In the wake of the 2010 elections, many observers believed that Republicans would have the upper hand in the upcoming Congressional redistricting process and use it to build on their already sizable majority in the House of Representatives.  Following the Republican wave of 2010, Republicans enjoyed control of both the Governorship and legislature in 20 states.  The Democrats controlled only 11 states and 18 states were split.

However, as the minutiae of the redistricting process begin to play out, this does not seem to be the case.  Two factors are largely responsible.  First, Republicans won so many seats in 2010 that there are few left for them to win through redistricting, and second, the changing demographics of the U.S. population simply favor the Democrats.  Most places where news seats are being added will tend to elect Democrats while the populations of Republican parts of the country are shrinking.

Two states in the midst of their redistricting processes demonstrate that Democrats are actually gaining seats – Illinois and California.

Illinois is one of the few cases where Democrats control both the legislature and Governorship.  For this reason, observers expected Republicans to lose seats.  The influential Cook Report originally predicted Republicans to lose two seats.  Both houses of the legislature have now approved a new map, which is awaiting Governor Quinn’s signature, and Republican losses may be double that.

4 Republican districts have the potential to go Democratic:

8th – Rep. Joe Walsh (R) defeated Melissa Bean (D) here in a close race in 2010.  The old version of this district was close in Presidential years, with Obama defeating McCain 56-43%.  As now drawn, Obama would have won 62% in the district (all numbers on how new districts would have voted in 2008 are courtesy of the awesome folks at Daily Kos Elections – formerly Swing State Project).

10th – Rep. Bob Dold (R) squeaked by with 51% of the vote to replace now Sen. Mark Kirk (R) in 2010.  The district is slightly more Democratic after redistricting, with Obama’s victory going from 61% to 63%.

11th – Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R) upset Debbie Halvorson (D) here 57-43%, but Obama’s margin of victory swells from 53% to 61% on the new map.

17th – Rep. Bobby Schilling (R) unseated Phil Hare with 53% in 2010.  Obama’s margin expands from 56% to 60% in the new district.

California is an odd beast in the redistricting menagerie.  A number of states use bipartisan citizen commissions to draw new maps as California does rather than relying on the state legislature, but in a new development this cycle, the California commission is strictly forbidden from using incumbency as a factor in its redistricting decisions. Commissions usually start with existing districts and modify them to factor in demographic changes, this frequently has the effect of helping protect existing incumbents.  The California commission, on the other hand, now completely throws out the existing map and starts again from scratch.  This has the effect of drawing many incumbents into districts with other neighboring incumbents and creating some districts with no natural incumbent at all.

The bipartisan commission issued its first maps last week.  These are not final, and are offered for public comment.  The commission must have a final map by August 15.  

Because the lines are not final, it’s too early to know how each district will lean for sure, but expert opinion is that it is not good news for Republicans.  Here’s the initial take of Cook Report redistricting guru Dave Wasserman, lead author of the massive – and massively geeky – Better Know A District:

“First CA impression: Dems +4. Gallegly (R), Dreier (R), Miller (R), Bilbray (R) lose out, Loretta Sanchez (D) keeps winnable district”

David Jarman, at Daily Kos Elections thinks Wasserman missed one other Republican at risk: Ed Royce (R), in the current 40th, centered on Fullerton.

By Chris Cillizza and Aaron Blake

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/the-six-states-that-could-decide-the-presidency-and-the-senate/2011/06/09/AGI67BPH_blog.html

Of the 10 Senate races most likely to switch parties in the 2012 election, six of them are in states likely to be targeted by the two national parties at the presidential level.

Those six states — New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, Missouri, Wisconsin and Virginia — could well then decide not only the identity of the next president but also which party controls the Senate in 2013.

In 2008, President Obama carried five of the six, losing only Missouri — and that narrowly.

But in the intervening three years, Republicans have captured the governorships of New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, Wisconsin and Virginia as well as 13 U.S. House seats in those six states combined.

The question then for 2012 is whether the political atmospherics will more closely resemble 2008 (good for Democrats) or 2010 (good for Republicans).

Of the 10 Senate races most likely to switch parties in the 2012 election, six of them are in states likely to be targeted by the two national parties at the presidential level.

Those six states — New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, Missouri, Wisconsin and Virginia — could well then decide not only the identity of the next president but also which party controls the Senate in 2013.

In 2008, President Obama carried five of the six, losing only Missouri — and that narrowly.

But in the intervening three years, Republicans have captured the governorships of New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, Wisconsin and Virginia as well as 13 U.S. House seats in those six states combined.

The question then for 2012 is whether the political atmospherics will more closely resemble 2008 (good for Democrats) or 2010 (good for Republicans).

To be clear, Senate races tend to be less influenced than House races by top of the ticket dynamics. But, in each of these six states, the Senate contests are widely expected to be very close — meaning that a slight movement at the margins could be the difference between winning and losing.

As always, the number one ranked race on the Line is considered the most likely to switch parties in 2010. Kudos or critiques of our rankings? The comments section awaits.

To the Line!

Coming off the Line: Florida

Coming onto the Line: Wisconsin

10. New Mexico (Democratic controlled): The symmetry of the two primaries here is striking. Both Rep. Martin Heinrich (D) and former congresswoman Heather Wilson (R) are seen as strong candidates to replace retiring Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D), but both face Hispanic candidates who hold statewide office — in a plurality Latino state. The jury is still out on just how formidable state Auditor Hector Balderas (D) and Lt. Gov. John Sanchez (R) will be, but if they can run good campaigns, that will make both primaries very interesting. Case in point: Wilson has been extremely aggressive in trying to define Sanchez from day one. Republicans think she’s running a strong campaign, but winning the primary with such a moderate record will be tough (as she found out in her 2008 Senate primary loss) and this is a Democratic-leaning state. (Previous ranking: 10)

9. Ohio (D): At the start of the 2012 cycle, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D) was at or near the top of Republicans’ target lists. But six months in, Brown has slipped out of the GOP’s marquee pickup chances although, given the swing nature of the Buckeye State and his largely liberal record, he is still likely to face a real fight next fall. The biggest problem so far for Republicans has been recruiting a top tier candidate. Newly elected state Treasurer Josh Mandel appears likely to be the establishment pick but former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell is also likely to run. (Previous ranking: 7)

8. Massachusetts (Republican-controlled): We’re still waiting for the Democratic field to shake out here. There have been whispers about Obama adviser Elizabeth Warren running for the seat, but for now it’s Newton Mayor Setti Warren, City Year co-founder Alan Khazei, and activist Bob Massie in the race. We know it’s early, but with the huge sums of money that popular Sen. Scott Brown (R) is raising, Democrats would be best served to get their primary figured out early on. This will be a tough state for Brown in a presidential year but the lack of direction in the Democratic field keeps this down on the Line for now. (Previous ranking: 8)

7. Wisconsin (Democratic-controlled): Former senator Russ Feingold (D) is dipping his toe in the water and says he may run for either retiring Sen. Herb Kohl’s (D) open Senate seat or in the potential recall of Gov. Scott Walker (R). A decision is due by Labor Day, but we’ve reported before that Wisconsin Democrats are skeptical that he will jump right back into politics. Even if Feingold does run, though, we would expect a competitive race, since he has never taken more than 55 percent of the vote statewide. If he doesn’t run, the focus on the Democratic side will be on Reps. Ron Kind and Tammy Baldwin. On the GOP side, former governor Tommy Thompson looks likely to be in, but nothing is official, and he could well face a significant primary. (Previous ranking: N/A)

6. Nevada (R): The complete collapse of former Sen. John Ensign’s (R) political career — the final chapter came when he resigned from office in late April — opened the door for Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval to appoint Dean Heller to the Senate. It remains to be seen whether Heller’s newfound status is a good thing or a bad one given the anti-incumbent mentality that pervaded the country in the 2010 election. For Democrats, Rep. Shelley Berkley is the favorite but self financing businessman Byron Georgiou is threatening to make the primary race more competitive than most D.C. party strategists would like.(Previous ranking: 6)

5. Missouri (D): Sen. Claire McCaskill (D) is running in a very tough state — the one bona fide swing state that President Obama lost in 2008. Obama is on the ballot again and has poor numbers in Missouri. McCaskill’s saving grace could be an aimless GOP primary field in which none of the candidates are seen as terribly strong. Former state Treasurer Sarah Steelman and Rep. Todd Akin are both in the race, and businessman John Brunner is expected to run. Republicans are hoping that at least one of them will have what it takes to defeat an incumbent. But the jury’s out. (Previous ranking: 4)

4. Virginia (D): No race is likely to change less than this battle of the political titans between former Govs. Tim Kaine (D) and George Allen (R). Both men are well known in Commonwealth and are proven fundraisers. The top of the ticket dynamic — President Obama is promising an aggressive campaign in the state — will matter. This is going to be a very close race. (Previous ranking: 5)

3. Montana (D): There’s an interesting dynamic here when it comes to Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) budget. While Rep. Denny Rehberg (R) was one of four Republicans in the House to vote against it, Sen. Jon Tester (D) has said that it’s a good place to start although he did eventually vote against it. If Democrats are hoping to use the GOP’s Medicare proposal against Republicans in the 2012 elections, this will be the one state where that strategy will be tough to implement. Republicans will need this state if they are going to retake the majority. Rehberg’s second quarter fundraising report, due July 15, will give us a good idea at how formidable he will be. (Previous ranking: 3)

2. Nebraska (D): The Republican field to face Sen. Ben Nelson (D) continues to grow with state Sen. Deb Fischer expected to join state Attorney General Jon Bruning and state Treasurer Don Stenberg in the primary fight. Bruning is regarded as the race’s frontunner although Stenberg is positioning himself as the race’s lone conservative. Nelson is clearly vulnerable in a state that went for Arizona Sen. John McCain by 15 points in 2008. (Previous ranking: 2)

1. North Dakota (D): Rep. Rick Berg’s (R) entrance into the race establishes him as a heavy favorite to replace retiring Sen. Kent Conrad (D) next fall. It’s hard to see Democrats spending much time — or money — to hold this seat. (Previous ranking: 1)

By Executive Director John Isaacs

Color me surprised.

I recently wrote about votes in the House of Representatives signaling rising discontent with the use of military force abroad – but also pointed out that Members of Congress are not ready to take back the right to declare war.  

The House came close to a majority vote against the Afghanistan War for the first time when it narrowly rejected (by a vote of 204 – 215) an amendment by Reps. Jim McGovern (D-MA) and Walter Jones (R-NC).  While the bill called for a withdrawal plan, it did not call for cutting off funding for the war.

At the time, I expressed skepticism that a resolution offered by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) to force the removal of U.S. armed forces from Libya would to get into the triple digits of support.

Wrong!  Kucinich received 148 votes, including an incredibly high number of 87 Republicans. It used to be Kucinich was toxic to Republicans – and to many Democrats. No longer.

In fact, a vote on the Kucinich resolution was delayed in the House so that Speaker John Boehner could put forward an alternative resolution to draw Republican votes from Kucinich.

The Boehner resolution rebuked the President for his Libya policy, but did not require a troop withdrawal. His resolution was adopted by a stunning 268-145.

Cynics in Washington, D.C. – is there anyone but cynics here – naturally assume that many Republicans are willing to repudiate a Democratic President but would have slavishly followed a Republican.

I am not so sure about that facile assumption, at least in this case.

It is always hard to determine motives for a particular vote; it means seeing into a Member’s soul.

Only President George W. Bush could do that with Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.

Rather, I believe that many tea party Republicans are anti-government abroad as well as at home. They want small government keeping its hands off health care and regulation and Afghanistan and Libya.

Or, as I was quoted in the New York Times:

They [tea party Republicans] reflect a growing discontent within the Republican Party about the wars and a growing feeling that they don’t want to spend money on them anymore,” said John Isaacs, executive director of the Council for a Livable World, an advocacy group that promotes arms control. “They are military noninterventionists.

Okay, it is doubtful that the House will act within its powers to cut off funds for the Libyan operation in a few weeks when the Fiscal Year 2012 Defense Appropriations bill comes to the House floor.

And even if the House were to be so bold, the Senate is moving in the opposite direction to endorse the use of force in Libya.

But the bible of the neo-conservative Republican right, the Wall Street Journal, was disturbed enough by the votes on Libya to denounce “the emergence of the Kucinich Republicans.”

Naturally, the Journal prefers to see more aggressive American military action in Libya, weak-kneed Democrats or anti-war Republicans be damned.

Anytime the Wall Street Journal is unhappy, I am happy.

Strange doings in the Republican Party. Stay tuned to see where things go from here, particularly when the Defense Appropriations bill is considered by the House the week of June 20.

John Isaacs talk at
Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs Conference
Carnegie Council, U.S. Army War College
U.S. Global Engagement: Report of Two Years of Activities
The Pocantico Center
June 1-3, 2011

Prospects for nuclear arms control over the next 18 months

Thank you for inviting me to participate in the conference.

I am delighted only to have to comment on Stephen Blank’s paper rather than do any original thinking or writing myself.

And while he focused more on the broader U.S.-Russian reset question, I will focus more narrowly on nuclear weapons and treaty issues between the two questions.

When I first gave a talk for the Carnegie Council a year and a half ago, I was brimming with confidence about the ambitious Obama Administration agenda on nuclear issues, particularly after the President’s wide-ranging and terrific speech in Prague, the Czech Republic in April 2009.

While there has been important progress since that speech, that progress has not led to great momentum on other parts of that nuclear agenda, at least not in the immediate future.

But the immediate future is just that; I think we can look to make more progress beginning in 2013.

Our Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation has held a series of sessions to discuss next steps after New START. Attending have been some of the best and the brightest in the arms control community in Washington, DC as well as congressional staff.

While the discussions are still on-going, there is a surprisingly and unanimously pessimistic view about what might happen next.

That is, another bilateral arms control treaty with the Russians is likely to be very difficult, if not impossible, to achieve.

That consensus does not mean we should give up on the goal of another treaty, but that in the near-term, we should pursue less ambitious steps.

I would give several reasons for these cautious views.

First, the Senate vote in December for New START and the subsequent U.S.-Russian ratification became not an important stepping stone to greater reductions, or the road to a world without nuclear weapons, but rather the completion of a useful step.

And after the vote, the Senate appeared to be saying let’s move on to other topics.

That is, it was a heavy lift in the Senate to win the required 71 votes. And the immediate post-vote reaction in Congress was okay, we have checked that box, and now let’s turn to deficit reduction, jobs and other issues the voters care more about.

While the New START campaign was useful to educate a lot of new Senators about nuclear issues, this education did not whet their appetites for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or resurrecting the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty.

All these treaties were listed on the agenda for today’s meeting.

And if anything, President Obama’s stated goal of a world free of nuclear weapons, while popular worldwide and in the arms control community, was a net negative in the Senate. Let us just say the Senate was not inspired by the President’s Prague speech the way so many of the rest of us were.

Second, and I know it will shock this group to think that politics can intrude on national security issues, but there is the matter of presidential elections in both Russia and the United States.

Obviously there are those here that can speak to the political uncertainty in Russia that is leading to policy uncertainty.

But that one kind of uncertainty is leading to the other kind is certainly true in this country.

I do not expect any major policy changes on nuclear issues until and unless President Obama is re-elected in November 2012.

While other international issues will intrude on President Obama’s agenda, including revolution in the Middle East, withdrawal of American troops from Iraq and a pending decision on troop levels in Afghanistan, don’t expect any major international security departures of policy over the next 17 months.

Third, is the imbalance of conventional, non-nuclear weapons between the United States and Russia.

In one of the great ironies of history, where during the Cold War there was a perceived imbalance of conventional forces that favored the Soviet Union, which led the United States to be more reliant on nuclear weapons, now the nuclear shoe is on the other foot.

The estimation — again, there are greater experts than I in this room — is that Russia is in no hurry to go to much lower nuclear numbers because of that disparity.

Fourth, the next round of negotiations will be more complex because of the need to deal with tactical or non-strategic nuclear weapons and the likelihood that U.S. nuclear weapons in storage and the long-range conventional weapons planned by this country will have to be dealt with. These issues were not part of New START

And fifth and last, in order not to take too much time, is the controversy over United States missile defense plans.

Now in the last couple of weeks, I have attended briefings by two administration officials involved in missile defense. They both assured me that the U.S. plans for the phased adaptive system in Europe are no threat to Russian nuclear forces and will not be so even after all four phases of the U.S. system are deployed.

Now this may be true or may not be true.

But the important point is that Russian leaders do not accept these reassurances and continue to believe that U.S. missile defense deployments at some point in the future will threaten their nuclear deterrent.

As a result, Russia wants limits on missile defense that the United States Senate will never accept.

All this is not to say that things are hopeless.

There are possible confidence building measures in the near-term, such as greater transparency of non-strategic weapons or on plans for missile defense, or matching unilateral reductions are possible

If the Russian nuclear numbers decline below the New START limits because of obsolescence – and a State Department report on June 1 suggests that the Russians are already below those limits in their number of launchers and warheads, perhaps a way could be found for the U.S. to go down to those same levels.   

Or the two countries can accelerate their planned reductions ahead of the 2018 deadline.

And Russia and the United States can continue to cooperate on non-proliferation efforts, including on the four-year goal of securing all stocks of plutonium and highly enriched uranium worldwide.

Last point, the pessimism that I cite is true today and will be true in 2012.

But there is ample time beginning in 2013 after the elections to work out a new nuclear arms reduction deal well before New START expires.

There is ample time to consider ways to strengthen the Non-Proliferation Treaty and bring the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty before the Senate a second time.

And an extra bonus to look forward to 2013: Sen. Jon Kyl, the leading opponent of New START and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, will no longer be in the United States Senate.

—————————————————

John Isaacs has served as executive director of Council for a Livable World since 1991, headed the Washington office since 1981 and lobbied for the Council since 1978.  He also serves as Executive Director of the Council’s sister organization, Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation.

Vote on McGovern (MA), Jones (NC), Loretta Sanchez (CA), Amash (MI), Lewis (GA), Paul (TX), Cicilline (RI), Welch VT) amendment requiring a plan and a timeframe for an accelerated transition of military operations from U.S. to Afghan authorities, and other provisions. Defeated 204-215 (26 Republicans voting aye, 8 Democrats voting no)

Democrats: 178 aye, 8 no
Republicans: 26 aye, 207 no
12 not voting

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll373.xml

—- YES   204 —
Ackerman
Amash
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bartlett
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Campbell
Capps
Capuano

Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Garrett
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Labrador
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Luján
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nugent
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Posey
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rigell
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sánchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Stearns
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Upton
Van Hollen
Velázquez
Visclosky
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

—- NOES    215 —
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Walberg
Walden
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

—- NOT VOTING    12 —
Boustany
Filner
Flake
Giffords
Hanna
Hastings (WA)
Jackson (IL)
Long
McCarthy (NY)
McHenry
Olver
Payne