106th Congress Voting Record

U.S. Senate

Vote Key and Vote Descriptions can be found at the bottom of this page (or you can click on the individual number in the table heading below).

Printing the full document can take a considerable amount of time. If you would like one mailed to you, please contact NASW at pace@naswdc.org or (800) 638-8799, ext. 418.

      Vote Number
State Member Percent Agreed
When Voting
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Alabama Sessions (R) 0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Shelby (R) 10%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

+

Alaska Murkowski (R) 10%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

+

Stevens (R) 20%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

+

+

Arizona Kyl (R) 0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

McCain (R) 17%

-

-

x

x

-

x

x

+

-

-

Arkansas Hutchinson (R) 20%

-

-

-

-

-

+

-

-

-

+

Lincoln (D) 80%

+

+

-

+

+

+

+

+

+

-

California Boxer (D) 100%

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Feinstein (D) 89%

+

+

-

+

+

+

+

+

+

x

Colorado Allard (R) 0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Campbell (R) 20%

-

-

-

+

-

-

-

-

-

+

Connecticut Dodd (D) 90%

+

+

-

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Lieberman (D) 89%

+

+

-

+

+

+

+

+

+

x

Delaware Biden (D) 90%

+

+

-

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Roth (R) 30%

-

-

-

-

-

+

-

-

+

+

Florida Graham (D) 80%

+

+

-

+

+

+

+

+

+

-

Mack (R) 22%

-

-

-

-

-

x

-

-

+

+

Georgia Cleland (D) 90%

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

-

Coverdell (R) 0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

I

Miller (D) 0%

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

-

Hawaii Akaka (D) 100%

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

x

Inouye (D)
100%

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Idaho Craig (R) 0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Crapo (R) 20%

-

-

+

-

-

-

-

-

-

+

Illinois Durbin (D) 100%

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Fitzgerald (R) 30%

-

+

-

-

+

-

-

+

-

-

Indiana Bayh (D) 80%

+

+

-

+

+

+

+

+

+

-

Lugar (R) 30%

-

+

-

-

-

-

-

-

+

+

Iowa Grassley (R) 20%

-

-

-

-

-

+

-

-

-

+

Harkin (D) 100%

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Kansas Brownback (R) 10%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

+

Roberts (R) 10%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

+

Kentucky Bunning (R) 10%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

+

McConnell (R) 10%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

+

Louisiana Breaux (D) 80%

+

+

-

+

+

+

+

+

+

-

Landrieu (D) 80%

+

+

-

+

+

+

+

+

+

-

Maine Collins (R) 30%

-

-

-

-

-

+

-

-

+

+

Snowe (R) 50%

-

-

-

+

-

+

+

-

+

+

Maryland Mikulski (D) 100%

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Sarbanes (D) 100%

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Massachusetts Kennedy (D) 100%

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Kerry (D) 90%

+

+

-

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Michigan Abraham (R) 20%

-

-

-

-

-

+

-

-

-

+

Levin (D) 90%

+

+

-

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Minnesota Grams (R) 0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

x

Wellstone (D) 100%

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Mississippi Cochran (R) 10%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

+

Lott (R) 10%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

+

Missouri Ashcroft (R) 0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

x

Bond (R) 10%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

+

Montana Baucus (D) 80%

+

-

-

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Burns (R) 11%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

+

x

Nebraska Hagel (R) 10%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

+

Kerrey (D) 70%

-

+

-

+

+

+

+

+

+

-

Nevada Bryan (D) 80%

+

+

-

+

+

+

+

+

+

-

Reid (D) 100%

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

New Hampshire Gregg (R) 10%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

+

Smith (R) 0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

New Jersey Lautenberg (D) 100%

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Torricelli (D) 90%

+

+

-

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

New Mexico Bingaman (D) 80%

-

+

-

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Domenici (R) 10%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

+

New York Moynihan (D) 100%

x

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Schumer (D) 100%

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

North Carolina Edwards (D) 80%

+

+

-

+

+

+

+

+

+

-

Helms (R) 0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

x

North Dakota Conrad (D) 67%

-

+

-

+

+

+

+

x

+

-

Dorgan (D) 80%

-

+

-

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Ohio DeWine (R) 40%

-

+

-

-

-

+

-

-

+

+

Voinovich (R) 20%

-

+

-

-

-

-

-

-

+

-

Oklahoma Inhofe (R) 11%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

x

+

Nickles (R) 10%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

+

Oregon Smith (R) 30%

-

-

-

-

-

+

-

-

+

+

Wyden (D) 100%

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Pennsylvania Santorum (R) 20%

-

-

-

-

-

+

-

-

-

+

Specter (R) 50%

-

-

-

+

-

-

+

+

+

+

Rhode Island Chafee (R) 80%

-

+

+

+

+

x

I

I

I

I

Chafee (R) 100%

I

I

I

I

I

I

+

+

+

+

Reed (D) 100%

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

South Carolina Hollings (D) 89%

-

+

+

+

+

+

x

+

+

+

Thurmond (R) 10%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

+

South Dakota Daschle (D) 100%

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Johnson (D) 80%

+

+

-

+

+

+

+

+

+

-

Tennessee Frist (R) 0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

x

Thompson (R) 10%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

+

Texas Gramm (R) 0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Hutchison (R) 20%

-

-

-

-

-

+

-

-

-

+

Utah Bennett (R) 20%

-

-

-

-

-

+

-

-

-

+

Hatch (R) 20%

-

-

-

-

-

+

-

-

-

+

Vermont Jeffords (R) 50%

-

-

+

-

-

+

+

-

+

+

Leahy (D) 100%

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Virginia Robb (D) 80%

+

+

-

+

+

+

+

+

+

-

Warner (R) 20%

-

+

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

+

Washington Gorton (R) 10%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

+

Murray (D) 100%

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

West Virginia Byrd (D) 60%

-

+

-

+

+

+

+

+

-

-

Rockefeller (D) 90%

+

+

-

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

Wisconsin Feingold (D) 80%

+

+

+

+

+

-

+

+

+

-

Kohl (D) 80%

+

+

-

+

+

+

+

+

+

-

Wyoming Enzi (R) 0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Thomas (R) 0%

-

-

-

-

-

x

-

-

-

-

 

Vote Key
+ Member's position agrees with base position   - Member's position disagrees with base position
x Member did not cast a yea or nay vote   I Member was ineligible to vote

Back to Top of Table

Vote Descriptions

SENATE VOTE 1 - S254: Juvenile Crime - School Mental Health Providers
May 19, 1999 -Hatch, R-Utah, motion to table (kill) the Wellstone, D-Minn., amendment that would authorize $340 million per year for five years for states and localities to recruit, train and hire 141,000 additional school-based mental health personnel. Motion agreed to 61-38: R 55-0; D 6-38.

NASW opposed this motion because NASW supports increasing student access to school social work services as a means to removing barriers to academic achievement and increasing school safety. Back to Top of Table

SENATE VOTE 2 - S254: Juvenile Crime - Gun Show Checks
May 20, 1999 -Lautenberg, D-N.J., amendment that would require criminal background checks on all gun sales at gun shows, prohibit non-federal licensees from participating in gun shows and direct the U.S. attorney general to hold background files collected on gun owners for 90 days. Adopted, with Vice President Gore casting a "yea" vote, 50-50: R 6-49; D 44-1.

NASW supported this amendment because NASW supports gun control measures designed to increase public safety. Back to Top of Table

SENATE VOTE 3 - S254: Juvenile Crime - Special Education
May 20, 1999 -Frist, R-Tenn., amendment to allow local school officials to discipline federally defined special education students in the same manner as other students when they bring guns or bombs onto school grounds. Adopted 75-24: R 51-3; D 24-21.

NASW supports removal of students who endanger the safety of students and teachers, but opposed this amendment because it did not provide the option of counseling for students and continuation of alternative education services. Back to Top of Table

SENATE VOTE 4 - S1059: Fiscal 2000 Defense Authorization - Welfare Report
May 25, 1999 -Wellstone, D-Minn., amendment that would require the Health and Human Services Department to report on former welfare recipients' ability to achieve self-sufficiency. Rejected 49-50: R 4-50; D 45-0.

NASW supported this amendment as a way to more effectively track the effects of the 1996 welfare reform law. Back to Top of Table

SENATE VOTE 5 - S1344: Managed Care Revisions - Passage
July 15, 1999 -Passage of the bill to provide federal protections, such as access to emergency care, continuing care and approved clinical cancer trials, primarily for the 48 million Americans in self-insured health plans. The bill also would establish an internal and external appeals process, prohibit denials based on predictive genetic information, allow self-employed individuals to deduct the full cost of their health care and expand the availability of medical savings accounts. Passed 53-47: R 52-2; D 0-45.

NASW opposed this bill because it did not adequately address patient protections in managed care. Back to Top of Table

Note: (Before passage, the Senate adopted a Lott, R-Miss., substitute amendment by voice vote.)

SENATE VOTE 6 - S1650: Fiscal 2000 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations - Social Services Block Grants
September 30, 1999 -Coverdell, R-Ga., motion to table (kill) the Graham, D-Fla., amendment that would increase funding for social services block grants, which provide money to the states for programs such as child care, child welfare and services for the disabled, by $1.3 billion to $2.4 billion. Motion rejected 39-57: R 37-13; D 1-44.

NASW opposed this motion because NASW supports increased funding for child welfare and other social services. Back to Top of Table

Note:(Subsequently, the Graham amendment as amended was adopted by voice vote.)

SENATE VOTE 7 - S625: Bankruptcy Overhaul - Democratic Minimum Wage Increase
November 09, 1999 -Domenici, R-N.M., motion to table (kill) the Kennedy, D-Mass., amendment that would increase the minimum wage by $1 an hour over two years, to $5.65 an hour beginning Jan. 1, 2000, and to $6.15 an hour beginning Jan. 1, 2001. The amendment also would provide $9.5 billion in tax cuts over five years, offset by extending the Superfund tax and eliminating some corporate tax breaks. Motion agreed to 50-48: R 50-4; D 0-44.

NASW opposed this motion because NASW supports raising the minimum wage as a step to creating a "living wage." Back to Top of Table

SENATE VOTE 8 - S2549: Fiscal 2001 Defense Authorization - Managed Care
June 08, 2000 -Nickles, R-Okla., motion to table (kill) the Daschle, D-S.D., amendment that would enact tax provisions designed to improve access to health care. The amendment is the same language as the House-passed managed care bill (HR 2990). Motion agreed to 51-48: R 51-4; D 0-44.

NASW opposed this motion because it killed Senate consideration of the most comprehensive Patients’ Bill of Rights that contained managed care standards to ensure the provision of quality health, mental health, and substance abuse care. Back to Top of Table

SENATE VOTE 9 - S2549: Fiscal 2001 Defense Authorization - Hate Crimes
June 20, 2000 -Kennedy, D-Mass., amendment that would broaden the categories covered by hate crimes to include gender, sexual orientation and disability and would make it easier for the federal government to get involved in the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes. It would authorize $5 million per year for fiscal 2001 and 2002 to assist states and local authorities in investigating and prosecuting hate crimes. It also would require the Justice Department to certify before prosecution that hate was a motivating factor in the crime, and that the department has consulted with the state or local law enforcement officials regarding the prosecution of hate crimes. Adopted 57-42: R 13-41; D 44-1.

NASW supported this amendment because it broadened the categories covered by hate crimes to include gender, sexual orientation, and disability and would make it easier for the federal government to get involved in the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes. Back to Top of Table

SENATE VOTE 10 - HR4811: Fiscal 2001 Foreign Operations Appropriations - Conference Report
October 25, 2000 -Adoption of the conference report on the bill that would appropriate $14.9 billion in fiscal year 2001 for foreign operations.
Adopted (thus cleared for the president) 65-27: R 38-11; D 27-16.

NASW supported this bill because it passed without the "global gag rule" which prohibits foreign nongovernmental organizations that provide family planning services abroad and receive U.S. federal funds from offering abortion services or advocating for changes in abortion policy, even with their own private funds. Back to Top of Table