What's Your PQ? Take the test and find out! 0% Progress: On January 29, 2009, the House passed the Paycheck Fairness Act. The act would continue to allow an employer to pay men and women different wages as long as the reason for the differential is: (i) not explicitly sex-based, (ii) is job-related, and (iii) consistent with business necessity. However, the act would shift the burden of proof toward the employer. That is, if an employer pays men and women differently, then he or she must be able to prove that (i), (ii), and (iii) are true. Democrats favored the bill 246-2. Republicans opposed it 10-161. I would have favored the bill. I can’t decide. I would have opposed the bill. On January 22, 2009, the Senate passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which would alter the statute of limitations for pay-discrimination penalties. Before the Act, the statute of limitations was determined by when the discriminatory-pay decision occurred—i.e. when the employer set the wage for the discriminated-against employee. Specifically, the discriminated-against employee would need to file a charge within 180 days of when the wage was set. The Act would alter this. Instead the employee would only need to file a charge within 180 days of receiving his or her last paycheck. As some claimed, this would add uncertainty to employers’ costs of hiring an employee, since the employer could never be sure if the employee would file a discrimination charge, and the employee could claim back wages potentially for the entire period that he or she worked for the employer. Democrats (including the two independents, Lieberman and Sanders, who caucus with the Democrats) favored the bill 57-0. Republicans opposed it 4-36. I would have favored the bill. I can’t decide. I would have opposed the bill. On January 21, 2009, the House passed the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), which set conditions on how the $350 billion, passed under the 2008 financial-industry-bailout law, could be used. It would require the Treasury department to use at least $100 billion to help mitigate home foreclosures. It would require the Treasury department to provide substantial “bridge loans” to U.S. auto manufacturers. It also would establish the Office of Minority and Women Inclusion, which would ensure that women and minorities would receive their fair share of TARP funds. Democrats favored the bill 241-10. Republicans opposed it 19-156. I would have favored the bill. I can’t decide. I would have opposed the bill. On January 28, 2009, the Senate voted on an amendment, introduced by Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL), to the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). The Martinez Amendment would reinstate the “Mexico City Policy,” which bars U.S. aid to international family planning organizations that perform or promote abortion. Democrats opposed the Amendment 1-57. Republicans favored it 36-3. I would have opposed the amendment. I can’t decide. I would have favored the amendment. On January 28, 2009, the House passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (commonly called “The Stimulus Package”). It would provide over $700 billion in government spending over the next decade to improve America’s transportation, infrastructure, border security, housing, education, energy efficiency and health care programs. The bill also included approximately $275 billion in tax credits for individuals and businesses, including a $400 credit for low-income earners, a credit for first-time home buyers, and a credit for electricity produced from wind facilities. Democrats favored the bill 246-6. Republicans opposed it 0-177. I would have favored the bill. I can’t decide. I would have opposed the bill. On January 29, 2009, the Senate passed the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). The bill would extend health insurance to new, legal immigrant children and pregnant women. The cost would be offset by increasing the federal tax on cigarettes from $.61 to $1 a pack. The act would also limit program eligibility to families earning less than three times the federal poverty level, and would require states to crack down on childless adults covered by the program. Democrats favored the bill 58-0. Republicans opposed it 8-32. I would have favored the bill. I can’t decide. I would have opposed the bill. On February 4, 2009, the House agreed to pass the Senate version of the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). The bill would extend health insurance to new, legal immigrant children and pregnant women. To offset the costs of the program, the federal government would increase the federal tax on cigarettes from $.61 to $1 a pack. The act would also limit program eligibility to families earning less than three times the federal poverty level, and it would require states to crack down on childless adults covered by the program. (Note that this question is identical to question 6.) Democrats favored the bill 248-2. Republicans opposed it 41-137. I would have favored the bill. I can’t decide. I would have opposed the bill. On February 9, 2009, the Senate invoked cloture for its version of the Economic Stimulus package. “Cloture” is a procedural motion, which allows a final vote on a bill. Specifically, it would end the Republicans filibuster of the stimulus package. The package, intended to stimulate the economy, would provide approximately $838 billion in government spending and tax cuts. It would provide fiscal relief for states and tax relief to seniors and people with disabilities. Compared to the House version, the Senate version provided greater unemployment benefits, expanded the homeownership tax credit, and temporarily increased federal Medicaid matching funds. Democrats favored the motion 59-0. Republicans opposed it 2-36. I would have favored the motion. I can’t decide. I would have opposed the motion. On March 5, 2009, the House passed its version of the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act. It included several provisions to combat bankruptcy. It would allow judges to modify interest rates for individuals whose mortgages are greater than the value of their homes, modify criteria of the HOPE for Homeowners program, and raise FDIC depositor insurance to $250,000 permanently. It would prohibit aid to homeowners who committed actual fraud or are able to meet their financial obligations through other credit means, while also establishing the Nationwide Mortgage Fraud Task Force to investigate mortgage fraud. Democrats favored it 227-23. Republicans opposed it 7-168. I would have favored the bill. I can’t decide. I would have opposed the bill. On February 10, 2009, the Senate voted on final passage of its version of the Economic Stimulus package (described in question 8). Democrats favored it 59-0. Republicans opposed it 2-37. I would have favored the bill. I can’t decide. I would have opposed the bill. On March 31, 2009, the House passed the Serve America Act. It would create or expand several government-sponsored community-service programs, including (i) the reauthorization of the Corporation for National and Community Service, (ii) an expansion of Americorps, and (iii) the establishment of Youth Engagement Zones to involve middle and high school students in community service. It would also allow the Secretary of Education to give up to 25 Campuses of Service awards, given to institutions of higher education where “service-learning is an important part of the curriculum.” Democrats favored the bill 248-0. Republicans opposed it 27-149. I would have favored the bill. I can’t decide. I would have opposed the bill. On February 26, 2009, the Senate passed the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act. The act would create a House district for D.C. and simultaneously create an additional House district in Utah. The Utah district would be subject to change or elimination by future censuses. The act would give D.C. one vote in the Electoral College, however it would not give D.C. representation in the Senate. Democrats favored the bill 56-2; Republicans opposed it 5-35. I would have favored the bill. I can’t decide. I would have opposed the bill. On April 1, 2009, the House passed a bill that would limit the bonuses of executives if their company received TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) funds. It granted authority to the Secretary of the Treasury to set standards for such executive compensation, including determining what is “excessive compensation.” Democrats favored the bill 236-8. Republicans opposed it 11-163. I would have favored the bill. I can’t decide. I would have opposed the bill. On March 26, 2009, the Senate passed the Serve America Act. (This is identical to the Act described in question 11.) The act would create or expand several government-sponsored community-service programs, including (i) the reauthorization of the Corporation for National and Community Service, (ii) an expansion of Americorps, and (iii) the establishment of Youth Engagement Zones to involve middle and high school students in community service. It would also allow the Secretary of Education to give up to 25 Campuses of Service awards, given to institutions of higher education where “service-learning is an important part of the curriculum.” Democrats favored the bill 58-0. Republicans favored it 21-19. I would have favored the bill. I can’t decide. I would have opposed the bill. On April 29, 2009 the House passed the Fiscal Year 2010 House-Senate, Conference-Committee version of the Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Resolution (S. Con. Res. 13). The resolution specified that total federal spending would be $3.53 trillion, a 14% increase from the prior year. The resolution also specified an increase in taxes of $361 billion. Democrats favored it 233-16. Republicans opposed it 0-177. I would have favored the resolution. I can’t decide. I would have opposed the resolution. On April 2, 2009, the Senate passed the Reed (R-R.I.) amendment to the Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Resolution. Reed’s amendment would expand the ways that the Obama administration could use TARP funds. In particular, the amendment specified that TARP funds “shall be used to save homes, save small businesses, help the municipal bond market, [and] make credit more widely available.” Democrats favored the amendment 55-3. Republicans opposed it 1-39. I would have favored the amendment. I can’t decide. I would have opposed the amendment. On April 29, 2009, the House passed the Hate Crimes Prosecution bill. The bill would expand the definition of “hate crime” to include felonious acts fueled by intolerance of sexual orientation or gender identity of the victim. The new definition would also include people of different national origins and those with disabilities. The bill would establish grants for local enforcement of hate crime laws, while also increasing the powers of federal law enforcement to intervene in local investigations and prosecutions of hate crimes. Some critics cautioned that the legislation would be a step toward creating such a thing as a “thought crime.” Others criticized the legislation for encroaching upon powers that the Constitution reserves for the states. Democrats favored it 231-18. Republicans opposed it 16-159. I would have favored the bill. I can’t decide. I would have opposed the bill. On April 2, 2009, the Senate passed the Senate version of Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Resolution (S. Con. Res. 13). The resolution set total federal spending to be $3.53 trillion, a 14% increase from the prior year. The resolution also specified an increase in taxes of $361 billion. Democrats favored it 55-3. Republicans opposed it 0-40. I would have favored the resolution. I can’t decide. I would have opposed the resolution. On June 4, 2009, the House passed the Federal Employee Paid Parental Leave Act, which would grant federal employees four weeks of paid leave for a newborn child or a new foster child or adopted child. Democrats favored the bill 233-5. Republicans opposed it 25-149. I would have favored the bill. I can’t decide. I would have opposed the bill. On April 29, 2009, the Senate passed the House-Senate, Conference-Committee version of the Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Resolution. (This is identical to the resolution described in question 15.) This version was almost identical to the Senate version of the resolution (see question 18), except it was amended to become slightly more favorable to liberals and slightly less favorable to moderates and conservatives. Specifically, it deleted a provision that would have (i) reduced the estate tax from 45 percent to 35 percent and (ii) increased the deduction that would not be subject to the tax. Democrats favored the resolution 53-4. Republicans opposed the resolution 0-39. I would have favored the resolution. I can’t decide. I would have opposed the resolution. On June 18, 2009, the House considered a major appropriations bill. Rep. Jerry Lewis, a Republican from Orange County, California, introduced an amendment to the bill that would bar funds to be used to shut down the Guantanamo Bay prison. The amendment would have worked against an executive order that President Obama had issued to close the facility. Democrats opposed the amendment 39-213. Republicans favored the amendment 173-3. I would have opposed the amendment (that is, I would have favored shutting down Guantanamo). I can’t decide. I would have favored the amendment. On April 30, 2009, Senator Richard Durbin proposed an amendment to the Helping Families Save Their Home Act. His amendment, titled “Prevention of Mortgage Foreclosures,” was sometimes called the “cramdown” provision. According to the provision, if a homeowner’s income was low enough (less than 80% of the median income), then a bankruptcy judge could reduce the level of the interest and principle that the home owner owed on a mortgage. Democrats favored the amendment 45-12; Republicans opposed it 0-39. I would have favored the amendment. I can’t decide. I would have opposed the amendment. On June 26, 2009, the House passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act, the main provision of which was to create a “cap and trade system.” Under the system, energy producers would be allotted a cap on the pollutants they could emit, but they could buy credits from other energy producers if they wanted to emit more pollutants. Or, if they emitted fewer pollutants than their cap, then they could sell some of their credits to other producers. The bill set a target of reducing emissions to 83 percent of the 2005 level by the year 2050. The act also included several billions of dollars for incentives for businesses to invest in green technologies. Democrats favored the bill 210-43. Republicans opposed it 8-169. I would have favored the bill. I can’t decide. I would have opposed the bill. On July 16, 2009, the Senate considered the Leahy (D-VT) amendment to the 2010 Defense Department Authorization bill. Leahy’s amendment attached, as a rider, the Mathew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 to the Defense Authorization bill. It defined a “hate crime” as a crime that was perpetrated partly because of the victim’s race, sexual orientation, national origin, religion, or gender orientation. It established grants for local governments to enforce hate-crime laws, and it expanded the role of federal law enforcement to intervene in local investigations. Critics cautioned that the legislation would be a step toward creating such a thing as a “thought crime.” Others criticized the legislation for encroaching upon powers that the Constitution reserves for the states. Democrats favored the amendment 58-0. Republicans opposed it 5-28. I would have favored the amendment. I can’t decide. I would have opposed the amendment. On July 16, 2009, the House passed H.R. 3170, a bill that would appropriate $46.2 billion in fiscal year 2010 for the Treasury Department, the Office of Personnel Management, and other agencies. The bill would provide $12.1 billion for the IRS, a $600 million increase from the prior year. Democrats favored the bill 215-37. Republicans opposed it 4-171. I would have favored the bill. I can’t decide. I would have opposed the bill. On August 26, 2009, the Senate voted on the confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor to be a justice on the Supreme Court. Democrats favored her confirmation 58-0; Republicans opposed it 9-31. I would have favored her confirmation. I can’t decide. I would have opposed her confirmation. On July 31, 2009, the House passed the “Cash for Clunkers” bill (officially named the “Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save” program). It provided $2 billion in vouchers to people who traded in an older, less fuel-efficient car and bought a newer, more fuel-efficient car. Democrats favored the bill 238-14. Republicans opposed it 78-95. I would have favored the bill. I can’t decide. I would have opposed the bill. On October 6, 2009, the Senate considered Al Franken’s (D-MN) amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill. When the amendment was considered, several defense contractors, including Halliburton, had required their employees to sign agreements, specifying that any claims of sexual harassment or civil-rights abuses would first be adjudicated by private arbitration before the employee could file a lawsuit in court. Franken’s amendment specified that if a contractor required such an arbitration agreement of its employees, then that contractor would be barred from receiving federal funds. Democrats favored the amendment 58-0. Republicans opposed it 10-30. I would have favored the amendment. I can’t decide. I would have opposed the amendment. On October 8, 2009, the House passed the 2010 authorization bill for the Defense Department. The bill repealed funding for the F-22A fighter aircraft. It contained a rider that would prohibit funds from being used to transfer any prisoner from Guantanamo Bay Prison to the U.S. It contained another rider, unrelated to any Defense Department issues, that expanded the definition of a “hate crime.” Democrats favored the bill 237-14. Republicans opposed it 44-132. I would have favored the bill. I can’t decide. I would have opposed the bill. On October 29, 2009, the Senate considered the agreement made by the House-Senate conference committee on the Fiscal Year 2010 Interior and Environment Appropriations Bill. The conference-committee agreement appropriated $32.2 billion dollars, a 17% increase over the prior year’s bill. The agreement violated Rule 28 of the Senate, which specifies that the conference committee cannot insert extraneous provisions into its report—that is, all provisions in the report must have been approved in bills passed by the House or Senate or both. John McCain raised a point of order, noting the violation of the rule. Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) asked the Senate to waive the rule (which, according to Senate rules, could be done with a 3/5 vote). Democrats favored waiving the rule 60-0. Republicans opposed waiving the rule 0-40. I would have favored the waiver. I can’t decide. I would have opposed the waiver. On November 6, 2009, the House passed the Chemical and Water Security Act, which would authorize $900 million over the next three fiscal years for counterterrorism efforts regarding the nation’s chemical plants and drinking water. A controversial provision was the “Inherently Safer Technology” requirements, which, many claimed, would create costly mandates for local farm suppliers and would jeopardize the availability of widely used fertilizers and pesticides. Democrats favored the bill 230-20. Republicans opposed it 0-173. I would have favored the bill. I can’t decide. I would have opposed the bill. On November 2, 2009, the Senate considered the Worker, Home Ownership, and Business Assistance Act. Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) introduced an amendment that would extend unemployment benefits by at least 14 weeks to those people who had exhausted their existing 26 weeks of benefits. Democrats favored the amendment 57-0. Republicans favored it 28-2. I would have favored the amendment. I can’t decide. I would have opposed the amendment. On November 7, 2009, the House passed an amendment to the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act (commonly called “ObamaCare”). The amendment’s author, Bart Stupak, was a pro-life Democrat from northern Michigan. The Stupak Amendment, as it is now commonly called, would bar the use of federal funds to pay for abortions in any government provided health plan. Democrats opposed the amendment 63-194. Republicans favored it 177-0. I would have opposed the amendment. I can’t decide. I would have favored the amendment. Before the Senate could vote on Affordable Health Care Act (commonly called “ObamaCare”), it had to agree to invoke cloture (a procedural motion effectively ending debate) on a bill intended to serve as a vehicle for the legislation. The bill, HR 3590, was largely unrelated to health care, but as the Constitution requires, all revenue bills must originate in the House. (Later, Senate Democrats would gut HR 3590 and replace its contents with the ObamaCare bill.) This procedural hurdle was necessary to pass the health care overhaul in the Senate. Democrats favored the motion 60-0. Republicans opposed it 0-39. I would have favored the motion. I can’t decide. I would have opposed the motion. On November 7, 2009, the House passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act (commonly called “ObamaCare”). The bill would overhaul the nation’s health care system. It would require most Americans to purchase health insurance, and it would institute penalties for businesses and individuals not complying with the mandates. It would forbid insurance companies from denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing conditions. It would provide subsidies for lower and middle-class individuals (excluding illegal immigrants) and small businesses. The bill included the Stupak Amendment, which barred the use of federal funds to cover abortion. Democrats favored the bill 219-38. Republicans opposed it 1-177. I would have favored the bill. I can’t decide. I would have opposed the bill. On November 8, 2009, the Senate considered an amendment proposed by Senator Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) to the “Obamacare” health bill. His amendment would have barred federal money to be used to pay for an abortion. Further, federal money could not help pay for any health plan that covered abortions. The Democrats opposed the amendment 7-52. The Republicans favored it 38-2. (Technically, the vote came on a motion by Barbara Boxer to table the Nelson amendment.) I would have opposed the amendment. I can’t decide. I would have favored the amendment. On December 11, 2009, the House passed the Restoring American Financial Stability Act. The bill would significantly increase the regulatory power of the federal government over the financial industry. It would implement the following provisions, among others: (i) All financial companies that deal in “swaps” must register with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and make its records available to the Commission. (ii) It established the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (an idea that originated with the controversial Harvard professor, Elizabeth Warren, whom President Obama later named in a recess appointment to head the agency). (iii) It would require the Securities Exchange Commission to examine the credit-rating companies and determine if the companies’ methods for calculating credit scores adhere to an “established and documented system” for calculating scores. Democrats favored the bill 223-26. Republicans opposed it 0-176. I would have favored the bill. I can’t decide. I would have opposed the bill. On December 15, 2009, the Senate voted on a provision to allow U.S. citizens to import prescription drugs. Most important, it would have allowed citizens to order prescription drugs from Canadian pharmacies, which often sold the drugs at lower prices than U.S. pharmacies. (The provision was the Dorgan amendment to the Reid amendment to the Pharmaceutical Market Access and Drug Safety Act.) Democrats opposed the measure 28-31. Republicans favored it 23-17. I would have favored the provision. I can’t decide. I would have opposed the provision. On December 16, 2009, the House voted to concur with a Senate amendment to the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act. The amendment would appropriate $154.4 billion for infrastructure projects, jobs programs, and aid to state and local governments. Further, it would shift $75 billion in funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to infrastructure projects, the preservation of local government jobs, extended unemployment benefits, and increased federal-government subsidies to Medicaid and COBRA health care premiums. Democrats favored the amendment 217-37. Republicans opposed it 0-175. I would have favored the amendment. I can’t decide. I would have opposed the amendment. On December 24, 2009, the Senate pass the Patient Protection and Affordable Care (“ObamaCare”) Act. The bill would overhaul the nation’s health care system. It would require most Americans to purchase health insurance, It would introduce subsidies for lower and middle-class individuals (excluding illegal immigrants) and small businesses, while imposing penalties for individuals and employers who do not comply with new coverage mandates. The bill would bar the use of federal funds to cover abortion (except in certain circumstances), and it would forbid insurance companies from denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing conditions. It would also expand eligibility for Medicaid and close loopholes in the Medicare Part D prescription drug program. Democrats favored the bill 60-0. Republicans opposed it 0-39. I would have favored the bill. I can’t decide. I would have opposed the bill. You have finished the quiz. Next > < Back

The roll-call votes, on which the quiz questions are based, are chosen by the Americans for Democratic Action (ADA). As Groseclose, Steve Levitt, and James Snyder have argued (see their article in the 1999 volume of the American Political Science Review), it is not proper to compare ADA scores across time or between chambers. The reason is similar to the reasons why teachers sometimes “curve” exams. That is, for instance, if you score a 70 on an exam in the early part of the term and score a 90 on an exam in the later part of the term, then it is tempting to conclude that you became smarter. However, another possibility is simply that the later exam contained easier questions. Consequently, the teacher might “curve” the second exam (i.e. add or subtract points from students’ scores) in order to make scores from the two exams comparable.

The same issues arise with ADA scores. Because the “questions” (i.e. roll call votes) that the ADA chooses differ across years, in some years it may be easier to vote on the liberal side than in other years. Groseclose, Levitt, and Snyder have created mathematical formulas that “curve” the ADA scores. Specifically, the formulas convert each year’s/chamber’s ADA score to a common scale. PQ scores are measured on that scale. (For more details, see chapter 4 of Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind.) Most important, because PQs use those conversion formulas, your PQ is directly comparable to the PQs that I list of politicians (even though some of them were not even alive in 2009, when Congress considered the above issues).

A number of people have asked why I list at the end of each question how the two parties voted. I do this for at least two reasons.

One involves issues of summarizing the roll call votes (on which the questions are based). Many of the roll calls involve legislation that is hundreds of pages long. It is nearly impossible to represent such legislation with a one-paragraph summary. Sometimes, when I would write the summaries, I’d think, “Given that summary, how could anyone vote on the liberal side?” Yet, several members of Congress did on the liberal side. The reason usually was because there was information in the legislation (say, an important amendment to a bill) that would make a person want to vote on the liberal side; however, that information was not included in the summary. The most direct solution to this problem is to include that information in the summary. However, at some point, once one keeps applying that solution, the summaries become very long. As it stands, the summaries are so long that visitors to the web site often become bored with the quiz and stop taking it – only about half actually make it to the end of the quiz. Another solution is simply to list how members of Congress vote. That is, for instance, if the reader can see that almost all Democrats voted on the liberal side of the question, then he or she can correctly infer, “Well, there must be something in the legislation, perhaps not included in the summary, that would make some reasonable people want to vote on the liberal side.” I think it is important that a reader have the necessary information to make such an inference – hence, he or she should be able to see how members of Congress voted.

Another reason is that I want readers to put themselves in the shoes of members of Congress when answering the questions. Related, I want readers to possess the same information that members of Congress possessed when they voted on legislation. When members of Congress vote, they can view a tote board that lists how all previously voting members voted. Of course, in the above questions, I list final vote totals–that is, the totals after all members have voted. Thus, one might argue that the early-voting members did not possess this information when they voted. However, members of Congress are allowed to change their votes. Further, just before time expires for voting, the presiding officer usually asks (and I am aware of only a handful of cases where this was not the case) “Is there anyone in the chamber who has not voted or wishes to change his or her vote?” At that point, when the presiding officer asks that question, members of Congress make their final decision whether they favor or oppose the legislation they are voting on. At that point, simply by looking at the tote board, they know how all other members of Congress have voted on the legislation. I think it is important for readers taking my quiz to have that same information. For this reason I list the vote totals of the two parties.