FAQs about Rep. Kirk

Q: IS IT TRUE MARK KIRK GOT AN A+ FROM THE NEA?

A: No. His actual rating is a B. NEA House Ratings. His website misrepresents the truth. Kirk Misrepresentation

Q: KIRK SENT OUT A LETTER TO ALL CONSTITUENTS ON 6/9/06 SAYING HE WAS AGAINST DRILLING IN ANWR. DIDN'T HE THEN VOTE IN FAVOR OF IT?

A: Kirk voted for a budget bill that opened the Artic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling on 4/28/2005: H Con Res 95 for FY 2006. He also voted to allow drilling in ANWR in a defense appropriations bill on 12/13/05: H Res 639; House vote 666.

Supporters of drilling in ANWR have been persistent - inserting language in several defense and budgetary bills that would open up the Refuge to drilling. For the past two sessions, environmentally conscious legislators have managed to remove the drilling provisions before passage. Kirk has NOT been a leader in these efforts, though he often claims to be.

Q: WHAT IS HIS POSITION ON THE MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION BENEFIT?

A: Kirk voted for H.R. 1, the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003, legislation that enriches drug and insurance companies, while doing nothing to lower the cost of drugs for eligible individuals. Consumer advocacy groups estimate the cost of medicine for most seniors will increase under this program, and many previously insured seniors would be left without coverage.

The CBO
estimated at the time of passage that implementing H.R. 1 would increase direct spending by $119 billion over the 2004-2008 period and by $405 billion over the 2004-2013 periods. The CBO now estimates direct spending will increase by $593 billion over the same 10 year period.

Congressional Republicans, including Kirk, rarely talk about the coverage gap that is affecting most new participants now: between $2,250 and $5,000 of yearly drug costs, there is zero coverage. Kirk also misleads constituents by NOT mentioning HR 1 on his House website, but instead including a link to an earlier bill (HR 4954) that passed the House, but never became law - a bill that did NOT contain the "coverage gap". http://www.house.gov/kirk/issues.shtml

In his public statements, Rep. Kirk emphasizes how responsive his Office has been in helping District Seniors navigate the new system - an odd way to capitalize on the overly complex program he helped create.

Q: WHAT IS HIS POSITION/VOTE ON FEDERAL NEGOTIATION WITH DRUG COMPANIES AND IMPORTING DRUGS FROM CANADA?

A: Kirk voted for a bill that prohibits the Federal government from negotiating with large drug companies to obtain the lowest prices for prescription medications for senior citizens and disabled persons. (HR 1, 6/27/2003 - same as above) Kirk also voted against a bill that would allow importation of cheaper drugs from Canada, H. R. 2427 (2003).

On Jan. 25 this year, however, he answered a question on whether the government should be negotiating drug prices within the new Medicare plan. He said in response: "That's one of the big changes I think we should make. Absolutely the federal government should negotiate for lower prices." Despite this statement, he has not once raised the issue on the House floor nor indicated his support for such a change via legislation.

Q: DID HE SUPPORT $15 BILLION IN CUTS FOR THE VETERANS ADMINISTRATION?

A: In March of 2005, Kirk voted against budget bill amendments that would have restored $2.4 b and $2.9b to the VA for the FY 2006 budget. The resulting bill, which Kirk voted for, cut veterans' medical programs by $16 billion over 5 years.

An amendment Kirk proposed to the budget enforcement bill in mid-2004 would have reduced Veterans Benefits by $22 Billion over 10 years (see below: What Spending Cuts Would He Make?)

Q: WHAT IS HIS POSITION ON PENSION ISSUES?

A: There has been more talk than action in Congress on pension reform, prompted mostly by the Enron debacle and the public's desire to safeguard employee investments in 401(k) plans. Kirk has been inconsistent in the area of pension reform.

In April of 2002 the House passed a bill (HR 3762) that provided some protections for employees, though not nearly what the President seemed to suggest was needed in his State of the Union address in January. Kirk voted FOR this bill, which gave employees the option, with company approval, of selling company stock after being in the pension plan for 3 years. A stronger, substitute bill was offered and rejected. Kirk voted AGAINST this substitute, which would have allowed workers to sell company stock in their plans without company approval.

9/9/03 Kirk voted in support of "cash balance conversions," whereby companies effectively terminate their defined benefit plans.
4/2/04 Kirk voted to allow companies to temporarily reduce contributions to their pension plans.
6/24/05 Kirk voted NOT to protect the United Airlines Flight. Attendants' Pension Plan.
12/15/05 Kirk voted to increase company premiums paid to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation from $18 to $30 per participant.

Q: WHAT SPENDING CUTS WOULD HE MAKE TO BALANCE THE BUDGET?

A: Kirk says he wants to cut spending in lower priority accounts, but his actions have not supported his rhetoric of prudence. Instead, he has voted to cut domestic programs while continuing to allow massive tax cuts.

Kirk has voted for budgets proposed by President Bush that have exploded the national debt and led to devastating cuts in spending on education, and on health benefits for veterans and senior citizens. (H Con Res 95, 3/21/2003, H Con Res 95, 3/17/2005)

In 2004, Kirk filed an amendment to the budget enforcement bill that would have exempted tax cuts from fiscal discipline and allowed unlimited future tax cuts, while requiring large cuts in domestic programs. The proposal, in the form of a substitute for legislation coming to the House floor (H.R. 3973), would have significantly cut entitlements over the next 10 years.

Congressional Budget Office data show that the Kirk entitlement cap would force cuts of $445 billion over the next 10 years. If all entitlements were cut by the same percentage, Medicaid would have to be cut by $175 billion, military retirement and disability programs by $28 billion, veterans' benefits by $22 billion, Supplemental Security Income for the elderly and disabled poor by $27 billion, the Earned Income Tax Credit and refundable Child Tax Credit for working poor families by $21 billion, and the school lunch and child nutrition programs by $10 billion. (Center of Budget and Policy Priorities, 6/23/04, "Kirk Amendment To Budget Bill Would Require Large Domestic Program Cuts While Exempting Tax Cuts From Fiscal Discipline," http://www.cbpp.org/6-23-04bud2.htm

Q: IS IT TRUE THAT NO BILL HE AUTHORED HAS EVER PASSED? IF SO, ARE THERE ANY OTHER REPRESENTATIVES WHO HAVE SERVED FOR THREE TERMS WHO HAVEN'T HAD ANY BILLS PASSED?

A: YES - NO BILL HE HAS AUTHORED HAS EVER PASSED.

There are currently 30 three-term Republicans in the House, of which Kirk is one. This could reasonably be considered the "Kirk Cohort". They have operated in an opposition-free environment for nearly 6 years, with their Party in control of the White House and both branches of Congress. Kirk is among 11 of these Members who have NEVER sponsored and passed a bill. All 37 Kirk-sponsored bills have died in committee.

Kirk is one of four who are on the "powerful" Appropriations Committee, and he is one of five who are members of the House Leadership. Eric Cantor (Va.) and Mike Rogers (MI), Majority Whips, have each sponsored and passed legislation. Ferguson and Otter, the other two "Assistant Majority Whips", have both sponsored and passed bills.