When Congress votes to pass legislation, sometimes there is a mere single holdout. Sometimes that lonely voice in the darkness can grow into a chorus over time — for example, Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA13) was the only House member to vote against the Authorization for Use of Military Force three days after the 9/11 attacks, but a 2013 measure to repeal that AUMF received 157 votes in favor.

In the current Congress, which bills passed with only one dissenting vote? And why did that Congress member dissent? GovTrack Insider contacted all the dissenting members of Congress to find out. The reasons included everything from spending concerns to a mistaken ballot that should have been a “yes” vote.

District of Columbia Courts and Public Defender Service Voluntary Separation Incentive Payments Act

H.R. 5037 passed the House 413–1 in September. The bill, introduced by Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), would create an early retirement buyout package for employees in the District of Columbia court system, with a maximum individual payout of $25,000. Since the District of Columbia is a federal territory, locals issues such as this one must be approved by Congress, and Norton, the District’s delegate to Congress, cannot even participate in the vote.

Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA4), the lone hold-out.

The lone holdout was a representative from the other side of the country, Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA4):

“The bill…gives employees in the District of Columbia courts and public defender’s office up to $25,000 to take early retirement. I watched what happens with programs like this in California: the employees take the windfall, collect the pension, wait out the revolving door time limit (in this case, five years) and then sign on with the same or other agencies,” Rep. McClintock told us. “In a private business, if an employee isn’t worth what they’re being paid, they’re first counseled and if necessary, fired. In government, they get rewarded.”

The bill currently awaits a vote in the Senate.

Small Business Capital Formation Enhancement Act

Ever since 1980, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has convened the Government-Business Forum on Capital Formation to discuss and make recommendations for improving small business access to capital. Introduced by Rep. Bruce Poliquin (R-ME2), H.R. 4168 would require the SEC to conduct an annual publicly-released assessment of that forum to determine which actions suggested, if any, they intend to implement.

Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI5), the lone holdout.

It passed the House in February by 390–1, with Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI5) the lone holdout:

“The Congressman had fiscal concerns about the bill,” a spokesperson for Rep. Sensenbrenner told GovTrack Insider in response to why the congressman voted against it.

A follow-up asking what specific fiscal concerns the congressman had about the bill was not returned by deadline. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated the bill would cost very little: less than $500,000 over the next five years, and would not increase deficits in any of the next 10 years.

The bill is currently awaiting a vote in the Senate.

A bill to require the Department of Transportation to provide three business days’ notice on grants and emergency allocations

H.R. 5977 passed the House 424–1 in September. The bill, introduced by House Transportation Committee Chair Rep. Bill Shuster (R-PA9), would require the Department of Transportation to provide three business days’ notice to Congress of any emergency fund allocations or grants worth $750,000 or more.

Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS1), the lone holdout

Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS1) was the lone holdout:

“I am concerned this provision encourages more earmarks and deals behind closed doors among Washington insiders,” Rep. Huelskamp said in a statement to GovTrack Insider. “With nearly $20 trillion in federal debt, it is time Congress focused on balancing the budget, not ‘bringing home the bacon’ today and sticking the bill to our children and grandchildren.’”

Congress officially banned earmarks in 2011, although some bills that are pork barrel spending by another name have still been considered and passed. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated the costs of this bill would be negligible.

The bill awaits a vote in the Senate.

Opioid Program Evaluation Act [OPEN Act]

H.R. 5052 passed the House 410–1 in May. Introduced by House Majority Leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA23), the bill would require the Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services to evaluate the effectiveness of grant programs intended to address issues related to opioid and heroin abuse.

Rep. José Serrano (D-NY15), the lone holdout

The lone holdout was Rep. José Serrano (D-NY15).

A staffer in Serrano’s office referred GovTrack Insider to remarks published in the Congressional Record the day after the vote, noting that Rep. Serrano voted in error. “Mr. Speaker, during Roll Call Vote number 181 on H.R. 5052, I mistakenly recorded my vote as Nay when I should have voted Yea,” Serrano explained in a statement printed in the Congressional Record for May 11, the day after the vote. How exactly Serrano voted in error was never explained.

The bill awaits a vote in the Senate.

Veteran Emergency Medical Technician Support Act

H.R. 1818 passed the House 415–1 in May, with Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI1) the lone holdout.

Introduced by Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL16), the bill would provide grants to states to improve the process and training for veterans with emergency medical experience to transition to similar jobs in civilian life. The bill awaits a vote in the Senate.

Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI1), the lone holdout

Amash’s office responded to a request for comment after we initially published this article. Amash said,

“The bill creates a new $30 million grant program to bribe certain states into changing their licensing practices for emergency medical technicians — not to facilitate commerce (indeed, only certain states would even be eligible for the funding), but rather in an effort to boost particular hiring numbers. Such grants divert the time and resources of state and local governments to federal priorities that localities might not otherwise pursue or might pursue using alternative strategies that better fit their needs.”

(After we originally published Amash’s statement, which was after the first publication of this article, Amash’s office sent us a second, revised statement. Since the two statements did not differ substantively, and the revised statement was a clearer explanation of Amash’s vote, we’ve updated this article with the second statement.)