Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Politics Your Rights Online

US House Subcommittee Votes To Kill Net Neutrality 607

Posted by samzenpus
from the rest-in-peace dept.
angry tapir writes "A US House of Representatives subcommittee has voted in favor of a resolution to throw out the US Federal Communications Commission's recently adopted net neutrality rules. The communications subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee voted 15-8 along party lines for a resolution of disapproval that would overturn the FCC's rules."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US House Subcommittee Votes To Kill Net Neutrality

Comments Filter:
  • Enjoy. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by unity100 (970058) on Wednesday March 09, 2011 @08:32PM (#35437634) Homepage Journal
    you fools gave your houses to the right wing party. right wing parties anywhere around the world, always support corporations over people.

    it doesnt matter what your reasons or excuses for voting for a right wing party. you may even be quite right and correct in your reasons. BUT, a right wing party will always support corporations over people, in every way they can. even their acts which appear pro-people, will end up being pro-corp in the long run.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by hduff (570443)

      you fools gave your houses to the right wing party. politicians anywhere around the world, always support corporations over people. .

      FTFY

    • you fools gave your houses to the right wing party. right wing parties anywhere around the world, always support corporations over people.

      We didn't give the government to them - at least not in the 2010 election cycle. Rather several decades (or more) ago we happily sold them to them. The only difference is that now the "two" parties are openly showing that there is virtually nothing different between them. We have a (theoretically) non-right-wing president who is continuing every last executive decision of his right-wing predecessor. Meanwhile congress is doing the same thing they did two years ago, which is what they did two years befo

      • by BBTaeKwonDo (1540945) on Wednesday March 09, 2011 @08:45PM (#35437762)
        Did you see where the summary said, "voted 15-8 along party lines"? How does that support your thesis that every politician comes from the same party?
        • by Culture20 (968837)

          Did you see where the summary said, "voted 15-8 along party lines"? How does that support your thesis that every politician comes from the same party?

          Every politician comes from the same party, but they have to appear to fight. Jets fans and Patriots fans will both agree that Soccer is for pansies, but if a Jets fan knows a Patriots fan is talking smack about Soccer, the Jets fan will pretend to support the lesser-known Futball.

        • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

          by DNS-and-BIND (461968)
          Because every time Democrats do something bad, it's "both parties are equally corrupt." Every time the Repubs pull a fast one, it's "only the Right are corrupt." This is a remarkably consistent rule that you see around here all the time. It's being subverted by a previous poster and it evidently is causing minds to explode.
          • by pitchpipe (708843)

            Because every time Democrats do something bad, it's "both parties are equally corrupt." Every time the Repubs pull a fast one, it's "only the Right are corrupt."

            I know right?! No one sticks up for the poor Republicans anymore. It's sad.

        • by kaffiene (38781) on Wednesday March 09, 2011 @10:43PM (#35438632)

          His point was not that they have different party names, but that their policies are all but indistinguishable. Which is how it looks to me, too.

          As a New Zealander, I have to say that the Democrats are more right wing than our current ruling right wing party. You have nothing as left as our left wing Labour party, who are not especially leftist, by NZ or world standards. I'm not sure I that most Americans appreciate just how right wing, conservative, pretty, ill-educated, reactionary, selfish, jingoistic, partisan, anti-intellectual, anti-science and anti-reason US politics appears from the external point of view. I look to politics in the UK, Australia, France, Germany. I understand what's going on there, it looks similar to what's going on here. I look at US politics and I'm thinking "What the.,..."

          I really don't understand how a country that purports to be a democracy has allowed its political discourse to be so railroaded into one tiny spectrum of ideas. You have two parties which are largely indistinguishable. You change the name of the party in charge, but the ideas don't change. You guys really need to ditch first past the post elections - most of the rest of the world has already figured this out.

          • by general_re (8883)

            I'm not sure I that most Americans appreciate just how right wing, conservative, pretty, ill-educated, reactionary, selfish, jingoistic, partisan, anti-intellectual, anti-science and anti-reason US politics appears from the external point of view.

            From your external point of view, or from the point of view that's been sold to you by your own media and politicians? I'm sure it's pleasing to imagine that you hold some privileged frame of reference, but maybe it's possible that the people telling you these things are telling you the things you want to hear, and the things they want you to believe.

            • by ktappe (747125) on Thursday March 10, 2011 @12:37AM (#35439322)

              I'm not sure I that most Americans appreciate just how right wing, conservative, pretty, ill-educated, reactionary, selfish, jingoistic, partisan, anti-intellectual, anti-science and anti-reason US politics appears from the external point of view.

              From your external point of view, or from the point of view that's been sold to you by your own media and politicians? I'm sure it's pleasing to imagine that you hold some privileged frame of reference, but maybe it's possible that the people telling you these things are telling you the things you want to hear, and the things they want you to believe.

              Unless you are looking at us from his point of view, you have no means by which to criticize his point of view. And as a matter of fact, most of what he says is true, something you'd realize if you looked at the U.S. system objectively. Our politicians ARE all right-wing. That's the only way that abortion of a "health care" plan could possibly have been passed last year. You know, the one that funnels billions of taxpayer dollars to the insurance companies? And the fact that all politicians in both parties will only ever talk about cutting taxes, never about the need with our huge deficits to, oh I dunno, INCREASE income to pay for things? Or how it's impossible to get elected in this country if you are an atheist or agnostic? And how those in both parties are all too eager to cut spending on education. Or how our "liberal" president is perpetuating the abomination that is Guantanamo? Or how no politician will get rid of the "Under God" clause in the Pledge of Allegiance (or even get rid of the Pledge at all)?

              A true "liberal" would fix at one or more of the above, and we haven't had anything resembling a liberal in the White House since Carter. And he has somehow been demonized as "the worst president ever" when the evidence (if anyone bothered learning it) clearly says otherwise. So don't even try to claim we Americans aren't anti-intellectual or any of the other things claimed above. We're guilty of all of it.

            • by eggnoglatte (1047660) on Thursday March 10, 2011 @12:48AM (#35439384)

              I can't speak for the GP, but as a Canadian I agree with the GP. My source(s) of information:

              - I read news from sources in the Canada, the US, UK, and Germany. Somehow they all seem to make some level of sense, except for the American version.

              - first hand opinions expressed by Americans on online fora. To name an example, I don't think you'd get a significant number of people from any other western country to have a Democracy vs Republic debate along the lines of what just happened in the parallel Utah thread. Sometimes I have to resign to just look in awe about the level of collective brainwashing that seems to be going on in the US.

            • by kaffiene (38781) on Thursday March 10, 2011 @03:10AM (#35439986)

              Ummm, no, not from my external point of view nor a view "sold" to me by "your own media and politicans". For a start, New Zealand is too small to produce all our own media for world stories, so it sources media from all over the world - BBC, CNN, Al Jazera et al. But personally, I don't watch a lot of TV news - I compare sources online and see what the US channels are putting out from their own feeds directly. It's mainly Fox & Glenn Beck that gives me an insight into how warped America has become. So if you want to blame the media for my point of view - blame your own. When I was revolted at Tea Party members hurling abuse at Muslim Americans in Orange County, that was entirely brought to me by YOUR media. MY media didn't cover it at all.

              Furthermore, my point of view is not external. I have been to America before - admittedly, just the south, mainly Birmingham, for work and even then, that was quite a few years back. I have also lived with Americans before and seen and discussed their viewpoints and heard their comments on the difference between American politics and the rest of the western world's politics. In fact, one of the really interesting comments I got was from a lovely Bostonian girl who said the difference between democracy in the US and in NZ was that in the US, everyone was free to make all the money they wanted (regardless of whether they had any actual ability or chance to do so) whereas in NZ, it was more of a democracy of opportunity, where everyone (relative to the US) had the opportunity to succeed.

              You say "I'm sure it's pleasing to imagine that you hold some privileged frame of reference". Well, I'm sure it pleases you to denigrate my point of view by imagining motives for me... but I wasn't claiming a privileged frame of reference, I was claiming that politics in the rest of the western world makes sense to me. I know, having talked to many other Australians, British, French and German people that we all share broadly similar views on how democracy should work and we all pretty much think American politics is mad. My claim wasn't that my point of view was right (although, knock that strawman over if it makes you feel better) but that represents a very common western view of American politics.

      • Hotelling's Law (Score:3, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Two competing parties and almost perfect "market efficiency", in that polling is so sophisticated that the parties have almost perfect knowledge of the electorate. Hotelling's Law [wikipedia.org] says they they will end up being identical.

        A corollary is that your vote is meaningless, since you have a choice between two sames. You cannot bring about change at the ballot box. The only ways to change things are:

        • Sway the electorate directly (advertising, preferably with lots of $$$, or grasroots), or
        • Start a new political pa
        • Re:Hotelling's Law (Score:5, Insightful)

          by mug funky (910186) on Wednesday March 09, 2011 @09:43PM (#35438262)

          there's a third option you missed that is having some success in the middle east.

        • Re:Hotelling's Law (Score:5, Informative)

          by Bowling Moses (591924) on Wednesday March 09, 2011 @10:34PM (#35438558) Journal
          Hi. I live in Wisconsin. Maybe you've heard of the protests we've been having these last few weeks. Care to tell me how exactly the Republicans and Democrats are the same because it's pretty obvious here that they're not.
        • by kaffiene (38781)

          But, paradoxically, with the FPP voting system, a successful new party on one side of the political spectrum will give the result to the opposite side, as a result of splitting the vote on their own side of the political spectrum. This is how Bush got elected in the first place.

          Without changing FPP, you will never break out of two party politics and your options will forever be few.

      • by FridayBob (619244) on Wednesday March 09, 2011 @09:49PM (#35438304) Homepage

        Indeed. The corporations have owned Washington for many decades now. Even back in the 1950's, Ike Eisenhower warned that America's military-industrial complex had become too strong. Now look where we are: America has a military budget that's larger than that of all other countries combined, yet at the same time a substantial number of Americans live below the poverty line.

        Even worse, many of our laws have now been drafted by lobbyists -- a fact that some of our politicians have even been happy to admit. The lobbyists continue to play the politicians and the politicians continue to play the people for whom the latter continue to vote. It's a vicious cycle that's only made worse by the poor state of America's educational system, which has been deteriorating for many decades. The electorate has now largely been reduced to a mass of ignorant, overly-religious, flag-waving zombie-consumers whose only purpose seems to be in making the rich richer.

        Unfortunately, I'm not certain that there is much reason to believe that America can get out of this rut, which is like an extreme experiment in unbridled free-market capitalism that has gone badly wrong. The problem is that its people have wished this upon themselves. In this way America are kind of like Afghanistan; a country to which we've tried to introduce democracy, but whose citizens do not recognize the value of it and are thus not willing to fight for it, i.e. a horse that has been led to horse to water, but will not drink. Americans, of the other hand, had their freedom, but then gave it away willingly to the corporations... and continue to do so. Like the poor Afghans, they don't understand that their usual behavior is not in their best interest either.

        Oh, well...

        PS -- This is a bit of a rant, so go ahead and mod it down.

        • yet at the same time a substantial number of Americans live below the poverty line.

          Note that since the USA defines the poverty line as a fraction of the median income, about the only way to prevent a substantial number of Americans living below the poverty line is to make sure that every American makes exactly the same income every year.

        • by roman_mir (125474)

          Unfortunately, I'm not certain that there is much reason to believe that America can get out of this rut, which is like an extreme experiment in unbridled free-market capitalism that has gone badly wrong.

          - can you point out any unbridled free-market capitalism for me please, because I fail to see any, where the government is intersecting its power with the desires of the companies, which kills competition and goes directly AGAINST any unbridled free-market capitalism?

          I wouldn't mode you down based on your rant, I would mode you down based on this lie.

    • Re:Enjoy. (Score:5, Funny)

      by Kingrames (858416) on Wednesday March 09, 2011 @08:46PM (#35437768)
      Democrats - owned by Hollywood/RIAA/MPAA
      Republicans - owned by Big Oil/FOX/etc
      Independents - get bought out by one or the other as soon as they're elected
      Green - owned by smaller but equally extremist radical groups that wouldn't mind passing ridiculous legislation for their own interests
      That drunk guy asleep at the park bench - We don't know his name or damn would he get our vote.
      • by 680x0 (467210)

        That drunk guy asleep at the park bench - We don't know his name or damn would he get our vote.

        I think you mean Alvin Greene [washingtonpost.com].

      • Re:Enjoy. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by presidenteloco (659168) on Wednesday March 09, 2011 @09:39PM (#35438232)

        Re: Greens. You are misrepesenting greens. Those "narrow interests" that they support are basically the interests of functioning, diverse, healthy eco-systems worldwide and all of the inhabitants of those ecosystems. Yep. Pretty "special interest". Pretty radical. Definitely evil. Those bastards are supporting life over money. They are supporting sense not dollars. It's a good thing Guantanamo is still open.

        • by FooAtWFU (699187)
          The Earth Liberation Front sets fire to luxury homes. My neighbors up in Marin County claim to be allergic to wi-fi (therefore we should ban it in libraries, and also in the new PG&E smart-meters). But you're right. Those crazy people aren't the real radical evil special-interest groups of the green movement; it's all the companies who say they're "green" to get lots of government money and never have anything meaningful to show for it. Those jerks, and the corn ethanol lobby.
        • Re:Enjoy. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Bacon Bits (926911) on Thursday March 10, 2011 @02:59AM (#35439920)

          And that would be excellent if all the government did was ecological regulation, but it does a lot more than that. If the ostensible foundation of a political party is promoting the environment, what exactly is their social policy going to be? Or their defense policy? What about foreign policy? When you're talking about something as diverse as a national government, yes, a party that focuses on ecology is a narrow, special interest group.

          What kinds of compromises in economic policy would such a party make in order to accomplish stated ecological goals? Historically, that answer has been quite a lot in the short term (which is typically what people are concerned about, right or wrong). When you're talking about "life over money" you certainly sound noble, but all money is for most people is a tangible, quantitative representation of work or effort. In that light, it might be more accurate to say the Green party emphasizes "quantity of life over quality of life". Then their platform becomes much less appealing. I'd like to "save the planet", but I wouldn't be happy if I had to give up my automobile, diverse diet, or electrical luxuries to do it.

      • I would have referred to a previous comment of mine but the difficulties of the /. systems interferes. anyway (although I do not dispute your observations):

        Republicans = corporations + mainstream religion
        Democrats = a bunch of disorganized do-gooders that each have their own concept of what is "just" and try to shove it down your throat
        Libertarians = every person is king/queen of their castle/bailiwick (it's OK if corporations are considered a "person" in this context)

        personally I think more people are int

    • Re:Enjoy. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MrLint (519792) on Wednesday March 09, 2011 @08:51PM (#35437820) Journal

      Actually I think you are being over specific. These people cede their "free will" to whom they deem to be most powerful. That may be a talking head, a god, a politician, a rich person. I believe it comes from a lack of cynicism.

      • I wish I hadn't just used up my mod points.

        Although I'm not sure they cede to who they deem powerful, more like who they accept as an authority (translation: somebody who says what they like to hear).

        QOTD: "No matter how cynical you get, it is impossible to keep up." -- Lily Tomlin

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by bonch (38532)

      And left-wing parties put government over people. You sound like a high school kid who just discovered political parties.

      There was no reason for "net neutrality." There was no example its proponents could point to that warranted its existence. Having politicians in Washington dictate how sysadmins are supposed to regulate their private network traffic is insane. Media lobbies would have a field day influencing politicians to "regulate" torrent traffic. The fact is that ISPs are private organizations, and yo

    • by epyT-R (613989)

      yes..and left wing parties support majority cliques at the expense of individuals.. how is that any better? net neutrality is not about choosing to get fucked..it's about which hole you want to be fucked in. either isps turn the internet into shitty ma-bell era pay-as-you-go services like cell networks, or you have government deciding what goes.. I'd like neither, but people like me who actually like freedom for individuals taking precedence over the blanket enforcement of irrational group-think policies,

    • by ShakaUVM (157947)

      >>even their acts which appear pro-people, will end up being pro-corp in the long run.

      That's a very clever way of explaining away anything you don't like.

      Not that the Republicans aren't crazy on this issue - because they are - but nonsense statements like the above allow you to continue your two minutes' hate even when they're entirely agreeing with you. It's the kind of nonsense position only a partisan hack could take.

      So, for example, the Republicans ended the national speed limit. This appears to b

  • It does what, now? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by damn_registrars (1103043) <damn.registrars@gmail.com> on Wednesday March 09, 2011 @08:33PM (#35437642) Homepage Journal
    FTA:

    Walden added. "These regulations will cost jobs," he said.

    I know, this is the standard-issue republican response to anything they don't like, but really could we have an explanation this time? Exactly how would net neutrality kill jobs?

    • by rsilvergun (571051) on Wednesday March 09, 2011 @08:43PM (#35437732)
      The argument goes that net neutrality stifles profits as telecom companies struggle to keep up with bandwidth demand and cannot impose much needed controls on their own network. Also, content providers lose out because they can't guarantee a high quality of service. Yes, the arguments are holier than Swiss cheese, but there it is...
    • by makubesu (1910402) on Wednesday March 09, 2011 @08:43PM (#35437742)
      They claim that doing this will cut jobs, but have no qualms about their spending cuts which will cost 700,000 people their jobs: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/28/AR2011022802634.html [washingtonpost.com]
      • by corbettw (214229)

        Yes, you're right, let's not cut spending. We can continue working with trillion-dollar deficits. What could possibly go wrong?

        • Or, alternatively, folks could buck up a bit more cash so that we actually pay for all the shit we've been begging the government to give us.... (whether you want rich folks, poor folks, or in-between folks to buck up more cash is irrelevant, the point is, cutting away services is not the only way to reduce a deficit).
    • by WillyWanker (1502057) on Wednesday March 09, 2011 @08:48PM (#35437794)
      Yeah, I was thinking the exact same thing. This retarded statement seems to be the now de facto Republican go to phrase. According to them, everything Democrats want to do will "cost jobs". Funny tho how the Republicans, who seem to be so knowledgeable as to how to go about creating jobs haven't DONE JACK SHIT to create any. All they've managed to do is make richer people richer.

      The upside to this story is that any bill they pass will get rightfully killed in the Senate.
      • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

        by diamondmagic (877411)

        What has the world come to? Government simply does not and cannot create (net) jobs. They can tax money from one group of people and use that to hire government employees, but that doesn't create jobs, that just creates government jobs. You can vote to not destroy jobs i.e. not tax and regulate companies out of existence. So I'll be taking your "DONE JACK SHIT" as a compliment, thank you very much.

        As for "make rich people richer", since when was wealth and profit a bad thing? The economy isn't a zero sum ga

        • Really dude, what fucking rock did you crawl out from? I'd say the 10+% of the population that's out of work, while corporations and their CEOs are raking in billion dollar profits is a perfect example of "one person's gain IS another's loss". Or are you trying to say that every time a factory gets moved overseas or an entire division gets outsourced to India all those lost jobs are a win/win for all parties involved? Haven't you been paying attention the last 30 years as the middle class has been systemati
      • by Nimey (114278)

        Yes, isn't it funny that the Republicans are doing the usual ideological stuff like trying to gut environmental protections and protecting their fellow homophobes from teh g4yz0rs, but haven't come up with a plan to create jobs or get the economy on track?

        I mean, the whole reason the Dems lost the last election was the economy.

    • by Kingrames (858416)
      Well, they need to hire a guy to put the traffic cones out on the information superhighway to reroute all traffic through their drive-through.

      Sure, it'll kill business online for every single business out there that benefits even slightly from the Internet (100% of all business worldwide), but you gotta think of that one job. Or you won't get re-elected.

      How they're going to get re-elected when all of their supporters find out that they're responsible for ruining all business worldwide? I have no idea.
    • by kaffiene (38781)

      Its just one of those moronic catch-phrases like "Political correctness gone mad" that lazy people trot out to avoid having to think carefully about a situation they would like to be black and white, but isn't.

      Any time I hear one of these phrases, I pretty much hear "I have nothing intelligent to say, but try this jingo on for size!"

      Others: "Nanny state interference", "un-American", "socialist". I'm sure you can come up with a bunch more.

  • by rickzor (1838596) on Wednesday March 09, 2011 @08:39PM (#35437700)
    from TFA: "If the Republican-controlled House approves the resolution, it would then move to the Senate, where Democrats hold the majority. The Senate is unlikely to pass the resolution."

    summary fails to mention how this vote probably won't actually go anywhere.
    • by Frosty Piss (770223) * on Wednesday March 09, 2011 @08:51PM (#35437816)

      from TFA: "If the Republican-controlled House approves the resolution, it would then move to the Senate, where Democrats hold the majority. The Senate is unlikely to pass the resolution." summary fails to mention how this vote probably won't actually go anywhere.

      Perhaps. But the folks who define science as witch-craft, speak in tongues and handle snakes (Mike Huckabee), think that if you're a good boy you get your own planet when you die (Mitt Romney), these people run things now.

      The Senate will fall to these fools in time, and than it's all over.

  • Not Surprised (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Frosty Piss (770223) * on Wednesday March 09, 2011 @08:41PM (#35437714)
    This is not surprising. With a mandate to repeal all of the worker's rights that where hard-won during the early 1900's, and legislating the idea that science is witch-craft, this is not unexpected.

    We are entering a dark age.
  • by goodgod43 (1993368) on Wednesday March 09, 2011 @08:43PM (#35437738)
    FTA: "The FCC lacks legal authority to pass the rules, and government intervention would hurt the Internet, said Representative Greg Walden, the subcommittee's chairman and an Oregon Republican. "The Internet works pretty well -- it's the government that doesn't," he said." He's against government involvement. That I understand. But he's admitting that he, as a member of the government, doesn't really understand the problem. He's admitted to being the problem, so why should he have his way?
    • by XanC (644172) on Wednesday March 09, 2011 @08:51PM (#35437824)

      So... He shouldn't have his way, and you would make him be in charge of something he doesn't understand?

      Why in blazes would we expect people in government to be omniscient? It won't be. That's why we decided it shouldn't be omnipotent either, except that something like 50% of people have completely forgotten about that idea.

    • by geekoid (135745)

      Some please tell the Jack ass the the internet wouldn't exist with out the government, please?

      And in almost every project, the government word really, really well.

  • by kawabago (551139) on Wednesday March 09, 2011 @08:44PM (#35437754)
    Republicans have just killed the goose that laid the golden eggs. The replacement goose's eggs are gold plated, cracked and spoiled.
  • by pitchpipe (708843) on Wednesday March 09, 2011 @08:57PM (#35437868)
    Every story like this gives me even more motivation to get my degree. That way when the effects of all of this shitty legislation in favor of the super wealthy begins to really take effect I won't have a problem emigrating to another country.
  • Republicans represent the interests of very very wealthy people. They are against changes, innovations, new ideas and anything that benefits anyone who isn't in the club. Because from a rich person's viewpoint, everyone is out to grab some of what they have. (oh, and I am not claiming that Democrats got it all right).
  • by Palmsie (1550787) on Wednesday March 09, 2011 @09:15PM (#35438042)

    I'm sorry but there seems to be a discrepancy with regard to how representatives view NN. It is not a government regulation anymore than the first amendment 'regulates' that speech must be free. Likewise, NN 'regulates' that information must be unbiased. This notion of forced freedom as a form of regulation is probably the most far fetched form of 'regulation' that I have seen. But it should be clear that NN merely forces information to be unbiased. Regulation is a form of constriction on some greater pool. In other words, regulation selects a subset of options from a grand set. NN could not be regarded as regulation because it restricts corporate regulation. NN is, therefore, the antithesis of regulation.

  • ...who voted GOP/Libertarian, enjoy paying a lot more to Comcast or Time Warner for your high speed Internet access and throttled to death P2P bandwidth.

  • Vote records? (Score:4, Informative)

    by Undead Waffle (1447615) on Thursday March 10, 2011 @02:42AM (#35439852)

    Is there a site or something that gives the vote records for subcommittees? If these articles are saying it was along party lines someone must have a list. If we can put names to decisions that's a lot more useful than blaming the entire party.

    Assuming this was strictly on party lines here is the site of subcommittees [house.gov], but some apparently didn't vote.

    For the lazy here is the table of members. Take note of whether your representative is on the naughty list.

    Republicans
    Greg Walden (OR) Chair
    Lee Terry (NE) Vice Chair
    Cliff Stearns (FL)
    John Shimkus (IL)
    Mary Bono Mack (CA)
    Mike Rogers (MI)
    Brian Bilbray (CA)
    Charlie Bass (NH)
    Marsha Blackburn (TN)
    Phil Gingrey (GA)
    Steve Scalise (LA)
    Bob Latta (OH)
    Brett Guthrie (KY)
    Adam Kinzinger (IL)
    Joe Barton (TX)
    Fred Upton (MI)


    Democrats
    Anna G. Eshoo (CA)
    Edward J. Markey (MA)
    Michael F. Doyle (PA)
    Doris O. Matsui (CA)
    Jane Harman (CA)
    John Barrow (GA)
    Edolphus Towns (NY)
    Frank Pallone, Jr. (NJ)
    Bobby L. Rush (IL)
    Diana DeGette (CO)
    John D. Dingell (MI)
    Henry A. Waxman (CA)

Wherever you go...There you are. - Buckaroo Banzai

Working...