Click here to go back >

Official NAM 109th Congress Senate Voting Record
Lawmakers scoring 70 percent or higher on Key Manufacturing Votes in the 109th Congress receive the NAM Award for Manufacturing Legislative Excellence.

 View by: Legislator's Name    District    Legislator's Party
Style: Tally Only    Preferred Position    Show Score


Symbol Key:
Voted with the preferred position Voted against the preferred position
Y Voted YES N Voted NO
- Did Not Vote A Absent
T Paired Vote Z Presiding
P Voted PRESENT    

  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19  
Preferred Position: Y N Y N N N N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Score
Akaka, Daniel 
No longer in office
  		- 17%
Alexander, Lamar (R)
Tennessee  U.S. Senate 		95%
Allard, Wayne 
No longer in office
  		100%
Allen, George 
No longer in office
  		100%
Baucus, Max (D)
Montana  U.S. Senate 		- 56%
Bayh, Evan 
No longer in office
  		21%
Bennett, Robert 
No longer in office
  		100%
Biden, Joseph 
No longer in office
  		11%
Bingaman, Jeff 
No longer in office
  		32%
Bond, Christopher 
No longer in office
  		100%
Boxer, Barbara (D)
California  U.S. Senate 		16%
Brownback, Sam (R)
Kansas  Governor 		89%
Bunning, Jim 
No longer in office
  		- 94%
Burns, Conrad 
No longer in office
  		95%
  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19  
Preferred Position: Y N Y N N N N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Score
Burr, Richard (R)
North Carolina  U.S. Senate 		95%
Byrd, Robert 
No longer in office
  		47%
Cantwell, Maria (D)
Washington  U.S. Senate 		26%
Carper, Thomas (D)
Delaware  U.S. Senate 		42%
Chafee, Lincoln (I)
Rhode Island  Governor 		- 39%
Chambliss, Saxby (R)
Georgia  U.S. Senate 		100%
Clinton, Hillary 
No longer in office
  		16%
Coburn, Tom (R)
Oklahoma  U.S. Senate 		100%
Cochran, Thad (R)
Mississippi  U.S. Senate 		100%
Coleman, Norm 
No longer in office
  		79%
Collins, Susan (R)
Maine  U.S. Senate 		68%
Conrad, Kent 
No longer in office
  		- 56%
Cornyn, John (R)
Texas  U.S. Senate 		95%
Corzine, Jon 
No longer in office
  		* * * * * * * 8%
Craig, Larry 
No longer in office
  		95%
  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19  
Preferred Position: Y N Y N N N N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Score
Crapo, Mike (R)
Idaho  U.S. Senate 		89%
Dayton, Mark (DFL)
Minnesota  Governor 		16%
DeMint, Jim 
No longer in office
  		84%
DeWine, Mike 
No longer in office
  		89%
Dodd, Chris 
No longer in office
  		- 22%
Dole, Elizabeth 
No longer in office
  		95%
Domenici, Pete 
No longer in office
  		100%
Dorgan, Byron 
No longer in office
  		- - 35%
Durbin, Richard (D)
Illinois  U.S. Senate 		11%
Ensign, John 
No longer in office
  		89%
Enzi, Mike (R)
Wyoming  U.S. Senate 		95%
Feingold, Russ 
No longer in office
  		11%
Feinstein, Dianne (D)
California  U.S. Senate 		- 28%
Frist, Bill 
No longer in office
  		95%
Graham, Lindsey (R)
South Carolina  U.S. Senate 		79%
  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19  
Preferred Position: Y N Y N N N N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Score
Grassley, Chuck (R)
Iowa  U.S. Senate 		95%
Gregg, Judd 
No longer in office
  		74%
Hagel, Charles 
No longer in office
  		100%
Harkin, Tom (D)
Iowa  U.S. Senate 		21%
Hatch, Orrin (R)
Utah  U.S. Senate 		- 100%
Hutchison, Kay Bailey 
No longer in office
  		95%
Inhofe, James (R)
Oklahoma  U.S. Senate 		95%
Inouye, Daniel 
No longer in office
  		- 28%
Isakson, Johnny (R)
Georgia  U.S. Senate 		100%
Jeffords, James 
No longer in office
  		37%
Johnson, Tim (D)
South Dakota  U.S. Senate 		- 39%
Kennedy, Edward 
No longer in office
  		11%
Kerry, John 
No longer in office
  		- - 12%
Kohl, Herb 
No longer in office
  		32%
Kyl, Jon 
No longer in office
  		89%
  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19  
Preferred Position: Y N Y N N N N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Score
Landrieu, Mary (D)
Louisiana  U.S. Senate 		63%
Lautenberg, Frank (D)
New Jersey  U.S. Senate 		5%
Leahy, Patrick (D)
Vermont  U.S. Senate 		21%
Levin, Carl (D)
Michigan  U.S. Senate 		32%
Lieberman, Joe 
No longer in office
  		- - - 25%
Lincoln, Blanche 
No longer in office
  		58%
Lott, Trent 
No longer in office
  		100%
Lugar, Richard 
No longer in office
  		95%
Martinez, Mel 
No longer in office
  		89%
McCain, John (R)
Arizona  U.S. Senate 		63%
McConnell, Mitch (R)
Kentucky  U.S. Senate 		100%
Menendez, Robert (D)
New Jersey  U.S. Senate 		* * * * * * * * * * * * 0%
Mikulski, Barbara (D)
Maryland  U.S. Senate 		11%
Murkowski, Lisa (R)
Alaska  U.S. Senate 		100%
Murray, Patty (D)
Washington  U.S. Senate 		26%
  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19  
Preferred Position: Y N Y N N N N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Score
Nelson, Ben 
No longer in office
  		84%
Nelson, Bill (D)
Florida  U.S. Senate 		37%
Obama, Barack 
No longer in office
  		16%
Pryor, Mark (D)
Arkansas  U.S. Senate 		53%
Reed, Jack (D)
Rhode Island  U.S. Senate 		11%
Reid, Harry (D)
Nevada  U.S. Senate 		21%
Roberts, Pat (R)
Kansas  U.S. Senate 		- 100%
Rockefeller, Jay (D)
West Virginia  U.S. Senate 		- - - - 40%
Rodham Clinton, Hillary 
No longer in office
  		16%
Salazar, Ken 
No longer in office
  		37%
Santorum, Rick 
No longer in office
  		- 100%
Sarbanes, Paul 
No longer in office
  		11%
Schumer, Charles (D)
New York  U.S. Senate 		- 17%
Sessions, Jeff (R)
Alabama  U.S. Senate 		- 100%
Shelby, Richard (R)
Alabama  U.S. Senate 		95%
  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19  
Preferred Position: Y N Y N N N N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Score
Smith, Gordon 
No longer in office
  		- 78%
Snowe, Olympia 
No longer in office
  		53%
Specter, Arlen 
No longer in office
  		- - 82%
Stabenow, Debbie (D)
Michigan  U.S. Senate 		26%
Stevens, Ted 
No longer in office
  		100%
Sununu, John 
No longer in office
  		- - 71%
Talent, James 
No longer in office
  		95%
Thomas, Craig 
No longer in office
  		95%
Thune, John (R)
South Dakota  U.S. Senate 		- 89%
Vitter, David (R)
Louisiana  U.S. Senate 		95%
Voinovich, George 
No longer in office
  		89%
Warner, John 
No longer in office
  		100%
Wyden, Ron (D)
Oregon  U.S. Senate 		21%

Symbol Key:
Voted with the preferred position Voted against the preferred position
Y Voted YES N Voted NO
- Did Not Vote A Absent
T Paired Vote Z Presiding
P Voted PRESENT    

Key:

1 109-1 9: S.5, On Passage of the Bill Class Action Reform (S. 5) Vote on S. 5, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. Approved 72-26 on Feb. 10, 2005 (Roll No. 9). The NAM supported the legislation, which would curb trial lawyer "forum shopping" by shifting most major class actions to federal courts, without altering plaintiffs' right to sue. Signed into law (P.L. 109-2) on Feb. 18, 2005. NAM POSITION: Yes.
2 109-1 52: S.CON.RES.18, On the Amendment S.Amdt. 168 Prohibiting Oil/Gas Exploration in ANWR (Cantwell Amendment to the Budget Resolution) Vote on a Cantwell (D-WA) amendment to the FY 2006 Senate budget resolution that would have deleted legislative language permitting environmentally sound oil/gas exploration in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Amendment was rejected 51-49 on March 16, 2005 (Roll Number 52). The NAM opposed the amendment and strongly supports ANWR exploration, which provides the best opportunity to increase domestic production, decrease dependence on foreign oil and buy sufficient time for scientists, engineers and manufacturers to develop alternative energy sources. NAM POSITION: No.
3 109-1 125: H.R.3, On Passage of the Bill Highway Bill (Senate Passage of H.R. 3) Vote on H.R. 3, a six-year bill to authorize funds for federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs. Approved 89-11 on May 17, 2005 (Roll No. 125). The NAM supported H.R. 3, as the highway bill will provide a significant boost in GDP over the next five years. American manufacturers need an affordable, reliable, safe and efficient transportation infrastructure to move goods quickly to market. NAM Position: Yes.
4 109-1 140: H.R.6, On the Amendment S.Amdt. 784 Backdoor Implementation of Higher Fuel Efficiency Standards (Cantwell Amendment to Energy Bill H.R. 6) Vote on a Cantwell (D-WA) amendment to energy bill that would have required the U.S. to reduce dependence on foreign oil imports by 40 percent by 2025. Rejected 53-47 on June 16, 2004 (Roll No. 140). The NAM opposed the amendment, considering it to be a backdoor attempt at raising mandatory corporate average fuel economy standards. NAM POSITION: No.
5 109-1 141: H.R.6, On the Amendment S.Amdt. 791 Renewable Portfolio Standards (Bingaman Amendment to Energy Bill H.R. 6) Vote on a Bingaman (D-NM) amendment to energy bill H.R. 6 that would have required utilities to generate 10 percent of all electricity from renewable sources by 2025 or pay fees to the Energy Dept. Approved 52-48 on June 16 (Roll No. 141). The NAM opposed the renewable portfolio standard amendment, noting that its aggressive timetables were unrealistic for most regions of the country and would ultimately act as a tax on electricity for both consumers and industry. Provision was removed from the final energy bill by a House-Senate conference committee. NAM POSITION: No.
6 109-1 143: H.R.6, On the Amendment S.Amdt. 783 Banning an Offshore Oil/Gas Resources Assessment (Nelson Amendment to Energy Bill H.R. 6) Vote on a Nelson (D-FL)/Martinez (R-FL) amendment to energy bill H.R. 6 that would have deleted bill language requiring the Interior Dept. to conduct a scientific inventory and analysis of oil and gas resources beneath the waters of the Outer Continental Shelf. Rejected 52-44 on June 21, 2005 (Roll. No. 143). The NAM opposed the amendment, which would have denied policymakers the scientific data needed to assess the nation's oil and gas supply. NAM Position: No.
7 109-1 148: H.R.6, On the Amendment S.Amdt. 826 Mandatory Reductions in Greenhouse Gas Emissions (McCain/Lieberman amendment to energy bill H.R. 6) Vote on a McCain (R-AZ)/Lieberman (D-CT) amendment to energy bill H.R. 6 that would have imposed draconian limits on emissions of carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions, raising U.S. energy costs and increasing fuel switching from coal to natural gas. Rejected 60-38 on June 22, 2005 (Roll No. 148). NAM POSITION: No.
8 109-1 158: H.R.6, On Passage of the Bill Energy Policy Act (H.R. 6) Vote on final passage of energy bill H.R. 6. Approved 85-12 on June 28, 2005 (Roll No. 158). The NAM supported the legislation, which represents a major step toward achieving a long-term national energy policy that encourages voluntary energy efficiency initiatives, voluntary conservation, improvements to the energy infrastructure and increases in the supply of all sources of cost-effective renewable, alternative and conventional energy sources. Signed into law (P.L. 109-58) on Aug. 8, 2005. NAM POSITION: Yes.
9 109-1 170: S.1307, On Passage of the Bill Central America-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR) Vote on legislation that would implement S. 1307, the Central American-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR) into U.S. law. Approved 54-45 on June 30, 2005 (Roll No. 170). The NAM supported the legislation and the FTA, which is expected to result in $1 billion per year in increased U.S. manufactured exports and more U.S. jobs. Signed into law (P.L. 109-53) on Aug. 2, 2005. NAM POSITION: Yes.
10 109-1 219: S.397, On Passage of the Bill Preventing Regulation Through Litigation (S. 397) Vote on S. 397, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Approved 65-31 on July 29, 2005 (Roll No. 219). The NAM supported the bill, which would forestall lawsuits brought with the intent of shutting down a legitimate and legal industry, while allowing those with merit to proceed. Signed into law (P.L. 109-92) on Oct. 26, 2005. NAM POSITION: Yes.
11 109-1 225: S.J.RES.20, On the Joint Resolution Rescinding EPA's Clean Air Mercury Rule Vote on S.J. Res. 20, a resolution of disapproval to rescind EPA's Clean Air Mercury Rule. Rejected 51-47 on September 13, 2005 (Roll 225). The NAM opposed S.J. Res. 20 and urged senators to preserve the rule, which uses a market-oriented cap-and-trade program that allows industry the necessary flexibility to develop and implement appropriate pollution reduction technology while significantly reducing mercury emissions. NAM POSITION: No.
12 109-1 245: N/A, On the Nomination of John G. Roberts, Jr., of Maryland, to be Chief Justice of the United States Selecting Qualified, Pro-Business Judges (Judge John Roberts). Vote on the nomination of John Roberts, Jr., to be Chief Justice of the United States. Approved 78-22 on Sept. 29, 2005. The NAM formed the Judicial Review Committee (JRC) in early 2005 to actively review nominations to the federal courts. The overwhelming majority of federal cases involve issues that impact manufacturing, including contract law, employment law, regulatory policy, property rights and others. It is imperative that we have judges who understand these issues and their importance to the U.S. economy. NAM POSITION: Yes.
13 109-2 2: N/A, On the Nomination of Samuel A. Alito, Jr., of New Jersey, to be an Associate Justice Selecting Qualified, Pro-Business Judges (Judge Samuel Alito). Vote on the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court. Approved 58-42 on Jan. 31, 2006 (Roll No. 2). The NAM's Judicial Review Committee recommended supporting the Alito nomination. NAM POSITION: Yes.
14 109-2 21: S.852, On the motion Asbestos Litigation Reform (Motion to Waive the Budget Point of Order to S. 852). Vote on a procedural motion requiring 60 affirmative votes that would waive a point of order against S. 852, the Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution (FAIR) Act. Vote was 58-41, 2 shy of the 60 required under Senate rules, on Feb. 14, 2006 (Roll No. 21). The NAM supported the procedural motion and opposed the point of order, which was based on faulty assumptions that the government would bail out the proposed privately-funded asbestos trust fund should it be exhausted. The NAM notified senators that voting "no" on this motion was tantamount to voting against asbestos litigation reform. Note: As a procedural move, Sen. Frist changed his vote to “no” to preserve the option of bringing the bill up again. NAM POSITION: Yes.
15 109-2 118: H.R.4297, On the Conference Report Tax Relief (Conference Report to H.R. 4297). Vote on tax reconciliation legislation that would extend the lower rates on capital gains and dividends through 2010. Approved 54-44 on May 11, 2006 (Roll No. 118). The NAM supported the legislation, noting that lower tax rates on investment income have played a major role in our economic recovery. NAM POSITION: Yes
16 109-2 119: S.1955, On the Cloture Motion Small Business Health Plans (Cloture Vote on S. 1955). Vote on a procedural motion to limit debate and move to final passage of S. 1955, legislation allowing well-established trade associations to offer affordable health insurance coverage to their members through Small Business Health Plans. Vote was 55-43, 5 shy of the 60 required under Senate rules to limit debate, on May 11, 2006 (Roll 119). The NAM supported the cloture motion and S. 1955, which would give small companies the flexibility they need to provide a broad range of insurance products to their employees. NAM POSITION: Yes.
17 109-2 164: H.R.8, On the Cloture Motion Permanently Repealing the Death Tax (Motion to Proceed to H.R. 8). Vote on a procedural motion to debate H.R. 8, legislation that would permanently repeal the estate or "death tax." Vote was 57-41, 3 votes shy of the 60 required under Senate rules, on June 8, 2006 (Roll No. 164). The NAM supported the motion to proceed and H.R. 8. Large estate tax bills and related attorneys’ fees force the sale of many small manufacturing companies upon the owner’s death. NAM POSITION: Yes.
18 109-2 219: S.3711, On Passage of the Bill Domestic Energy Development in the Outer Continental Shelf (S. 3711). Vote on final passage of S. 3711, legislation that would permit environmentally sound oil/gas development in key areas of the Eastern Gulf of Mexico. Approved 71-25 on August 1, 2006 (Roll No. 219). NAM POSITION: Yes.
19 109-2 248: H.R.4954, On the Motion to Table S.Amdt. 4930 Rejecting Counterproductive Security Mandates. Vote on motion to table, or defeat, a Schumer (D-NY) amendment to port security bill H.R. 4954 that would have required 100 percent scanning of all inbound sea containers. Tabling motion was approved, and the amendment rejected, by a vote of 61-37 on Sept. 14, 2006 (Roll No. 248). The NAM supported the tabling motion and opposed the amendment, which was not feasible, given the current technology, and would have levied counterproductive federal mandates on industry, caused massive delays and disruptions in the global supply chain, and ultimately cost American jobs. NAM POSITION: Yes.