Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act

On December 10, 2008 (Roll Call #690 on H.R. 7321), Don Manzullo voted for a $14 billion short-term bridge loan program ONLY after it was OFFSET by a spending cut in another program. This loan program was designed to be no different than a host of other credit programs offered by the U.S. government to businesses, such as those offered by the Small Business Administration (SBA). When the Senate did not pass H.R. 7321, on December 19, 2008, President Bush used $17.4 billion from the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) to provide the initial assistance to GM and Chrysler. Manzullo voted against TARP on September 29, 2008 (Roll Call #674) and October 3, 2008 (Roll Call #681). There was no Congressional approval of the President Bushs (or President Obamas) decision to use TARP money for GM or Chrysler. Ultimately, nearly $80 billion of TARP money was used to help the auto sector, of which $7.37 billion thus far has been written-off as losses. Congress did not vote or have a say on this matter. The 16th District of Illinois has a significant automotive manufacturing presence, primarily focused on the 4,000 workers at the Chrysler assembly plant in Belvidere. Several other Republican members with a significant automotive presence in their districts also voted for the auto bridge loan program, including Reps. Candice Miller, Thad McCotter, Dave Camp, Pete Hoekstra, and Fred Upton of Michigan; Joe Barton of Texas; and Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. Its ironic that Adam Kinzinger highlights this one vote when he voted against three amendments last July to eliminate the auto loan program1 and to cut a government subsidy program for the auto industry the Vehicle Technologies program at the Department of Energy.2 These were just some of the votes where Kinzinger and Manzullo differed on cutting $209 billion in spending.3 When it came to a choice to cut these programs, Kinzniger voted to keep funding them without any offsets.

July 14, 2011, Roll Call #580, Broun (R-GA) amendment to eliminate the $6 million in funding for the Advanced Technology Manufacturing loan program in the FY 2012 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill (H.R. 2354). 2 July 12, 2011, Roll Call #545, Broun (R-GA) amendment to H.R. 2354 to cut the Vehicle Technologies program by $26.51 million and July 12, 2011, Roll Call #547, Pompeo (R-KS) amendment to H.R. 2354 to cut the Vehicle Technologies program by $45.6 million. 3 http://manzullo.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Vote-Analysis-On-Spending-Cuts.pdf

CARS program

Unlike the bank bailouts, the Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS) program (sometimes known as Cash for Clunkers) involved the American people in the recovery effort. The voucher was limited to either $3,500 or $4,500 (not $24,000) depending upon the difference in MPG between the vehicle you traded in and the new vehicle you purchased. Nearly 700,000 additional cars were sold during the depth of the recession in 2009, helping 42,000 jobs. The top four brands sold were cars made in America with more than 50 percent domestic content. The overall net economic impact of the CARS program was easily north of $25 billion if not much higher.4 Manzullo only supported the CARS program when it is was paid for by cutting spending in another program; thus it did NOT add to the deficit. In addition, because of these 42,000 jobs, the deficit was further reduced by $2.8 billion as those who obtained work because of this initiative did not draw unemployment benefits and also paid their requisite share of taxes. Republicans are for allowing the people to keep more of their own hard-earned tax money. The CARS program functioned the same way as a narrowly targeted tax incentive, such as the home mortgage deduction, with just one difference instead of waiting for over a year to get your money back, the refund applied at the point of sale. Seventy-seven House Republicans voted for the CARS program,5 including Members from Michigan (Reps. Camp, Miller, McCotter, Hoekstra, Rogers, Upton); along with other conservatives such as Rep. Darrell Issa (CA), Phil Gingrey (GA), Joe Barton (TX), and Buck McKeon (CA). In addition, one of Kinzingers endorsers, Rep. John Shimkus of Illinois, also voted for the CARS program. Its ironic that Adam Kinzinger highlights this one vote when he voted against three amendments last July to eliminate the auto loan program6 and to cut a government subsidy program for the auto industry the Vehicle Technologies program at the Department of Energy.7 These were some of the votes where Kinzinger and Manzullo differed to cut $209 billion in spending.8 When it came to a choice to cut these programs, Kinzinger voted to keep funding them without any offsets.

4 5

http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1918692,00.html July 31, 2009, Roll Call #682, H.R. 3435, making supplemental appropriations for Fiscal Year 2009 for the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Program. 6 July 14, 2011, Roll Call #580, Broun (R-GA) amendment to eliminate the $6 million in funding for the Advanced Technology Manufacturing loan program in the FY 2012 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill (H.R. 2354). 7 July 12, 2011, Roll Call #545, Broun (R-GA) amendment to H.R. 2354 to cut the Vehicle Technologies program by $26.51 million and July 12, 2011, Roll Call #547, Pompeo (R-KS) amendment to H.R. 2354 to cut the Vehicle Technologies program by $45.6 million. 8 http://manzullo.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Vote-Analysis-On-Spending-Cuts.pdf

Spending during Bush years

Adam Kinzinger attributes 100 percent of the spending increases to Don Manzullo, when Manzullo did NOT vote for every spending bill during this time period. In fact, Manzullo voted against seven (7) of the final versions of various appropriations conference reports.9 In addition, Manzullo voted against several of the key spending initiatives of the Bush Administration, including the No Child Left Behind Act,10 (supported by Kinzinger endorser, Rep. Shimkus); tripling foreign aid funding on AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria overseas11 (also supported by Rep. Shimkus); continuing Clintons AmeriCorps program that pays people to volunteer12 (also supported by Rep. Shimkus); and expanding federal Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) programs13 (also supported by Rep. Shimkus and Cantor). Regardless, most of the spending increase during this time period was attributable to security-related initiatives, such as defense (war on terror), homeland security, taking care of veterans, border security, and other high priority items. Adam Kinzinger benefited from this spending increase because it was mostly directed at the Defense Department that enabled him to join the Air Force. Non-security related spending generally tracked inflation over this time period (4.4 percent annual increase). In fact, during Manzullos chairmanship of the House Small Business Committee, spending on the Small Business Administration (SBA) dropped 30 percent and the number of SBA employees declined by 26 percent. The federal budget deficit declined during the mid-2000s, going down from its height of $413 billion 2004 to $161 billion when Republicans lost control of Congress in 2007.14 Manzullo voted for the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (H.R. 4241/S. 1932) that enacted reforms to our entitlement programs that contributed to this deficit reduction.15 The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) issued a 10-year budget projection in January 200716 predicting a cumulative $800 billion budget surplus if present trends continued. In fact, we would have had a $170 billion surplus this year! Unfortunately, Democrats took over Congress in 2007 and then two years later, the White House, and weve experienced record high annual budget deficits ever since. Ever since the budget trajectory starting going upwards again after 2007, Manzullo has voted over 700 times to cut $2.6 trillion in spending, including 154 times since 2011 to cut $352 billion in spending. But if Kinzinger thinks spending was so bad under Bush, then why didnt he join Manzullo on 79 occasions to vote against $209 billion in spending?17 It doesnt excuse why Kinzinger is ranked near the bottom of the Republican freshmen class as one of the most reluctant to cut spending, according to the conservative Heritage Action for America.18

Roll Call #362 on H.R. 4425; Roll Call #546 on H.R. 4811; Roll Call #603 on H.R. 4577; Roll Call #482 on H.R. 2944; Roll Call #505 on H.R. 2506; Roll Call #328 on H.R. 4775; and Roll Call #498 on H.R. 4850. 10 Roll Call #497 on H.R. 1 on December 13, 2001. 11 Roll Call #158 on H.R. 5501 on April 2, 2008. 12 Roll Call #131 on H.R. 5563 on March 12, 2008. 13 Roll Call #254 on H.R. 362 on April 24, 2007. 14 http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/ 15 Roll Call #601 on November 18, 2005, and Roll Call #690 on December 19, 2005. 16 http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/77xx/doc7731/01-24-budgetoutlook.pdf 17 http://manzullo.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Vote-Analysis-On-Spending-Cuts.pdf 18 http://heritageaction.com/2011/02/after-action-report-hr-1/

Debt ceiling

Conservatives, such as Jonathan Last of the Weekly Standard, called similar attacks by Mitt Romney on Rick Santorums debt ceiling votes when he was in the Senate as an exceedingly unreliable litmus test of conservatism19 because these votes are not necessarily indicative of a Members record on spending. A better analysis can be found in a detailed vote record analysis, such as the 96 percent lifetime rating Representative Manzullo received from the American Conservative Union (vs. 72 percent rating for Adam Kinzinger).20 Donald Manzullo voted for debt ceiling increases only if they were accompanied by a plan to rein in spending, either working concurrently in another piece of legislation or together in the underlying bill with one exception when House Democrats attempted to use the debt ceiling increase vote in 2002 as a proxy to repeal the recently enacted 2001 tax cuts. Tying spending restraints to raising the debt ceiling was same rationale used when Kinzinger voted to raise the debt ceiling by $2.4 trillion on August 1, 2011 (Roll Call #690 on S. 365, the Budget Control Act of 2011). In fact, this Roll Call vote was one of the 12 votes used in his ads to attack Manzullo! When Manzullo voted for these debt ceiling bills, they produced the desired result lowering the deficit first to zero in 1998 and then again in the mid-2000s when the deficit was on track to being balanced again. However, two of the votes cited in Kinzingers ads did not raise the debt ceiling (Roll Call #30 and Roll Call #48 in 1996). They simply permitted the U.S. Treasury to borrow money just in case it was necessary to pay the next installment of Social Security checks to seniors during March of 1996. Three of the votes cited in Kinzingers ads are duplicates the first vote in the series was the House version of the legislation; the second vote in the series was the final or conference report version of the same legislation (Roll Call #241 and #345 in 1997; Roll Call #82 and #141 in 2003; and Roll Call #88 and #149 in 2005). In every vote cited in Kinzingers ads, the overwhelming majority of House Republicans voted yes because they were either part of major initiatives to balance the budget, such as the Contract with America Advancement Act (H.R. 3136 in 1996) and the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (H.R. 2015) or they were part of the annual GOP budget resolution (Fiscal Year 2004 and Fiscal Year 2006 budget resolutions) that contained spending restraints that led to a reduction in the deficit by more than half. Finally, Kinzingers ads ignore the fact that Manzullo voted 10 times AGAINST raising the debt ceiling because those votes were not tied to spending restraints or they contained tax increases (April 1, 1993 on H.R. 1430; August 5, 1993 on H.R. 2264; July 23, 2008 on H.R. 3221; October 3, 2008 on H.R. 1424; February 13, 2009 on H.R. 1; December 16, 2009 on H.R. 4314; February 4, 2010 on H.J.Res. 45; May 31, 2011 on H.R. 1954; September 14, 2011 on H.J.Res. 77; and January 18, 2012 on H.J.Res. 98).

19 20

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/taking-aim-santorum_626637.html http://conservative.org/legislative-ratings/

46 votes on projects in 2007

The ads raise the number of votes without discussing the cost and if voting yes on any of these amendments would have really cut spending. The total cost of all these amendments amounted to $139 million. These requests were all vetted and certified by the House Appropriations Committee as valid projects serving a public good. Yet, while that is a lot of money, in just one vote, Kinzinger agreed to give $147 million to the Brazil Cotton Institute,21 easily eclipsing any alleged savings from voting for all these 46 amendments. This vote on the Brazil Cotton Institute was just one of the 79 instances when Kinzinger voted for more than $209 billion in spending than Manzullo over the past year.22 Also, voting for these amendments would not have reduced the deficit by one penny. None of the amendments were written in a way that would have directed the savings to deficit reduction they would have simply given back the authority to the Appropriations Committee to spend the money as they saw fit. Third, one of Kinzingers endorsers, Rep. John Shimkus, agreed with Manzullo on 11 of these votes. It is interesting to note that while Rep. Shimkus voted against most of these project requests, he received 11 separate earmarks of his own totaling $10.7 million in 2007.23 Kinzingers other endorser Rep. Eric Cantor agreed with Manzullo on nine (9) of these votes. In fact, Rep. Cantor voted to provide $200,000 funding to the Corporation for Jeffersons Poplar Forest24 in a neighboring Virginia district represented by a Republican. Why was that project worthy but not $100,000 for another historic landmark project (sponsored by a Democrat) at the Clover Bend Historic Site in Arkansas?25 Finally, Kinzingers third endorser Rep. Aaron Schock was the top earmarker among Illinois House Republicans during his first year in office (2010) with 27 separate earmarks totaling $22.7 million.26 Does this make him the new King of Earmarks?

21 22

Roll Call #439 on June 16, 2001 on the Kind (D-WI) amendment to the FY 12 Agriculture Appropriations bill (H.R. 2112). http://manzullo.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Vote-Analysis-On-Spending-Cuts.pdf 23 http://www.legistorm.com/earmarks/details/member/477/Rep_John_Shimkus_IL/page/1/sort/amount/type/desc/year/2008.html
24 25

Roll Call #671 to H.R. 3043 Roll Call #559 to H.R. 2643 26 http://www.legistorm.com/earmarks/details/member/949/Rep_Aaron_Schock_IL/page/1/sort/amount/type/desc/year/2010.html

Presidio vote

The Presidio is a 1,480 acre former Army post in San Francisco, California, that was closed as part of the 1989 Base Closure and Realignment Commission (BRAC) process. The purpose of creating the Presidio Trust was to establish a private fund to be responsible to collect fees and rent space to pay for the upkeep of the Presidio and eventually become self-sufficient. The original bill creating the Presidio Trust in 1996 limited the appropriations the Trust could receive to no more than $25 million per year and had to come up with a plan how to be self-sufficient within 15 years (or by 2011). On the only two times Congress had a direct vote on the Presidio Trust during Don Manzullos time in Congress, he voted NO on September 19, 1995,27 and on February 17, 2011.28 In fact, Manzullo was only one of 92 Republicans to vote against the creation of the Presidio Trust. Its interesting that this vote from 1995 is not listed in Kinzingers ad. Kinzingers ad lumps in nine (9) votes29 which were on larger multi-billion dollar bills that covered multiple subjects (usually, the annual spending bill for the Department of the Interior and other environmental programs of the federal government). Those votes were not a clean up or down vote on the Presidio Trust. Regardless, the original statute creating the Presidio Trust envisioned that it would be self-sufficient within 15 years or by 2011. Yet, when the vote occurred to finally pull the plug on taxpayer support for the Presidio Trust, Kinzinger was only one of 10 Republicans to agree with Nancy Pelosi in opposing this cutting amendment. This vote is just indicative of Kinzingers moderate record on spending he voted 79 times to spend $209 billion more than Manzullo.30 Thats why Manzullo has received the endorsements and high ratings from grass roots conservatives groups both locally and nationally.

27 28

Roll Call #668 on H.R. 1296 on September 19, 1995 Roll Call #70 on Reed (R-NY) amendment to H.R. 1 on February 17, 2011. 29 Roll Call #507 was the FY 01 Interior Appropriations bill ($18.8 billion); Roll Call #393 was the FY 02 Interior Appropriations bill ($19.1 billion); Roll Call #32 was the FY 03 Consolidated Appropriations bill ($397 billion for most of the federal govt); Roll Call #595 was the FY 04 Interior Appropriations bill ($19.7 billion); Roll Call #542 was the FY 05 Consolidated Appropriations bill ($388 billion for most of the federal govt); Roll Call #450 was the FY 06 Interior Appropriations bill ($26.2 billion); Roll Call #486 was the FY 07 Defense Appropriations bill ($448 billion, including $70 billion for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan) which also contained a six-week continuing resolution to fund the rest of the federal govt; Roll Call #1186 was the FY 07 Consolidated Appropriations bill ($516 billion for most of the federal govt, including $31 billion for troops in Afghanistan); and Roll Call #268 was the FY 11 Continuing Appropriations bill ($1.05 trillion for the entire federal govt). 30 http://manzullo.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Vote-Analysis-On-Spending-Cuts.pdf

Earmarks

The House Republican conference voted to enact a self-imposed earmark ban on March 11, 2010, nearly 10 months before the new Congress took office.31 So, the earmark ban for House Republicans took effect well before the GOP freshman class took office in January 2011. Kinzingers ad also selectively cherry-picks data, taking the highest dollar amount from one year and then attributes that characterization to distort Don Manzullos entire tenure. The ad ignores that over those same three years, the 18th District of Illinois (represented first by Rep. LaHood and then succeeded by Rep. Schock), received over $136 million in earmarks.32 In fact, using Kinzingers analysis, his endorser, Rep. Schock, should be crowned the new King of Earmarks because he was the top Illinois Republican earmarker for 2010. Also, according to the analysis Legistorm, Manzullo was in the bottom 20 percent of all 615 Members who requested earmarks between 2008 and 2010.33 If Kinzinger is so opposed to earmarks why did he vote against three amendments that continued three previous pet projects34 and one amendment35 that Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) labeled as one of the top five porker of year nominees?36 Finally, its ironic that on April 4, 2011, Kinzinger co-signed a letter to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, Jo Ellen Darcy, encouraging the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to continue to support navigation and restoration on the Upper Mississippi River System, which historically was the subject of earmarks ($23 million in Fiscal Year 2010 alone) by his predecessor and the Congressmen from the neighboring districts.37 Is this lettermarking? Finally, is the emphasis on earmarks an effort to distract voters from the fact that Kinzinger voted 79 times this past year to spend more than $209 billion than Manzullo?38

31 32

(http://www.speaker.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=175666 http://www.legistorm.com/earmarks/details/member/326/Rep_Ray_LaHood_IL/page/1/sort/amount/type/desc/year/all.html http://www.legistorm.com/earmarks/details/member/949/Rep_Aaron_Schock_IL/page/1/sort/amount/type/desc/year/all.html 33 http://www.legistorm.com/earmarks/features/ranking_member/page/1/sort/amount/type/desc.html 34 Flake (R-AZ) amendment to the Fiscal Year 2011 Continuing Appropriations bill (HR 1), February 16, 2011, to eliminate all funding for the National Drug Intelligence Center in Johnstown, PA; Reed (R-NY amendment to HR 1, February 17, 2011 (Roll Call #70) to reduce the Presidio Trust Fund in San Francisco, CA by $15 million; and Cancesco (R-TX) amendment to HR 1, February 17, 2011 (Roll Call #77) to cut all federal funding for the East-West Center in Hawaii. 35 Flake (R-AZ) amendment to the FY 2012 National Defense Authorization bill (HR 1540) on May 26, 2011, to eliminate the Mission Force Enhancement Transfer Fund, saving $348.3 million that could be used for phonemarking. 36 http://www.cagw.org/newsroom/releases/2012/cagw-announces-2011-porker-of.html 37 See pages 173 and 246 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-111hrpt278/pdf/CRPT-111hrpt278.pdf
38

http://manzullo.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Vote-Analysis-On-Spending-Cuts.pdf

Bush impeachment

Its absurd to think that Donald Manzullo who was the first Member of the Illinois delegation to endorse George W. Bush for President would support a motion to impeach President Bush. In 2008, Rep. Dennis Kucinich introduced two resolutions to impeach President Bush for his conduct during the war in Iraq. Rep. Kucinich used the rules of the House of Representatives to force an immediate vote on this matter. The problem is that if the effort to table or kill that resolution on the House failed, then impeachment proceedings would have to begin right away. The House Democratic leadership did not want debate impeaching President Bush so they proposed sending the Kucinich resolution to the House Judiciary Committee where it would never again see the light of day. However, there was no guarantee that the motion to send the impeachment resolution to committee would pass because there was a significant contingent of hard-left Democrats who could have voted with Republicans on what typically would be a partisan vote. As a stickler for respecting the Constitution regardless of who is in power, Manzullo performed his constitutional duty and voted to send the impeachment resolution to committee. Sending the impeachment resolution was the safest, more conservative, and only constitutional route. Also, Rep. Tim Johnson (R-IL) voted with Manzullo to send the Kucinich resolution to committee in order to kill the action, not to support it. Rep. Johnson and Manzullo voted to end the very public spectacle staged by hard-left Democrats and to send the impeachment resolution to its death in committee Rep. Johnson has authorized the use of this statement: Don Manzullo never has, and never would, do anything to hurt the Republican Party or to attack Republican office holders.

Republican Party support

Donald Manzullo has helped build the Republican Party in Illinois. On May 28, 2010, Manzullo sent Adam Kinzinger $1,500 from his personal campaign fund to help him win the 11th District. In 2010, Manzullo sent $20,000 to the Illinois Victory fund to support all the new Republican challengers, including Bobby Schilling, Bob Dold, Randy Hultgren, and Joe Walsh. Manzullo was listed as a host for several Washington, D.C. events for Bobby Schilling both before his election (September 2010), and afterwards to help him retire campaign debt. In 2010, Manzullo also raised $222,500 for the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) for other Republican candidates nationwide challenging Democratic incumbents. Manzullo also supported Aaron Schock, Peter Roskam, Tim Johnson, John Shimkus, and Mark Kirk during each of their first runs. Manzullo was the only Member of the Illinois delegation to help Joe Walsh reclaim the 8th District of Illinois from Melissa Bean prior to the previous election. Manzullo conducted a Get Out the Vote (GOTV) phone call for Joe Walsh. The calls were placed in critical parts of McHenry County that Manzullo had previously represented prior to the 2000 redistricting. So it is false to accuse Manzullo of sitting on the side lines or failing to invest in the future of the party. That's why Manzullo pledged to support Kinzinger if he had made the tough decision to run against Jesse Jackson where he actually lives because Kinzingers more moderate voting record would have appealed better to new 2nd District of Illinois.

National Endowment for the Arts

In every direct vote on the issue of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), Don Manzullo has voted to cut or terminate the program. The specific vote referenced in the SuperPAC attack ad (Roll Call #266 on July 11, 1997 on the Ehlers amendment to H.R. 2107, the FY 1998 Interior Appropriations bill) was an attempt to restore funding to the NEA after it had been eliminated. The Ehlers amendment proposed to provide $80 million to the NEA and then divide and block grant those funds to state art commissions and to local school boards for school-based arts activities. But what the distorting ad fails to point out that immediately before the debate began on the Ehlers amendment, Representative Phil Crane (R-IL) successfully struck all funding for the NEA in the bill. There is a rule in the House of Representatives that if a program is not authorized, no money can be spent on the program. Since the NEA had not been reauthorized by Congress since 1993, Rep. Crane used this House rule to eliminate the $10 million in funding in the underlying bill for the NEA.39 Thus, when Rep. Vern Ehlers (R-MI) offered an amendment to not only restore but increase funding for the NEA to $80 million, Manzullo, along with many other conservative Republican opponents of the NEA, including Rep. Crane, voted no because he wanted to keep NEA funding at zero. Some Democrats voted against the Ehlers amendment for different reasons, but that does not negate why Manzullo voted no. The Ehlers amendment failed to pass the House by a vote of 155 to 271. The Ehlers amendment was opposed by 75 Republicans, including conservative stalwarts such as Reps. Barr (GA), Barton (TX), Bryant (TN), Burton (IN), Chabot (OH), Cox (CA), Crane (IL), Hayworth (AZ), Hefley (CO), Hostettler (IN), Hulshof (MO), Istook (OK), Sam Johnson (TX), Kasich (OH), Livingston (LA), McCrery, (LA), McIntosh (IN), Myrick (NC), Neumann (WI), Paul (TX), Pitts (PA), Riggs (CA), Ryun (KS), Salmon (AZ), Scarborough (FL), Schaffer (CO), Shadegg (AZ), Linda Smith (WA), Souder (IN), Stearns (FL), Stump (AZ), Talent (MO), Tauzin (LA), Thornberry (TX), Tiahrt (KS), and White (WA).40

39 40

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-1997-07-11/pdf/CREC-1997-07-11-pt1-PgH5138.pdf#page=1 on Page H5139 http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1997/roll266.xml