Category: Zinke for US House District 1

Where the Candidates Stand on Women’s Reproductive Rights

Montana becomes eighth state with ballot measure seeking to protect abortion rights

A majority of Montanans support women’s reproduction rights (also known as “freedom of choice” and “a woman’s right to make her own reproductive decisions” and “abortion access”).

A 25-year-old state Supreme Court ruling protects abortion rights in Montana. That has not stopped Republicans and anti-abortion advocates from trying to institute a ban.

Polls in 2007 and 2014 by the Pew Research Center found that a majority of Montanans said that abortion should be legal in all or most cases.

In 2022, Montanans rejected a ballot measure that would have “raised the prospect of criminal charges carrying up to 20 years in prison for health-care providers unless they take ‘all medically appropriate and reasonable actions to preserve the life’ of an infant born alive, including in the rare case of a birth after an abortion.”

In a 2023 poll, six in ten Montana voters overall said that abortion should be legal in all or many circumstances.

A 2024 poll from the Rural Democracy Initiative shows that 74% of rural voters in 10 battleground states, including Montana, agree with the statement “we should trust women and their doctors when it comes to abortion, not politicians.” 

“A study published [on June 24, 2024] in the pediatrics journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA Pediatrics) shows that the idea of returning women to roles as wives and mothers by banning abortion has, in Texas, driven infant death rates 12.9% higher.”

A Montana district judge recently issued a ruling, permanently blocking three Montana laws from the 2021 legislative session that tightened abortion restrictions.

A Montana district judge recently issued a temporary restraining order blocking HB 575 from the 2023 legislativeve session which requires sll patients in Montana to undergo an ultrasound before getting an abortion.

Similarly, a Montana district judge has temporarily blocked HB 721 from the 2023 legislative session which banned a specific abortion procedure commonly used after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

So, where do the candidates stand?

The following quotes concerning women’s reproductive rights are taken from and linked to the candidates’ websites, books, interviews, and speeches. The abortion-related votes of candidates who served in the 2023 legislative session are also presented. It is noteworthy that no candidate is a “supporter” of abortion. What differentiates the candidates is whether they believe that government should be making decisions for women and their doctors forced to confront the question.

It is also noteworthy that Democrats generally disclose their positions on abortion access on their campaign websites and Republicans often do not. For that reason, quotes are available from a limited number of candidates.

US Senate Candidates

Jon Tester (D)-“As women’s access to health care is being restricted and reproductive freedoms are under attack across the country – including Montana – it is more important than ever to have a champion for women in the U.S. Senate.” Jon cosponsored “Women’s Health Protection Act of 2023: “To protect a person’s ability to determine whether to continue or end a pregnancy, and to protect a health care provider’s ability to provide abortion services.”

Tim Sheehy (R)-“It’s really frustrating how, you know, we have one party in this country that seems to be bent on murdering our unborn children and taking that, taking that tack, you know, in a very militant way.”

US House Congression District 1 Candidates

Monica Tranel (D)-“I trust women and families to make their own decisions about how they live their lives.” “This is about privacy and freedom. And I am the only candidate in this race who stands unequivocally with you for your privacy, to make your own health care decisions, to make decisions about your body, and to decide when, whether and how you will become a mother or a parent and how to use your resources.” “Every person should have the freedom to choose how they live their life, and the privacy to make decisions about whether they have children, who they love, and how they live their lives.”

Ryan Zinke (R)-“Again, I wish the abortion wasn’t there, but life isn’t perfect. And I understand there’s a lot of circumstances that force a woman into that very difficult decision. But I’m pro-life and I’m proud of it. ”

Montana Governor Candidates

Ryan Busse (D)-“Ryan is an unapologetic defender of the freedom of health care and reproductive choice, and of Montana’s constitutional right to privacy. He believes no politician has any right to make private health care decisions for women, including whether to have an abortion.”

Greg Gianforte (R)-“I’m proud to round out our legislative session with another suite of pro-life, pro-family bills that protect the lives of unborn babies in Montana,” Gianforte said in a written statement about the bill signings.

Montana State Senate District 30 Candidates

Cora Newman (D)-A state district court judge has deemed that three laws passed in 2021, meant to tighten restrictions on abortion, are unconstitutional. “So I would say this is a big win for families and women. For Montana families who want to decide how and when to start a family, to grow their family. And it’s a big win for women’s health.”

Tyler Rogers (R)-No online presence.

Montana State Senate District 33 Candidates

Chris Pope (D)-HB 140 would require a doctor to offer a patient seeking an abortion the opportunity to see an ultrasound. Requiring a doctor to record whether a woman chooses to view the ultrasound is a “deep governmental intrusion into a woman’s right to privacy.” Voted NO on HB 575 which bans abortions based on gestational viability, presumed at 24 weeks and noted NO on HB 721 which prohibits most second-trimester abortions by barring dilation and evacuation procedures. Bills signed into law by Governor Greg Gianforte.

Neal Ganser (R)-No online position.

Montana State House District 57 Candidates

Scott Rosenzweig (D)-“Respect for personal privacy.”

Marty Malone (R)-“Protect the unborn.” Voted YES on HB 575 which bans abortions based on gestational viability, presumed at 24 weeks and noted YES on HB 721 which prohibits most second-trimester abortions by barring dilation and evacuation procedures. Bills signed into law by Governor Greg Gianforte. Bills signed into law by Governor Greg Gianforte.

Montana State House District 59 Candidates

Ed Stafman (D)-“Neither the government nor religious agenda should overrule a woman’s conscientious decision, made with her physician and spiritual advisers, about pregnancy before a fetus is viable.” Voted NO on HB 575 which bans abortions based on gestational viability, presumed at 24 weeks and noted NO on HB 721 which prohibits most second-trimester abortions by barring dilation and evacuation procedures. Both bills were signed into law by Governor Greg Gianforte. Stafman sponsored HB 471, a bill which would have given women the right to seek an abortion based on her religious or spiritual beliefs on the subject, even where a state law may prohibit it. He also voted YES on several bills that sought to preserve and/or codify existing abortion rights in Montana and has been endorsed by Planned Parenthood.

Marc Greendorfer (R)-“There should be a right to abortion, but it should be limited to certain gestational periods, exactly as is the case in most other American states as well as European countries.” The foregoing statement describes the three unconstitutional laws passed by the Republican-controlled 2023 Montana legislature that would ban abortions beyond 20 weeks of gestation. Also, Greendorfer was a lawyer in the Hobby Lobby case before the US Supreme Court, where he successfully argued that corporations have religious rights to refuse to include contraceptives in their employee health insurance policies. He is also a member of The Federalist Society that produced the list from which all Trump supreme court justices were selected, all of whom are opposed to abortion rights and voted to overturn the federal abortion right under Roe. He also argued in the Supreme Court against same sex marriage. At present, his front yard includes yard signs for Zinke and Sheehy, both of whom oppose abortion rights.

Montana State House District 60 Candidates

Alanah Griffith (D)-“This election is critical to protect the right to privacy in medical decsions from government overreach.  I am the only candidate running for SD 60 who will preserve that right.”

Jerry Johnson (R)-No online presence.

Montana State House District 61 Candidates

Becky Edwards (D)-“The Montana constitution proudly ensures a right to privacy for all residents. The Supreme Court roll back of Roe v Wade and the subsequent state by state diminishment of the simple human right of a woman’s ability to care for our own bodies and seek appropriate healthcare is devastating.”

Thomas Carlson (R)-No online presence.

Montana State House District 62 Candidates

Joshua Seckinger (D)-“I staunchly defend a woman’s right to make her own healthcare decisions, including the right to choose whether to terminate a pregnancy. Access to safe and legal abortion services is crucial for women’s autonomy, health, and well-being. I will tirelessly advocate for policies that protect reproductive rights, including ensuring access to comprehensive reproductive healthcare, contraception, and family planning services. No one should face barriers or judgment when seeking reproductive healthcare, and I am committed to upholding the constitutional right to privacy and bodily autonomy for all individuals.”

Owen Lang (R)-“Protect the right to life.”

Montana State House District 63 Candidates

Peter Strand (D)-“Each of us should be able to make decisions about our own health without political interference. We should trust women to know what’s best for their bodies, their physical and mental health, and their lives. Likewise, we should trust parents to make decisions related to the physical and mental health of their children. While medical professionals belong in these discussions, politicians do not.”

Mark Lewis (R)-No online position.

Montana State House District 64 Candidates

Kelly Kortum (D)-Voted NO on HB 575 which bans abortions based on gestational viability, presumed at 24 weeks and noted NO on HB 721 which prohibits most second-trimester abortions by barring dilation and evacuation procedures. Bills signed into law by Governor Greg Gianforte.

Jolene Crum (R)-No online position.

Montana State House District 65 Candidates

Brian Close (D)-“I support Reproductive Freedom, the Right to Privacy, and Personal Autonomy.”

Esther Fishbaugh (R)-“As a champion of life, I believe in protecting the unborn and honoring the dignity of every human life from conception to natural death. I’m proud to have earned the endorsement of the Montana Family Institute for my unwavering stance on this critical issue.”

Montana State House District 66 Candidates

Eric Matthews (D)-Voted NO on HB 575 which bans abortions based on gestational viability, presumed at 24 weeks and noted NO on HB 721 which prohibits most second-trimester abortions by barring dilation and evacuation procedures. Bills signed into law by Governor Greg Gianforte.

Marla Davis (R)-No online position.

Montana State House District 67 Candidates

Carl Anderson (D)-“Privacy is a Montana Constitutional Right protecting us from overreach by activist government that is under attack by those who want to take away rights to abortion, contraception, and equality. Women have a Constitutional Right to control their own bodies, which I fight to protect.”

Jedediah Hinkle (R)-Voted YES on HB 575 which bans abortions based on gestational viability, presumed at 24 weeks and noted YES on HB 721 which prohibits most second-trimester abortions by barring dilation and evacuation procedures. Bills signed into law by Governor Greg Gianforte.

Montana State House District 68 Candidates

Alexander Colafrancesco (D)-No online position.

Caleb Hinkle (R)-Voted YES on HB 575 which bans abortions based on gestational viability, presumed at 24 weeks and noted YES on HB 721 which prohibits most second-trimester abortions by barring dilation and evacuation procedures. Bills signed into law by Governor Greg Gianforte.

 

 

 

 

 

MT Rep. Ryan Zinke Joins Off Leash, a Secret, Global, Far-Right Group

Private military contractor Erik Prince (Blackwater) started a private WhatsApp group for his close associates that includes a variety  of right-wing government officials, intelligence operatives, arms traffickers, and journalists. Montana Representative Ryan Zinke recently joined in a group chat.  Zinke’s statements to the group are quoted below in context:

The No. 1 target on Off Leash’s hit list, by orders of magnitude, was Iran. “Follow the source of evil,” wrote Montana Congressman Ryan Zinke, who served as interior secretary under Trump. “Hamas. Hezbollah. Houthis. Iran is the center of gravity.”

“Zinke is right,” agreed Tennessee Congressman Mark Green of the House Freedom Caucus.

. . .

In May, their fury turned to Biden’s brief pause in arms shipments to Israel, though none were surprised by the president’s treachery, as his “Regime is infiltrated by Muslim Brotherhood” (Yudelson) and “compromised … by Iranian regime influencers” (Zinke).

. . .

Despite such trepidations, Congressman Zinke spoke for the group when he wrote, “There is only one path forward. Elect Trump.”

“It’s Trump or Revolution!” Yudelson chimed in from the chorus.

“You mean Trump AND Revolution,” a right-leaning Canadian businessman shot back. “The Left is too violent to sit back and let Trump win again.”

. . .

Yet none of the four current and former members of Congress who are active in the group distinguished themselves as model public servants. In 2018, Zinke resigned as Trump’s secretary of the interior after an Inspector General’s report concluded he was a serial violator of ethics laws.

Zinke’s participation in the group chat was described in one of Heather  Cox Richardson’s Letters from an American, a newsletter about the history behind today’s politics.

The proverb is true:  A man is known by the company he keeps.

 

Ryan Zinke Forced to Resign as Trump’s US Interior Secretary

President Trump nominated Ryan Zinke to be Interior Secretary at the urging of Trump’s son, Don Jr.  Famously, Zinke marked the occasion of his assuming office by riding up to the Department HQ on a horse (with his cowboy hat on backwards unfortunately) and by setting a rule that the Department must hoist its flag at the HQ every time he was there.

Zinke was chastized multiple times by the Interior Department Inspector General for ethical lapses during his tenure.  Eventually, Trump accepted Secretary Zinke’s resignation. It was remarkable that even Trump who set an historical record for number of lies told in office apparently considered Zinke too unethical to serve as his Interior Secretary.

Here is an example of one of the Inspector General’s reports on Zinke’s telling lies to Department investigators.

 

Loopholes in Rep. Zinke’s “Public Lands in Public Hands” Bill

Rep. Ryan Zinke’s new bill, HR 7430, Public Lands in Public Hands Act contains many loopholes that are big enough to drive a fracking truck through. Here are some of them:

The law would not prohibit changing the boundaries of national monuments to allow development. Thus, vastly reducing the size of two national monuments, Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante, carried out by Ryan Zinke when he was Trump’s Secretary of the Interior to allow oil, gas, and coal extraction would not be prohibited.

Neither does the bill include the Blackfoot Clearwater Stewardship Act. Supported by 84% of registered voters in Montana, the bill will protect the four most important tributaries of the Blackfoot River and ensure that grizzly bears, Canada lynx, elk, native trout, and other fish and wildlife can thrive.

The law would prohibit transfer of title of “publicly accessable tracts” or tracts that are “contiguous” with publicly accessable land.  Furthermore, if any Federal tract was less than 300 acres in size (a little less than a half square mile which is 320 acres in size) or less than five acres in size and accessible via a public waterway, and if the transfer of title was “authorized to be transferred under and subject to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976,” the prohibition would not apply. Thus, the law would not prohibit sale or other transfers of larger less-accessible “land-locked” tracts.

The law would only prohibit “transferring title to Federal land to a non-Federal entity.” The law would not prohibit transferring an exclusive easement or a lease or other arrangement to manage such land to a non-Federal entity.

The law would apply only to “Federal land managed by the Secretary of the Interior or the Chief of the Forest Service.” Land managed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps), and other Federal  agencies would not be protected.

The law would not prohibit transfers of title to limited-in-size tracts (described above) that are authorized by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. That act allows Federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management to be sold to private parties (Sec. 203 of the Act) or conveyed to States and their political subdivisions (Sec. 211 of the Act) under the conditions set forth in the Act.

The law would not prohibit transfers of title “authorized by—(A) the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998; (B) the Sisk Act (16 U.S.C. 479a); (C) Public Law 85–569, commonly known as the “Townsites Act of 1958”; (D) the Small Tract Act of 1983; (E) the Act of May 17, 1906, commonly known as the “Native Allotment Act of 1906”; (F) Public Law 85–508, commonly known as the “Alaska Statehood Act of 1959”; (G) the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act; (H) the Alaska Native Vietnam-era Veterans Land Allotment Program authorized by section 1119 of the John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act; (I) the Recreation and Public Purposes Act; or (J) the Weeks Act of 1911; 3) explicitly authorized by Federal law; or (4) completed through a land exchange authorized by Federal law.” So, passage of the bill with all these loopholes would change US law little, if any.

To clear up a misunderstanding about the bill, the following statement is not correct:  “The bill also requires congressional approval for disposals of publicly accessible federal land tracts larger than 300 acres and for public land tracts larger than five acres, if accessible via a public waterway.” Under current law, (which the bill would not amend) only if the tract is larger than 2,500 acres in size, congressional disapproval of a proposed sale of public land must occur within 90 days via an adopted concurrent resolution of the House and the Senate. (Good luck with that these days!) Also, under current law, (which the bill would not amend) conveyances of public lands to States or their political subdivisions are not subject to congressional approval or disapproval at all.

Thus, the bill is “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” It would not change existing law in ways that would achieve its stated purpose of keeping “public lands in public hands.” Unfortunately, the bill appears to be no more than a disingenuous marketing communication by Rep. Zinke’s 2024 campaign. As noted elsewhere on this website, Rep. Zinke has never gotten a bill passed that he introduced so maybe the bill is just 2024 general election propaganda.

To muddy the waters even further,  Outdoor Alliance reported that Rep. Zinke’s voted for a House rules package that governs how the House will operate during 2023 and 2024, calling it a land heist. That rules package (H. Res. 5) contains the provision quoted below (Section 3g) that  enables public land transfers to be treated as “budget neutral”—so that lawmakers can more easily transfer, sell off, donate, or exchange public lands. (Typically, laws are scored to see how they would affect the federal budget and their cost to taxpayers. This new rule will automatically score all land transfer measures as budget neutral.)

(g) SCORING CONVEYANCES OF FEDERAL LAND.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—In the One Hundred Eighteenth Congress, for all purposes in the House, a provision in a bill or joint resolution, or in an amendment thereto or a conference report thereon, requiring or authorizing a conveyance of Federal land to a State, local government, or tribal entity shall not be considered as providing new budget authority, decreasing revenues, increasing mandatory spending, or increasing outlays.
(2) DEFINITIONS.—In this subsection:
(A) The term ‘‘conveyance’’ means any method, including sale, donation, or exchange, by which all or any portion of the right, title, and interest of the United States in and to Federal land is transferred to another entity.
(B) The term ‘‘Federal land’’ means any land owned by the United States, including the surface estate, the subsurface estate, or any improvements thereon.
(C) The term ‘‘State’’ means any of the several States, the District of Columbia, or a territory (including a possession) of the United States.

In his voting for H. Res. 5, it sure appears like Rep. Zinke is comfortable “talking out of both sides of his mouth” about keeping public lands in public hands.

Rep. Zinke Is Not Showing Up for Roll Call Votes

We believe the adage “just showing up is half the battle” applies to showing up for roll call votes in Congress, as it does to other aspects of life. GovTrack.us tracks the number of roll call votes that members of Congress miss during each session of Congress.  GovTrack.us is  one of the oldest government transparency websites in the world.

The missed vote records of Montana’s current members of Congress are quoted below in the order of most career missed roll call votes to least career missed roll call votes.

Rep. Ryan Zinke

“From Jan 2015 to Apr 2024, Zinke missed 132 of 2,311 roll call votes, which is 5.7%. This is much worse than the median of 2.0% among the lifetime records of representatives currently serving.” Rep. Zinke missed 1.9 % of roll call votes during January-March 2024 and 4.0% of roll call votes during April 2024.

Sen. Steve Daines

“From Jan 2015 to Apr 2024, Daines missed 87 of 3,264 roll call votes, which is 2.7%. This is on par with the median of 2.8% among the lifetime records of senators currently serving.” Sen. Daines missed 10.5% of roll call votes during January-March 2024 and zero percent of roll call votes during April 2024.

Sen. Matt Rosendale

“From Jan 2021 to Apr 2024, Rosendale missed 20 of 1,876 roll call votes, which is 1.1%. This is better than the median of 2.0% among the lifetime records of representatives currently serving.” Rep. Rosendale missed  zero percent of roll call votes during January-March 2024 and zero percent of roll call votes during April 2024.

Sen. Jon Tester

“From Jan 2007 to Apr 2024, Tester missed 53 of 5,760 roll call votes, which is 0.9%. This is better than the median of 2.8% among the lifetime records of senators currently serving.” Sen. Tester missed zero percent of roll call votes during January-March 2024 and zero percent of rol call votes during April 2024.

And the Winner Is:  Sen. Jon Tester

So, the winner of our Showing Up contest is Sen. Jon Tester and the loser is Rep. Ryan Zinke.  These results are consistent with our analysis of the lawmaking effectiveness of the members of Montana’s congressional delegation, with Sen. Jon Tester ranked first and and Rep. Ryan Zinke ranked last.  You will note (no surprise here) that there is a strong relationship between showing up and lawmaking effectiveness.

How the House of Representatives Could Select Our Next President

If no candidate gets a majority of the 538 electoral votes, a “contingent  election” for President is decided in the House of Representatives, with each state delegation having one vote. A majority of states (26) is needed to win. Senators would elect the Vice President, with each Senator having a vote. A majority of Senators (51) is needed to win.

 The risk of contingent election is increased by the presence of “third party” candidates that are capable of winning electoral votes, driving down the balance of electoral votes  available to the two major parties below 538 electoral votes. For example, if the third party candidates won eight electoral votes, the two major parties could tie at 265 electoral votes each, triggering a contingent election.  Similarly, if the third party candidate won eight electoral votes, one major party candidate received 266 electoral votes, and the other major party candidate received 256 electoral votes, a contingent election would be triggered.

House delegations can cast their vote for president from among the three candidates receiving the most electoral votes, while Senators are limited to the top two candidates in their vote for Vice-President.

In this partisan era, it is a reasonable assumption – at least to start – that the vast majority of members would vote along party lines.

As of late September, 2023, Republicans hold a 26-22 edge in House delegations. Two states, Minnesota and North Carolina, are evenly split.

However, it is the members of Congress elected in November, 2024, and seated in January, 2025 that would take on this responsibility.

Determination of the presidency could hinge on a single House seat. Which party controls the House always matters, but in the context of a contingent election, those stakes become monumental: The party with a majority of seats can set the rules that govern the contingent election. Republicans currently hold a narrow majority of seats in the 118th Congress, but Democrats could easily make gains in 2024.

In the contingent election context, which party controls individual seats takes on outsized importance since a single member could determine whether a state delegation registers support for one candidate or another, or fails to meet the threshold for any candidate. As a result, the majority party in the 119th Congress could have strong incentives to delay or refuse to seat members of the opposite party, if doing so could alter the outcome in pivotal state delegations.

 

Lawmaking Effectiveness of Members of Montana’s Congressional Delegation

Year after year (in congress after congress) montanans have been blessed to be served by a very effective lawmaker, Senator Jon Tester. Jon has learned how to reach across the aisle to craft bipartisan solutions to the grave and complex problems facing America nationally and Montana in particular.

And don’t just take our word for it. The nonpartisan Center for Effective Lawmaking has crunched the numbers and proven that Jon gets things done (gets bipartisan laws passed) way better than the rest of the members of our congressional delegation (and way better than American lawmakers overall).

How  Good Are Our US Senators and Representatives at Advancing Their Bills through the Legislative Process?

Effective representatives and senators are good at moving the bills they sponsor (research, negotiate, write, and introduce) through the legislative process to become laws.  An analysis of the effectiveness of our current and recent US representatives and US senators is prepared every two years by the non-partisian Center for Effective Lawmaking. A summary of the methodology used by the Center is as follows:

“To calculate the Legislative Effectiveness Score for each member of the U.S. House and Senate, we draw on fifteen indicators that collectively capture the proven ability of a legislator to advance her agenda items through the legislative process and into law. More specifically, to calculate Legislative Effectiveness Scores for the House, we identify the number of bills that each member of the House of Representatives sponsored (BILL); and the number of those bills that received any action in committee (AIC), or action beyond committee (ABC) on the floor of the House. For those bills that received any action beyond committee, we also identify how many of those bills subsequently passed the House (PASS), and how many became law (LAW).”

Below is a table that presents the Center’s findings about Montana’s members serving in both the Senate and House of Representatives for the 114th through 117th congresses. (A lawmaking effectiveness rank of 1 means that all other members of the member’s party are less effective than the member ranked # 1.) For the mid-year results for bills (HR. and S.) for the current (118th) congress, we pulled “to-date” data manually from the government’s Library of Congress website, Congress.gov.



Congress

Number		Sen Tester (D)Sen Daines (R)Rep Rosendale (R)Rep Gianforte (R)Rep ZInke (R)
118th 2023-2024
No. of bills sponsored so far5438407
No. that became law so far3000
117th 2021-2022
Rank within party22522
No. of bills sponsored635026
No. that became law1302
116th 2019-2020
Rank within party41925
No. of bills sponsored 784517
No. that became law210
115th. 2017-2018
Rank within party31582
No.of bills sponsored635317
No. that became law220
Who Is Our Only True “Lawmaking Workhorse” in Congress?

You guessed it. Senator Jon Tester is our most effective member of Congress. In fact, the Center recently ranked Jon second among all of the Democratic senators in lawmaking effectiveness in the 117th Congress. None of our other members of Congress were in the top ten of either party.

The Center also recently identified our Jon Tester as the senator with the longest streak (six congresses) of exceeding expectations in effective lawmaking.

Highlights from the New 117th Congress Legislative Effectiveness Scores

To be fair you will note that the Center’s definition of lawmaking effectiveness only covers being good at conceiving, researching, negotiating, and writing bills and making sure that those bills successfully become laws.  It does not cover being good at preventing Congress from getting things done. For example, our Senator Steve Daines was almost successful at orchestrating a filibuster of Jon’s Honoring Our PACT Act, thereby preventing a vote on the final House version in the Senate. When Montana and other veterans rose up in anger in large numbers, the very same bill eventually became law.  The law provides healthcare for all generations of toxic-exposed veterans (and monthly compensation for veterans whose injuries prevent them from making a living). The other members of our congressional delegation at the time (Sen. Daines and Rep. Rosendale) cynically bragged (Sen. Rosendale even sent out postcards paid for by taxpayers) that they voted for the PACT Act, but they fought its passage tooth and nail until it was clear the bill would pass.

So, in many ways, the 2024 general election will tell us whether Abraham Lincoln was correct when he said “You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.”

A new report ranks how effective lawmakers were during the 117th Congress in advancing bills. Here’s the top 10 lawmakers in each party and chamber.

Ryan Zinke in the News

You can verify what this website discloses about Ryan Zinke by visiting the following other websites:

Shameful BIlls Sponsored by Ryan Zinke

Ryan Zinke, US Representative for Montana’s 1st Congressional District, has sponsored the following bills and amendments that do not reflect Montana values:

H.R. 2611 would  prohibit the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Secretary of State, as applicable, from approving any application for or issuing a nonimmigrant or immigrant visa to nationals of Palestine.

H.Amdt.303 would prohibit funding for administering, implementing, or enforcing Executive Order 14057 (Catalyzing Clean Energy Industries and Jobs Through Federal Sustainability). A Democrat member of the House described the executive order is “a whole-of-government approach for addressing climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and transitioning to clean energy and sustainable technologies. It ensures that we set responsible targets for how we invest our Federal dollars to incentivize the private sector to expand on these technologies, and it creates unionized jobs.”

H.R.6528 would amend the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 and the Federal land Policy and Management Act of 1976to prohibit any additional consultation from being required with respect to: (1) the listing of a species as threatened or endangered, or a designation of a critical habitat, if a land management plan has been adopted by the Department of Agriculture as of the designation date; or (2) any provision of such an adopted plan.

H.R.5259 would terminate the moratorium on the issuance of new federal coal leases by the BLM on January 16, 2019.

H.R.2358 would require the Department of the Interior and the USDA to apply their respective categorical exclusion processes under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) to any plans developed on existing transmission and distribution rights-of-way located on lands under their respective jurisdictions. (A “categorical exclusion” under NEPA is a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and which have been found to have no such effect in procedures adopted by a federal agency in implementing environmental regulations and for which, therefore, neither an Environmental Assessment nor an Environmental Impact Statement is required.)