NDAA Vote Results Thread! Come and Comment on Thoughts, Disappointments, etc!

[Spoa]

Blumenauer Amendment (urged yes): http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll222.xml

Coffman Amendment (urged yes): http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll224.xml

McGovern Amendment (urged yes): http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll226.xml

Goodlatte Amendment (urged no): http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll227.xml

Smith Amendment (urged yes): http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll228.xml

Pour over them. A lot of great leaders, surprises, as well as disappointments!

Feel free to comment. Who are you surprised about, angry about, etc.

[Spoa]

Just to start off...I'll need more time to review, but I'm very happy with our favorites: Rep. Amash and Massie.

Rep. Yoho, Sanford, Labrador, Griffith (VA), McClintock did excellent on these amendments.

Disappointed in Rep. Stockman...he may need to lose a star for the votes he took today. Voting against the Smith-Gibson Amendment? And why against the McGovern Amendment? Sad.

Bridenstine, DeSantis, Radel, and others are losing points in my book.

[Spoa]

Bump.

[Spoa]

Forgot to also say, glad to see bentivolio coming back home.

[Spoa]

Roll Calls are out:

McCollum Amdt.: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll231.xml (prohibiting funds for DOD NASCAR racing)
Nolan Amdt: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll232.xml (cutting $60 billion from NDAA)
Gibson Amdt: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll234.xml (striking Syrian language)
Coffman Amdt: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll235.xml (closing bases in Europe)
Polis Amdt: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll239.xml (limiting funds for missile in Alaska)
Van Hollen Amdt: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll240.xml (decreasing funds for NDAA)
Final Passage of NDAA: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll244.xml

[Brian4Liberty]

Roll Calls are out:

Final Passage of NDAA: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll244.xml

Bentivolio and Sanford voted YEA for final passage? That's disappointing.

Graves (GA), Graves (MO), Chaffetz voted YEA, but is that a surprise?

Bridenstine is no surprise voting for it. He's in the neo-conservative pocket on votes like this.

[Spoa]

Bentivolio and Sanford voted YEA for final passage? That's disappointing.

Graves (GA), Graves (MO), Chaffetz voted YEA, but is that a surprise?

Bridenstine is no surprise voting for it. He's in the neo-conservative pocket on votes like this.

Confused on Sanford and Bentivolio. They voted for the Smith-Gibson Amendment but for final passage?!?!

Rep. Yoho has released a terrific statement on NDAA: http://yoho.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/rep-yoho-votes-against-ndaa


“The number one charge of the federal government is national security. The goals of NDAA are important, and I supported amendments to improve its respect for our constitutional rights, but I could not support it in its final form.

“My record in support of our nation’s military is unwavering. In March, I supported the Continuing Resolution that guaranteed military pay and benefits. In light of what we’ve learned over the last few weeks about abuses of power in the name of national security, however, I could not vote to continue policies that leave too much to interpretation for the civil liberties of American citizens.”

[supermario21]

Sanford voted the right way on all the amendments but yes on passage? That's what confuses me. But I'm happy with his overall votes.

[Spoa]

Sanford voted the right way on all the amendments but yes on passage? That's what confuses me. But I'm happy with his overall votes.

Better than 95% of the GOP party...definitely!

[Brett85]

Sanford voted the right way on all the amendments but yes on passage? That's what confuses me. But I'm happy with his overall votes.

He probably didn't want to vote against funding the military. This NDAA didn't actually contain any indefinite detention language like the NDAA did that was passed a year or two ago.

[Brett85]

Forgot to also say, glad to see bentivolio coming back home.

Except that today he voted against an amendment striking pro war Syria language from the bill, and voted against an amendment that would close bases in Europe. He seems to be good on civil liberties but not much else.

[Brian4Liberty]

Sanford voted the right way on all the amendments but yes on passage? That's what confuses me. But I'm happy with his overall votes.

Symbolic only. It will keep him in the good graces of his MIC constituency.

[Spoa]

Except that today he voted against an amendment striking pro war Syria language from the bill, and voted against an amendment that would close bases in Europe. He seems to be good on civil liberties but not much else.

He did vote to reduce the number of carriers in the fleet as well as the Afghan War amendment by McGovern. He's decent, not as bad as some have described, but I hope he will dramatically improve on other issues.

[tsai3904]

Except that today he voted against an amendment striking pro war Syria language from the bill, and voted against an amendment that would close bases in Europe. He seems to be good on civil liberties but not much else.

Bentivolio is way in over his head.

If we look at this extensive interview he gave and removed his name, most everyone here could support 90%+ of what is said. Yet, he hasn't come close to voting the views he gave in the interview. It's sad to see someone who held liberty views being obviously influenced by DC power.

http://libertycandidates.com/2012/01/kerry-bentivolio/

[tsai3904]

Gibson Amdt: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll234.xml (striking Syrian language)


Here's the text (didn't include the "findings") of the Syrian language that Gibson's amendment would have completely deleted:


SEC. 1251. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE CONFLICT IN SYRIA.

(b) Sense of Congress- It is the sense of Congress that--

(1) President Obama should have a comprehensive policy and should ensure robust contingency planning to secure United States' interests in Syria;

(2) President Obama should fully consider all courses of action to remove President Bashar al-Assad from power;

(3) the conflict in Syria threatens the vital national security interests of Israel, which should be sufficiently weighed by the President when considering policy approaches towards the conflict in Syria;

(4) the President should fully consider all courses of action to reinforce his stated `redline' regarding the use of weapons of mass destruction by the Assad regime in Syria, which could threaten the credibility of the United States with its allies in the region and embolden the Assad regime;

(5) the United States should continue to conduct rigorous planning and operational preparation to support any efforts to secure the chemical and biological stockpiles and associated weapons;

(6) the United States should have a policy that supports the stability of countries on Syria's border, including Jordan, Turkey, Iraq, Lebanon, and Israel;

(7) the United States should continue to support Syrian opposition forces with non-lethal aid;

(8) the President, the Department of Defense, the Department of State, and the intelligence community, in cooperation with European and regional allies, should ensure that the risks of all courses of action or inaction regarding Syria are fully explored and understood and that Congress is kept fully informed of such risks;

(9) the President should fully consider, and the Department of Defense should conduct prudent planning for, the provision of lethal aid and relevant operational training to vetted Syrian opposition forces, including an analysis of the risks of the provision of such aid and training; and

(10) should the President decide to employ any military assets in Syria, the President should provide a supplemental budget request to Congress.

[Christian Liberty]

He probably didn't want to vote against funding the military. This NDAA didn't actually contain any indefinite detention language like the NDAA did that was passed a year or two ago.

That still sucks, although I know Rand did the same thing. Frankly, we shouldn't even have a standing army during peacetime. If we actually receive an unprovoked attack than fine, spend what you need to to kill as many of the aggressors as you have to to get them off your back. But we haven't actually been attacked in such a form EVER. 1812 was close enough and the Revolution was a legitimate war of secession but that's about it... World War II was I guess sort of justified but I wouldn't classify that as an "Unprovoked" attack.

[cajuncocoa]

Symbolic only. It will keep him in the good graces of his MIC constituency.

That's exactly what I look for in a liberty candidate!

[Spoa]

That still sucks, although I know Rand did the same thing. Frankly, we shouldn't even have a standing army during peacetime. If we actually receive an unprovoked attack than fine, spend what you need to to kill as many of the aggressors as you have to to get them off your back. But we haven't actually been attacked in such a form EVER. 1812 was close enough and the Revolution was a legitimate war of secession but that's about it... World War II was I guess sort of justified but I wouldn't classify that as an "Unprovoked" attack.


What about a military to defend our border??? I think that's what we should have.

[cajuncocoa]

Symbolic only. It will keep him in the good graces of his MIC constituency.

First of all, let me say that I'm not picking on you by using your post as an example, Brian. But I had to come back to make the following comment because I just couldn't get this out of my mind.

I'm a little tired of seeing these kind of excuses made when people who are supposed to be "our" candidates vote (or speak) in a way that make some of us shake our heads.

We need to STOP making these excuses. We need to draw a line in the sand and tell them we will NOT support them when they cross it.

"The person who is with us 80% of the time is an 80% friend...not a 20% enemy."

OK...fine. But that doesn't mean you have to smile and accept it when they cross the line 20% of the time. If we don't get angry when they do, we're going to keep having to compromise on many issues from here to infinity.

I'm not saying we shouldn't vote for these people, or donate to these people, or campaign in any other way for them. I recognize that in many ways they may be much better than anyone who would oppose them.

BUT...don't let them off the hook so easily when they disappoint us.

This rant is not meant to be applicable only for Sanford or for this one particular vote. I see these excuses all the time made for candidates who are "80% friends". If we want to be taken seriously, it needs to stop.

/rant

[Brian4Liberty]

That's exactly what I look for in a liberty candidate!

He needs to take some cues from Amash and Massie.

[Brian4Liberty]

First of all, let me say that I'm not picking on you by using your post as an example, Brian. But I had to come back to make the following comment because I just couldn't get this out of my mind.

I'm a little tired of seeing these kind of excuses made when people who are supposed to be "our" candidates vote (or speak) in a way that make some of us shake our heads.

We need to STOP making these excuses. We need to draw a line in the sand and tell them we will NOT support them when they cross it.


No worries.

My post was in no way meant to be an excuse. It was more in a sarcastic tone. (Thus the use of the term MIC. Is that ever favorable?) ;)

[cajuncocoa]

He needs to take some cues from Amash and Massie. Yes.


No worries.

My post was in no way meant to be an excuse. It was more in a sarcastic tone. (Thus the use of the term MIC. Is that ever favorable?) ;)Honestly, it didn't sound like something you would say seriously....but lately I've seen so many people making excuses for their pet candidates that I didn't know what to make of it. Hence, my rant.

[Brett85]

Even Yoho and Sanford and some of our better reps voted against closing bases in Europe. I can't really understand why anyone would oppose closing bases in Europe of all places with the massive deficit and debt that we have.

[Spoa]

Even Yoho and Sanford and some of our better reps voted against closing bases in Europe. I can't really understand why anyone would oppose closing bases in Europe of all places with the massive deficit and debt that we have.

A lot of them will argue that we need to watch Russia in case Russia doesn't keep in line with our treaty with them.

[Brett85]

After looking at all of these votes, it looks like Stockman is going to be worthless. He voted the wrong way on practically all these amendments.

[Christian Liberty]

Even Yoho and Sanford and some of our better reps voted against closing bases in Europe. I can't really understand why anyone would oppose closing bases in Europe of all places with the massive deficit and debt that we have.

While I can't understand this, I can't understand why anyone would ever have supported war in Iraq or Syria or anywhere else in the Middle East either. Except for neo-con "Police the World" logic, but that logical system doesn't care about our financial state anyway so why not add Europe to the list of people to defend?

I would go so far as to say that if Britain or France were attacked, it wouldn't be any of our business. So obviously I take the same stance toward Israel. But I can at least understand why people would want to defend allies. I don't get why they support endless war. Which is ultimately what having a million allies leads to, hence why I dislike it.


A lot of them will argue that we need to watch Russia in case Russia doesn't keep in line with our treaty with them.

Screw that.


First of all, let me say that I'm not picking on you by using your post as an example, Brian. But I had to come back to make the following comment because I just couldn't get this out of my mind.

I'm a little tired of seeing these kind of excuses made when people who are supposed to be "our" candidates vote (or speak) in a way that make some of us shake our heads.

We need to STOP making these excuses. We need to draw a line in the sand and tell them we will NOT support them when they cross it.

"The person who is with us 80% of the time is an 80% friend...not a 20% enemy."

OK...fine. But that doesn't mean you have to smile and accept it when they cross the line 20% of the time. If we don't get angry when they do, we're going to keep having to compromise on many issues from here to infinity.

I'm not saying we shouldn't vote for these people, or donate to these people, or campaign in any other way for them. I recognize that in many ways they may be much better than anyone who would oppose them.

BUT...don't let them off the hook so easily when they disappoint us.

This rant is not meant to be applicable only for Sanford or for this one particular vote. I see these excuses all the time made for candidates who are "80% friends". If we want to be taken seriously, it needs to stop.

/rant

Yeah, pretty much this. I don't know where the 80% number came from. To me, its a decent number, with the understanding that I'm not going to rate all issues equally. Wanting to go to war with Iran, for example, is more than 20% in my mind even though its technically only one issue.

But in general, yeah, I agree. I'd vote for somebody who agreed with me 80% of the time, with the above caveat, but that doesn't mean I'm going to mindlessly endorse everything they do.

I don't expect perfection, heck, I didn't even really agree with you that Rand Paul's comment about Snowden was a problem. But if I see something that's wrong, and feel like commenting on it, I will and I have a right to do so.

[Brian4Liberty]

Here's the final vote. These are the GOP members who voted "NAY", either through dedication to limited government, or they were given permission by party leadership.

Voted No on final passage:
--------------------------
Amash
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Gibson
Gohmert
Gosar
Griffith (VA)
Labrador
Lummis
Massie
McClintock
Mulvaney
Radel
Rohrabacher
Salmon
Schweikert
Stockman
Yoho

Not voting:
-----------
Bachmann
Campbell
Poe (TX)

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll244.xml

[Brian4Liberty]

Gang of 18?

[John F Kennedy III]

Sanford :( If he gives an explanation someone please post it.

[John F Kennedy III]

108-315 on the vote? Very disappointing. Honestly though that's more nays than i expected.

[TaftFan]

Sanford, Broun, and Walter Jones voted for final passage and I don't have a problem with it. They did a great job on the amendments.

If there had been indefinite detention in the final passage I would have strongly condemned a vote on it. However, this bill did not mention it.

[Brett85]

Final passage doesn't matter. Stockman voted "no" on final passage but voted the wrong way on all the amendments. Sanford voted "yes" on final passage but voted the right way on most of the amendments. I'll take Sanford over Stockman any day.

[TaftFan]

I really don't know what happened with Stockman. I almost feel like he may have been blackmailed.

[supermario21]

Yeah, the amendments were the important votes IMO because those were specific policy votes.

[Brett85]

While I can't understand this, I can't understand why anyone would ever have supported war in Iraq or Syria or anywhere else in the Middle East either. Except for neo-con "Police the World" logic, but that logical system doesn't care about our financial state anyway so why not add Europe to the list of people to defend?

I would go so far as to say that if Britain or France were attacked, it wouldn't be any of our business. So obviously I take the same stance toward Israel. But I can at least understand why people would want to defend allies. I don't get why they support endless war. Which is ultimately what having a million allies leads to, hence why I dislike it.



Screw that.

Having bases in countries where we're not at war makes even less sense to me that getting involved in additional wars overseas. Preemptive war usually has some reason behind it, even though I disagree with the reason. I don't see how there's even any reason at all behind having troops in Europe. Someone mentioned Russia, but that just seems ridiculous. If we want to keep an eye on Russia, we can do that through our CIA. Having troops on the ground in Europe isn't going to do anything to deter Russia.

[TaftFan]

Dave Nalle has informed me Stockman planned to vote no on the entire NDAA bill, so he didn't want to vote yes on amendments for a bill he was going to vote no on.

Strange reasoning, I know, but that does a good job of explaining why he voted the way he did.

[Brett85]

Yeah, that doesn't make much sense. It's better to make the bill better even if you plan on voting against it in the end.

[TaftFan]

Yeah, that doesn't make much sense. It's better to make the bill better even if you plan on voting against it in the end.

Nalle said he would be talking to him next week about it more.

[Spoa]

Nalle said he would be talking to him next week about it more.

Thanks for update. Wish Stockman would explain it this way himself though. His Facebook page is filled with more rhetoric about Obama then it is about helping me understand his positions.

[Christian Liberty]

Final passage doesn't matter. Stockman voted "no" on final passage but voted the wrong way on all the amendments. Sanford voted "yes" on final passage but voted the right way on most of the amendments. I'll take Sanford over Stockman any day.

It still matters. If enough people voted no the military wouldn't be funded, which would be awesome. I'm aware it was going to pass, but that doesn't mean you just vote yes, even with amendments.

Having bases in countries where we're not at war makes even less sense to me that getting involved in additional wars overseas. Preemptive war usually has some reason behind it, even though I disagree with the reason. I don't see how there's even any reason at all behind having troops in Europe. Someone mentioned Russia, but that just seems ridiculous. If we want to keep an eye on Russia, we can do that through our CIA. Having troops on the ground in Europe isn't going to do anything to deter Russia.

There's no actual good reason behind preemptive war. Its all just a way to justify tyranny at home. Exactly why Ocieana (I can't remember how to spell that) was always at war with Eastasia or Eurasia in 1984...

[Brett85]

It still matters. If enough people voted no the military wouldn't be funded, which would be awesome. I'm aware it was going to pass, but that doesn't mean you just vote yes, even with amendments.

Well, maybe it matters, but just not as much as the votes on the amendments, in my opinion.

[Brett85]

Jack Hunter gets really carried away when talking about Sanford. If you listened to him, you would think that Sanford is the 2nd coming of Ron Paul. I think that Sanford will be really good and is probably better than 95% of the Republicans in the house, but I just have to shake my head when Jack says, "Sanford votes in favor of liberty and the Constitution every single time." The fact is that although he'll be good, he's not going to vote the right way every time.

[brandon]

OP, any chance you could link to the text and/or summary of these amendments? I have no clue what they are or where to find them. Looks like the closest one was http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll227.xml decided by 2 votes and Bentivolio voted with the other team.

[Christian Liberty]

Ron Paul didn't even vote the same way every single time.

[Brett85]

OP, any chance you could link to the text and/or summary of these amendments? I have no clue what they are or where to find them. Looks like the closest one was http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll227.xml decided by 2 votes and Bentivolio voted with the other team.

Interestingly, Cotton actually voted "no" on that amendment. So it may not have been very clear cut on how the vote should've gone.

[Brett85]

Ron Paul didn't even vote the same way every single time.

Yeah, and I don't really think that he was correct on every issue from a limited government perspective either, such as the earmarks issue.

[brandon]

OP, any chance you could link to the text and/or summary of these amendments? I have no clue what they are or where to find them. Looks like the closest one was http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll227.xml decided by 2 votes and Bentivolio voted with the other team.


Found a summary.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:hz150:

On the surface this seems like I would support it, but since Massie and Amash broke with the party and voted no I'm sure I don't really understand it. Would love an explanation.

[Brett85]

It seems as though it was a much weaker alternative to the Smith amendment, which is why Amash and Massie voted against it, since they wanted the Smith amendment to pass rather than this one. That would be my guess.

[ClydeCoulter]

I'm thinking that there must be a way to see how votes are shifted. Some things need to be passed and some not, keep shifting who is voting for what and make sure it's within some "principle" type thing. Things get passed or failed as intended, some congressmen look okay from some point of view.