or Login to see your representatives.

Access Candidates' and Representatives' Biographies, Voting Records, Interest Group Ratings, Issue Positions, Public Statements, and Campaign Finances

Simply enter your zip code above to get to all of your candidates and representatives, or enter a name. Then, just click on the person you are interested in, and you can navigate to the categories of information we track for them.

Public Statements

Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act - Part IV

Floor Speech

By:
Date:
Location: Washington, DC

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, it is not worth yielding then. I am not going to accede to this.

Mr. WATT. The gentleman is not there yet. In that case, I hope he will get there, because if there is any ambiguity in this, we need to make sure that it is cleared up, and I think it is very ambiguous at this point. I would rather have a redundant provision in the bill than to have an ambiguous or no provision in the bill.

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask that my colleagues vote "no" on the Ackerman amendment on three separate grounds.
First, the concept of adulterated food claims are specifically allowed, both under the base bill, where it specifically says adulterated in section 402 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, and under the manager's amendment, which specifically says that the term "qualified civil liability action" does not include an action brought under the Federal Trade Commission Act or the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.
Under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, it specifically defines adulterated food in section 342. A food shall not be deemed to be adulterated if it is considered in whole or part of any filthy, putrid or decomposed substance, which, clearly, mad cow disease or e-coli or anything else would be considered.
The second reason to reject this that it does not apply is the language of this particular bill expressly says that we are talking about claims relating to weight gain, obesity or any health condition that is associated with weight gain or obesity: diabetes, high cholesterol, heart disease. It does not have anything to do with mad cow disease. If a person eats a mad cow burger, their claim goes forward. If a person eats an e-coli burger, their claim goes forward.

A final reason. The gentleman says, well, if that is the case, why does the gentleman care about my amendment? Well, let me address that as well.
This amendment would exclude from the protections of the bill any company that uses particular methods to slaughter perfectly healthy animals. For example, if a company during the slaughtering process places cattle in positions, like in a coral, in which they cannot walk unassisted, then these perfectly law-abiding companies that make meat from perfectly healthy animals would be unfairly excluded from the bill. That is wrong.
Perfectly healthy animals may be unable to stand or walk unassisted during the production process, so this amendment unfairly excludes many law-abiding sellers or perfectly healthy meat from perfectly healthy animals.
For the aforementioned reasons, that it is not needed; and even if it was, it is inappropriate.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. KELLER. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I am just wondering whether we have the right manager's amendment, because I do not for the life of me see any of what the gentleman just described as being in the manager's amendment, or in the amendment that I have. Perhaps I have the wrong one.
The manager's amendment I have substitute language that says nothing about adulteration.

Mr. KELLER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman. The manager's amendment specifically says, "Such terms shall not be construed to exclude an action brought under the Federal Trade Commission Act or the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act." I read the gentleman a section under the Federal, Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act dealing with adulterated products.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, is it not true that only the government could bring an action there? It would not be an individual action. And would that not be the exact point that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman) is making?
Mr. KELLER. Reclaiming my time once again, Mr. Chairman, I still, on the other grounds I mentioned earlier, it is still not needed because we are not talking about a claim based on weight gain or obesity.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. KELLER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman is overlooking something. The government brings lawsuits for violation of the FDA act. Individuals cannot bring actions under the FDA act. Individuals bring civil cases under the tort laws, and that is what we are talking here.
This bill allows the government to bring a lawsuit. I want Mrs. Jones to be able to bring a lawsuit because her 8-year-old son was just made brain damaged and is going to die in 3 months because he ate a hamburger that somebody knowingly sold him that came from a downed animal that had mad cow disease. They cannot do that under this act because they are not the government.

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, and I respect the gentleman's enthusiasm, but his claim that that would be barred is patently untrue. Brain damage or death as a result of eating meat from an animal with mad cow disease is not a claim for weight gain or obesity. It is just totally not. It has nothing to do with this.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I would then ask, Why is the gentleman protecting companies that allow that?

Mr. KELLER. Why do people allow mad cow burgers to be sold? I do not know that any company does knowingly allow mad cow burgers to be served.

Mr. ACKERMAN. We do not prevent it.

Mr. KELLER. Well, that is for another day and another forum. It has nothing to do with this particular bill.

Mr. ACKERMAN. It certainly does. That is exactly the point of this amendment the gentleman is speaking on.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
I want to begin by acknowledging the tenacity of my friend from New York in continuing to attempt to pass what is basically an animal rights question. We have had this discussion many times. It is interesting listening to the debate on this, because as a cosponsor of this base legislation today, I am opposed to frivolous lawsuits. But we make a mistake when we leave the impression with our colleagues that there is a connection between a downed animal and a diseased animal. That in itself is grounds for a frivolous lawsuit, because a downed animal is not necessarily a sick animal. And a downed animal is not necessarily a BSE animal. That is what, if this amendment shall pass, is intended to do, is to make a tie between the two.
Now, I am sure the gentleman knows that a lot has transpired since we had this discussion on the floor last summer. USDA has already banned all downer cattle from the human food supply, period. His amendment, though, includes all livestock; and this would provide the grounds for a lawsuit under the general argument I have heard from too many of my colleagues over here today, that any firm that could be accused of slaughtering a hog that could not walk, and if you have ever raised hogs you know that many times something happens to their body physique that will cause them to just drop and you cannot get them up for any other reason other than just pick them up and carry them. Now, what that would have to do with adulterated food, I do not know; but if this legislation should pass with this amendment in it, that would be grounds for a lawsuit.
It is not fair or just to exclude some manufacturers from these legal protections who are processing food legally and in accordance with USDA regulations simply because some folks have an unrelated animal welfare concern about downer animals. That needs to be thoroughly understood by my colleagues on the floor. There is no connection whatsoever between a downed animal and a food safety concern, it is only after examination of a downed animal that shows that it is, in fact, a sick animal and should and must be excluded.
And as I said this last summer, any firm that puts a diseased animal knowingly into our food chain should be hung to the nearest tree. That, as the chairman has explained, is what this legislation is all about. It does not take away the right to sue for those things that are so clear.
I conclude by again saying, please, please do not continue to attempt on this bill or any other bill to associate downed animals with diseased animals with BSE. That is not a fair comparison. It is not. There is plenty of attention being given to the issue of animal health and welfare in other arenas. The House Committee on Agriculture has held one hearing on BSE, a field hearing on animal identification was held last Friday in Houston; and we will be holding more hearings on these issues in the months ahead.
No one is more interested in seeing that our food supply remain as safe as it is today. We are making progress. We will continue to make progress. But it is not in the best interest of anyone to continue to make the tie between downers and food safety.

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I stand here on the floor of this Congress, and I sometimes think I have passed through the looking glass. I wonder what our Founding Fathers would think if 200-some years later we would be standing here with a piece of legislation on the floor debating about someone ordering a super-sized order of french fries and not being able to push themselves away from the table soon enough so that that personal responsibility, so ingrained in the American character, is being pushed off across the entire American society. We might have to add on to every order of french fries if we are not able to protect these food suppliers.
I declined to sign onto this bill, although I support it, for that reason, that if we have to go down the path of protecting individuals and individual professions, we will never get done. I would like to see some blanket reform. But I stand in opposition to the Ackerman amendment.
A couple of points I would make. The Department of Agriculture, on balance, even though they have been more aggressive on downer livestock than I would have cared for, has done an excellent job in response to the BSE. The beef supply in the United States of America is the safest in the world, and the credibility that is there with our producers and the quality of that beef has been established by the confidence, as has been demonstrated by our consumers. That is what has held this market up.
The system we have in place does not need to be shaken up, nor does it need to have the safety of our food supply challenged on the floor of Congress when it has got such an outstanding record. I urge my colleagues to vote "no" on the Ackerman amendment. The purpose of H.R. 339 is to protect the food industry from having to defend themselves from frivolous lawsuits. Baseless lawsuits drain away our economic productivity and interfere with economic growth.
It is important to point out that this bill does not change the fact that anyone legitimately injured by substandard food can sue. However, the Ackerman amendment would open the door for countless groundless suits that could potentially bankrupt our agra businesses and our farmers.
I believe this amendment is a schematic way to gut the purpose of the entire bill, allowing Americans to continue to avoid taking responsibility for food choices.
With that said, I am opposed to the amendment that defines a downer animal. I am from western Iowa. In my State, we raise about 25 percent of the pork. This amendment would put market hogs in the same category as older cows that are to be tested for BSE; but as clearly stated by the gentleman from Texas, there is no linkage there between a downer animal and a diseased animal.
Market hogs can suffer unintended injuries on the way to market that cause walking problems and thus subject them to this amendment. But these injuries have nothing to do with the safety and quality of the meat we eat. It is also important to note that hogs are not subject to neurological diseases like BSE. So I urge the body to oppose the Ackerman amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I just want to respond to one thing that the gentleman just said who just debated. I, obviously, did not know any of our Founding Fathers personally, so it is hard for me to imagine what would make them turn over in their grave or whatever, as he indicated. But I think they would be a lot more distressed that we were here in this body today saying that State legislators are incompetent to handle these issues in our Federalist form of government than they would likely be incensed with us dealing with this mundane issue having to do with french fries and hamburgers. I think that is what would distress our Founding Fathers. And I regret that the gentleman missed that part of the debate earlier here. I think that is the distressing thing about this debate.

Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would agree with my friend from North Carolina. I think the Founding Fathers would be appalled that we were invading the 10th amendment purview of the States to determine these questions and imposing this standard for reasons that are lost on me.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding to me.
The gentleman from Iowa took it upon himself to speak for the Founding Fathers, which gives me the initiative to speak for the founding mothers. I think they would be aghast to see that this Congress is looking to protect rather prurient corporate interests at the expense of the health and safety of the American people.
It is not about protecting pigs, my colleague. It is about protecting people. And I say to the gentleman from Iowa, as well as the gentleman from Texas, my good friend, who has had many discussions with me on this issue, that the Ackerman amendment does not take away anybody's right to sue. It does not give anybody, as the gentleman asserted, the right to sue. People have a right to sue now. That is the status quo under the American system of jurisprudence. You can bring a lawsuit.
What the Ackerman amendment attempts to do is to prevent what the opposition is trying to do, and that is to provide an escape clause for those corporations who say it is a regulation, not a law; and, therefore, we are exempt from lawsuits.
The bill before us protects those people who knowingly and willfully sell bad meat to good people and says the public cannot sue them. The government can bring action for violating the FDA law, but people cannot sue under this provision.
It is appalling to think of who we are protecting here. I would have thought that those who represent the States that have cattle and pigs, and so many people make an important living from livestock, would understand the magnitude of the damage that they are doing to their own industry and their own constituencies. The world does not believe what they are saying, that the American food is the safest food in the world. You have lost billions of dollars.
The Japanese will not eat American hamburgers, and they are the ones who have been buying it all over the world. Europeans test every cow before they put it on the market. America, with all our wealth, cannot do that to protect our own people, and my colleagues' constituents are paying the price. Billions of dollars you have cost them. Wake up.
The American people do not want to eat this meat. And it is not because they are just a bunch of animal lovers. They will eat meat if they know that it is safe. And it is your job to protect that industry as well as the public. And the way to do that is to keep the deck honest; to allow people to bring a lawsuit if they think harm was done to them and do not exclude the industry and those who knowingly and willfully sell products that are tainted to the public.
How can one exercise personal responsibility if you do not know the facts? There is no label on your hamburger that says that this hamburger came from a diseased or downed cow. People would not eat it, and you know that. It is a charade that we are playing here. This has nothing to do with trial lawyers. This is a simple amendment that closes an escape clause that I believe, with all due respect, was inadvertently created by an oversight, regardless of your feeling on trial lawyers or anything else.
And I should make it clear, talking about pigs, that my amendment does apply to all livestock, not just cattle.

The gentleman from Texas is right because all livestock, cattle, sheep and pigs can bear the animal form of mad cow that can be passed on.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The time of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) has expired.

(On request of Mr. Watt, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Andrews was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, the USDA, which is selectively cited by the gentleman from Texas giving it such great authority, happens to be the authority that says that downed animals are 49 times more likely to have mad cow disease than ambulatory animals. There is the connection. It is not that there is no connection, it is not just that a cow fell and cannot get up and does not have a button to press.
If it is a downed animal, regardless of why it is a downed animal, it is 49 percent more likely to have mad cow disease. Do Members want to play that game of Russian roulette with their children? I do not. I think others really do not, either. If Members want to protect the American people, guarantee that we are playing straight with the American people. It is their interest that we are trying to protect. For the sake of trying to make a few more pennies on the pound, you are jeopardizing the entire industry, as well as the safety of the American public.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, the gentleman from New York keeps talking about BSE and mad cows and downers in the same breath. We are not arguing that today. With all due respect, the argument that the gentleman has just made, we have stock shows going on all over the country. A young boy or girl has raised this calf. They have shown it. Unfortunately, it breaks its leg. Under the gentleman's thinking, that calf immediately goes to the dump. It is unfit for human consumption no matter what because it is a downer and it cannot walk.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Under this gentleman's thinking, that beloved animal of that little boy who has shown him all around, if he falls and breaks his leg, that animal should be treated humanely and humanely slaughtered which would prevent it from being sold to the public.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) has expired.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 2 additional minutes.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Jersey?

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Objection is heard from the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. HAYES).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. This bill is a good bill and 89 percent of the American people support the concept that somebody should not be able to go to a restaurant, to a food processor or food distributor and be able to sue them because they became obese because of their bad eating habits. Let us get back to the subject at hand.
What is wrong with this amendment is that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman) would completely gut the purpose of the bill. He keeps talking about deliberately and willfully putting into the meat supply diseased animals. We have laws against doing that now. But the gentleman's amendment does not say what he talks about.
The amendment says manufactured or distributed for human consumption. It does not say anything about willfully. It says manufactures or distributes. That means the processing plant, it means the distribution company, it means somebody who imports from another country where we have no control over what their laws are on downed animals. It means the restaurant or cafeteria that distributes the food. It means the grocery store that distributes the food. It does not address the specific concern of one particular instance.
This bill completely covers somebody who may be specifically suing because they ate tainted meat. But all the gentleman from New York is saying is if we have one instance from here on out where meat was sold that came from any downed animal, then that company loses the protection for all time under this bill. That is outrageous. It obviously completely guts the purpose of this legislation.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me the gentleman would have it both ways. First the claim is that my amendment is redundant, the bill already does what it does. Now the gentleman is saying that it guts the bill. How can it be redundant and gut the bill?

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I never once said that this is redundant. What I said was there is language in the bill that protects an individual from being sued, a business from being sued by an individual, if they ate tainted meat. But the gentleman's amendment would prohibit a company from having the protection of this bill if at any time they ever sold one single downed animal or bought from a company that had processed one downed animal. That covers every single circumstance of every single company that is engaged in food processing in the country.
So obviously the gentleman's amendment, no matter what his underlying intent is, and his underlying intent has nothing to do with obesity, whatever the gentleman's underlying intent is, the effect of his amendment is to kill this bill because it would remove protection that is desired by 89 percent of the American people that we are coming forward with to do today from every single company in the food process because it does not require a willful and malicious intent; it just says all you had to do was distribute it once in the entire history of your company from this day forward, and you lose that protection under the law.
This is a foolish, ridiculous amendment, and I urge my colleagues to reject it. The purpose of the legislation before us is to protect the food industry from having to defend themselves from frivolous obesity-related lawsuits. No one has ever argued that downed animals caused obesity differently than non-downed animals.
This bill does not in any way relate to the issues of food safety, animal health or animal welfare. Products that do not meet the standards of our laws relating to food safety, animal health or animal welfare will not be protected by this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today is a very carefully thought out effort to address the growing problem of frivolous and costly lawsuits that do nothing but harm American consumers. These lawsuits have the consequence of adding unnecessary cost to the food industry and consumers to the sole benefit of trial lawyers.
The Ackerman amendment has nothing to do with this issue. It simply creates confusion about who should be afforded protection from obesity-related lawsuits. Because it is so loosely drafted, so carelessly drafted, not addressing anything to do with malicious or willful action, but anybody who manufactures or distributes, any restaurant, any grocery store, any wholesale business, any processor who has had any downed animal at any time, that business would, for all time, be denied the protection of this legislation. I urge my colleagues to oppose this outrageous amendment.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am trying not to be insulted by being accused of having a foolish and ridiculous amendment. I am sure the gentleman is insulting the amendment.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I am referring to a very foolish amendment, the gentleman is correct.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Let me suggest to your very sanctimonious self that it was the chairman of this very committee that said my amendment was redundant. The author of the bill, rather, who said that the amendment was redundant, that what I am trying to do is already in the bill.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) has expired.

The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman).

The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman) will be postponed.

The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

SEQUENTIAL VOTES POSTPONED IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order: Amendment No. 6 offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott); amendment No. 7 offered by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt); amendment No. 2 offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews); and amendment No. 1 offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman).
The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. Remaining electronic votes will be conducted as 5-minute votes.

AMENDMENT NO. 6 OFFERED BY MR. SCOTT OF VIRGINIA

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.

The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.

The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

RECORDED VOTE

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.

A recorded vote was ordered.

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-ayes 177, noes 241, not voting 15, as follows:

[Roll No. 48]

AYES--177

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Becerra
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Chandler
Clay
Clyburn
Costello
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Filner
Ford
Frost
Gonzalez
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hoeffel
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sánchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velázquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--241

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cooper
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett


Source:
Back to top