New York 23rd – Democrat Bill Owens May Be Returned to New York – Hoffman Gains from Errors in Vote Reporting – Absentee Ballots to Decide Congress

Doug Hoffman, NY 23rd Conservative Candidate - Vote Too Close to Call after Democrat Owens Sworn In! image factrealwordpress

Although the New York 23rd had not officially been called for Democrat Bill Owens, in the November 3rd Congressional Special Election, Nancy Pelosi swore him into office on two "technicalities": Conservative Candidate Doug Hoffman had conceded after he was led to believe Oswego County was lost, and Owens led by approximately 5,000 votes. Sworn in Friday Night, Owens immediately voted "yes" on HR 3962 on Saturday and Obama hastily pointed out that Owens won the district on Health Care Reform.

The Old adage: It's Not Over Until the Fat Lady Sings" may apply.



Apparently, there was “chaos” in the 23rd on November 3rd, specifically in Oswego Country, one of Conservative Candidate, Doug Hoffman’s strongholds. Votes were grossly underreported, and based upon that information and the fact that 93% of the vote had been counted, Hoffman conceded the race. The race, still not officially certified by the State of New York, has tightened considerably after re-canvassing. Hoffman now leads in Oswego Country and Jefferson County, where Owens needed the votes to succeed and additionally, 4 districts gave Hoffman zero votes in error. The count now stands with Owen’s lead at 3,026, with over 10,000 absentee ballots to be counted.

Therefore the race will most likely be decided by absentee ballot, in this heavily conservative district. Owens election was herald as historical and an omen of trends as he was the first Democrat to win a Congressional Seat in the NY 23rd in 100 years, with heavy media attention, and a foregone conclusion based on errors, and the underreporting for which the American Press is now infamous.
Hoffman’s campaign will wait until the end of the week, when the race actually shapes up, to decide upon any legal action. That said, should Hoffman pull a “come from behind” victory out of the New York 23rd, after having dealt with miscounts, errors, massive media blitzes and a House Speaker who swore in his opponent without the race being certified by the State of New York, compounding errors, it will be a stunning loss to the DNC.

In light of this week’s bad news from Gallop where Republicans now lead Democrats on the Congressional Ballot by 48% to 44% (in July Democrats led by 50% to 44%), it is probable that campaigns with internal polls, showing significant leads, will be challenging outcomes in races that have a similar make-up. A Hoffman win will also serve to further energize those conservatives and independents who are looking for the candidate that best represents their interests, be it a Republican, Conservative Party, or yes, a Pro-Life, Fiscally Conservative Democrat. Although the media erroneously tags Conservative Organizations as “Republican”, as they most often identify with the Republican Party on issues both socially and fiscally conservative, the members are more often self-identified as “independent”. It will be that “independent” streak, so favored by the founding fathers of this nation (who were diametrically opposed to political parties), that determine the outcome of the 2010 and 2012 elections.

Clash of the Titan’s – Planned Parenthood versus the Catholic Church – The Senate Bill – Will Reid Cave to Progressive Pressure?

Catholic Bishops image christianandamerica.com

The House, overseen by Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, narrowly passed a version of a Health Care Reform Act, last Saturday night – what saved Speaker Pelosi – exclusion of federal funding for abortion. The Catholic Church played a pivotal role in the inclusion of the The Stupak amendment which was the only way to get those pro-life Democrats on board for passage of the bill.

Naral Support of Politicians - image life news

Now, that the Bill has moved to the Senate, Planned Parenthood is mustering its forces to make sure that the Senate Version does not include the “Stupak Amendment”. Additionally, the progressive, pro-abortion organization, NARAL, is begging its members to sign a petition to Harry Reid in order to stop inclusion of any pro-life (or anti-abortion) language in the Senate version. NARAL routinely endorsee Democrats who stand up for abortion , at the top of the list: Barack Obama. How much influence will the mulit-billion dollar abortion industry have in the Senate?

The proverbial jury is out on this one.

Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader is “pro-life”, and the Catholic church, with an estimated voting block of 70,000,000, which has in the past, almost exclusively voted for the Democrat in office, simply because, that candidate was a Catholic. From John Kerry to Harry Reid, the campaigns were taken from the street to the Church, until recently. Within the past few years, admonishments have come down on politicians who are Catholic and pro-abortion, from the Church.

Additionally, Reid who is considered "weak", has already indicated that the bill will not go to the floor much before December, possibly January or February of next year – he simply does not have the votes.

It remains to be seen, what influence, if any, the U.S. Catholic Bishops, bill bring to bear on the Senate version. That said, they are keenly aware of the efforst of Planned Parenthood and its affiliates, and somewhat dismissive of both. If the Stupak Amendment is included, it would represent the voices of both the Catholic voting bloc, along with other Christian lobbying groups that also lobbied those in the House.

Therefore, it will be the lobby with the greatest clout who wins this battle. Presidential candidate are routinely questioned on their pro-abortion credentials, regardless of the fact that a President can do little but comment on the subject, let alone enact any legislation. (That is a rarity in most Congressional or Senate Races, with those very candidates showing up at local church events.) That legislation must come from Congress – and at the present time, congressional members are caught between their political donors and their Church (be it Catholic or otherwise) who, in the end, represents the millions who vote, will decide the inclusion of that cluase and other laguage that may not be acceptable to the "Church".

History, despite the present state of morality (or lack thereof) within the confines of the Country, has long been kind to the wishes of the Church and the influence it brings to bear on those that profess to be members of that Body.
again, it should be noted that abortion is not the only issue that is on the minds of the Church when it comes to this particular piece of legislation – there are other clauses, including penalties for those who do not carry insurance, that are considered “anti-family” by the Church.

In other Church/State News:
The Church has also come under attack on another front and the Bishops are fighting back: according to a story this morning in the Los Angeles Times

Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said Wednesday that it would be unable to continue the social service programs it runs for the District of Columbia if the city refused to change a proposed same-sex marriage law.

The threat could affect tens of thousands of people the church helps with adoption, homelessness and healthcare.

Under the legislation, which the City Council is expected to pass next month, religious organizations would not be required to perform or make space available for same-sex weddings. But they would have to obey laws prohibiting discrimination against gays and lesbians.

A Day to Honor Those Who Serve - Veteran’s Day – The 11th Hour of the 11th Day of November

Veteran’s Day was originally called Armistice Day, as the day the final treaties were signed between the Allies and Germany in 1918, ending what was, at the time, considered the “Greatest War” In 1919 President Woodrow Wilson declared Armistice Day a day of national remembrance for those who fought and died for our nation. In 1938 Congress confirmed November 11th as a Federal holiday. Following World War II and the Korean Conflict, President Eisenhower changed the name to Veteran’s Day. Veteran’s Day is a day to honor all members of the military, living and dead, who serve the United States military, and protect and defend all citizens of the United States, so selflessly.

The video below is a fine tribute to service members, effectively using the poem “In Flanders Field”, which was written by Lt. Colonel John McCrae, MD, in 1915 during the Battle of Ypres, a town in Belgium (Flanders). The Poppy has became a symbol for both American, British and Canadian veteran's. Today and every day, American’s should take time out to thank a veteran or service member, for without those who serve, the very freedoms we enjoy would be nothing more than a memory.

Obama – Afghanistan Troop Build-Up Reported by CBS – Denied by White House – A Disconnect and Disservice to the Public.

"Obama's War in Afganistan - Image: whitewraithe wordpress

A CBS News report issued yesterday indicated “informed sources” suggested that the President would increase troop deployment to Afghanistan by up to 40,000 members. There are 68,000 U.S. troops currently stationed in Afghanistan; General Stanley McChrystal, who was chosen by the administration to head the Afghan theater has requested up to 44,000 additional troops to deal with the increase in Taliban and Al Queda actions against U.S. forces. John Kerry, (D-MA), immediately opposed the Generals request, replaying his general opposition to deployment of military personnel. Kerry has been a prominent anti-war activist since his brief stint in Viet Nam and has been critical of any U.S. troop deployments, most recently the mission in Iraq. Kerry, who heads the Senate Armed Services Committee, stated in a recent speech that Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal's plan, which calls for 44,000 troops to carry out a counterinsurgency campaign, "reaches too far, too fast." (Washington Post).

Immediately following the CBS report, the White House issued a denial that Obama had made any decisions yet as to the level of troops he is willing to commit to Afghanistan. A national security advisor noted that reports of a decision by Obama regarding troop deployments were false. One interesting facet of that particular AP report is contained in a brief paragraph in the middle:

“After attending Tuesday's memorial service for the 13 killed in a shooting spree at the Fort Hood military base in Texas, Obama is due to meet his senior commanders on Wednesday again in the situation room to discuss Afghanistan. Analysis: More Fort Hoods possible.”

U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, specifically Obama’s initial campaign promises to remove troops from Iraq and go into Afghanistan to take on Al Queda, including use of additional U.S. forces in that theater has been compared to Viet Nam on more than one occasion. The fact that the U.S. Military believes that there are “more Fort Hoods possible” is also troubling and should, perhaps, have been a separate headline. The overall impression is one of chaos, as far as the management and direction of what has become known as “Obama’s War”. It is questionable as to how the administration will handle both domestic terrorism (Al Queda linked) and the troop buildup in a country that no nation has ever successfully controlled.
As to the CBS News organization, which has issued reports in the past without fully investigating the subject matter (see Dan Rather, former CBS anchor and reports on President Bush in 2005 which included falsified documents, that were not vetted by the news organizations.) either decided to issue a credible report, again “based on informed” sources, or they jumped the gun, and ran a story that had little credence or backing. That said, the White House issues denials of reports on a regular basis, so it is difficult for anyone that is sitting on the sidelines to determine what is taking place. White House communication director, Anita Dunn, has stated that the Obama campaign and the administration “control the press” which, leaves little room for error on the part of journalists walking the fine line between White House approval (access) or banishment (see Fox News boycott story on Huffington Post) should the administration be questioned. This leaves the general public in the dark regarding the War in Afghanistan, should news organizations decide to shut down and kowtow to the administration.

Regardless, the fact that large numbers of troops are being considered for deployment, in a theater that is historically unmanageable, with the concept of phasing in troops over a period of time (see Viet Nam, War of Attrition) could lead to an eventual draft, once volunteer forces become exhausted. In this instance, Senator Kerry’s hesitant stance may be justified. The current administrations inattention to historical boondoggles of the past, (see Carter), have led to economic woes, and the addition of a “Viet Nam” is not out of the question. The “excuse” that both the economic problems facing the county and the War in Afghanistan are merely leftovers (so to speak) from the Bush Administration, is beginning to wear thin. It is growing more obvious by the day, that throwing money (stimulus after stimulus) and adding taxes to corporations, does little to improve the economy – in fact, as the unemployment rates tops 10%, those tax cuts to “the evil corporations”, may induce them to actually hire and build in the United States. Additionally, Bush’s strategy to engage terrorists organizations in Iraq, build the Iraqi security forces, and eventually hand security over to the Iraqi government, appeared to be working. It is now apparent that withdrawal from that theater, only increased violence in Iraq, and Al Queda and the Taliban grew stronger in Afghanistan. Additionally, we are now faced with domestic terrorism in the United States, from Fort Hood to the latest plans to attack shopping malls in Boston. The problem seems to be, at the present time, a disconnect between the White House, History and the Press.

H.R. 3962 - Health Care Reform Bill – The Influence of The Catholic Church - Pivotal Role in Passage – Now Turns to Senate Provisions

image: american magazine

How large of a role did the American Catholic Church play in the passage of H.R. 3962, ? According to an article in Politico, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi gave in to anti-abortion Democrats, who refused to jump on board the bill without first striking provisions that included restrictions on abortion which would be acceptable to the Church. Brad Elsworth (D-IN) worked with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to provide language that would ban insurance companies from receiving federal funding for abortions. Elsworth along with Mike Doyle (D-PA), understood that the Church would not accept the bill in its original form, and insisted upon language that was in concert with the Hyde Amendment. The Hyde Amendment which was passed in 1976 - prohibits federal government funded insurance plans from providing abortions.

Pelosi worked with anti-abortion Rep. Bart Stupak who had written an amendment to the bill earlier this year that was similar in scope to the Hyde Amendment. In addition, Pelosi needed Stupak, and the pro-life Democrats who he caucused with, to garner enough votes for passage. The end result, Pelosi understood that the Bill would not pass, unless she abandoned those pro-abortion Democrats who are tied to that one single issue.

Now, the Church is turning its attention to to language in the Senate Bill that includes “anti-family” measures. According to the CAN (Catholic News Agency) there exists concerns over items included in the senate legislation. These groups cite language in the bill that includes rationing for health care for seniors, rise in costs for families, fines and penalties for non-compliance, and encouragement of counseling for assisted suicide, and are portions that will come under close scrutiny. The Senate version will also be closely watched for any provisions that deviate from the House version and its ban on abortion funding.

The executive director of the pro-Obama Catholic Group Catholics Unitedwhich supports the abortion language contained in the DNC party platform, stated:

"the bishops' stamp of approval means that this bill is unambiguously pro-life, and we will vigorously oppose those who suggest otherwise."

That does not however, appear to be the case:

A staff member of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) currently working on the Hill to prevent health care from including an abortion mandate, quickly dismissed Korzen's claim. Speaking for background to CNA, the USCCB staff member said that "there is stamp no of approval from the bishops whatsoever. Someone here has been either extremely naive or extremely partisan."

Although it is understood that Catholics control a stunning percentage of the electorate, as a whole, the American Church has remained (as far as one can tell) mainly I the background when it came to affecting legislation and the overall division of Church and State.

It may be suggested that those who are concerned over the “right-wing, conservative, Evangelical” influence on American Government (specifically as regards attacks on candidates, such as former 2008 presidential candidate Mike Huckabee. Note: the fact that Governor Huckabee was an ordained minister, was always placed in the first paragraph of any article, rather than noting his 10 years as Governor of Arkansas – in order to “sound the alert” of a possible “right wing “Christian Candidate”) had best look to the left should they have concerns over a mixture of church and state that, apparently, is included in every political party.

Then Candidate Mike Huckabee catigated in the Press for being "Christian" - image ruthiekelly.com

As the legislation is now before the Senate, it will remain to be seen how much influence, if any, religious advocacy groups, from either side of the aisle (or both in cases of the American churches), will have on the passage of Health Care Reform. Social issues aside, the cost of the program, at a time when inflation is set to rise (indicators include: a falling dollar and rising oil and gold prices, coupled with high unemployment) and the average working American can ill afford any additional tax burden, or rise in insurance premiums currently held (see Massachusetts at 11% for 2010), should be enough to give those in the Senate pause. History is a decisive judge, and the American electorate has, after all, the greater influence. With pressure from the Catholic Church on social issues (some of which impact on economics), and the growing concern from moderates and independents over costs, it is doubtful the present version will see the light of day.

How Your Congress Voted - Read Them and Weep – Roll Call for HR 3200 – Health Care Reform Final Tally: 220 - 215

Late Saturday Night, the Democrats, lead by Nancy Pelosi, rammed Universal Health Care through the House, with a mere 5 vote advantage. The Bill now must go to the Senate, where, as of this writing, it does not have enough support to get to the final stages.

Should one care to thank one of the 215 Republicans and Democrats who stood firm for the American Public, or to send a “shout-out” (i.e. voters guide) to the other 220 below is the list. The entire country does not need to follow in Massachusetts footsteps. (A virtual How To Guide on What Not to Do i.e. fees and taxes for not carrying health insurance, ridiculous mandates, and/or the 11% plus increase on those holding private insurance for 2010.)

Representative by Party and State

Voting No:
Bright (D-AL)
Davis (D-AL)
Griffith (D-AL)
Alderholt (R-AL)
Bachus (R-AL)
Bonner (R-AL)
Rogers (R-AL)
Young (R-AK)
Flake (R-AZ)
Franks (R-AZ)
Shadegg (R-AZ)
Ross (D-AR)
Boozman (R-AR)
Bilbray (R-CA)
Bono, M (R-CA)
Mack (R-CA)
Calvert (R-CA)
Campbell (R-CA)
Dreier (R-CA)
Gallegly (R-CA)
Herger (R-CA)
Hunter (R-CA)
Issa (R-CA)
Lewis (R-CA)
Lungren, Daniel E. (R-CA)
McCarthy (R-CA)
McClintock (R-CA)
McKeon (R-CA)
Miller, Gary (Republican (CA)
Nunes (R-CA)
Radanovich (R-CA)
Rohrabacher (R-CA)
Royce (R-CA)
Markey –(D-CO)
Coffman (R-CO)
Lamborn (R-CO)
Castle (R-DE)
Boyd (D-FL)
Kosmas (D-FL)
Bilirakis (R-FL)
Brown-Waite (R-FL)
Buchanan (R-FL)
Crenshaw (R-FL)
Diaz-Balart, L (R-FL)
Diaz-Balart, M (R-FL)
Mack (R-FL)
Mica (R-FL)
Miller (R-FL)
Posey (R-FL)
Putnam (R-FL)
Rooney (R-FL)
Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL)
Stearns (R-FL)
Young (R-FL)
Barrow (D-GA)
Marshall (D-GA)
Broun (R-GA)
Deal (R-GA)
Gingrey (R-GA)
Kingston (R-GA)
Linder (R-GA)
Price (R-GA)
Westmoreland (R-GA)
Minnick (D-ID)
Simpson (R-ID)
Biggert (R-IL)
Johnson (R-IL)
Kirk (R-IL)
Manzullo (R-IL)
Roskam (R-IL)
Schock (R-IL)
Shimkus (R-IL)
Burnton (R-IN)
Buyer (R-IN)
Pence (R-IN)
Souder (R-IN)
King (R-IA)
Latham (R-IA)
Jenkins (R-KS)
Moran (R-KS)
Tiahrt (R-KS)
Chandler (D-KY)
Davis (R-KY)
Guthrie (R-KY)
Rogers (R-KY)
Whitfield (R-KY)
Melancon (D-LA)
Alexander (R-LA)
Boustany (R-LA)
Cassidy (R-LA)
Fleming (R-LA)
Scalise (R-LA)
Kratovil (D-MD)
Bartlett (R-MD)
Camp (R-MI)
Ehlers (R-MI)
Hoekstra (R-MI)
McCotter (R-MI)
Miller (R-MI)
Rogers (R-MI)
Upton (R-MI
Bachmann (R-MN)
Kline (R-MN)
Paulsen (R-MN)
Childers (D-MS)
Taylor (D-MS)
Harper (R-MS)
Skelton (D-MO)
Akin (R-MO)
Blunt (R-MO)
Emerson (R-MO)
Graves (R-MO)
Luetkemeyer (R-MO)
Rehberg (R-MT)
Fortenberry (R-NE)
Smith (R-NE)
Terry (R-NE)
Heller (R-NV)
Adler (D-NJ)
Frelinghuysen (R-NJ)
Garrett (R-NJ)
Lance (R-NJ)
LoBiondo (R-NJ)
Smith (R-NJ)
Murphy (D-NY)
King (R-NY)
Lee (R-NY)
Kissell (D-NC)
McIntyre (D-NY
Shuler (D-NC)
Coble (R-NC)
Foxx (R-NC)
Jones (R-NC)
McHenry (R-NC)
Myrick (R-NC)
Boccieri (D-OH)
Kucinich (D-OH)
Austria (R-OH)
Boehner (R-OH)
Jordan (R-OH)
LaTourette (R-OH)
Latta (R-OH)
Schmidt (R-OH)
Tiberi (R-OH)
Turner (R-OH)
Boren (D-OK)
Cole (R-OK)
Fallin (R-OK)
Lucas (R-OK)
Sullivan (R-OK)
Walden (R-OR)
Altmire (D-PA)
Holden (D-PA)
Dent (R-PA)
Gerlach (R-PA)
Murphy (R-PA)
Pitts (R-PA)
Platts (R-PA)
Shuster (R-PA)
Thompson (R-PA)
Barrett (R-SC)
Brown (R-SC)
Inglis (R-SC)
Wilson (R-SC)
Herseth Sandlin (D-SD)
Davis (D-TN)
Gordon (D-TN)
Tanner (D-TN
Blackburn (R-TN)
Duncan (R-TN)
Roe (R-TN)
Wamp (R-TN)
Edwards (D-TX)
Barton (R-TX)
Brady (R-TX)
Burgess (R-TX)
Carter (R-TX)
Conaway (R-TX)
Culberson (R-TX)
Gohmert (R-TX)
Granger (R-TX)
Hall (R-TX)
Hensarling (R-TX)
Johnson (R-TX)
Marchant (R-TX)
McCaul (R-TX)
Neugebauer (R-TX)
Olson (R-TX)
Paul (R-TX)
Poe (R-TX)
Sessions (R-TX)
Smith (R-TX)
Thornberry (R-TX)
Matheson, N (D-UT)
Bishop (R-UT)
Chaffetz (R-UT)
Boucher (D-VA)
Nye (D-VA)
Cantor (D-VA)
Forbes (D-VA)
Goodlatte (D-VA)
Wittman (D-VA)
Wolf –(D-VA)
Baird (D-WA)
Hastings (R-WA)
McMorris (R-WA)
Rodgers (R-WA)
Reichert (R-WA)
Capito (R-WV)
Petri (R-WI)
Ryan (R-WI)
Sensenbrenner (R-WI)
Lummis (R-WY)



Voting: Yes
Gifford (D-AR)
Grijalva (D-AR)
Kirkpatrick (D-AR)
Mitchell (D-AR)
Pastor (D-AR).
Baca (D-CA)
Becerra (D-CA)
Berman (D-CA)
Capps (D-CA)
Cardoza (D-CA)
Chu (D-CA)
Costa (D-CA)
Davis (D-CA)
Eshoo (D-CA)
Farr (D-CA)
Filner (D-CA)
Garmendi (D-CA)
Harman (D-CA)
Honda (D-CA)
Lee (D-CA)
Lofgren, Z. (D-CA)
Matsui (D-CA)
McNerney (D-CA)
Miller (D-CA)
George (D-CA)
Napolitano (D-CA)
Pelosi (D-CA)
Richardson (D-CA)
Roybal-Allard (D-CA)
Sanchez, Linda(D-CA)
Sanchez, Loretta (D-CA)
Schiff (D-CA)
Sherman (D-CA)
Speier (D-CA)
Stark (D-CA)
Thompson (D-CA)
Waters (D-CA)
Watson (D-CA)
Waxman (D-CA)
Woolsey, D-CA)
Degette (D-CO)
Perlmutter (D-CO)
Polis (D-CO)
Salazar (D-CO)
Courtney (D-CT)
DeLauro(D-CT)
Himes(D-CT)
Larson (D-CT)
Murphy (D-CT)
Brown, C.
Boyd (D-FL)
Castor (D-FL)
Grayson (D-FL)
Hastings (D-FL)
Klein (D-FL)
Meek (D-FL)
Wasserman Schultz (D-FL)
Wexler (D-FL)
Bishop (D-GA)
Johnson (D-GA)
Lewis (D-GA)
Scott (D-GA)
Abercrombi (D-HI)
Hirono (D-HI)
Bean (D-IL)
Costello (D-IL)
Davis (D-IL)
Foster (D-IL)
Gutierrez (D-IL)
Halvorson (D-IL)
Hare (D-IL)
Jackson (D-IL)
Lipinski (D-IL)
Quigley (D-IL)
Rush (D-IL)
Schakowsky (D-IL)
Carson (D-IN)
Donnelly (D-IN)
Ellsworth (D-IN)
Hill (D-IN)
Visclosky (D-IN)
Boswell (D-IA)
Braley (D-IA)
Loebsack (D-IA)
Moore (D-KS)
Yarmuth (D-KY)
Cao (R-LA)
Michaud (D-ME)
Pingree (D-ME)
Cummings (D-MD)
Edwards (D-MD)
Hoyer (D-MD)
Ruppersberger (D-MD)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Van Hollen (D-MD)
Bartlett (R-MD)
Capuano (D-MA)
Delahunt (D-MA)
Frank (D-MA)
Lynch (D-MA)
Markey (D-MA)
McGovern (D-MA)
Neal (D-MA)
Olver (D-MA)
Tierney (D-MA)
Tsongas (D-MA)
Conyers (D-MI)
Dingell (D-MI)
Kildee (D-MI)
Kilpatrick (D-MI)
Levin (D-MI)
Peters (D-MI)
Schauer (D-MI)
Stupak (D-MI)
Camp (R-MI)
Ehlers (R-MI)
Hoekstra (R-MI)
McCotter (R-MI)
Miller (R-MI)
Rogers (R-MI)
Upton (R-MI)
Ellison (D-MN)
McCollum (D-MN)
Oberstar (D-MN)
Peterson (D-MN)
Walz (D-MN)
Thompson (D-MS)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Clay (D-MO)
Cleaver (D-MO)
Berkley (D-NV)
Titus (D-NV)
Hodes (D-NH)
Shea-Porter (D-NH)
Andrews (D-NJ)
Holt (D-NJ)
Pallone (D-NJ)
Pascrell (D-NJ)
Payne (D-NJ)
Rothman (D-NJ)
Sires (D-NJ)
Heinrich (D-NM)
Lujan (D-NM)
Teague (D-NM)
Ackerman (D-NY)
Arcuri (D-NY)
Bishop (D-NY)
Clarke (D-NY)
Crowley (D-NY)
Engel (D-NY)
Hall (D-NY)
Higgins (D-NY)
Hinchey (D-NY)
Israel (D-NY)
Lowey (D-NY)
Maffei (D-NY)
Maloney (D-NY)
Massa (D-NY)
McCarthy (D-NY)
McMahon (D-NY)
Meeks (D-NY)
Nadler (D-NY)
Owens (D-NY)
Rangel (D-NY)
Serrano (D-NY)
Slaughter (D-NY)
Tonko (D-NY
Towns (D-NY)
Velazquez (D-NY)
Weiner (D-NY)
Butterfield (D-NC)
Etheridge (D-NC)
Miller (D-NC)
Price (D-NC)
Watt (D-NC)
Pomeroy (D-ND)
Driehaus (D-OH)
Fudge (D-OH)
Kaptur (D-OH)
Kilroy (D-OH)
Ryan (D-OH)
Space (D-OH)
Sutton (D-OH)
Wilson (D-OH)
Blumenauer (D-OR)
DeFazio (D-OR)
Schrader (D-OR)
Wu (D-OR)
Brady (D-PA)
Carney (D-PA)
Dahlkemper (D-PA)
Doyle (D-PA)
Fattah (D-PA)
Kanjorski (D-PA
Murphy, (D-PA)
Murtha (D-PA)
Schwartz (D-PA)
Sestak (D-PA)
Kenndey (D-RI)
Langevin (D-RI)
Clyburn (D-SC)
Spratt (D-SC)
Cohen (D-TN)
Cooper (D-TN)
Cueller (D-TX)
Doggett (D-TX)
Gonzalez (D-TX)
Green, A. (D-TX)
Green, G. (D-TX)
Hinojosa (D-TX)
Jackson-Lee (D-TX)
Johnson (D-TX)
Ortiz (D-TX)
Reyes (D-TX)
Rodriquez (D-TX)
Welch (D-VT)
Connelly (D-VA)
Moran (D-VA)
Perriello (D-VA
Scott (D-VA)
Dicks (D-WA)
Inslee (D-WA)
Larsen (D-WA)
McDermott (D-WA)
Smith (D-WA)
Mollohan (D-WV)
Rahall (D-WV)
Baldwin (D-WI)
Kagen (D-WI)
Kind (D-WI)
Moore (D-WI)
Obey (D-WI)