WASHINGTON – Here’s how Maine’s members of Congress were recorded on major roll call votes in the week ending June 6.

HOUSE Abortion

Voting 282 for and 139 against, the House on June 4 passed a bill (HR 760) making it a federal crime for doctors to perform second- or third-trimester abortions in which they partly extract the fetus, terminate it by piercing its skull with a sharp object, and then remove it. Critics call this “partial-birth abortion,” while defenders say that however gruesome, it is sometimes necessary to protect the mother from serious health problems or death.

The bill imposes up to two years in prison for violators, marking the first attempt by Congress to criminalize a doctor’s surgical procedure. It allows an exception only to save the life of the mother (next issue). It is headed to conference with a similar Senate-passed bill.

Kevin Brady, R-Tex., said “partial-birth abortion is one of the more barbaric procedures of modern times. Doctors confirm it is never medically necessary. Never. So much so that it is not even taught in our nation’s medical schools. Yet more than 3,000 healthy babies are subject to this horrible procedure each year.”

Lois Capps, D-Calif., said: “Sadly, there are times when it may be necessary for a woman to terminate a wanted pregnancy….At these unfortunate times, a woman, in consultation with doctors and families, must freely be able to determine the best course to preserve her life, her health, her future fertility.”

A yes vote was to pass the bill.

Rep. Tom Allen, D, voted no. Rep. Michael Michaud, D, voted yes.

Health waiver

Members on June 4 refused, 165 for and 256 against, to add an exception to HR 760 (above) that would permit the disputed abortion when it is deemed medically necessary to protect the mother from serious health consequences. This went beyond a waiver in the bill to save the mother’s life.

Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., called a health exception imperative because pregnant women “may face severe health consequences such as death, infertility, paralysis, coma, stroke, hemorrhage, brain damage, infection, liver damage and kidney damage.”

James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., said “a health exception, no matter how narrowly defined, gives the abortionist unfettered discretion in determining when a partial-birth abortion may be performed, and abortionists have demonstrated they can justify any abortion on this ground.”

A yes vote backed a health waiver.

Allen and Michaud voted yes.

American flag

Voting 300 for and 125 against, the House on June 3 reached the two-thirds majority needed to pass a constitutional amendment (HJ Res 4) giving Congress and the states power to outlaw the physical desecration of the American flag. If the measure is approved by the Senate and ratified by three-fourths of the states, it will mark the first time the Bill of Rights has been amended. The bill does not define terms such as “flag” and “desecration.”

Dave Weldon, R-Fla., said: “The flag deserves and demands our respect. The physical desecration of the flag is not free speech nor should it be protected under the First Amendment.”

Mark Udall, D-Colo., said: “I am not in support of burning the flag. But I am even more opposed to weakening the First Amendment, one of the most important things for which the flag itself stands.”

A yes vote backed the constitutional amendment.

Allen voted no. Michaud voted yes.

First Amendment

Voting 129 for and 296 against, the House on June 3 defeated a constitutional amendment identical to HJ Res 4 (above), except for stipulating that any federal law banning flag desecration be “not inconsistent” with the First Amendment’s protection of political speech.

Melvin Watt, D-N.C., said “whatever we do as a Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag must be done consistently with the First Amendment to the Constitution. Not anything revolutionary here.”

James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., said: “A lot of us… believe that the Supreme Court was wrong when (it) decided that desecrating the flag was political expression protected by the First Amendment.”

A yes vote backed the substitute.

Allen voted yes. Michaud voted no.

SENATE

Child tax credit

Voting 94 for and two against, the Senate on June 5 sent the House a bill (HR 1308) providing a $400 increase in the child tax credit to 6.5 million low-income families who were denied the benefit in a $350 billion tax-cut measure signed into law May 28 by President Bush.

The new bill would raise the credit from $600 to $1,000 per child for families earning between $10,500 and $26,625. Those and other families would receive the $1,000 credit this year and next; in 2005, it drops to $700 per child. Correcting another omission in the May 28 law, the new bill ensures that families of troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan receive the child tax credit. The bill also extends the full credit, over time, to married couples earning between $110,000 and $150,000.

Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., said: “The Bush tax cut bill was already a handout to wealthy elites. It threw token benefits to some others and virtually nothing to working people. Taking out the tax credit for families earning between $10,500 a year and $26,625 a year added outrage to an insult.”

Don Nickles, R-Okla., said: “Some people say the Bush tax cut didn’t benefit low-income families. That is factually incorrect.” He said minimum-wage families have benefited in recent years from more favorable personal exemptions, standard deductions and earned-income tax credits.

A yes vote was to pass the bill.

Sen. Susan Collins, R, voted yes. Sen. Olympia Snowe, R, voted yes.

Base closings

The Senate on June 4 refused, 42 for and 53 against, to postpone military base closings set for 2005. In the fifth round of closures since 1988, a commission will identify bases to be shuttered, with Congress accepting or rejecting the list without amendment. The amendment was offered to HR 1588, later passed and sent to conference with the House.

Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., said: “The shadow of 9/11 is long and has changed virtually everything. But we have not changed our pre-9/11 notion that we should have a base-closing round in 2005.”

Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., said “if we are serious about transforming the military for the 21st Century, then we need to reduce capacity to more closely equal our force structure needs.”

A yes vote was to block a new round of base closings.

Collins and Snowe voted yes.