TRUTH TEST: Ad claims Udall voted to raise taxes 50 times

KUSA - Throughout the 2008 election season, 9NEWS is committed to holding those who take out political commercials on our station accountable for what they say.

The following is a Truth Test on a recent ad targeting U.S. Senate candidate Mark Udall (www.markudall.com). It is being run on stations throughout the Denver area, including on 9NEWS and My20, and focuses on Udall's economic record.

Udall is currently a U.S. Representative for Colorado's 2nd District, which includes Adams, Jefferson, and Summit Counties. He is running against Republican Bob Schaffer (www.bobschafferforsenate.com) to fill the seat Sen. Wayne Allard (R-Colorado) will be leaving at the end of this term.

The ad is paid for by Coloradans for Economic Growth, an organization registered with the Colorado Secretary of State as a Charitable Organization. As a 501 (C) 4, the group is a non-profit that can take partisan action provided their larger mission is "social welfare." (http://www.sos.state.co.us/ccsa/ViewReports.do?ceId=34832 and IRS tax code: www.irs.gov)

"You Don't Know Udall" is 30 seconds long. Its claims against Udall are tested below.

QUOTE: You might think you know where Mark Udall Stands. But you don't know Udall. Udall voted for higher taxes at least 50 times (citation: Congressional Quarterly Voting Records, 1999-2005)

TRUTH: This is not true and certainly needs context.

Coloradans for Economic Growth supported these citations on their Web site (http://cegnow.org/you-dont-know-udall), and included a listing of all of the records they are referring to in the ad. The list includes 50 different votes from 17 different bills and resolutions.

Udall's campaign responded to the ad online on their campaign blog, and with an ad of their own defending their candidates record. Their response can be found http://www.markudall.com/page/community/post/webmaster/VG9.

9NEWS cross-checked the ad's list with the official Congressional Record, found online at http://thomas.loc.gov/, and found the following information:

The votes ranged from passing of entire bills, to whether certain amendments should be included in those bills, and to how House committees should deal with the proposed laws. Not all votes directly impacted whether a piece of legislation got passed or related to the actual content of the issue.

Of the 50 different votes on measures presented by Coloradans for Economic Growth as evidence of their claims against Udall's record, 23 votes actually referred to the content of certain bills or resolutions.

Of those 23, only two support the ad's claims.

Of the other 21 votes, its accuracy may depend on your definition of "voting for" higher taxes. In those cases, raising taxes was never the issue at hand, cutting taxes was.

These citations are worth reviewing to further clarify the ad's claim.

All of this requires additional context, which is provided below.

The specific vote Coloradans for Economic Growth cites is Roll Call vote #305. According to records, this vote was called to maintain a decision made by the chair of the House. The chair had ruled in favor of a point of order against a proposed amendment to the legislation by Rep. David Obey (D-Wisconsin). Obey challenged the ruling and whether the chair's decision stood went up to a vote. Udall voted in the minority against the chair and the amendment itself was never voted on (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll305.xml).

The text of the amendment was obtained through an e-mail to 9NEWS from the legal team for Coloradans for Economic Growth. Mario Nicolais of Hackstaff Gessler, LLC, found the Obey amendment proposed to increase Homeland Security Funding by $1 billion. This additional funding would be offset by reducing tax breaks for high income earners.

Roll Call vote #305 was essentially a procedural vote and it is not telling of Udall's opinion on raising or lowering taxes. Nicolais says that Coloradans for Economic Growth included the vote "because Udall was essentially voting for an income tax increase to offset new spending." It must be noted that even if Udall would have had the chance to vote on the amendment and he voted yes, he would have only voted to increase taxes on one group of American taxpayers: those making over $1 million per year.

H.R. 2488, or the Financial Freedom Act of 1999, is the first bill listed as a reference. It proposed to reduce tax rates for individuals. It did not address raising any taxes. While it was ultimately passed by both the House and the Senate, former President Bill Clinton vetoed the bill and so it did not become law (http://thomas.loc.gov/).

In total, seven votes were cited. Of those votes, only two specifically regarded the bill's passage, and thus indicated Udall's position on the issue. According to record, Udall did vote against the passage of the law in July 1999. After the bill passed in the Senate and a conference report to move to the president, Udall voted against the final version of the law in August. In this sense, Udall did vote to not cut taxes, but due to the nature of the bill, he also did not vote for higher taxes. His position only indicates a vote to keep tax rates at the status quo.

The other five votes addressed rules and procedure that the House uses when it is in session. These cannot be viewed as voting for higher taxes, or even for the content of the bill, but rather the process in which the legislation was to go through Congress.

House Resolution 83 is the next citation, and it proposes to consider H.R. 3, which is a bill referred to by the ad. A resolution is not meant to propose law, but instead aims to direct action by the House of Representatives on different issues. This particular resolution moved to ask the House whether H.R. 3, should be considered (http://thomas.loc.gov/). Both the resolution and the legislative proposal were debated in 2001 during the 107th Congress.

For the resolution's citation, the ad refers to four different votes Udall participated in. Three of them addressed rules and procedure, so they did not directly relate to any representative's specific position. One vote, however, did indicate Udall's opinion. He voted no on passing the resolution, effectively staking him against H.R. 3. He was in the minority, so the bill was ultimately debated and voted on in the House.

H.R. 3., or The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act, proposed to amend the Internal Revenue tax code of 1986 by reducing tax rates and revising the brackets within which individuals could file under. It also moved to revise the cost of living formula in tax year 2007. This bill was passed in the House, but didn't move much past Committee in the Senate, and so it was never signed into law. Some of its provisions were incorporated into other bills that became law, which were cited later in this ad (http://thomas.loc.gov/).

Four of Udall's votes in regard to H.R. 3 are listed by Coloradans for Economic Growth. Two of them once again referred to rules and procedures and did not necessarily indicate issue positions.

Roll Call vote no. 42, which was actually a vote for a proposed amendment to the bill. Rep. Charles D. Rangel (D-New York) proposed different tax reductions and increases in tax credits to certain groups, as well as different forms of relief and deductions to married couples (http://thomas.loc.gov/). More specifically, Rangel proposed to create a new, general 12 percent tax rate for the first $20,000 of taxable income, which would have been a decrease from the standard 15 percent rate at the time.

9NEWS consulted Rex Logemann, instructor at the Graduate Tax Law Program at the Sturm College of Law at the University of Denver, who confirmed that this amendment, as a whole, moved to reduce taxes. Udall voted in support of the amendment. His support infers that he did not vote for higher taxes in this particular instance.

However, the next vote cited in this section of the ad was in regard to H.R. 3 in its entirety. The Rangel Amendment did not pass, and so it was not present in the final version of the bill Udall voted on. According to Congressional record, Udall voted no on passing the bill. He was on the minority side of a mostly party-line vote, and so the proposed legislation did pass out of the House (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll045.xml), but only reached committee in the Senate.

Many of its provisions were repackaged into the next bill cited in the ad: H.R. 1836, or the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act. This 2001 bill ultimately became Public Law No. 107-16, and created new tax reductions (http://thomas.loc.gov/).

According to Logemann, it ushered in a 10 percent tax rate for the first $12,000 of taxable income for married couples and $6,000 for single filers. This was a reduction from the previous standard of 15 percent. The legislation also called for the 10 percent rate to be indexed for inflation. Logemann confirmed that for 2008, the law stands at taxing 10 percent of the first $16,050 for married couples and $8,025 for single filers.

There are four Udall votes of note from this specific piece of legislation out of the six that Coloradans for Economic Growth cited.

Roll Call vote #117 regarded another amendment by Rangel. The amendment proposed to create a one-time-rebate for those who paid taxes in 2001, anywhere from $300 to $600 depending on whether the filer was single or married. It also proposed to modify tax credit and make individual tax reductions (http://thomas.loc.gov/).

According to records, Udall voted yes on the amendment. This indicates his position on this portion of the issue to be in favor of reducing tax rates and in returning money to taxpayers. Therefore, it is not proof of his votes to make taxes higher. The amendment failed and was not a part of the final version of H.R. 1836 (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll117.xml).

When Udall voted on the overall bill, he did vote no (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll118.xml). After the bill returned to the House with changes from the Senate, Udall continued to vote against the proposal, as cited by Coloradans for growth (see vote #148 on House Resolution 153 http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll148.xml and vote #149 http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll149.xml). As stated above, provisions in H.R. 1836 did seek to reduce taxes. Udall's "no" vote indicates his position on not reducing taxes, but it also does not necessarily suggest he would raise taxes. Instead, this particular vote may show he wanted to maintain the status quo.

The next two events that are cited are Udall's votes on House Resolution 270 and H.R. 3090. The resolution, again not regarding the rule of law, asked for the consideration for legislative proposal, H.R. 3090, which focused on providing tax incentives for economic recovery. This proposal ended up passing into law in March 2002.

Between these two events, five of Udall's votes are cited. Three of these votes directly affected, or tried to directly affect, the direction of the proposed legislation. Roll Call votes #400 and #403 only regard House rules and procedures.

Udall voted against the resolution that asked to consider H.R. 3090, indicating his opposition to the proposed legislation (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HE00270:@@@X).

H.R. 3090 sought to provide tax incentives for economic recovery. The bill addressed business, depreciating property, unemployed persons, as well as individuals within "distressed areas." When it was written and debated in 2001 and 2002, it focused specifically on a zone of New York City heavily impacted by the September 11th attacks. It instituted changes to the tax code that provided for allowances or deductions to people within these specified groups. These provisions can be considered a tax reduction (http://thomas.loc.gov/). Udall's votes against the legislation were indicative of his opposition to these reductions, but also did not prove that he would instead raise taxes.

Rangel also proposed an ultimately failed amendment to this legislation as it was being debated. His amendment specified tax rebate amounts for certain filers, as well as provisions to extend education funding and expanding unemployment benefits. The Congressional Record was unclear in spelling out how this would affect tax code. Udall did vote yes on this amendment, but its content did not end up in the final law (http://thomas.loc.gov/).

The combination of these cited votes, from the Resolution, to the bill itself, and on an amendment, do reveal Udall's opposition to certain tax reductions. However, they do not necessarily imply he would rather vote for higher taxes, as this issue was not addressed in any available record of these actions. In this sense, the ad's claim is not completely accurate.

The next citation is House Resolution 319, which shows Udall voting no on something not legally binding. This resolution is also not necessarily regarding any specific economic bill or issue; it only refers to House rules and procedures, waiving some requirements for the House to consider other resolutions. It does not prove that Udall voted for higher taxes (http://thomas.loc.gov/).

House Resolution 320 and H.R. 3529 are the next two citations offered by Coloradans for Economic Growth. Both were debated during the 107th Congress in late 2001. The resolution (320) asked the House to consider the proposed legislation within H.R. 3529. Udall voted no to Resolution 320, effectively casting his opposition to the legally binding bill. He was in the minority (http://thomas.loc.gov/).

H.R. 3529, also called the Economic Security and Worker Assistance Act of 2001, proposed to provide tax incentives to help displaced workers. Like H.R. 3090, discussed above, it specifically addressed individuals affected by the September 11th attacks, but also sought to provide tax incentives for individuals and families experiencing unemployment. In regard to the tax code, it proposed to provide for a new rebate, as well as accelerate the tax rate for low-income individuals (http://thomas.loc.gov/). Simply put, it offered to provide new ways to lower the tax burden for certain groups.

One of the votes cited in the ad only impacted the rules and the procedures for the House, asking whether the bill should be sent back to committee. That motion failed, so Roll Call vote #509 asked whether the bill should be passed by the House. This is the vote that mattered to the content and direction of the legislation. Udall voted "no," stating his opposition to the ideas presented in the bill. The bill still passed, and moved onto the Senate, where it was also passed. However, no action was taken to send it to the White House, so it has never made it into law (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HR03529:@@@S).

For this issue, Udall did vote against these specific tax reductions, arguably defending current tax rates, which were higher than the propositions in the bill. Still, it does not follow that he necessarily voted for higher taxes.

The next cited votes were in regard to H.R. 622 was the Economic Security and Worker Assistance Act of 2002, an attempt to try and move some of the provisions discussed in H.R. 3529 and make them law. Those provisions included accelerating the tax rate for low-income individuals and supplementing tax rebates by providing more money to people who did not receive the maximum rebate in 2001. It expanded the language regarding these topics and others discussed in the earlier proposition (http://thomas.loc.gov/).

Three votes were cited in regard to this bill; two of them actually only related to House Resolution 347, which asked for consideration of the larger bill. The first vote on the Resolution dealt with House rules and procedures, so did not really stake anyone's opinions on the issue. The second vote asked whether the entire bill should be considered, at which point Udall placed a "no" vote (see Roll Call votes #36 and 37, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HE00347:@@@X).

The next cited vote is on the bill, but specifically regarded approving the amendments offered by the Senate. It was among one of the final votes on the proposed legislation, which ultimately passed, but still did not move on to the White House. Many of these provisions were rolled into H.R. 1836, which is discussed above and is a law that ultimately reduced taxes (http://thomas.loc.gov/).

In Roll Call vote #38 regarding H.R. 622, Udall voted no on agreeing to the Senate amendments and to the legislation as a whole (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll038.xml). Just as in late 2001, Udall did not vote to reduce taxes, but he also did not necessarily vote for higher taxes, as the ad claims.

The 11th issue cited in the ad is House Resolution 390, also not regarding a legally binding text. It asked the House to consider a Senate Amendment, legislation known to the Representatives as H.R. 586. The ad only refers to two of Udall's votes on Resolution 390, one of which regarded House rules and procedures (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HE00390:@@@X). Udall did vote against considering the Senate Amendment in the cited Roll Call vote #102 (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll102.xml).

To clarify, H.R. 586 was proposed legislation that came from the Senate. It asked the House to make permanent the tax reductions passed in Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:H.R.1836). The proposed law had also initially addressed help foster families with new tax forms of tax relief. The House considered these new tax incentives and ultimately approved the Senate's amendment to law. Udall's vote against this measure suggests he did not want to reduce taxes in this instance, but it was also not objectively a vote for higher taxes, either.

The next nine votes cited by Coloradans for Economic Growth regard one piece of proposed legislation from the 108th Congress, Udall's third term in office. H.R. 2, or the Jobs and Growth Reconciliation Tax Act of 2003, moved to accelerate the previously determined tax reductions from 2001, phasing in those reductions sooner than the original act stipulated (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HR00002:@@@D&summ2=m&).

The first two votes cited in the ad refer to House Resolution 227, again only asking the House to consider the bill. Only one of those votes, Roll Call #179, actually mattered to the passage of the resolution and asked anyone to state their opinion on the issue. Udall voted against the resolution, stipulating his opposition to the proposed legislation (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll179.xml).

When the actual legislation faced the House, Udall, unsurprisingly, voted against it (see Roll Call #182, http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll182.xml). Roll Call votes #180 (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll180.xml) and #181 (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll181.xml) were also cited by the ad, but only referred to the rules and procedures of the House, meaning these citations did not have direct impact on the content of the bill as the ad claims. Udall's vote against the legislation did pit him against accelerating already existing tax reductions, but did not put him in the position of advocating for higher taxes. These reduced tax rates were already in place and would have phased in as scheduled by the original law regardless of Udall's vote. The ad, when considering this, is still off-base in its claim about Udall's record.

The bill ultimately passed through the House, as well as the Senate, and was returned to the House in the form of a conference report, or agreement between both chambers of Congress on the final version of the bill. Votes regarding this leg of the bill's journey through Congress were also cited in the ad.

Roll Call votes #211 and #212, referred to by Coloradans for Economic Growth, did not matter to its passing in either chamber or the final version of the bill. These votes were on House Resolution 249, which is not at all linked to the legislation discussed above. Instead, it was a Resolution aimed to waiving a rule in the House with regard to resolutions presented by certain committees. Udall voted against the resolution, which, as stated before, has nothing to do with the legislation surrounding it in the ad (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HE00249:@@@X). This does not prove anything, either way, about Udall's record on increasing or decreasing taxes.

Votes #224 and #225 are the final votes regarding H.R. 2 that are cited in the ad. It regards a Resolution to consider the Congressional Conference Report, which Udall voted against (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll224.xml), and finally, on whether to pass the Congressional Conference report. Udall voted against the agreement between the Senate and the House and thus rejected the overall legislation (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll225.xml). Still, the Jobs and Growth Reconciliation Tax Act of 2003 passed and was later signed by President George W. Bush. It is now Public Law #108-27 (http://thomas.loc.gov/).

Udall's rejection of this acceleration of already existing tax-reductions follows in line with his votes from 2001. While he does not vote to further reduce taxes, he is not necessarily advocating for higher taxes. This further fails to prove the ad's original claim.

The next citation, H.R. 2555, was already discussed as not being related to this issue. See above.

The 14th issue cited is the next vote Coloradans for Economic Growth use to back up their claim that Udall has voted for higher taxes. This particular citation does not support the claim. It is Roll Call vote #156 on House Resolution 637. This non-binding resolution was asking to consider H.R. 4257 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HE00637:@@@X).

This would have been relevant, but Coloradans for Economic Growth cited a vote deciding on rules and procedures and not offering much guidance to any representatives' specific opinions (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2004/roll156.xml). There was no recorded vote on the passing of the resolution, so it is unknown whether Udall would have voted for or against it.

H.R. 4275 was offered as the next citation from the 108th Congress in 2004, which moved to permanently extend the 10 percent tax rate passed in 2001. Basically, it proposed to make these tax cuts permanent and have the lowest income bracket include more individuals (http://thomas.loc.gov/).

The ad cites only a vote Udall made on a proposed amendment to the bill presented by Rep. John S. Tanner (D-Tennessee). The proposal agreed to make permanent the lower tax rate and also offered to provide benefits to those paying an alternative minimum tax.

To offset the costs of these tax cuts for lower 10 percent of income earners, Tanner also moved to adjust the tax rate for households whose income is over $1 million. Effectively, Tanner wished to raise taxes on high income earners to maintain the lower rate for the lower tax bracket (http://thomas.loc.gov/).

Udall voted for this amendment. In accordance with the ad's claim, this action did vote for higher taxes for certain groups, but also extended tax reductions for other groups. Therefore, the ad's claim is somewhat accurate, but does not take into consideration the entirety of the proposal. Ultimately, the amendment failed (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2004/roll169.xml).

What's interesting is that despite the exclusion of this amendment in the final bill, Udall did vote yes on H.R. 4275. As discussed above, this legislation proposed to make the 2001 tax cuts permanent and be more inclusive of low income earners. This vote disputes the claim of Coloradans for Economic Growth and shows Udall voting to reduce taxes (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2004/roll170.xml). The bill was never voted on in the Senate.

House Resolution 685 is the next citation, and refers to Roll Call vote #301, where Udall voted for revising a budget resolution that was facing Congress. The resolution did not pass, though, and so the budget resolution was not reconsidered, and not linked to the record as cited (http://thomas.loc.gov/). It does not show much related to Udall's record on taxes.

House Con. Resolution 95 is the last cited issues in this portion of the ad, and includes one vote Udall made for another amendment offered by Rep. Obey early in the 109th Congress. The overall resolution addressed the budget for 2006 and revising previous budgetary levels (http://thomas.loc.gov/).

Obey's amendment proposed to reduce the tax benefit for those earning over $1 million, effectively increasing taxes for those in a high-earning income bracket. Udall voted for this amendment, again voting for higher taxes. However, if this amendment made it into law, or into a position that affected law (which it didn't), it would have only impacted one group of taxpayers, which the ad fails to acknowledge. Still, this is an example where Udall voted for higher taxes (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll082.xml).

QUOTE: Udall is fighting of the biggest tax increase in history (CG 2005 vote #621, 2006 vote #135, #425)

TRUTH: This comes down to how you define a tax increase. It certainly needs some context.

The commercial addresses three different votes on two different pieces of proposed legislation, both from the 109th Congress. It is important to note that it was the Congressional session from 2005-2006. The ad does not cite any evidence from the current session of Congress, so whether Udall "is" fighting for the biggest tax increase in history is debatable.

However, what is not debatable is that the measures in question, addressed tax cuts, not tax hikes. In each case, Udall voted against the tax cut, but the measures did not literally call for a tax increase.

Roll Call votes #621 from 2005 and #135 from 2006 both refer to H.R. 4297, or the Tax Relief Extension Reconciliation Act, which proposed to not only extend reductions from previous laws; it also aimed to help provide new or extended tax credits (http://thomas.loc.gov/). Udall did vote against this resolution when it was first seen in the House in 2005 (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll621.xml). When it passed in the Senate, a conference agreement was brought back to the House, and Udall voted against the conference in May 2006 (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll135.xml).

This vote is showing Udall's opposition to this set of tax reductions, but whether it's a fight for a tax increase is arguable, at best. The bill did pass into law and is Public Law #109-222.

Roll Call vote #425 regards H.R. 5970, or the Estate Tax and Extension of Tax Relief Act. Debated in 2006, this proposition addressed one of the largest tax areas in existence: estate taxes. It also included provisions to extend tax deductions and improve rate reductions. A raise in minimum wage was also included. The bill never made it out of Congress (http://thomas.loc.gov/).

Udall voted against the proposition, again indicating his opposition to the ideas in this bill (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll425.xml). The bill did not speak to any specific tax hikes, and does not necessarily indicate that Udall would vote for higher taxes. This bill also did not necessarily relate to any historically large tax increase, which is why it fails to fully support the ad's claims.

QUOTE: Udall stood with extremist groups and voted to block bipartisan energy reforms that could lower gas prices (Graphic: higher gas taxes) (citation: The Denver Post 5/6/08, The Pueblo Chieftain 5/7/08)

TRUTH: This is opinion that refers to fact and requires context.

The articles discussed in this segment of the ad refer to Udall's public stance against the idea of a gas-tax holiday from the federal 18.4 percent gas tax. "Dueling fuel philosophies on a collision course," from the May 5 The Denver Post, discusses different proposals and debates happening in Congress addressing high fuel prices (http://www.denverpost.com/ci_9163832h).

The next article, "Two views on skyrocketing fuel prices" was published in The Pueblo Chieftain on May 7, but is only available on their website for purchase. 9NEWS obtained a copy of the article, and it further explains that Udall and other members of the Colorado delegation are opposed to the gas-tax holiday.

Each article addresses Udall's reasoning and the article in the Chieftain also included a response from Udall's Senatorial opponent, Bob Schaffer. Neither article includes references to groups, extremist or otherwise, that Udall is agreeing with. These are the only facts that the actual television ad cites, both of which do not fully support the ad's claim.

On their Web site, Coloradans for Economic Growth lists further evidence to support this claim. In its listing, the organization discusses several of Udall's policy positions and actions, including voting to block domestic oil drilling in Alaska. Such policy moves, according to the group, have helped to heighten what Americans are paying for gas.

Further down in their citations, they address the "extremist groups" referred to in this claim. They mainly point to The Sierra Club and The League of Conservation Voters, two environmentally-focused interest groups, both of whom have supported Udall and generally align with his positions on the environment. Those positions oppose drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska, as well as other propositions dealing with domestic drilling. While both groups have strong opinions about environmental issues and do stand with Udall in some regards, to call these groups "extremist" is opinion.

QUOTE: If you think you know where Mark Udall stands, then you don't know Udall. Call Mark Udall. Tell him to stop raising taxes and start standing for Colorado.

TRUTH: This is opinion.