.Will Hurd (R)
24.Kenny Marchant (R)
25.Roger Williams (R)
26.Michael Burgess (R)
27.Blake Farenthold (R)
28.Henry Cuellar (D)
29.Gene Green (D)
30.Eddie Bernice Johnson (D)
31. John Carter (R)
32.Pete Sessions (R)
33.Marc Veasey (D)
34.Filemon Vela (D)
35.Lloyd Doggett (D)
36.Brian Babin (R)
West Virginia
Utah
Wisconsin
(3-1 Republican)
1. Rob Bishop (R)
2. Chris Stewart (R)
3. Jason Chaffetz (R)
4. Mia Love (R)
(3 Republican)
1. David McKinley (R)
2. Alexander Mooney (R)
3. Evan Jenkins (R)
(1 Democrat)
At-Large. Peter Welch (D)
(5-3 Republican)
1. Paul Ryan (R)
2. Mark Pocan (D)
3. Ron Kind (D)
4. Gwen Moore (D)
5. Jim Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R)
6. Glenn Grothman (R)
7. Sean Duffy (R)
8. Reid Ribble (R)
Virginia
Wyoming
Vermont
(8-3 Republican)
1. Rob Wittman (R)
2. Scott Rigell (R)
3. Bobby Scott (D)
4. Randy Forbes (R)
5. Robert Hurt (R)
6. Bob Goodlatte (R)
7. Dave Brat (R)
8. Donald Beyer, Jr. (D)
9. Morgan Griffith (R)
10. Barbara Comstock (R)
11. Gerry Connolly (D)
2016
CAP
2016
CAP
(1 Republican)
At-Large. Cynthia Lummis (R)
Washington
(6-4 Democrat)
1. Suzan DelBene (D)
2. Rick Larsen (D)
3. Jaime Herrera (R)
4. Dan Newhouse (R)
5. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R)
6. Derek Kilmer (D)
7. Jim McDermott (D)
8. Dave Reichert (R)
9. Adam Smith (D)
10. Denny Heck (D)
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
41
2016
CAP
2016
CAP
POLITICAL ALMANAC
THE POWERS
OF CONGRESS
The U.S. Congress has enormous power to shape our
society and impact our lives. This is achieved not just
through the laws Congress passes, but also by controlling government spending and levels of taxation and
providing advice and consent on trade agreements. Congress has a huge impact on our economy and the quality
of work life for all Americans. Collective bargaining
rights, food safety, education and retirement security
are just a few examples of how the decisions they make
impact us, both now and in the future.
Write Laws, Declare War, Monitor
Federal Agencies
Under our Constitution, Congress has a wide range of
powers, including the power to assess and collect taxes;
to regulate commerce, both interstate and foreign; to
coin money; to establish post offices; to create courts
inferior to the Supreme Court; to raise and maintain
a U.S. Army and Navy, and to declare war. Another
power vested in Congress is the right to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution, whenever two-thirds of
both chambers deem it necessary. The two chambers
responsibilities generally overlap but both the House
and Senate have some unique powers.
For example, the House of Representatives is granted the power to originate all bills for raising revenue.
Under the Constitution, the Senate is granted certain
powers not given to the House of Representatives.
The Senate must approve many high-level presidential appointments, including all federal judges and the
Supreme Court justices. The upper chamber must also
concur in treaties with foreign countries by a two-thirds
majority vote. The House does not vote on nominations
and treaties.
42
Committees:
The Legislative Engines
Committees are the engines of the congressional lawmaking machinery. There are 16 standing committees
in the Senate and 19 in the House. Committees can
move, stall or stop legislation under their jurisdiction.
Without committee approval, a bill generally has little
chance of reaching the full House or Senate for consideration. The membership of the standing committees
of each chamber is selected by the colleagues of their
own party in Congress. Members of other committees
are appointed under the provisions of the legislation
establishing them.
In addition to standing committees, there are also
select and special committees, created for a specific
purpose. For example, the Senate has a “Select Committee on Intelligence” to provide oversight on the
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and address sensitive
national security threats. Sometimes the select committees are highly partisan and controversial. “Committee
on the Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in
Benghazi” is a clear example of one such committee.
Power Committees
Representatives and senators generally seek membership on committees related to the economic interests of
their districts or state.
Personal interests and background also play a role.
All committees have unique jurisdictions and make
decisions of importance. That said, many will choose
the powerful committees like Energy and Commerce in
the House, as well as the Senate Finance and the House
Ways and Means committees, which write tax, Social
Security, trade and health care legislation. Appropriation committees are also coveted because they dictate
spending on defense and non-defense federal programs.
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
POLITICAL ALMANAC
WHO CONTROLS
CONGRESS?
Currently in the 114th Congress, Republicans hold
the majority in the House of Representatives with 246
seats. The Democrats have 188 seats. The Republicans
also have a majority in the U.S. Senate with 54 seats.
There are 44 Democrats and two Independents who
caucus with the Democrats, for a total of 46.
The two-chamber U.S. Congress has various positions and officers that run the business of governing
and legislating in each chamber. The leadership in each
chamber is elected by the political party caucuses after
each federal election. In the House, there is the Speaker
of the House, the majority leader, the minority leader,
and numerous whips for each party. In the Senate,
there is a president, a president pro-tempore, a majority leader, a minority leader, and a whip for each party.
Each chamber also has clerks, secretaries and sergeantsat-arms who are not elected officials.
U.S. House Leadership
The Speaker of the House is the presiding officer of the
U.S. House, and second in succession to the president
of the United States behind the vice president. This post
was abruptly vacated in October, by then-Speaker John
Boehner. He had been the Republican representative
of the 8th District of Ohio for 24 years and served as
speaker since 2011. The new Speaker of the House is
Paul Ryan, from the 1st District of Wisconsin. Ryan was
first elected to the U.S. House in 1999 and had been the
chairman of the Ways and Means Committee until he
was elected speaker. He also ran to serve as vice president in 2012 as part of Republican former Gov. Mitt
Romney’s failed bid to become president.
In recent years, many Republicans have sometimes
been so unwilling to compromise their ultra-conservative views that they have even refused to vote for legislation their own speaker agreed to. This was the case in
2012 when a minority of Republican members nearly
caused the U.S. government to default for the first time
in our history by refusing to vote to increase the debt
ceiling.
Next in line of power after the speaker is the
majority leader. In this Congress, Kevin McCarthy of
California’s 23rd Congressional District was elected
2016
CAP
2016
CAP
as majority leader. McCarthy was first elected in 2007.
Since being elected to the House, McCarthy has served
as House Chief Deputy Republican Whip from 2009 to
2011 and as House Majority Whip from 2011 to August
2014, when he was elected House Majority Leader to
replace the outgoing Eric Cantor, who had been defeated in the Republican primary for his seat.
The leader of the minority party in the U.S. House
is called the minority leader. Once again, for the 114th
Congress, it is former Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California’s 8th District. When she won the speakership in
2007, Congresswoman Pelosi became the first woman
in history to rise to the position. The minority leader
is the spokesperson and leader of the opposition to the
speaker and the majority party.
The whips are the representatives who keep their
party’s members informed and in line with their respective party’s agenda. They are the vote counters and
communicators for the leadership. Republican Steve
Scalise of Louisiana was elected to serve as majority
whip. On the Democratic side, Steny Hoyer of Maryland remains the minority whip while James Clyburn
of South Carolina remains in his post as assistant
minority leader.
U.S. Senate Leadership
The Senate is constitutionally presided over by the vice
president of the United States, but the vice president
only serves to break tie votes and preside over ceremonial occasions. The role is currently filled by Joe Biden.
The actual operation of the Senate is led by the Senate majority leader, and the minority leader heads the
opposition or minority party. Both of these leaders are
elected within their respective caucus during the organizational period between elections and the beginning of a
new Congress. There is also the speaker pro tempore, or
“pro tem,” the highest seniority senator of the majority
party, but this is also basically a ceremonial office, although the speaker pro tem is third in line of succession
to the president. This position is currently held by Sen.
Orrin Hatch of Utah.
In the 114th Congress, Sen. Mitch McConnell of
Kentucky was elected as the majority leader of the Sen-
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
43
2016
CAP
POLITICAL ALMANAC
ate. McConnell was first elected to the Senate in 1984
CAP and was elected leader of the Republican Caucus in
2006. Prior to becoming Senate majority leader, McConnell served as minority leader.
In the 114th Congress, Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada became the Senate minority leader. Reid served
Nevada as the lieutenant governor from 1970 to 1974,
was a U.S. representative from 1982 to 1987 and
has been a U.S. senator since that time. Reid was the
minority leader from 2003 until the Democrats took
2016
the majority in 2006, when he assumed the majority
leader position.
Just as in the U.S. House, the majority leader and
the minority leader rely on whips for information and
lining up their party members’ votes. The Senate majority whip for the 114th Congress is John Cornyn of Texas,
who reports to Senate Majority Leader McConnell.
The Senate minority whip for the 114th Congress
is Richard Durbin of Illinois, who reports to Senate
Minority Leader Reid.
WHAT IS V-CAP?
V-CAP is the UAW’s political action fund made up of
voluntary contributions from UAW members, retirees and their families. The money is used to support
pro-worker political candidates who have earned the
endorsement of the UAW Community Action Program
(UAW CAP).
Whether it is taxes, trade policy, retirement security,
healthcare, education or infrastructure – politics affects
our daily lives. That’s why it is essential for working
families to make our voices heard in local, state and national politics by supporting candidates who support us.
One of the most effective ways to do that is by contributing to V-CAP.
By law, union dues can’t be used to support any
federal candidate and, in an ever-increasing number of
states, any candidate for public office. Our only means
of monetary support for many labor-endorsed candidates is voluntary political contributions.
The 2012 presidential election cycle turned out
to be the most expensive cycle in history, with expenditures of $6 billion. Expectations are that the 2016
expenditures would even exceed the expenditures made
in 2012. In 2012, less than 1 percent of the $6 billion
was spent directly by unions and almost 50 percent was
spent by Super PACs in independent expenditure-only
committees.
Maintaining a strong counterweight is now more
important than ever. This year we should expect an
unprecedented amount of money influencing federal
and state elections. Like in 2014, this year we expect
the existence of Super PACs to carry the voice of bil44
lionaires, thereby putting the pressure on us to pool
our resources in order to amplify the voices of working
people. Individually, we could never dream of matching
the contributions of the super wealthy, but together we
have a much better chance of offsetting their power.
The following pages contain guidelines for running an effective V-CAP program, as well as discussion
points on why V-CAP remains a vital part of our voice
in politics.
“V” Means Voluntary
Always remember that both checkoff authorization and
the amount to be deducted are purely voluntary. No
UAW member can or should be compelled to contribute
to the UAW V-CAP fund. A member can cancel his or
her authorization by written request at any time. The
keys to increasing participation in V-CAP and our other
political action efforts are political education and communication, not high-pressure tactics. These are proven
methods that have been very successful in many local
unions. They can be successful in your local if used
properly and adapted specifically to your workplace.
Note: UAW V-CAP is an independent political
action committee created by the UAW. This committee
does not ask for or accept authorization from any candidate, and no candidate is responsible for its activities.
UAW V-CAP uses the money it receives to make political contributions and expenditures in connection with
federal, state and local elections. Contributions to UAW
V-CAP
are purely voluntary, and are made without fear
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
POLITICAL ALMANAC
of reprisal. All UAW members may be eligible for VCAP raffle drawings, regardless of whether they make
a contribution to UAW V-CAP. Money contributed to
UAW V-CAP constitutes a voluntary contribution to a
joint fund-raising effort by the UAW and AFL-CIO.
Elements of an Effective V-CAP
Program
All successful V-CAP programs start with planning.
The following are some guidelines for you to consider
when launching a new V-CAP program or revamping
an existing one:
increase their contribution to a V-CAP program should
be the leadership.
2016
CAP
2016
CAP
4. Make a calendar:
Set a date for the kickoff of the V-CAP drive along
with a stated goal of 100 percent personal contact with
each identified potential V-CAP member contributor at
work during a period of one targeted week in each local
union. Identify materials that need to be collected for
the drive and deadlines for receipt. Decide how many
volunteers will be needed and a realistic timeframe for
them to complete their work.
5. Notify members and recruit:
1. Bargaining for V-CAP Checkoff:
Before embarking on a V-CAP program, it is worth taking the time to review the logistics of collecting funds
under the program. V-CAP is a monthly contribution.
Collecting funds individually each month requires a
tremendous amount of resources. Thus, it is helpful to
negotiate language in your collective bargaining agreement that lets the company administer V-CAP payroll
deductions. Under Federal Election Campaign
Act
(FECA) rules, the union must reimburse the company
for these administrative costs. For additional information on bargaining language and calculations on the
administrative costs, contact the UAW National CAP
Department.
2. Make a plan to plan:
The first step in any project planning is to brainstorm
with a small group to identify existing practices, get
agreement on what works and a consensus on what
needs
to be improved. Local leadership should set up a
planning team which can put together a project planning table with the specific details of how you expect
to implement the drive in the workplace. A V-CAP
drive coordinator should be designated. Come up with
realistic targets. Remember, there is no such thing as
too much planning.
3. Leadership support:
For the drive
to succeed, the leadership team must
support the program with words and by publicly showing commitment for the program. The team should be
in agreement when it comes to monetary goals and
time commitments. In fact, the first ones to sign up or
Schedule a meeting and send a letter to all rank-andfile members, including the local union leadership, in
advance of the drive kickoff to explain the importance
of V-CAP to the working families of the UAW. Use the
meeting to not only sign up members for V-CAP (or increase their contributions), but also to recruit volunteers
to canvass co-workers.
6. Train volunteers:
Once volunteers are identified, it is important that they
are trained so everyone has the same understanding
and goal. Go over the legalities of V-CAP and typical
questions. Focus the training on how to have issuebased conversations and listen to co-workers. Stress
the importance of asking; too often we are fearful of
making direct requests of co-workers, and we miss opportunities.
7. Target:
Do not just cut loose a group
of volunteers to talk
randomly to anybody.
An assessment should be conducted of the membership’s participation in the V-CAP
program to determine the targeted audience for reaching your goal. Have a plan on who is going to talk to
whom – whether it is talking to co-workers in the same
area or in the lunch room. Find out who is already giving to V-CAP and make a request of them to increase
their participation. Know who has been active in recent
elections (such as volunteering for phone banking) and
approach them about giving to V-CAP for the first time.
Don’t forget to include retired members, too!
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
45
2016
CAP
2016
POLITICAL ALMANAC
8. Monitor movement:
CAP During the drive, have short strategy meetings with the
volunteers to debrief tough questions and brainstorm
new ideas. This step is a very important ingredient in
the process of completing a successful drive! Keep a
record for future reference. Check to see if you are on
track with your target; it may turn out that the coordinator needs to recruit more volunteers to reach your
targeted audience and complete the conversations.
9. Track future work:
Individual cards for members who are not contacted
during the drive should be maintained by the local
union in an action file for contact upon the member’s
return
to work. This important step should be established as an automatic procedure in all local unions.
Similarly, individual cards for members designating
“no” should be retained on permanent file by the local
union for a possible second contact in the future, depending on the situation.
10. Thank members:
Acknowledging member support for a program can
make all the difference. Whether it is a thank-you letter
or an acknowledgment of all givers in a newsletter, it is
important to let members know their support is appreciated.
Talking to Members About Politics
What does a UAW Endorsement
Mean?
UAW endorsements are based upon membership input
and leadership ratification. Decisions are made after
examining the voting records of incumbents and previous officeholders or the stated positions and pledges of
new candidates. Members often get to grill candidates
directly on important issues facing workers. Because
the process is based on democratic principles and the
issues affecting members, UAW endorsements are
weighty matters.
Sometimes UAW members get sidetracked by
issues or positions that aren’t work-related, but that
appeal to strong personal feelings or beliefs. It is
important to know that UAW endorsements are based
on a candidate’s positions and voting record relative to
work-related issues. These issues include trade, workplace health and safety, unemployment insurance, union
and bargaining rights, and other quality of work/life
issues. There are many groups that take up other issues
and rate candidates and officeholders based on their
criteria.
Union members need to consider where
their priorities and interests lie – with the union that is looking
after their physical and financial well-being, or another
interest that may be part of a plan to divide working
people for the purposes of winning elections.
When working families stick together and vote together, we win. When workers are divided by so called
“wedge issues,” our opponents win.
In talking to members about politics, we are often
tempted to just talk at them – to give them statistics
and facts and charts and leaflets; to overwhelm them
with information so they will obviously come to the
right conclusion. But this approach typically fails. Not
because the facts are weak, but because our co-workers
put up their walls and stop listening the second we start
lecturing.
The most effective conversations are just that –
conversations. When we take the time to listen and ask
questions, we can get to know what our co-workers
care about. Knowing what they care about helps us to
help them connect the dots so they see that supporting
our issues or candidates will help them address their
concerns.
46
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
POLITICAL ALMANAC
GLOSSARY OF
LEGISLATIVE TERMS
Act – A bill or measure after it passes one or both
chambers of Congress and becomes law. The term is
also used to denote a law in place.
Apportionment – Allocation of legislative seats by
law. The 435 seats in the House of Representatives are
apportioned to states based on population.
Adjournment – The end of a legislative day. Recess
does not end a legislative day.
Appropriations Bill – Grants the actual money approved by authorization bills, but not necessarily to the
total amount permissible under the authorization bill.
Originates in the House.
Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing
(ATVM) – A direct loan program created by Congress
in 2007 to invest in vehicles and parts manufactured in
the United States. It is helpful for manufacturers who
are working to meet fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas
requirements. We have supported the ATVM program
because it supports domestic investments in advanced
technologies that improve fuel efficiency. To date the
bipartisan program has provided over $8 billion in loans
— matched by over $14 billion in private investment —
to 18 facilities in eight states.
Affordable Care Act (ACA) – The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), also commonly
called “Obamacare,” was signed into law by President Obama on March 23, 2010. The ACA is the most
important overhaul of the U.S. healthcare system since
the passage of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965. We
support the ACA as it increases the quality and affordability of health insurance, lowers the uninsured rate by
expanding public and private insurance coverage, and
reduces the costs of healthcare for individuals and the
government. It makes insurance more affordable and
creates insurance exchanges in every state (marketplaces where Americans who do not have employer
coverage can purchase insurance). The law requires
insurance companies to cover all applicants within new
minimum standards and offer the same rates regardless
of pre-existing conditions or gender.
Amendment – A proposal to change or an actual
change to a bill, a motion, an act or the U.S. Constitution. An amendment is generally debated and
voted upon in the same manner as a bill.
2016
CAP
2016
CAP
Authorization Bill – Authorizes a program, specifies
its general aim and conduct, and often puts a ceiling on
money that can be used to finance it. The authorization
may be for a specific period of time or indefinitely.
Bill – A proposed law. For reference, bills in the House
begin with the letters H.R., and bills in the Senate begin
with S. They are numbered sequentially.
Budget Control Act (BCA) – The Budget Control
Act (BCA) was passed by the 112th Congress and
signed into law by President Obama in August 2011
to prevent the United States from defaulting on our
debt for the first time in our history. We have always
opposed the BCA as it has destroyed jobs in the past
by forcing hundreds of billions of dollars in spending
cuts. A couple of years ago, the law triggered automatic cuts across the board, equally split between security and non-security discretionary programs. This
process is known as “sequestration.” The first year of
sequestration was estimated to have slowed our economic growth by almost 0.7 percent, and prevented
the nation from creating as many as 900,000 jobs.
The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 postponed
sequestration until the fall of 2017.
Cadillac Tax (See Excise Tax)
Caucus – A meeting of members of a political party,
usually to decide policy or select members to fill positions. Also, refers to the group itself.
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
47
2016
CAP
POLITICAL ALMANAC
Chamber – Either the House of Representatives or the
CAP Senate.
2016
Citizens United – In January 2010, the Supreme
Court tossed out the corporate and union ban on making
independent expenditures and financing electioneering
communications. It gave the green light to spend unlimited sums on ads and other political tools, calling for the
election or defeat of individual candidates. In response,
campaign spending by outside groups, such as super
PACs, has more than doubled in the past five years. In
2014, outside groups spent $486 million on the Senate
races alone, up from $220 million in 2010. Most of that
outside money comes from the super-rich. Super PACs
have spent $1 billion on federal election cycles since
2010. Nearly 60 percent of those “donations” — more
than $600 million — were made by just 195 people and
their spouses, the Brennan Center found.
The decision did not affect direct contributions by
individuals and political action committees. It is still
illegal for companies and labor unions to give money
directly to candidates for federal office. We support
overturning the Citizens United decision and strengthening our campaign finance laws.
Closed Market – Term pertaining to trade policy
to indicate that a country curtails or prevents imports
through law or custom. The inability to export into
closed markets hurts the US economy and contributes
to our trade deficit.
Cloture – In the Senate, the only way to end a filibuster (to allow an up-or-down vote on a bill) is through a
cloture vote. A cloture motion requires the signature of
16 senators. To end a filibuster, the cloture motion must
obtain the votes of three-fifths of the Senate membership (60 if there are no vacancies). If approved, cloture
permits another 30 hours of debate before final vote on
the underlying bill, amendment, or other measure.
Comprehensive Tax Reform – A rewrite of the nation’s tax code. Reforming the tax code is extremely
complicated and includes significant opportunities to
actually require more from the wealthy and corporations, but also contains significant risks of raising taxes
on working families by eliminating deductions they rely
on. We support tax reform proposals that close tax loopholes for Wall Street and end perverse incentives that
give corporations tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas.
48
Conference Committee – A committee composed
of senators and representatives named by each respective chamber to work out differences between same
subject bills passed by both chambers. If a compromise
is reached, it must then be voted on again and approved
by the Senate and House before being sent to the president for approval.
Conference Report – The compromise product
negotiated by the conference committee. The conference report is submitted to both chambers for a vote of
approval or disapproval. No amendments are permitted
to a conference report.
Congressional Record – The printed, daily account
of debates, votes, and comments in the House and Senate published by the Government Printing Office.
Congressional Review Act (CRA) – CRA allows
Congress to review new federal regulations issued by
the government agencies to overrule a regulation by a
simple majority. Significantly, 30 members of the Senate can force a vote on CRA without the consent of the
majority. If the president vetoes the CRA, a two-thirds
vote is required to override the veto.
Continuing Resolution – If Congress has not enacted
all the necessary appropriations bills when a fiscal year
begins, it passes a joint resolution which must be signed
by the president to continue appropriations at rates generally based on those of the previous year. The federal
fiscal year begins on Oct. 1. The federal government is
currently operating under a CR.
Copyright – Copyright laws grant the creators of
original works exclusive rights. Our members in the
National Writers Union are confronted by widespread
theft of those rights and economic benefits.
Currency Manipulation – Currency manipulation,
also known as foreign exchange market intervention,
occurs when a government buys or sells foreign currency to lower the value of its own currency in order
to make their products cheaper. Many countries in the
TPP have a history of engaging in currency manipulation. This unfair practice has had a seriously adverse
impact on the U.S. economy and job market. Studies
estimate that currency manipulation by our current
trading partners alone has inflated trade deficits by up
to $500 billion annually and cost America up to five
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
POLITICAL ALMANAC
million jobs. Ending this exchange rate manipulation
would help bring many of those good jobs back to the
United States.
Deficits and the debt – Much of the discussion about
the federal deficit and the accumulated national debt in
Washington has been filled with misinformation and has
helped justify damaging budget cuts. It’s more important than ever to understand what the deficit and debt
does (and does not) mean for our economy.
The federal budget deficit (or surplus) is the difference
between annual revenues and annual expenditures.
The national debt is the accumulated borrowing of the
federal government over the years. In both cases, the
absolute level – how many billions or trillions of dollars – matters less than the deficit/debt as share of the
economy. A larger economy can sustain a larger debt. In
fact, the ability to borrow is essential for our country’s
future, just like it is in our daily lives.
Imagine trying to send your child to college, fixing your
roof, or buying a car if you could not borrow. It would
be impossible and harmful for your future. Same applies to the country. If we do not fix our bridges today,
we will need more repairs and pay a bigger bill later.
Borrowing only becomes a major problem if you are
unable to pay debts and, thus, unable to borrow in the
future.
The impact of federal deficits needs to be looked at as
part of the broader economic context. For example, in a
recession deficits inject spending power into a lagging
economy by making investments when businesses are
unable or unwilling to do so. Countries that failed to
use adequate funds to promote job growth and economic recovery following the Great Recession have had
a much harder time than we have.
It is far from the biggest problem facing our nation,
although one would never know it from the political
rhetoric on the right. The federal deficit has fallen over
the last few years and is projected to hold steady.
Defined Benefits – A type of pension plan in which
an employer/sponsor promises a specified monthly
benefit on retirement that is predetermined by a formula
based on the employee’s earnings history, tenure of
service, and age, rather than depending directly on individual investment returns. The benefit is guaranteed.
Defined Contribution – A pension plan where an
employer/sponsor provides a specific contribution. The
benefit is not guaranteed. Instead the amount of money
a person receives is based on the performance of the
investment. Fluctuations in the stock market impact the
amount of money a person receives.
2016
CAP
2016
CAP
Discretionary Spending – Refers to spending appropriated by Congress. In contrast to entitlement programs, for which funding is mandatory, discretionary
spending is taken up each year in annual appropriations
acts. Appropriations for discretionary spending may be
changed or eliminated by Congress.
Dreamers – Refers to children of undocumented immigrants who entered the United States when they were
minors. President Obama issued executive orders to
stop the deportation of Dreamers.
Dumping – Unfair trade practice where a country deliberately lowers the price of its imports below market
rate to gain market shares and eliminate competition.
Once competitors exit the market the price is often
raised.
Duty Free – A product that is imported with a tariff.
One of the goals of trade agreements is to eliminate
tariffs so products are shipped without extra fees.
Earmark – Specifies funds marked for a particular purpose by Congress. Currently, earmarks are prohibited in
appropriations bills in both the House and the Senate.
Entitlement – A federal program that requires payments to any person who meets established criteria.
Entitlements create a binding obligation on the part
of the federal government. Social Security, Medicare,
Medicaid and veterans’ compensation are examples of
entitlements. Many entitlement programs are structured
like insurance because beneficiaries pay into them
through payroll deductions.
Excise Tax – The Excise Tax, also known as the Cadillac Tax, is a provision in the Affordable Care Act that
is scheduled to take effect on Jan. 1, 2018. This tax
will assess a 40 percent tax on the cost of coverage for
health plans that exceed $10,200 for individual coverage and $27,500 for self and spouse or family coverage.
Executive Session – A meeting closed to the public.
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
49
2016
CAP
POLITICAL ALMANAC
Expenditures – The actual spending of money as
CAP distinguished from appropriations. The administration makes expenditures; Congress appropriates funding. The two are rarely identical in any fiscal year, for
expenditures may represent money appropriated in
previous years.
2016
Fast Track (also known as TPA) – Fast Track is
a mechanism employed by legislation such as trade
deals with foreign nations that prevents Congress
from amending agreements and nullifies the use of the
filibuster. In 2015 Congress passed legislation granting
President Obama and his successor Fast Track authority. It will expire in 2021.
Fast Track was in effect from 1975 to 1994 and was
restored in 2002. Fast Track grants the executive branch
extraordinary powers. If the president transmits a trade
agreement to Congress, then the majority leaders of the
House and Senate or their designees must introduce the
implementing bill submitted by the president on the first
day that their chamber is in session. Senators and Representatives may not amend the president’s bill, either
in committee or in the Senate or House. The UAW opposes Fast Track because it is an undemocratic process
that has led to the passage of trade agreements that have
put the interests of international corporations ahead of
the interests of working Americans.
Filibuster – A time-delaying tactic in the Senate,
generally used by the minority in an effort to delay or
defeat a bill or amendment that, in many instances,
would probably pass if voted on directly. The filibuster
takes advantage of the Senate’s rules that permit unlimited debate. To end a filibuster, the cloture motion must
obtain the votes of three-fifths of the Senate membership (60 votes if there are no vacancies at that time).
Five-Minute Rule – A debate-limiting rule of the
House. Under the rule, a member offering an amendment is allowed to speak for only five minutes in its
favor, and an opponent of the amendment is allowed
to speak for five minutes in opposition. Debate is then
closed.
Gag or Closed Rule – Prohibits votes on some or all
amendments on a bill being debated on the House floor.
At the request of the sponsoring committee, the House
must either accept or reject the bill as recommended by
the sponsoring committee.
50
Gridlock – A term often used in politics to describe
a stalemate on an issue due to disagreements over a
compromise.
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) – GDP is a broad
measurement of a nation’s overall economic activity.
More specifically, it is the monetary value of all the
finished goods and services produced within a country’s borders in a specific time period. GDP includes
all private and public consumption, government outlays, investments and exports minus imports that occur
within a defined territory.
Hold – A Senate practice whereby a senator tells his or
her party leader that he or she does not wish for a bill
or nomination to come to the floor for consideration.
This has been a reoccurring target in the reform of the
Senate rules. The most recent successful challenges to
this custom included a 2011 resolution declaring that,
in the case of secret holds, either a senator’s identity is
revealed after two days or the hold is assigned to the
party leader. The latter of these reforms has in practice
been easily circumvented by the “tag-team hold.” This
method consists of one senator informing his party
leader of his intent to place a hold. Before two days
pass, the senator will withdraw his hold, at which time
his tag-team partner submits a new hold request. The
senators can rotate in this manner, and the identity of
neither will be revealed.
Hopper – A wooden box in the House into which representatives place proposed bills.
H.R. – Stands for House of Representatives and designates a bill originating in the House.
Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) – A
controversial provision in many trade agreements that
allows foreign corporations to challenge laws they view
as creating unfair impediments to their business. We oppose the inclusion of ISDS in trade agreements.
Joint Committee – A committee composed of both
senators and representatives.
Jurisdiction – The subject areas and duties assigned to
a committee by rule, resolution, precedent, or practice,
including legislative matters, oversight, investigations
and nominations.
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
POLITICAL ALMANAC
“Lame-Duck” Session – When Congress returns
after an election in an even-numbered year to consider
legislation. So-called because some members who
return for this session are “lame ducks” who will not
return. Congress might convene a “lame-duck” session
at the end of the year after the November elections.
Legal Services Corporation (LSC) – LSC is the
single largest funder of legal aid for low-income
Americans in the nation. Established in 1974, LSC
operates as an independent nonprofit corporation that
promotes equal access to justice and provides grants
for high-quality civil legal assistance to low-income
Americans. The corporation is headed by a bipartisan
board of directors whose 11 members are appointed by
the President and confirmed by the Senate. Many of the
attorneys at LSC are UAW-represented.
Living Wage – A public policy term that addresses the
minimum income necessary for a worker to meet basic
needs to maintain a safe, decent standard of living within
the community. The living wage differs from the minimum wage in that the minimum wage is set by law and
can fail to meet the requirements to have a basic quality of life and leaves the family to rely on government
programs for additional income. The UAW has supported
living wage initiatives at both the state and local levels.
The “Fight for Fifteen” campaign to raise wages for
workers at retail and fast food establishments is an effort
to ensure more workers receive a living wage.
Majority Leader – Leader of the majority party in
either the House or the Senate. In the House, this individual is second in command to the speaker.
Mandatory Spending – Federal spending controlled
by laws other than annual appropriations bills, including spending on entitlement programs. Social Security
and Medicare are examples of mandatory spending.
Markup – The section by section review and revision
of a bill by committee members.
Medicaid – A federal government program, financed by federal, state and local funds, of hospitalization and medical insurance for individuals of all ages.
In order to qualify for Medicaid, individuals have to
have incomes below a certain threshold. Medicaid is the
largest source of funding for medical and health-related
services for people with low income in the United
States. It is a means-tested program that is jointly funded by the state and federal governments and managed
by the states, with each state currently having broad leeway to determine who is eligible for its implementation
of the program. States are not required to participate in
the program, although all currently do. Medicaid recipients must be U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents,
and may include low-income adults, their children, and
people with certain disabilities. However, poverty alone
does not necessarily qualify someone for Medicaid.
2016
CAP
2016
CAP
Medicare – The federal health insurance program for
people who are 65 or older, certain younger people with
disabilities, and people with End-Stage Renal Disease
(permanent kidney failure requiring dialysis or a transplant, sometimes called ESRD).
The different parts of Medicare help cover specific
services:
Medicare Part A (Hospital Insurance) covers inpatient hospital stays, care in a skilled nursing facility,
hospice care and some home health care.
Medicare Part B (Medical Insurance) covers certain
doctors’ services, outpatient care, medical supplies and
preventive services.
Medicare Part C (Medicare Advantage Plans) a type
of Medicare health plan offered by a private company
that contracts with Medicare to provide individuals with
all their Part A and Part B benefits. Medicare Advantage Plans include Health Maintenance Organizations,
Preferred Provider Organizations, Private Fee-for-Service Plans, Special Needs Plans and Medicare Medical
Savings Account Plans. If individuals are enrolled in
a Medicare Advantage Plan, most Medicare services
are covered through the plan and aren’t paid for under
Original Medicare. Most Medicare Advantage Plans
offer prescription drug coverage.
Medicare Part D (Prescription Drug Coverage) adds
prescription drug coverage to original Medicare, some
Medicare Cost Plans, some Medicare Private-Fee-forService Plans and Medicare Medical Savings Account
Plans. These plans are offered by insurance companies
and other private companies approved by Medicare.
Medicare Advantage Plans may also offer prescription
drug coverage that follows the same rules as Medicare
Prescription Drug Plans.
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
51
2016
CAP
POLITICAL ALMANAC
Minority Leader – Leader of the minority party in
CAP either the House or the Senate.
2016
Motion to Proceed – The motion to proceed to
consideration of a bill, amendment, nomination or other
measure is used in the Senate when unanimous consent
to proceed cannot be obtained. Under the new filibuster
rules set earlier this year, if senators wish to block a bill
or nominee after the motion to proceed, they will need
to be present in the Senate and debate.
Motion to Recommit – An often used but rarely
successful procedural tactic used by the minority
party in the House. This motion is the one last chance
the minority has to get members on record or to kill
the bill outright. A motion to recommit made without
“instructions,” is not debatable, and if successful, it
has the effect of the House killing the bill without
a final vote on its passage. If the motion to recommit has “instructions,” the authorizing committee is
bound to follow those instructions. To make a motion to recommit, a member must be opposed to the
bill, absolutely or at least in its present form, thus the
need for amendment. A member who offers the motion is obliged to vote against final passage of the bill
if the motion to recommit fails.
Minimum Wage – A floor on wages that can be set
by federal, state and local statutes. Workers generally
must be paid no less than the statutory minimum wage
as specified by either the federal, state or local government. As of July 2009, the federal government mandates a nationwide minimum wage level of $7.25 per
hour. As of Jan. 1, 2015, there were 29 states with a
minimum wage higher than the federal minimum. The
federal minimum wage peaked at about $10 in 1968, as
measured in 2014 inflation adjusted dollars.
Three million hourly workers were at or below the
federal minimum in 2014. Less than half (48.2 percent)
were of the ages 16 to 24. An additional 22.4 percent
were ages 25 to 34, according to the Bureau of Labor
Statistics; both shares have stayed more or less constant
over the past decade.
Non-Tariff Barriers (NTB) – A term used in trade debate to describe policies and practices that are designed
to stop imports. For example, currency manipulation is
a NTB that can make products imported to the United
52
States artificially inexpensive and U.S. exports artificially expensive.
Obamacare (see Affordable Care Act)
Omnibus Bill – A legislative proposal concerning
several separate, but often related, items, usually appropriations bills.
Override a Veto – Congress may try to override the
president’s veto in order to enact a bill into law. The
override of a veto requires a recorded vote with a twothirds majority in each chamber.
Overtime Rules – In March 2014, President Obama
signed an executive order to address the nation’s
outdated overtime rules. Under the old overtime rules,
employers were required to pay all employees covered
by the Fair Labor Standards Act time-and-a-half for any
hours they work in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek. Certain executive, administrative and professional workers (“white-collar workers” or “EAP workers”)
are “exempt” from overtime if their job responsibilities satisfy the “duties test” and they earn more than
$23,660 per year or $455 per week. The proposal more
than doubles the minimum salary threshold for EAP
exempt workers, requiring compensation of $50,440 per
year or $970 per week. The proposed changes would
also increase the annual salary threshold from $100,000
to $122,148 for exemption as a highly compensated
employee (HCE), as well as increase the motion picture
producing industry exemption base rate from $695 to
$1,404 per week.
Pocket Veto – A rarely used device by which the
president can kill a bill without a formal veto by simply
not signing it during a period of congressional adjournment.
President Pro Tempore – Because the vice president, who is the president of the U.S. Senate, is seldom
present to preside, the Senate elects a president pro
tempore, or temporary president who, if he or she does
not preside each day, assigns the job to another senator,
usually of junior seniority.
Private Right of Action – The term refers to a nongovernmental litigant’s ability to bring suit to enforce a
federal law.
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
POLITICAL ALMANAC
Public Defenders – Refers to lawyers appointed to
represent people who cannot afford to hire an attorney
themselves. Legal defenders came about as a result of a
1963 U.S. Supreme Court case Gideon vs. Wainwright,
which ruled that the Sixth Amendment of the Bill of
Rights requires the government to provide free legal
counsel to indigent defendants in criminal cases. The
UAW represents public defenders in New York City.
Congress enacted a repatriation tax holiday in 2004 and
offered companies a 5.25 percent tax rate. According
to numerous studies, the “holiday” was a policy failure and many of the companies in fact cut jobs in the
United States after receiving the benefit.
Quorum – The number of members whose presence is
necessary for the transaction of business.
Resolution – A formal statement of a decision or
opinion by the House, Senate or both. A simple
resolution is made by one chamber and generally
deals with that chamber’s rules or prerogatives. A
concurrent resolution is presented in both chambers
and usually expresses a congressional view on a
matter not within congressional jurisdiction. A joint
resolution also requires approval in both chambers
and goes to the president for approval. Simple and
concurrent resolutions do not go to the president.
Ranking Member – The highest-ranking member of
the minority party on a committee. The ranking member
on the committee is usually the longest serving member
of the committee from the minority party.
Recess – Concludes legislative business and sets time
for the next meeting of the legislative body.
Reconciliation – Reconciliation is a process that
limits debate on budget bills to 20 hours. If the annual
congressional budget resolution contains reconciliation instructions, these instructions direct a committee
or committees to make specific changes to a law by a
certain date. Reconciliation is a way to pass legislation
without facing the obstacle of the filibuster in the Senate. It was used in the 111th Congress to pass portions
of the Affordable Care Act. It was also used to pass
Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy.
Renewable Fuels Standard – The renewable fuel
standard (RFS) requires gasoline refiners to use specific
amounts of corn and cellulosic ethanol, biodiesel, and
other plant-based alternatives. The 2007 law required
the amounts to increase each year, although EPA is
responsible for setting the numbers and enforcing the
requirements. We support the growth and development
of renewable fuels.
Repatriation Tax Holiday – A special treatment of
“offshored” corporate taxes. Under U.S. tax law, multinational companies owe federal income taxes on their
worldwide profits. They receive tax credits for foreign
taxes paid and can defer U.S. taxation until if and when
they bring the profits home. A tax holiday is the opportunity to bring those offshore profits back at a fraction
of their usual rate.
2016
CAP
2016
CAP
Rescission – A bill rescinding or canceling budget
authority previously made available by Congress.
Rider – An amendment to legislation that is often not
relevant to the underlying bill but that is “hitching a
ride.” Riders to appropriations bills are often controversial. Appropriations riders are not automatically
renewed and must be enacted. Since gaining majorities in Congress, Republicans have sought to attach
numerous policy riders, some of which would roll
back labor and consumer protections.
Roll Call Vote – Senators vote as their names are
called by the clerk. Representatives electronically
record their votes. Each House member has a card to
insert at voting stations, and a running count of votes
is displayed. Roll call votes and recorded teller votes
are the only votes of which a public record is made.
Rules of Origin (ROO) – Criteria needed to determine the national source of a product. The standards are
ideally designed to prevent countries from gaming the
system by selling products duty free even when they are
primarily produced by countries outside the agreement.
Unfortunately, the TPP includes a weak motor vehicle
ROO standard that could hurt U.S. auto production over
time. It could provide a back door for countries like
Thailand and China to participate in the TPP without
being a part of the agreement.
S. – Stands for Senate and designates a bill originating
in the Senate, by number.
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
53
2016
CAP
POLITICAL ALMANAC
Same-Sex Marriage – In the summer of 2015,
CAP the Supreme Court guaranteed the freedom to
marry for all Americans in the landmark Obergefell
vs. Hodges decision.
2016
Sequestration – A fiscal policy procedure adopted
by Congress several decades ago to reduce the federal
budget deficit by making automatic cuts by a certain
deadline. It first appeared in the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Deficit Reduction Act of 1985. In short, sequestration is the cancellation of budgetary resources – an
“automatic” form of spending cutback. The most recent
sequestration was the result of the Budget Control Act
of 2011 which cut well over $1 trillion in government
spending over the next decade, and placed responsibility for finding another $1.2 trillion on Congress. The
first year of sequestration went into effect and automatic
spending cuts began impacting defense programs, payments to Medicare providers, and cuts to non-defense
spending (OSHA enforcement, elementary and secondary education, and scientific research).
Speaker of the House – Speaker of the House of
Representatives. Presides over the House. Elected, in
effect, by the majority party in the House. Next in line
of succession to the presidency after the vice president.
Standing Vote – Proponents and opponents are
asked to stand in turn (also called division vote). Votes
of individuals are not recorded.
Suspend the Rules – A motion in the House
intended to quickly bring a bill to a vote. A two-thirds
favorable vote of those present and voting is required
for approval of a bill on suspension. No amendments
are allowed.
Table a Bill – A motion to, in effect, put a bill aside
and thereby removes it from consideration for a later
date or essentially kills it by not bringing the matter up
again.
Territorial Tax System – Under U.S. tax law,
multinational companies owe federal income taxes on
their worldwide profits. Such companies receive tax
credits for foreign taxes paid and can defer U.S. taxation until they bring the profits home. In contrast, under
a territorial tax system, foreign income is not taxed.
For example, if a company conducts business in Bel54
gium, it only owes taxes on income earned in Belgium.
If a Belgian company does a great deal of business in
Great Britain, income from that business is not taxed in
Belgium (though it may be taxed by the UK). Territorial
tax regimes are found in Hong Kong, France, Belgium,
Netherlands and others.
Trade Promotion Authority or TPA (see Fast
Track)
Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) – A multilateral
trade agreement negotiated between the United States
and 11 other countries in a deal representing more than
40 percent of global trade. It has over two dozen chapters and could impact nearly every facet of our lives. In
addition to the United States, nations involved in TPP
negotiations include Japan, Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore,
Canada, Mexico and Vietnam. Many of the countries
in the TPP have closed markets and terrible human
rights records. The UAW opposes the TPP because it
could lead to more offshoring of jobs, lower wages and
greater economic inequality.
TTIP (EU-US FTA) – The Transatlantic Trade and
Investment Partnership (TTIP) is a free-trade agreement being negotiated between the European Union and
the United States. The proposed deal would cover 50
percent of the global economy and 20 percent of global
foreign direct investment.
Unanimous Consent – Proceedings and action
on legislation often occur, especially in the Senate, by
unanimous consent, or “UC,” to expedite floor action.
One senator may block holding a vote by UC.
Veto – Disapproval by the president of a bill or joint
resolution (other than one proposing an amendment
to the Constitution). When Congress is in session, the
president must veto a bill within 10 days (excluding
Sundays) of receiving it; otherwise, the bill becomes
law without the president’s signature.
Voting Rights Act of 1965 – Voting Rights Act
(VRA) bans racial discrimination in voting practices
by the federal government as well as by state and local
governments. Passed in 1965 after a century of deliberate and violent denial of the vote to African-Americans
in the South and Latinos in the Southwest – as well
as many years of entrenched electoral systems that
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
POLITICAL ALMANAC
shut out citizens with limited fluency in English – the
VRA is often held up as the most effective civil rights
law ever enacted. It is widely regarded as enabling the
enfranchisement of millions of minority voters and
diversifying the electorate and legislative bodies at all
levels of American government.
2016
CAP
2016
CAP
Yet in 2013, the Supreme Court ruled by a 5-4 decision
that key parts of the Voting Rights Act were no longer
valid. They specifically struck down Section 5 of the
VRA, which set the formula dictating which areas of
the country must receive pre-clearance before making
any changes to their voting laws and regulations. The
ruling doesn’t change the fact it’s still illegal to discriminate against a person when it comes to voting, but in
practice it does nullify one of the most important tools
in protecting minority voters from governments with a
history of setting unfair barriers to the polls.
WAGE Act – The Workplace Action for a Growing
Economy (WAGE Act) holds companies that abuse
workers’ rights accountable. It requires the swift
reinstatement of workers who are fired or retaliated against for exercising their rights. It also holds
employers that use third parties to hire “temporary”
workers accountable for labor rights violations. It
provides legal tools for workers whose rights are
denied and increases penalties for employers that
violate workers’ rights. The UAW strongly supports the WAGE Act.
Whip – A legislator who is chosen to be assistant to
the leader of the party in both the House and Senate.
The whip’s job is to line up votes in support of the
party’s strategies and legislation.
Whistleblowers – Anyone who has and reports in-
sider knowledge of illegal activities occurring in an
organization. Whistleblowers can be employees, suppliers, contractors, clients, or any individual who somehow becomes aware of illegal activities taking place
in a business either through witnessing the behavior or
being told about it. Whistleblowers are protected from
retaliation under various programs created by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and
the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
55
2016
CAP
2016
CAP
POLITICAL ALMANAC
HOW A BILL MOVES
THROUGH CONGRESS
A bill is introduced by either a representative or senator.
It may be the lawmaker’s own bill, an administration
bill, or the idea may have originated with some business
or labor group back home.
Bills are referred to committees. The committee
generally refers the bill to a subcommittee which studies the issue carefully, holds hearings and reports the
bill with recommendations back to the full committee.
The full committee may discuss the bill further, make
additional changes or scrap the bill. If the full committee votes to report out the bill, the bill is ready to go to
the floor of the House or Senate for a vote.
The committee reports the bill. A committee report
is generally presented with the bill to explain the bill’s
provisions and the committee’s decision. After this,
the bill is ready to be scheduled for debate by the full
House or Senate.
The bill goes to the floor of the House or Senate
for debate. After a bill is debated, possibly amended
and passed by one house of Congress, it is sent to the
other house where it goes through the same procedure.
If the bill passes the other house without any changes,
it is sent to the president for his signature and it either
becomes a law or is vetoed.
56
If the Senate and the House pass different versions
of a bill, both bills are sent to a conference committee.
The House and Senate each appoint members from the
committee that reported the bill to serve on the conference committee and resolve the differences between
the two bills. If they fail to reach a compromise, the bill
will die in the conference committee.
When the conference committee reconciles the differences and agrees on one bill, the bill goes back to the
Senate and to the House for a vote on final passage. No
amendments to a conference report are permitted. The
bill must either be voted up or down. If it is approved in
both houses, the bill goes to the president.
If the president signs the bill, it becomes a law. If
the president vetoes it, it is sent back to the House and
Senate, and it takes a two-thirds vote of both houses to
pass a bill over the president’s veto.
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
2016
ROLL CALL
2016
CAP
114th Congress 1st Session
2015 Senate Votes.......................................................................... 58
2015 Senate Voting Record........................................................... 60
2016
2015 House Votes........................................................................... 63
CAP
2015 House Voting Record............................................................ 65
2016
CAP
ROLL CALL
ROLL CALL
2016
CAP
This section provides a record of how your Senators and Representatives voted on high- priority
issues during the 1st session of the 114th Congress. Please see the introduction of the Almanac for a
general overview of the session and the political context.
1ST SESSION • 114TH CONGRESS
2015 SENATE VOTES
Labor Rights
1. NLRB – S.J. Res. 8
UAW opposed the Senate resolution of disapproval of
the National Labor Relations Board’s new election rules
(H.J. Res. 29). Disapproval of the NLRB election rules
under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) would
undermine the rights of workers to a fair and timely
election, and the opportunity to decide if they want to
form a union and bargain collectively.
The NLRB’s election rules issued on Dec. 12, 2014
attempt to modernize the board’s election procedures,
reduce unnecessary litigation, and delay in the election
process. The rules are aimed at making the election process run more smoothly and predictably, to the benefit
of employers, workers, and unions.
It also prohibits the agency from adopting another
rule in “substantially the same form,” unless specifically authorized by Congress. This means that absent
a new law authorizing a new rule, the NLRB would
be forever barred from adopting similar election rules.
Too many companies exploit any opportunity for unnecessary litigation and delay in order to wear down
support for the union and deny workers the opportunity
to bargain for better pay and working conditions. The
NLRB’s common sense election rules will cut down on
unnecessary delay and make the election system more
orderly and fair.
58
S. J. Res. 8 was passed in the Senate on March 4 by a
vote of 53-46 (R 53-1; D/I 0-46; 1 R did not vote); a
good vote was “no.” The resolution was also passed by
the House and vetoed by President Obama on March
31. It was sustained when Congress failed to override it.
Budget
2. Senate Republican Budget – S. Con. Res
11
The UAW strongly opposed the destructive budget plan
put forward by Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyoming. His 2016
Budget Resolution, S. Con. Res. 11, like its companion
bill in the House, would have a profoundly negative
impact on the middle class and our most vulnerable
citizens. The Senate budget plan had the same critical
flaws as the House bill. It failed to address the greatest
economic challenges facing our country: economic inequality and a shrinking middle class. It would actually
make the problems worse. S. Con. Res. 11 would bring
increased poverty and slash key investments required
to promote opportunity and economic growth. It relied
on over $4.5 trillion in spending cuts and gimmicks
to balance the budget within 10 years. The proposed
budget would have made drastic cuts to programs for
low and moderate income Americans, with over twothirds of its budget cuts coming from programs for the
less fortunate. Such cuts would have worsened poverty
and inequality in America. It put millions who rely on
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
ROLL CALL
disability insurance in jeopardy. At the same time, it
failed to raise revenue from the wealthy and close tax
loopholes that overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy and
corporations.
This budget would have added millions of people to
the ranks of the underinsured and uninsured by cutting
hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicare, blocking
grants, slashing Medicaid, and repealing the Affordable
Care Act (ACA).
Despite our opposition, the bill passed the Senate on March 27, 2015 by a vote of 52-46 (R 52-0; D/I
0-46; 2 D did not vote); a good vote was “no.” The bill
was opposed by President Obama and was not signed
into law.
Trade
3. Prevent China from Docking onto TPP
without Congressional Oversight – Fast
Track Amendment 1251
During the Fast Track debate, Sen. Sherrod Brown,
D-Ohio, offered an amendment that would spell out the
process for future TPP partners to join the agreement.
The TPP has a “dock on” provision that allows other
countries to join the agreement in the future if countries that are already part of the TPP agree to add a new
country as long as they promise to live by the standards
of the agreement.
This common sense amendment would have required the administration to notify Congress of its intent
to enter into negotiations with another country seeking to join the TPP. Within 90 days of notification, the
Senate Finance Committee and House Ways and Means
Committee would have to certify that the country can
meet the standards of the agreement. Following this certification, the full House and Senate would have to vote
on a resolution giving approval for the country to join
negotiations. The country’s entry could be considered
under Fast Track only if congressional approval and
negotiations are completed within Fast Track’s authorization period. The UAW supported the amendment. The
amendment was defeated on May 22 by a vote of 47-52
(R 9-44; D/I 38-8; 1 R did not vote); a good vote was
“yes.”
4. Fast Track – H.R. 2146
UAW strongly opposed this misguided bill that could
lead to the passage of trade treaties we cannot see or
change, but that we will live under for years to come.
Trade agreements adopted under Fast Track have cost
us more than 1 million jobs and contributed to the
shuttering of more than 60,000 factories. Fast Track
has led to the passage of undemocratic trade deals that
lower wages and eliminate jobs. Congress should not
have ceded its constitutional authority for all free-trade
agreements to the executive branch for the next six
years. Providing elected leaders an up-or-down vote
after the agreement has been concluded is no substitute
for meaningful engagement.
H.R. 2146 passed the Senate on June 24 by a vote
of 60-38 (R 47-5; D/I 13-33; 2 R did not vote); a good
vote was “no.” This legislation was signed into law by
President Obama on June 26, 2015.
2016
CAP
2016
CAP
Health Care
5. To repeal the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act and the Health Care
and Education Reconciliation Act of
2010 entirely (Amendment to H.R. 22) –
S.A. 2328
On July 26, the Senate voted on legislation to repeal
the Affordable Care Act which would cause more than
16 million people to lose health care coverage (refer to
the health care issue paper for more information on the
Affordable Care Act).
The amendment was voted on in the Senate on July
26 with the result 49-43. Although the majority of senators approved it, it was not included in the underlying
bill because it did not get the required 60 votes (R 49-0;
D/I 0-43; 5 R and 3 D/I did not vote); a good vote was
“no.”
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
59
2016
CAP
2016
CAP
ROLL CALL
1ST SESSION • 114TH CONGRESS
2015 SENATE VOTING RECORD
Senator
1
2
3
4
5
Agreement
with UAW
Position %
ALABAMA
Senator
1
2
3
4
5
Agreement
with UAW
Position %
GEORGIA
Sessions J. (R)
-
-
+
+
x
50%
Isakson (R)
-
-
-
-
-
0%
Shelby (R)
-
-
+
+
-
40%
Perdue (R)
-
-
-
-
-
0%
Hirono (D)
+
+
+
+
+
100%
Schatz (D)
+
+
+
+
+
100%
ALASKA
HAWAII
Murkowski (R)
+
-
-
-
x
25%
Sullivan (R)
-
-
-
-
-
0%
ARIZONA
IDAHO
Flake (R)
-
-
-
-
x
0%
Crapo (R)
-
-
-
-
-
0%
McCain (R)
-
-
-
-
-
0%
Risch (R)
-
-
-
-
-
0%
Durbin (D)
+
+
+
+
+
100%
Kirk (R)
-
-
-
-
-
0%
Coats (R)
-
-
-
-
-
0%
Donnelly (D)
x
+
+
+
+
100%
Ernst (R)
-
-
-
-
-
0%
Grassley (R)
-
-
+
-
-
20%
ARKANSAS
ILLINOIS
Boozman (R)
-
-
-
-
-
0%
Cotton (R)
-
-
-
-
-
0%
CALIFORNIA
INDIANA
Boxer (D)
+
+
+
+
+
100%
Feinstein (D)
+
x
-
-
+
50%
COLORADO
IOWA
Bennet (D)
+
+
+
-
+
80%
Gardner (R)
-
-
-
-
-
0%
CONNECTICUT
KANSAS
Blumenthal (D)
+
+
+
+
+
100%
Moran (R)
-
-
+
-
-
20%
Murphy (D)
+
+
+
+
+
100%
Roberts (R)
-
-
-
-
-
0%
DELAWARE
KENTUCKY
Carper (D)
+
+
-
-
+
60%
McConnell (R)
-
-
-
-
-
0%
Coons (D)
+
+
+
-
x
75%
Paul (R)
-
+
+
+
-
60%
Cassidy (R)
-
-
-
-
-
0%
Vitter (R)
-
-
-
-
-
0%
FLORIDA
LOUISIANA
Nelson (D)
+
+
-
-
+
60%
Rubio (R)
-
-
-
-*
-
0%
SENATE VOTES: 1. Repeal of NRLB election rule 2. Budget 3. Brown Amendment to Fast Track 4. Trade: Fast Track (* indicates they
voted on the May 22, 2015 Fast Track vote but missed the second Fast Track vote on June 24, 2015) (** Senator Cardin and Senator Cruz
failed to support the UAW position on both Fast Track votes) 5. Affordable Care Act repeal
KEY: AL = An “at large” member. + = A vote for the UAW position. - = A vote against the UAW position. X = Absent or not voting
I = Not eligible to vote.
60
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
ROLL CALL
Senator
1
2
3
4
5
Agreement
with UAW
Position %
MAINE
Senator
1
2
3
4
5
Agreement
with UAW
Position %
2016
CAP
2016
CAP
NEW YORK
Collins (R)
-
-
+
+
-
40%
Gillibrand (D)
+
+
+
+
+
100%
King, A. (I)
+
+
+
+
+
100%
Schumer (D)
+
+
+
+
+
100%
MARYLAND
NORTH CAROLINA
Cardin (D)
+
+
+
-**
+
80%
Burr (R)
-
-
-
-
-
0%
Mikulski (D)
+
x
+
+
+
100%
Tillis (R)
-
-
-
-
-
0%
MASSACHUSETTS
NORTH DAKOTA
Markey (D)
+
+
+
+
x
100%
Heitkamp (D)
+
+
-
-
+
60%
Warren (D)
+
+
+
+
+
100%
Hoeven (R)
-
-
-
-
-
0%
MICHIGAN
OHIO
Peters, G. (D)
+
+
+
+
+
100%
Brown, S. (D)
+
+
+
+
+
100%
Stabenow (D)
+
+
+
+
+
100%
Portman (R)
-
-
+
-
-
20%
MINNESOTA
OKLAHOMA
Franken (D)
+
+
+
+
+
100%
Inhofe (R)
-
-
-
-
-
0%
Klobuchar (D)
+
+
+
+
+
100%
Lankford (R)
-
-
-
-
-
0%
Merkley (D)
+
+
+
+
+
100%
Wyden (D)
+
+
-
-
+
60%
Casey (D)
+
+
+
+
+
100%
Toomey (R)
-
-
-
-
x
0%
Reed, J. (D)
+
+
+
+
+
100%
Whitehouse (D)
+
+
+
+
+
100%
MISSISSIPPI
OREGON
Cochran (R)
-
-
-
-
-
0%
Wicker (R)
-
-
-
-
-
0%
MISSOURI
PENNSYLVANIA
Blunt (R)
-
-
-
-
-
0%
McCaskill (D)
+
+
-
-
+
60%
MONTANA
RHODE ISLAND
Daines (R)
-
-
-
-
-
0%
Tester (D)
+
+
+
+
+
100%
NEBRASKA
SOUTH CAROLINA
Fischer (R)
-
-
-
-
-
0%
Graham, L. (R)
-
-
+
-
-
20%
Sasse (R)
-
-
-
-
-
0%
Scott, T. (R)
-
-
-
-
-
0%
Rounds (R)
-
-
-
-
-
0%
Thune (R)
-
-
-
-
-
0%
NEVADA
SOUTH DAKOTA
Heller (R)
-
-
-
-
-
0%
Reid, H. (D)
+
+
+
+
+
100%
NEW HAMPSHIRE
TENNESSEE
Ayotte (R)
-
-
+
-
-
20%
Alexander (R)
-
-
-
-
-
0%
Shaheen (D)
+
+
+
-
+
80%
Corker (R)
-
-
-
-
x
0%
NEW JERSEY
TEXAS
Booker (D)
+
+
+
+
+
100%
Cornyn (R)
-
-
-
-
-
0%
Menendez (D)
+
+
+
+
+
100%
Cruz (R)
-
+
-
-**
-
20%
NEW MEXICO
UTAH
Heinrich (D)
+
+
+
+
+
100%
Hatch (R)
-
-
-
-
-
0%
Udall (D)
+
+
+
+
+
100%
Lee, M. (R)
-
-
-
+*
-
25%
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
61
2016
CAP
ROLL CALL
2016
CAP Senator
1
2
3
4
5
Agreement
with UAW
Position %
VERMONT
Senator
1
2
3
4
5
Agreement
with UAW
Position %
WEST VIRGINIA
Leahy (D)
+
+
+
+
+
100%
Capito (R)
-
-
-
-
-
0%
Sanders (I)
+
+
+
+
x
100%
Manchin (D)
+
+
+
+
+
100%
VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
Kaine (D)
+
+
+
-
+
80%
Baldwin (D)
+
+
+
+
+
100%
Warner (D)
+
+
+
-
+
80%
Johnson, R. (R)
-
-
-
-
-
0%
WASHINGTON
WYOMING
Cantwell (D)
+
+
-
-
+
60%
Barrasso (R)
-
-
-
-
-
0%
Murray (D)
+
+
-
-
+
60%
Enzi (R)
-
-
x
-
-
0%
SENATE VOTES: 1. Repeal of NRLB election rule 2. Budget 3. Brown Amendment to Fast Track 4. Trade: Fast Track (* indicates they
voted on the May 22, 2015 Fast Track vote but missed the second Fast Track vote on June 24, 2015) (** Senator Cardin and Senator Cruz
failed to support the UAW position on both Fast Track votes) 5. Affordable Care Act repeal
KEY: AL = An “at large” member. + = A vote for the UAW position. - = A vote against the UAW position. X = Absent or not voting
I = Not eligible to vote.
62
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
ROLL CALL
1ST SESSION • 114TH CONGRESS
HOUSE VOTES
Regulatory Protections (a)
Labor Rights
1. Regulatory Accountability Act – H.R.
185
3. NLRB – S.J. Res. 8
The House passed the Regulatory Accountability Act of
2015. This bill proposes to weaken worker and public
health and safety protections. H.R. 185 could jeopardize
public health by threatening the safeguards that ensure
our access to clean air and water, safe workplaces,
untainted food and drugs, and safe consumer goods.
By requiring agencies to adopt the least costly rule,
instead of the most protective rule as is now required
under current law, the RAA would add 65 new analytical requirements to the Administrative Procedure Act
and would require federal agencies to conduct nonsensical estimates of all the “indirect” costs and benefits
of proposed rules and all potential alternatives without
providing any definition of what constitutes, or more
importantly, does not constitute an indirect cost. The
House passed the measure last year on Jan. 13 by a
vote of 250-175 (R 242-0; D 8-175; 3 R and 5 D did
not vote); a good vote was “no.” The bill has not been
voted on in the Senate and is opposed by President
Obama.
Health Care
2. House Vote to Repeal Affordable Care
Act – H.R. 70 Providing for consideration
of the bill (H.R. 596) to repeal the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act
Once again, one of the first actions of the right-wing in
the 114th Congress was to repeal the historic health care
reform law enacted by President Obama and Congressional Democrats in 2010. Repeal of the Affordable Care
Act would have denied health care coverage to millions,
eliminated important insurance market reforms, and left
seniors and students without important new benefits.
The House passed this repeal bill on Feb. 3 by a vote of
242-178 (R 242-0; D 0-178; 3 R and 10 D did not vote);
a good vote was “no.” The bill was not passed by the
Senate and is opposed by President Obama.
2016
CAP
2016
CAP
The House passed the resolution of disapproval of the
National Labor Relations Board’s new election rules
(H.J. Res. 29) for a vote. The UAW opposed this antiworker bill. Disapproval of the NLRB election rules
under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) would
undermine the rights of workers to a fair and timely
election, and the opportunity to decide if they want to
form a union and bargain collectively.
It also would prohibit the agency from adopting
another rule in “substantially the same form,” unless
specifically authorized by Congress. This means that
absent a new law authorizing a new rule, the NLRB
would be forever barred from adopting similar election
rules. Its rules would be frozen in time, and the board
would be prohibited from adopting rules to utilize new
technology, modernize its procedures, or standardize
best practices across regions in areas covered by the
December 2014 rules. Too many companies exploit any
opportunity for unnecessary litigation and delay in order to wear down support for the union and deny workers the opportunity to bargain for better pay and working conditions. The NLRB’s common-sense election
rules will cut down on unnecessary delay and hopefully
make the election system more orderly and fair.
S.J. Res. 8 was passed in the House on March 19
by a vote of 232-186 (R 232-3; D 0-183; 9 R and 5 D
did not vote); a good vote was “no.” The resolution
was vetoed by President Obama on March 30 and was
sustained when Congress failed to override it.
Budget
4. House Passes Destructive Budget Plan
– H. Con. Res 27
The UAW strongly opposed the destructive budget plan
put forward by House Budget Committee Chairman
Tom Price, R-Georgia. The 10-year plan was a blueprint
for fiscal policy, but had no force of law. This ideologically driven budget would have forced middle-class
Americans to make painful sacrifices while simulta-
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
63
2016
CAP
ROLL CALL
neously giving more tax breaks for corporations and
CAP wealthy individuals.
More specifically, H. Con. Res. 27 cut domestic
discretionary spending by $759 billion (including
legal services, education, worker safety, labor rights
enforcement, safety net programs for children and the
vulnerable, job training, early intervention programs
for children, basic scientific and medical research,
and transportation). The proposed budget would turn
Medicare in a voucher program, block grants, slash
Medicaid, and repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
Not only did this short-sighted bill target funding for
educating our next generation, it struck funding for programs that help ensure our motor vehicle sector remains
the most competitive in the world.
Despite our opposition, the House approved this
terrible budget plan on March 25 by a vote of 228-199
(R 228-17; D 0-182; 6 D did not vote); a good vote was
“no.” The Senate passed a similar budget. Both were
opposed by President Obama.
2016
Tax
5. Estate Tax Repeal – H.R. 1105
The inheritance tax was established when Republican
President Teddy Roosevelt was in office well over 100
years ago. It is the most progressive federal tax in the
U.S. and the right-wing has tried to permanently repeal
it for decades. Estate tax repeal gives an average tax
break of over $2.5 million to the richest 0.2 percent of
estates, about 5,400 nationwide in 2015, the few that
owe any estate tax at all. The repeal passed the House
on April 16 by a vote of 240-179 (R 233-3; D 7-176;
7 R and 5 D did not vote); a good vote was “no.” The
repeal bill has been sent to the Senate and is opposed by
President Obama.
Trade
6. Fast Track – H.R. 2146
The UAW strongly opposed this misguided bill that
could lead to the passage of trade treaties we cannot see
or change, but that we will live under for years to come.
Trade agreements adopted under Fast Track have cost
us more than 1 million jobs and contributed to the shuttering of more than 60,000 factories. Fast Track has led
to the passage of undemocratic trade deals that lower
wages and eliminate jobs. Providing elected leaders an
up-or-down vote after the agreement has been concluded is no substitute for meaningful engagement. Fast
64
Track passed the House on June 18 by a vote of 218208 (R 190-50; D 28-158; 6 R and 2 D did not vote);
a good vote was “no.” This resolution was sent to the
Senate, passed, and signed into law by President Obama
on June 26.
Regulatory Protections (b)
7. The REINS Act – H.R. 427
Right-wing members of Congress passed the so-called
Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act
(REINS Act), which, if signed into law, would effectively prevent federal agencies from doing their job
for the American people. Important protections that
are beneficial to workers, consumers and the environment would be stopped dead in their tracks by this bill.
This legislation would dramatically change the federal
regulatory system by requiring both houses of Congress
to vote and approve any major federal rule before it
could become effective. The House passed the measure
on July 28 by a vote of 243-165 (R 241-0; D 2-165; 4 R
and 21 D did not vote); a good vote was “no.” The bill
has been sent to the Senate and is opposed by President
Obama.
8. Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act – H.R. 511
The UAW strongly opposed this misguided bill because
it is an attack on fundamental collective bargaining
rights. H.R. 511 would strip workers in commercial
enterprises of their rights and protections under the
National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). For UAW members, work rules, wages and benefits have all improved
because of the right to collectively bargain. H.R. 511
puts all of these hard-fought gains in jeopardy. Under
the terms of this bill, when a labor contract expires, a
tribe could unilaterally terminate the bargaining relationship with the union without legal consequence
under the NLRA because the employer’s obligation
to bargain would be eliminated. At a time of growing
wealth inequality and a shrinking middle class, the last
thing Congress should do is deprive workers of their
legally enforceable right to form unions and bargain
collectively.
Despite our opposition, the bill passed the House
on Nov. 17, 2015 by a vote of 249-177 (R 225-18; D
24-159; 5 D and 2 R did not vote); a good vote was
“no.” The bill has not been voted on by the full Senate.
President Obama opposed the House bill.
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
ROLL CALL
1ST SESSION • 114TH CONGRESS
2015 SENATE VOTING RECORD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Agreement with
UAW Position %
1 Byrne (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-*
-
-
0%
2 Roby (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
3 Rogers, Mike D (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
4 Aderholt (R)
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
13%
5 Brooks, M (R)
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
13%
6 Palmer, R (R)
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
13%
7 Sewell (D)
+
+
+
x
+
-
-
66%
-
x
-
-
-
+*
-
-
13%
1 Kirkpatrick (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
2 McSally (R)
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
13%
3 Grijalva (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
4 Gosar (R)
-
-
x
-
x
+*
-
-
17%
5 Salmon (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
6 Schweikert (R)
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
13%
7 Gallego, Ruben (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
8 Franks (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
9 Sinema (D)
-
+
+
+
-
+
+
+
75%
1 Crawford (R)
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
13%
2 Hill (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
3 Womack (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
4 Westerman (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
1 LaMalfa (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
2 Huffman (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
3 Garamendi (D)
x
+
x
+
+
+
+
+
100%
Lawmaker & District
2016
CAP
2016
CAP
ALABAMA
x
ALASKA
AL Young D (R)
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
HOUSE VOTES: 1. Rulemaking Process Overhaul 2. Affordable Care Act Repeal 3. NRLB Election Rule Repeal 4. Budget
5. Estate Tax Repeal 6. Fast Track (* indicates they voted on the June 12 Fast Track vote but missed the second Fast Track vote on June
18, 2015) 7. REINS Act 8. Tribal Labor Law
KEY: AL = An “at large” member. + = A vote for the UAW position. - = A vote against the UAW position. X = Absent or not voting
I = Not eligible to vote.
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
65
CAP
2016
ROLL CALL
2016
Lawmaker & District
CAP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Agreement with
UAW Position %
4 McClintock (R)
-
-
-
-
x
-
-
-
0%
5 Thompson, M (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
6 Matsui (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
7 Bera (D)
+
+
+
+
+
-
+
+
88%
8 Cook (R)
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
13%
9 McNerney (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
10 Denhem (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
11 DeSaulnier (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
12 Pelosi (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
13 Lee, B. (D)
+
x
+
+
+
+
x
+
100%
14 Speier (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
15 Swalwell (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
16 Costa (D)
-
+
+
+
-
-
+
+
63%
17 Honda (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
18 Eshoo (D)
+
+
+
+
x
+
+
+
100%
19 Lofgren (D)
+
x
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
20 Farr (D)
+
+
+
+
+
-
+
+
88%
21 Valadao (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
22 Nunes (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
23 McCarthy (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
24 Capps (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
25 Knight (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
26 Brownley (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
27 Chu (D)
+
x
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
28 Schiff (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
29 Cardenas (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
88%
30 Sherman (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
31 Aguilar (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
88%
32 Napolitano (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
33 Leiu (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
x
-
86%
34 Becerra (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
88%
35 Torres (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
CALIFORNIA (CONT.)
HOUSE VOTES: 1. Rulemaking Process Overhaul 2. Affordable Care Act Repeal 3. NRLB Election Rule Repeal 4. Budget
5. Estate Tax Repeal 6. Fast Track (* indicates they voted on the June 12 Fast Track vote but missed the second Fast Track vote on June
18, 2015) 7. REINS Act 8. Tribal Labor Law
KEY: AL = An “at large” member. + = A vote for the UAW position. - = A vote against the UAW position. X = Absent or not voting
I = Not eligible to vote.
66
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
ROLL CALL
Lawmaker & District
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Agreement with
UAW Position %
36 Ruiz (D)
+
+
+
x
x
+
+
-
83%
37 Bass (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
x
+
100%
38 Sanchez, Linda (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
39 Royce (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
40 Roybal-Allard (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
41 Takano (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
42 Calvert (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
43 Waters (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
44 Hahn (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
45 Walters (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
46 Sanchez, Loretta (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
x
-
86%
47 Lowenthal (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
48 Rohrabacher (R)
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
13%
49 Issa (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
50 Hunter (R)
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
13%
51 Vargas (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
52 Peters, S. (D)
+
+
+
+
+
-
+
+
88%
53 Davis, S. (D)
+
+
+
+
+
-
+
+
88%
1 DeGette (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
2 Polis (D)
+
+
+
+
+
-
+
+
88%
3 Tipton (R)
-
-
-
-
x
-
-
-
0%
4 Buck (R)
-
-
-
+
-
+
-
-
25%
5 Lamborn (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
6 Coffman (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
7 Perlmutter
x
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
1 Larson, J. (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
2 Courtney (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
3 DeLauro (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
4 Himes, (D)
+
+
+
+
+
-
+
+
88%
5 Esty (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
1 Miller, J. (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
2 Graham, G. (D)
-
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
88%
3 Yoho (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
2016
CAP
2016
CAP
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
AL Carney (D)
FLORIDA
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
67
CAP
2016
ROLL CALL
2016
Lawmaker & District
CAP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Agreement with
UAW Position %
4 Crenshaw (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
5 Brown, C. (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
6 DeSantis (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
7 Mica (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
8 Posey (R)
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
13%
9 Grayson (D)
+
+
x
+
+
+
+
+
100%
10 Webster (R)
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
13%
11 Nugent (R)
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
13%
12 Bilirakis (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
100%
13 Jolly (R)
-
-
-
+
+
+*
-
-
38%
14 Castor (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
15 Ross (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
16 Buchanan (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
17 Rooney (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
18 Murphy, P. (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
19 Clawson (R)
-
-
-
-
-
+
x
-
14%
20 Hastings (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
21 Deutch (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
88%
22 Frankel (D)
+
+
+
+
x
+
+
+
100%
23 Wasserman Schultz (D)
+
+
+
+
+
-
+
+
88%
24 Wilson, F. (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
25 Diaz-Balart (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
26 Curbelo (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
27 Ros-Lehtinen (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
x
0%
1 Carter, E.L. (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
2 Bishop, S. (D)
-
+
+
+
-
+
+
+
75%
3 Westmoreland, L. (R)
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
13%
4 Johnson, H. (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
5 Lewis (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
6 Price, T. (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
7 Woodall (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
FLORIDA (CONT.)
GEORGIA
HOUSE VOTES: 1. Rulemaking Process Overhaul 2. Affordable Care Act Repeal 3. NRLB Election Rule Repeal 4. Budget
5. Estate Tax Repeal 6. Fast Track (* indicates they voted on the June 12 Fast Track vote but missed the second Fast Track vote on June
18, 2015) 7. REINS Act 8. Tribal Labor Law
KEY: AL = An “at large” member. + = A vote for the UAW position. - = A vote against the UAW position. X = Absent or not voting
I = Not eligible to vote.
68
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
ROLL CALL
Lawmaker & District
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Agreement with
UAW Position %
8 Scott, A. (R)
-
-
x
-
-
-
-
-
0%
9 Collins, D. (R)
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
13%
10 Hice (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
11 Loudermilk (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
12 Allen (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
13 Scott, D. (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
14 Graves, T. (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
x
-
0%
1 Takai (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
x
100%
2 Gabbard (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
1 Labrador (R)
-
-
x
+
-
+
-
-
29%
2 Simpson (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
1 Rush (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
2 Kelly, R. (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
x
+
100%
3 Lipinski (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
4 Gutierrez (D)
+
x
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
5 Quigley (D)
+
+
+
+
+
-
+
+
88%
6 Roskam (R)
-
-
x
-
-
-
-
-
0%
7 Davis, D. (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
8 Duckworth (D)
x
x
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
9 Schakowsky (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
10 Dold (R)
-
+
-
-
-
-
-
+
25%
11 Foster (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
12 Bost (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
+
13%
13 Davis, R. (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-*
-
+
13%
14 Hultgren (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
15 Shimkus (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
16 Kinzinger (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
+
13%
17 Bustos (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
18 LaHood (R)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
0%
18 Schock (R)
-
-
x
-
I
I
I
I
0%
1 Visclosky (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
2 Walorski (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
3 Stutzman (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
4 Rokita (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
2016
CAP
2016
CAP
HAWAII
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
69
CAP
2016
ROLL CALL
2016
Lawmaker & District
CAP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Agreement with
UAW Position %
5 Brooks, S. (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
6 Messer (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
7 Carson (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
8 Bucshon (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
9 Young, T. (R)
-
-
x
-
-
-
-
-
0%
1 Blum (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
2 Loebsack (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
3 Young, T. (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
4 King, S. (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
1 Huelskamp (R)
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
13%
2 Jenkins, L. (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
3 Yoder (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
4 Pompeo (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
1 Whitfield (R)
-
-
-
-
x
-
-
-
0%
2 Guthrie (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
3 Yarmuth (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
4 Massie (R)
-
-
-
+
-
+
-
-
25%
5 Rogers, H. (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
6 Barr (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
1 Scalise (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
2 Richmond (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
x
+
100%
3 Boustany (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
4 Fleming (R)
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
13%
5 Abraham (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
6 Graves, G. (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
1 Pingree (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
2 Poliquin (R)
-
+
-
-
-
+
-
-
25%
INDIANA (CONT.)
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MAINE
HOUSE VOTES: 1. Rulemaking Process Overhaul 2. Affordable Care Act Repeal 3. NRLB Election Rule Repeal 4. Budget
5. Estate Tax Repeal 6. Fast Track (* indicates they voted on the June 12 Fast Track vote but missed the second Fast Track vote on June
18, 2015) 7. REINS Act 8. Tribal Labor Law
KEY: AL = An “at large” member. + = A vote for the UAW position. - = A vote against the UAW position. X = Absent or not voting
I = Not eligible to vote.
70
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
ROLL CALL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Agreement with
UAW Position %
1 Harris (R)
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
13%
2 Ruppersberger (D)
+
+
+
+
-
+
+
x
86%
3 Sarbanes (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
4 Edwards (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
5 Hoyer (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
6 Delaney (D)
+
+
+
+
+
-
+
+
88%
7 Cummings (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
8 Van Hollen (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
1 Neal (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
2 McGovern (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
3 Tsongas (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
4 Kennedy (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
5 Clark, K. (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
6 Moulton (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
7 Capuano (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
8 Lynch (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
x
+
100%
9 Keating (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
1 Benishek (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
2 Huizenga (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
3 Amash (R)
-
-
-
+
-
+
-
-
25%
4 Moolenaar (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
5 Kildee (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
88%
6 Upton (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
7 Walberg (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
8 Bishop, M. (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
9 Levin (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
x
+
100%
10 Miller, C. (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
11 Trott (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
12 Dingell (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
13 Conyers (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
x
+
100%
14 Lawrence (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
1 Walz (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
88%
2 Kline, J. (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
3 Paulsen (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
Lawmaker & District
MARYLAND
2016
CAP
2016
CAP
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
71
CAP
2016
ROLL CALL
2016
Lawmaker & District
CAP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Agreement with
UAW Position %
4 McCollum (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
88%
5 Ellison (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
6 Emmer (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
7 Peterson (D)
-
+
+
+
-
+
-
-
50%
8 Nolan (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
1 Kelly (R)
I
I
I
I
I
-*
-
-
0%
1 Nunnelee (R)
x
x
I
I
I
I
I
I
0%
2 Thompson, B. (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
x
+
100%
3 Harper (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
4 Palazzo (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
1 Clay (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
2 Wagner (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
3 Luetkemeyer (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
4 Hartzler (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
5 Cleaver (D)
x
+
+
+
+
+
x
+
100%
6 Graves, S. (R)
-
-
x
-
-
-
-
-
0%
7 Long (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
8 Smith, J. (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
1 Fortenberry (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
2 Ashford (D)
-
+
+
+
-
-
+
-
50%
3 Smith, Adrian (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
1 Titus (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
x
100%
2 Amodei (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
3 Heck, J. (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
4 Hardy (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
MINNESOTA (CONT.)
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
AL Zinke (R)
NEBRASKA
NEVADA
HOUSE VOTES: 1. Rulemaking Process Overhaul 2. Affordable Care Act Repeal 3. NRLB Election Rule Repeal 4. Budget
5. Estate Tax Repeal 6. Fast Track (* indicates they voted on the June 12 Fast Track vote but missed the second Fast Track vote on June
18, 2015) 7. REINS Act 8. Tribal Labor Law
KEY: AL = An “at large” member. + = A vote for the UAW position. - = A vote against the UAW position. X = Absent or not voting
I = Not eligible to vote.
72
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
ROLL CALL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Agreement with
UAW Position %
1 Guinta (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
2 Kuster (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
1 Norcross (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
2 LoBiondo (R)
-
-
+
+
-
+
-
+
50%
3 MacArthur (R)
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
+
25%
4 Smith, C. (R)
-
-
+
-
-
+
-
+
38%
5 Garrett (R)
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
13%
6 Pallone (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
7 Lance (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
8 Sires (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
9 Pascrell (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
10 Payne (D)
+
+
x
x
+
+*
+
+
100%
11 Frelinghuysen (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
12 Watson Coleman (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
1 Lujan Grisham, M. (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
x
-
86%
2 Pearce (R)
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
13%
3 Lujan, B. (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
88%
1 Zeldin (R)
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
+
25%
2 King, P. (R)
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
+
25%
3 Israel (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
4 Rice, K. (D)
+
+
+
+
+
-
+
+
88%
5 Meeks (D)
+
+
+
+
+
-
x
+
86%
6 Meng (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
7 Velazquez (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
8 Jeffries (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
9 Clarke, Y. (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
10 Nadler (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
11 Donovan (R)
I
I
I
I
I
+
-
+
67%
11 Grimm (R)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0%
12 Maloney, C. (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
13 Rangel (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
x
-
86%
14 Crowley (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
15 Serrano (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
16 Engel (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
Lawmaker & District
NEW HAMPSHIRE
2016
CAP
2016
CAP
NEW JERSEY
NEW MEXICO
NEW YORK
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
73
CAP
2016
ROLL CALL
2016
Lawmaker & District
CAP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Agreement with
UAW Position %
17 Lowey (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
18 Maloney, S. (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
19 Gibson, C. (R)
-
-
-
+
-
+
-
+
38%
20 Tonko (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
21 Stefanik (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
22 Hanna (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
23 Reed, T. (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
24 Katko (R)
-
+
-
+
-
+
-
+
50%
25 Slaughter (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
26 Higgins (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
27 Collins, C. (R)
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
13%
1 Butterfield (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
x
+
100%
2 Ellmers (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
3 Jones (R)
-
-
-
+
+
+
-
-
38%
4 Price, D. (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
5 Foxx (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
6 Walker (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
7 Rouzer (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
8 Hudson (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
9 Pittenger (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
10 McHenry (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
11 Meadows (R)
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
13%
12 Adams (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
13 Holding (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
1 Chabot (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
2 Wenstrup (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
3 Beatty (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
4 Jordan (R)
-
-
x
-
-
+
-
-
14%
NEW YORK (CONT.)
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH DAKOTA
AL Cramer (R)
OHIO
HOUSE VOTES: 1. Rulemaking Process Overhaul 2. Affordable Care Act Repeal 3. NRLB Election Rule Repeal 4. Budget
5. Estate Tax Repeal 6. Fast Track (* indicates they voted on the June 12 Fast Track vote but missed the second Fast Track vote on June
18, 2015) 7. REINS Act 8. Tribal Labor Law
KEY: AL = An “at large” member. + = A vote for the UAW position. - = A vote against the UAW position. X = Absent or not voting
I = Not eligible to vote.
74
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
ROLL CALL
Lawmaker & District
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Agreement with
UAW Position %
5 Latta (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
6 Johnson, B. (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
7 Gibbs, B. (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
8 Boehner (R)
x
x
x
-
x
-
x
I
0%
9 Kaptur (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
10 Turner (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
11 Fudge (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
x
+
100%
12 Tiberi (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
13 Ryan, T. (D)
x
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
14 Joyce (R)
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
+
25%
15 Stivers (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
16 Renacci (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
1 Bridenstine (R)
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
13%
2 Mullin (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
3 Lucas (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
x
-
0%
4 Cole (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
5 Russell (R)
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
13%
1 Bonamici (D)
+
+
+
+
+
-
+
+
88%
2 Walden (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
3 Blumenauer (D)
+
+
+
+
+
-
+
+
88%
4 DeFazio (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
x
100%
5 Schrader (D)
-
+
+
+
+
-
+
-
63%
1 Brady, R. (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
2 Fattah (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
3 Kelly (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
4 Perry (R)
-
-
-
-
x
+
-
-
14%
5 Thompson, G. (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
6 Costello (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
+
13%
7 Meehan (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
+
13%
8 Fitzpatrick (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
+
13%
9 Shuster (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
10 Marino (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
11 Barletta (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
12 Rothfus (R)
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
13%
13 Boyle (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
2016
CAP
2016
CAP
OKLAHOMA
OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
75
CAP
2016
ROLL CALL
2016
Lawmaker & District
CAP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Agreement with
UAW Position %
14 Doyle (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
15 Dent (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
16 Pitts (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
17 Cartwright (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
18 Murphy, T. (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
+
13%
1 Cicilline (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
2 Langevin (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
1 Sanford (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
2 Wilson, J. (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
3 Duncan, Jeff (R)
-
-
-
-
x
+
-
-
14%
4 Gowdy (R)
x
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
5 Mulvaney (R)
-
-
-
+
-
+
-
+
38%
6 Clyburn (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+*
+
+
100%
7 Rice, T. (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
1 Roe (R)
-
x
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
2 Duncan, John (R)
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
13%
3 Fleischman (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
4 DesJarlais (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
x
0%
5 Cooper (D)
+
+
+
+
+
-
+
+
88%
6 Black, D. (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
7 Blackburn, M. (R)
-
-
-
-
x
-
-
-
0%
8 Fincher (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
9 Cohen (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
1 Gohmert (R)
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
13%
2 Poe (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
3 Johnson, S. (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
4 Ratcliffe (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
PENNSYLVANIA (CONT.)
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
AL Noem (R)
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
HOUSE VOTES: 1. Rulemaking Process Overhaul 2. Affordable Care Act Repeal 3. NRLB Election Rule Repeal 4. Budget
5. Estate Tax Repeal 6. Fast Track (* indicates they voted on the June 12 Fast Track vote but missed the second Fast Track vote on June
18, 2015) 7. REINS Act 8. Tribal Labor Law
KEY: AL = An “at large” member. + = A vote for the UAW position. - = A vote against the UAW position. X = Absent or not voting
I = Not eligible to vote.
76
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
ROLL CALL
Lawmaker & District
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Agreement with
UAW Position %
5 Hensarling (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
6 Barton (R)
x
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
7 Culberson (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
8 Brady, K. (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
9 Green, A (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
x
+
100%
10 McCaul (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
11 Conaway (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
12 Granger (R)
-
-
x
-
-
-
-
-
0%
13 Thornberry (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
14 Weber (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
15 Hinojosa (D)
+
+
x
x
+
-
+
x
80%
16 O’Rourke (D)
+
+
+
x
+
-
+
+
86%
17 Flores (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
18 Jackson Lee (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
x
+
100%
19 Neugebauer (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
20 Castro (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
21 Smith, Lamar (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
22 Olson (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
23 Hurd (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
24 Marchant (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
25 Williams (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
26 Burgess (R)
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
13%
27 Farenthold (R)
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
13%
28 Cuellar (D)
-
+
+
+
-
-
-
-
38%
29 Green, G. (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
30 Johnson, E. (D)
+
+
+
+
+
-
x
+
86%
31 Carter, J. (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
x
-
0%
32 Sessions, P. (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
33 Veasey (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
34 Vela (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
35 Doggett (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
36 Babin (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
1 Bishop, R. (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
2 Stewart (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
3 Chaffetz (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
4 Love (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
2016
CAP
2016
CAP
UTAH
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
77
CAP
2016
ROLL CALL
2016
Lawmaker & District
CAP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Agreement with
UAW Position %
+
+
+
+
x
+
+
+
100%
1 Wittman (R)
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
13%
2 Rigell (R)
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
13%
3 Scott, R. (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
4 Forbes (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
5 Hurt (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
6 Goodlatte (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
7 Brat (R)
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
13%
8 Beyer (D)
+
+
+
+
+
-
+
-
75%
9 Griffith (R)
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
13%
10 Comstock (R)
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
13%
11 Connolly (D)
+
+
+
+
+
-
+
+
88%
1 DelBene (D)
+
+
+
+
+
-
+
-
75%
2 Larsen, R. (D)
+
+
+
+
+
-
+
+
88%
3 Herrera Beutler (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
4 Newhouse (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
5 McMorris Rodgers (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
6 Kilmer (D)
+
+
+
+
+
-
+
-
75%
7 McDermott (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
8 Reichert (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
9 Smith, Adam (D)
+
+
x
x
x
+
+
+
100%
10 Heck, D. (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
88%
1 McKinley (R)
-
-
-
+
-
+
-
+
38%
2 Mooney (R)
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
13%
3 Jenkins, E. (R)
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
13%
1 Ryan, P. (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
x
0%
2 Pocan (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
100%
3 Kind (D)
+
+
+
+
+
-
+
-
75%
VERMONT
AL Welch (D)
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
HOUSE VOTES: 1. Rulemaking Process Overhaul 2. Affordable Care Act Repeal 3. NRLB Election Rule Repeal 4. Budget
5. Estate Tax Repeal 6. Fast Track (* indicates they voted on the June 12 Fast Track vote but missed the second Fast Track vote on June
18, 2015) 7. REINS Act 8. Tribal Labor Law
KEY: AL = An “at large” member. + = A vote for the UAW position. - = A vote against the UAW position. X = Absent or not voting
I = Not eligible to vote.
78
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
ROLL CALL
Lawmaker & District
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Agreement with
UAW Position %
4 Moore (D)
+
+
+
+
+
+
x
-
86%
5 Sensenbrenner (R)
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
13%
6 Grothman (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
7 Duffy (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
8 Ribble (R)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
13%
2016
CAP
2016
CAP
WYOMING
AL Lummis (R)
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
79
2016
CAP
NOTES
2016
CAP
80
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
NOTES
2016
CAP
2016
CAP
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
81
2016
CAP
NOTES
2016
CAP
82
UAW National Community Action Program (CAP) • Washington, DC • January 24-27, 2016
2016
CAP
2016
CAP
Visit us on the Web: uaw.org
Visit us on Twitter: twitter.com/uaw
Visit us on Facebook: facebook.com/uaw.union