Brian Walsworth

Transcription

Brian Walsworth

Mike Coffman (CO-06) Research Book
The following report contains research on Mike Coffman, the Republican candidate in Colorado’s 6th district.
Research for this research book was conducted by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s
Research Department between February and May 2016.
By accepting this report, you are accepting responsibility for all information and analysis included. Therefore,
it is your responsibility to verify all claims against the original documentation before you make use of it.
Make sure you understand the facts behind our conclusions before making any specific charges against
anyone.
Table of Contents
Introduction / Executive Summary ............................................................ 4
Introduction / Executive Summary ............................................................ 4
Key Moments on Video ........................................................................... 66
Personal Finances .................................................................................... 70
Professional Career .................................................................................. 83
Political Career ........................................................................................ 87
… State Legislator ................................................................................... 91
… State Treasurer .................................................................................... 94
… Secretary of State .............................................................................. 107
… Congressman..................................................................................... 119
Birther Scandal ...................................................................................... 124
… Headlines from Birther Scandal ........................................................ 127
Government Shutdown .......................................................................... 128
Theme – Saying One Thing, Doing Another ......................................... 139
Theme – Typical Politician .................................................................... 158
Theme – Part of Culture of Corruption .................................................. 169
Theme – Fiscally Irresponsible .............................................................. 184
Theme – Bad for Colorado .................................................................... 192
Theme – Partisanship ............................................................................. 203
Abortion and Family Planning Issues .................................................... 207
Agriculture and Food Safety Issues ....................................................... 224
Budget Issues ......................................................................................... 233
Campaign Finance and Election Law Issues .......................................... 262
Crime and Public Safety Issues.............................................................. 267
Defense And Military Issues .................................................................. 278
Earmark Issues ....................................................................................... 294
Economic Stimulus and Financial Bailout ............................................. 297
Education Issues .................................................................................... 303
Energy Issues ......................................................................................... 314
Environmental and Wildlife Issues ........................................................ 333
FEMA and Disaster Relief Issues .......................................................... 367
Finance and Consumer Protection Issues ............................................... 375
2
DCCC Coffman Research Book Last Updated May 2016
Foreign Policy Issues ............................................................................. 390
Gay and Lesbian Issues.......................................................................... 402
Gun Issues ............................................................................................. 407
Healthcare Issues ................................................................................... 413
House Administration and Member Perks Issues ................................... 441
Housing Issues ....................................................................................... 453
Immigration and Border Issues .............................................................. 461
Labor Issues ........................................................................................... 483
Local Issues ........................................................................................... 493
Other Social Issues ................................................................................ 499
Science and Technology Issues.............................................................. 502
Seniors’ Issues – Medicare, Medicaid and Prescription Drugs .............. 508
Seniors’ Issues – Social Security Issues ................................................. 512
Small Business Issues ............................................................................ 517
Tax Issues .............................................................................................. 520
Terrorism and Homeland Security Issues .............................................. 536
Trade Issues ........................................................................................... 558
Transportation Issues ............................................................................. 568
Veterans’ Issues ..................................................................................... 577
… Aurora VA Hospital Construction Crisis .......................................... 585
Women’s Issues ..................................................................................... 599
Working Family Issues .......................................................................... 611
Appendix I – Paid Media Summary ....................................................... 618
Appendix II – Campaign Finance .......................................................... 634
Appendix III – Problems with Outside Groups ...................................... 641
Appendix IV – Official Spending .......................................................... 643
Appendix V – 2016 Presidential Election and Donald Trump ............... 650
3
Introduction / Executive Summary
Introduction / Executive Summary
Said He Was Proud To Be A Member Of The Party Of No
Said He Was Proud To Be A Member Of The Party Of No. In 2010, Coffman said he was a “proud
member of the party of no.” At a Tea Party Express event, Coffman said, “Good afternoon Colorado. I
am a proud member of the party of no. If voting against a unconstitutional health care bill is being a
member of the party no then I am proud to be a member of the party of no. If voting against the
reckless spending in Washington that is burying this country in debt and putting a crushing burden on
the children and grandchildren and generations yet burn in this country is called about being a member
of the party of no then I am proud to be a member of the party of no. If opposing this country becoming
a European style social welfare state means being a member of the party of no then I am a proud to be a
member of the party of no,” Coffman said. [Tea Party Express Event, YouTube 3/31/10]
Said Former Congressman Tom Tancredo Was His “Hero”
Said Former Congressman Tom Tancredo Was His “Hero.” In 2010, Coffman said former
Congressman Tom Tancredo was his hero. “It is a great honor for me to introduce, somebody that is my
hero. Somebody that has served this country with honor and integrity and courage. Somebody when the
republican establishment in Washington went so and violated the principles that got them elected, who
did not stand with them and that is former congressman Tom Tancredo,” Coffman said. [Tea Party
Express Event, YouTube 3/31/10]
Coffman Spokeswoman: Coffman Would “Obviously” Support The Republican Nominee
When Asked If Coffman Would Support Republican Nominee, Spokeswoman Said “Obviously
Yes.” “‘Will Mike Coffman support the Republican nominee over Bernie or Hillary?’ said campaign
spokeswoman Kristin Strohm. ‘The answer is obviously yes.’” [Colorado Statesman, 2/02/16]
HEADLINE: “Top Colorado Republicans Silent On Support For A Trump Nomination”
[Denver Post, 3/03/16]
... One Month Later, Spokeswoman Said Coffman “Is Not Commenting On A Hypothetical.”
“None of Colorado’s GOP members of Congress took an anti-Trump stance when asked by 9NEWS
whether they would support the billionaire’s insurgent bid for president if he ends up winning the
Republican nomination … Rep. Mike Coffman and Rep. Ken Buck both declined to answer.
Coffman (who has endorsed Marco Rubio) ‘is not commenting on a hypothetical,’ his
spokeswoman Cinamon Watson told 9NEWS, though he did offer some criticism in a written
statement.” [9 News, 3/07/16]
December 2015: Dodged Question On Whether Or Not He Would Support Donald Trump As
Republican Nominee, Said He Was “Not Going To Go There.” “After Trump’s anti-Muslim
proposal, Rep. Mike Coffman of Colorado released a statement saying he aims to ‘represent all of the
citizens of my district,’ but didn’t specifically address Trump. His office declined an interview request,
and when reached at the Capitol, Coffman said, ‘Call my office,’ before ducking into the House
4
chamber. Coffman endorsed Sen. Marco Rubio in the primary, but he told Roll Call he was ‘not going
to go there’ when asked if he would support Trump as the nominee.” [The Atlantic, 12/22/15]
Criticized “Double-Dipping” Public Employees For Accepting Pension Benefits While Earning
Wages, Said Americans Must “Make Sacrifices”; … But From 2009 To 2015, Coffman Received
State Pension And Congressional Salary
2004: Criticized “Double-Dipping” Public Employees For Receiving Retirement Benefits While
Continuing To Earn Wages. In 2004, Coffman announced plans to curb the practice of public
employees “double-dipping” by taking retirement benefits while continuing to earn wages doing work
from which they retired. “Taxpayers deserve better from those serving in government,” he said. [Rocky
Mountain News, 11/05/04]
2011: Called For An End To Pensions For Members Of Congress. “Republican Rep. Mike Coffman
says members of Congress should follow millions of American workers and give up their pensions.
Coffman says that pensions should continue for current congressional pensioners, and be frozen for
lawmakers already vested in the pension plan.” [Associated Press, 8/24/11]
2013: Introduced Legislation to End Congressional Pensions. In 2013, Coffman introduced
legislation “to amend Title 5, United States Code, to provide for the termination of further
retirement benefits for Members of Congress, except the right to continue participating in the Thrift
Savings Plan, and for other purposes.” According to a press release from Coffman’s office,
“Congress needs to set an example for the country and I believe that ending our pension plan would
be a good start.” [H.R. 423, Introduced 1/25/13; Rep. Mike Coffman press release, 1/24/14]
2012: Said the American People Are Going to Have to “Make Sacrifices” And Congress Must
“Lead by Example.” In January 2012, during a House Oversight and Reform hearing, Coffman spoke
in support of his bill (H.R. 2913) that would eliminate the federal pension program for lawmakers. He
said:
We in the Congress are going to have to exercise extraordinary leadership in navigating this
country out of our debt crisis and in doing so, we’re going to have to ask the American people
to make sacrifices to include federal employees and even our military. And, so it is about
leadership. And if there’s one thing I learned in both the United States Army and the Marine
Corps about leadership, it was about leading by example. Never ask anyone to do anything
that you yourself would not be willing to do. [YouTube, House Oversight and Government
Reform Committee hearing, 10:58 – 11:33, 1/25/12]
… But Coffman Simultaneously Received State Pension And Congressional Salary. “The most
outspoken critic of the federal pension system for members of Congress is already collecting $55,546 a
year from Colorado's state pension program. … [T]he 58-year-old is collecting money from the
Colorado Public Employees Retirement Association from his time working for the state, including stints
as Colorado's secretary of state and treasurer in the mid 2000s, according to 2012 financial disclosures.”
HEADLINE: “Pension Critic Rep. Mike Coffman Already Gets PERA Money” [Denver Post,
7/09/13]
5
Received More Than $1.3 Million From State Pension And Congressional Salary Between 2009
And 2015. From 2009 to 2015, Coffman had earned both a state pension and a Congressional salary:
Year
State Pension
Congressional Salary
Total
2009
$54,000.00
$174,000.00
$228,000.00
2010
$55,000.00
$174,000.00
$229,000.00
2011
$55,000.00
$174,000.00
$229,000.00
2012
$55,546.80
$174,000.00
$229,546.80
2013
$57,224.00
$174,000.00
$231,224.00
2014
$58,367.70
$174,000.00
$232,367.70
TOTAL:
$335,138.50
$1,044,000.00
$1,379,138.50
[Rep. Coffman’s Personal Financial Disclosures, 5/25/10, 5/24/11, 5/15/12, 5/15/13, 5/20/14,
5/15/15; CRS, 9/07/11]
Voted to Increase His Per Diem by 29 Percent
Voted to Increase His Per Diem by 29 Percent. In 1989, Coffman voted for a bill that would increase
the per diem paid to member of the general assembly for their attendance at meetings of the legislative
council, the committee on legal services, or interim committees from $75 to $99 – a 32 percent
increase. It would also increase the per diem paid to members per legislative day for members who
reside in the Denver metropolitan area from $35 to $45 – a 29 percent increase. [HB 1214, 2/27/89]
Taxpayer Watchdog Called the “Vote of Shame.” In 1989, the Colorado Union of Taxpayers
labeled the per diem increase as a “Vote of Shame.” The group wrote, “The Vote of Shame: 1989
HB 1214: While ‘We The People’ reduced the Legislative session to 120 days because we believe
that less government is better government, our politicians voted themselves year round pay through
‘Interim Committees’; and, to add taxes to insult, increased their tax free per diem by 41%, up to
$99 a day. They also increased regular session pay by a like amount at a time when the cost of
living increase was 5%. On top of this largess the politicians voted themselves Tax Free Travel
expense reimbursements, figured from the remotest point in their districts – a place where many
have never visited. C.U.T. believes these politicians place their own greed over a responsible
spending of Our Tax Dollars. Where are the Statesmen?” [Colorado Union of Taxpayers scorecard,
1989-1990]
Served on State Boards But Failed to Show Up
Served on Board of State’s Deferred Compensation Plan. By 1998, Coffman had served as a board
member on Colorado’s Deferred Compensation plan. The plan was established in 1981 “to provide state
employees and officials with a means of investing a portion of their state compensation on a taxdeferred basis.” [Denver Post, 7/12/98; Accountants’ Report of Deferred Compensation Plan, 7/30/07]
… But Missed Two-Thirds of Its Meetings. According to a 1998 analysis by the Associated
Press, Coffman missed two thirds of the meetings of the state’s Deferred Compensation plan over
the past three years. Coffman said that he made the important votes. [Associated Press, 10/03/98]
6
Later Claimed Experience at Selecting Investment Options. In 1998, Coffman said that because
he served on board of the state’s Deferred Compensation plan, he had experience at selecting
investment options in which public employees may invest tax-deferred savings. [Denver Post, 7/12/98]
Sat On State Public Employees’ Retirement Association Board. In 2004, Coffman sat on the state
Public Employees’ Retirement Association Board. [Rocky Mountain News, 1/22/04]
… Then Quit Attending Meetings and Sent Deputy to Fill Spot. In 2004, Coffman quit
attending PERA board meetings and sent his deputy to fill the treasurer’s spot on the board. He then
took his concerns to the media and sent press releases urging PERA to call of its merger with the
Denver Public Schools Retirement System. [Rocky Mountain News, 3/09/04]
Broke Campaign Law to Oppose Ballot Amendment and Fined $334.92
Broke Campaign Law to Oppose Ballot Amendment and Fined $334.92. In 2004, the state Supreme
Court ruled that Coffman violated the Fair Campaign Practice Act when he issued three press releases
in 2000 opposing a statewide ballot measure and urging voters to defeat it. Coffman’s press releases
criticized Amendment 23, which proposed an increase in money for public school funding through a
new education fund. The complaint was brought by Common Cause. Coffman was ordered to pay a
civil penalty of $334.92. [Denver Post, 12/07/04; Rocky Mountain News, 12/07/04]
Announced Run for Congress Less Than A Year After Becoming Secretary of State
Announced Run for Congress Less Than A Year After Becoming Secretary of State. In January
2007, Coffman was sworn in as Secretary of State. Then in November 2007, Coffman filed to run for
Congress. [Associated Press, 1/09/07; Associated Press, 11/06/07]
… And Refused to Step Down to Campaign. In 2007, Coffman said that he would not step
down from his position as Secretary of State to campaign for Congress. “I will serve as the
secretary of state all the way to January of 2009,” he said. [Denver Post, 11/22/07]
Refused to Resign after Winning GOP Primary. In 2008, Coffman refused to resign from his
position as Secretary of State after winning the GOP primary for the 6th Congressional seat. “Just like
you shouldn’t change horses midstream, I will continue my efforts to ensure a successful election in
November,” he said. [Rocky Mountain News, 8/16/08]
Refused To Reject Campaign Contributions From Special Interests At Campaign Debate, Saying,
“Well, I Think Everybody In Here Is A Special Interest Of Some Kind”
Refused To Reject Campaign Contributions From Special Interests At Campaign Debate, Saying,
“Well, I Think Everybody In Here Is A Special Interest Of Some Kind.” During a debate with
Democratic opponent Andrew Romanoff in August 2014, Coffman refused to reject campaign
contributions from special interests, telling the audience, “I think everybody in here is a special interest
of some kind.” The dialogue between the two candidates is as follows:
Romanoff: If you want to demonstrate leadership on this issue, join me right now, on this stage, in
7
turning down contributions from special interest groups and refunding the money that you’ve taken.
In fact, I’ll see your point and raise you. We’ll turn down, together, all the money that’s come in
from any special interest group, any lobbyist, any outside organizations to the best of our ability.
We could lead; we could make national news right now. Will you join me in that effort?
Coffman: Well I think everybody in here is a special interest person of some kind.
[Aurora Chamber of Commerce Debate, 5:11 – 5:53, 8/14/14]
2014: Criticized Democratic Opponent For Employing Lobbyists On Campaign, But Twice
Employed Former Lobbyists For Official Positions In D.C. Office
2014: Criticized Democratic Opponent For Employing Lobbyists On Campaign. In August 2014,
during a debate with Democratic opponent Andrew Romanoff, Coffman criticized Romanoff for
employing lobbyists on his campaign, saying, “You have some of the top lobbyists in the state of
Colorado helping you on your campaign. … This is a ridiculous Washington game. You have lobbyists
on your campaign. If you think it’s wrong, get those lobbyists off your campaign. Get them off now.”
[Aurora Chamber of Commerce Debate, YouTube, 2:30 – 3:56, 8/15/14]
… But, In 2015, Hired Former Lobbyist For Official Position In D.C. Office. In March 2015,
Coffman hired a lobbyist to serve as his official office’s Legislative Director. Dina Rochkind, who
had been employed by Coffman from at least March to September 2015 (the most recent Statement
of Disbursement), had been the Director of Federal Affairs for Chrysler Group from 2007 to 2011
and Vice President of Federal Government Affairs for Quicken Loans from 2013 to 2015. [U.S.
House of Representatives, Statement of Disbursements, accessed 2/25/16; Center for Responsive
Politics, accessed 2/25/16]
… And, From 2008 To 2011, Employed Former Lobbyist For Official Position In D.C. Office.
From 2008 to 2011, Coffman employed a former lobbyist to serve as his official office’s
Communications Director. From 2006 to 2008, Nathaniel Sillin was a Government and Public
Affairs Associate at R&R Partners – a lobbying with an office in Washington, D.C. that lobbies on
behalf of multiple clients. [Center for Responsive Politics, accessed 3/03/16; Nathaniel Sillin’s
LinkedIn, accessed 3/03/16]
Coffman Attack Ad – Which Criticized His Opponent For “False Ads” – Criticized For Being
“Unfounded” And “Misleading,” Using “Scare Tactics” To Leave “False Impression” On Viewers
Coffman Attack Ad – Which Criticized His Opponent For “False Ads” – Called Out For Being
“Unfounded” And “Misleading,” Using “Scare Tactics” To Leave “False Impression” On
Viewers. “It contains elements of truth, but many of the claims are unfounded or misleading.
Ultimately, the scare tactics used leave viewers with a creepy feeling and a false impression.” [Editorial,
Denver Post, 10/28/14]
HEADLINE: “Coffman Ad Spooks Viewers But Falls Short On Attacks Against
Romanoff” [Editorial, Denver Post, 10/28/14]
8
Attack Ad Described As “Highly Misleading,” Left Viewers With A “False Impression.” In
October 2014, Coffman’s campaign was criticized for airing a “highly misleading” attack ad against
Democratic opponent Andrew Romanoff. “Claim 1: ‘The Denver Post called Andrew Romanoff’s
attacks over the top, shameful.’ … While the narrator discusses Romanoff’s ‘shameful’ and ‘over
the top’ campaign ads, five television screens flicker above the accusations. The videos playing on
those screens are from Romanoff’s campaign against Coffman this year. The article being cited is
not. … But the editorial is from 2010. It pertains to an ad from an entirely different election, against
an entirely different opponent, four years ago. … They had nothing to do with his current race
against Coffman. … [G]iven the highly misleading combination of current videos with outdated
words, this segment of ‘Agenda’ leaves viewers with a false impression.” [Editorial, Denver Post,
10/28/14]
Attack Ad “Does Not Support Its Claim” Against Opponent. In October 2014, Coffman’s
campaign was criticized for airing an attack ad that did not “support its claim” against his opponent.
“Claim 2: ‘He’s hiding an extreme agenda. Romanoff backs Obamacare.’ Romanoff openly
announced his support for the Affordable Care Act on a radio show with Ed Schultz on Jan. 2. … If
Romanoff said it willingly in an interview, is he really hiding his agenda or his support of the ACA?
The ‘extreme agenda’ being hidden is not further described in the ad. … [T]he ad does not support
its claim about a hidden agenda. Given that Romanoff’s agenda finds points of agreement with
Coffman, the subjective term ‘extreme’ seems misplaced in this context.” [Editorial, Denver Post,
10/28/14]
“Majority Of The Information Is Untrue, And It Misleads Viewers.” In October 2014,
Coffman’s campaign was criticized for airing an attack ad in which a “majority of the information
[was] untrue, and it misleads viewers.” “Claim 3: Obamacare is ‘slashing seniors’ Medicare.’ The
narrator accuses Romanoff of slashing seniors’ Medicare, while the on-screen text dictates a more
specific claim as a zombie-like Romanoff marches closer into view: ‘Andrew Romanoff: Cut
Medicare Advantage Average $1,198 for Seniors.’ To back this claim, the ad points to an article
from the American Action Forum, a right-leaning affiliate of the partisan group American Action
Network. Citing this group raises an immediate red flag, as the credibility of AAF as an unbiased
source is questionable. … The ‘cuts’ mentioned… are actually reductions in new Medicare
spending over a 10-year time frame. The reductions will not cut Medicare’s current funding or limit
its budget. The bulk of the Medicare savings will be accumulated by minimizing excessive
reimbursements to hospitals, providers and private Medicare Advantage plans. … Considering all of
this, the claim receives a D. All of the cuts and slashes mentioned appear to be reductions in future
growth, not reductions in current spending. The majority of the information is untrue, and it
misleads viewers.” [Editorial, Denver Post, 10/28/14]
October 2014: Criticized Opponent For Airing “Misleading” And “Dishonest” Campaign Ad;
During Same Month, Coffman Was Criticized For Airing “Misleading” And “Unfounded” Attack
Ad
October 2014: Criticized Opponent For Airing “Misleading” Campaign Ad. “You’re distorting my
record, exactly like you did to Senator Bennett; no difference in 2010, when you distorted his record,
and the Denver Post called you out for it in an editorial and said that your attacks were misleading and
they were below the belt, and I don’t think it’s any different now.” [KUSA Debate, YouTube, 4:34 –
9
4:50, 10/06/14]
August 2014: Criticized Opponent For Airing “Dishonest” Campaign Ad. “It’s the Denver Post
that has challenged your integrity. Your attacks against Michael Bennett in 2010; they called
dishonest and they called sleazy. … What you did to Michael Bennett was fundamentally wrong
and it was dishonest.” [Aurora Chamber of Commerce Debate, YouTube, 6:08 – 6:40, 8/15/14]
October 2014: Coffman Attack Ad – Which Criticized His Opponent For “False Ads” – Called
Out For Being “Unfounded” And “Misleading,” Using “Scare Tactics” To Leave “False
Impression” On Viewers. “It contains elements of truth, but many of the claims are unfounded or
misleading. Ultimately, the scare tactics used leave viewers with a creepy feeling and a false
impression.” [Editorial, Denver Post, 10/28/14]
Agreed To Exchange Legislative Strategy For Campaign Cash And Special Attention; Groups
Called For Coffman To Exit Program And An Ethics Investigation Into His Agreement
Agreed To Be Member Of NRCC’s Patriot Program, Criticized By Democratic Opponent For
Trading His Independence For Campaign Cash. “The document — a memorandum of understanding
to be included in the NRCC’s Patriot Program, which supports some of the House’s most endangered
Republicans — includes a provision that requires members to submit a ‘written legislative strategy’ to
the committee. That legislative strategy must also detail ‘political justifications’ in order to be part of
the program, which provides fundraising and organizational support to its members. … In Colorado,
GOP Rep. Mike Coffman’s Democratic opponent pounced to try and say Coffman traded his
independence for the promise of campaign cash.” [Roll Call, 9/10/15]
Patriot Program Requires Members Of Congress To Provide The NRCC With “Political
Justification” For Legislative Goals In Return For “Special Attention” And “Campaign
Cash.” “Two dozen House Republicans have agreed to privately detail their ‘legislative strategy’
to party operatives, promising to offer ‘political justifications’ for their goals in Congress. … The
initiative, designed to protect potentially vulnerable incumbents, brings with it special attention and
access to mounds of campaign cash.” [Washington Post, 9/03/15]
HEADLINE: “Contract With The NRCC – The Deal GOPers Make To Get Reelected”
[Washington Post, 9/03/15]
ProgressNow Colorado Called On Coffman To Remove His Name From Patriot Program
Contract. “Following revelations in the Washington Post last week about a contract imposed on
vulnerable Republican members of Congress requiring detailed information about their ‘legislative
agenda’ in exchange for financial support, ProgressNow Colorado, the state’s largest online progressive
advocacy organization, called on Rep. Mike Coffman to immediately remove his name from the
National Republican Congressional Committee’s ‘Patriot Program’ contract, and disclose
communications with the NRCC about his legislative agenda.” [ProgressNow Colorado press release,
9/09/15
HEADLINE: “Rep. Mike Coffman Accused Of Violating House Ethics Rules.” “Rep. Mike
Coffman is being accused of violating House ethics rules for providing the National Republican
10
Congressional Committee with his legislative agenda — including financial plans and budgets — in
exchange for money and extra attention to his race in the 6th Congressional District. The American
Democracy Legal Fund, a group that defines its mission as holding candidates accountable for possible
ethics or legal violations, filed the complaint last week with the U.S. House of Representatives Office of
Congressional Ethics.” [Colorado Independent, 10/15/15]
No Evidence Coffman Held Town Hall Event Since 2011
No Evidence That Coffman Held Town Hall Since 2011; Substituted Town Halls For One-OnOne Meetings. As of May 2016, there is no evidence that Coffman held an open town hall event since
2011. A review of Coffman’s congressional website and social media shows that he has started holding
one-on-one meetings with constituents at local libraries where participants are screened by staff before
speaking with Coffman. [Rep. Coffman website, accessed 5/03/16]
Accused Of Not Holding Public Town Halls; Claimed To Have Held Town Halls At Businesses
That He Was Already Planning On Touring And Only Met With Employees. “In a
recent Westword blog post, Rep. Mike Coffman’s spokesman was quoted as saying his boss has
held ‘dozens of public events over the summer,’ including ‘town halls,’ proving Coffman is an
‘open-and-available’ Congressman. But as I reported Monday, Coffman’s summer ‘town hall
meetings’ appear to be private gatherings for small groups of employees at large corporations
(Home Depot, LabCorp and Tyco Fire & Security). Not very town hallish. In the case of the Aurora
Home Depot, it turns out Coffman was originally invited to the store to learn about the business.
‘We’ll invite government representatives to do these store visits,’ said Stephen Holmes, a
spokesperson for Home Depot. At these store visits, he said, ‘it’s a common practice for store
associates to walk into the break room and ask questions.’ … Turns out, if you search his website,
you find out that Coffman held a couple ‘town hall meetings’ back in early 2011, before he was
running for Congress in a more competitive district.” [Jason Salzman Blog Post, Huffington Post,
11/25/12]
Fair Share Alliance Collected 500 Signatures For Petition Demanding Coffman Hold A Town
Hall. “A group of constituents presented Representative Mike Coffman with a petition asking for a
town hall meeting in Aurora. The petition has more than 500 signatures and comments requesting
the Congressman meet with citizens and answer their questions. Representative Coffman has yet to
hold a public forum in Aurora in 2012, even though there have been seven Congressional recesses
designated as home district work periods.” [Fair Share Alliance Blog Post, Huffington Post,
8/18/12]
HEADLINE: “Where’s Mike Coffman? Website Targets Congressman – And His
Campaign Hits Back.” “Where’s Mike Coffman? That’s the question raised by a new site
called Wheresmikecoffman.com, which accuses the reelection-seeking Republican congressman
of being unresponsive to voters.” [Westword, 9/06/12]
Hired GOP Activist as State’s Elections Technology Manager
Hired GOP Activist as State’s Elections Technology Manager. In 2007, Coffman hired GOP
political activist Dan Kopelman as the state’s elections technology manager. Kopelman previously
11
worked on Coffman’s campaigns and was former president of Denver Metro Young Republicans.
[Editorial, Denver Post, 5/10/07]
Reassigned Him After Selling Voter Data to Republicans. In 2007, Kopelman was reassigned
from some of his duties as elections technology manager after being investigated for selling vote
data to Republicans through a commercial website. [Editorial, Denver Post, 5/10/07]
Requested State Auditor to Investigate Whether Kopelman Accessed State Information.
Responding to the revelation that Kopelman was improperly selling data, Coffman requested the
state auditor to investigate whether Kopelman accessed state information for his political consulting
firm. The audit later found no evidence that Kopelman accessed state information. [Rocky Mountain
News, 5/11/07; Denver Post, 12/04/07]
Certified Voting Machines Made By Company Who Shared Political Consultant
Certified Voting Machines Made By Company Who Shared Political Consultant. In 2007, a voting
machine manufacturer whose machines were approved by Coffman used the same consultant as
Coffman was using while he ran for Congress. Coffman had reviewed the state’s voting machine
companies as the result of a court-ordered review that began in 2006. Several companies’ machines
were decertified, including those of Election Systems & Software, Hard InterCivic, and Sequoia Voting
Systems. The company, Premier Election Solutions, had hired Phase Line Strategies, which Coffman
was already using for his Congressional campaign. [Rocky Mountain News, 12/20/07, 12/22/07]
… And Was One of a Few to Get Certified. After Coffman’s review, Premier Election Solutions
was the only one of four companies to have all its equipment approved for the 2008 elections. [Rocky
Coffman Said He Learned of Connection A Couple Months Ago. According to the Denver
Post, Coffman said that he learned of the connection between his consultant and Premier
Election Solutions a couple months ago. “At that point, he should have changed political
consultants. No harm, no foul. At the very least, he should have disclosed the situation,” the
newspaper reported. [Editorial, Denver Post, 12/22/07]
Premier Machines Had Over 70 Deficiencies. According to a 2007 email obtain by the Rocky
Mountain News, Premier machines had over 70 deficiencies, including the inability to detect
security breaches and to transmit electronic securely. [Rocky Mountain News, 6/07/08]
... The Same Flaws That Caused Other Machines to Be Decertified. According to the
Rocky Mountain News, the Premier machines’ deficiencies were “the same flaws that
caused other machines to be decertified initially.” [Rocky Mountain News, 6/07/08]
Other States Discovered Same Flaws and Severely Restricted Machines. According to
Verified Voting Foundation’s senior project director Warren Stewart, Coffman’s approval of
Premier machines was “confusing” because other states had found the same deficiencies and
severely restricted the use of the machines. [Rocky Mountain News, 6/07/08]
Liberal Group Called for Coffman’s Resignation. Responding to lobbying firm conflict of
12
interest, liberal group ProgressNowAction called for Coffman’s resignation. [Rocky Mountain
News, 12/20/07]
Chief of Staff Breached Ethics by Campaigning for Coffman
Chief of Staff Breached Ethics by Campaigning for Coffman. In 2008, Coffman’s chief of staff
Jacque Ponder was observed handing out “Mike Coffman for Congress 2008” stickers at a Republican
campaign event, in “apparent breach of ethics,” the Rocky Mountain News reported. [Rocky Mountain
News, 3/08/08]
Coffman Denied Chief’s Breach Was Result of His Ethics Policies. Responding to
allegations that Ponder was campaigning on his behalf, Coffman said that her actions were not
subject to his ethics policy because she worked in his administration division, unrelated to the
elections division where his policy was intended. [Rocky Mountain News, 3/08/08]
Previous Chief of Staff was Longtime Aide. In 2007, Coffman hired his longtime aide Brian
Anderson to be his chief of staff while serving as Secretary of State. [Denver Post, 1/29/07]
Allowed GOP Legislative Candidates on Ballot After Deadline Passed
Allowed GOP Legislative Candidates on Ballot After Deadline Passed. In 2008, Coffman allowed
three GOP legislative candidates on the ballot a week after the deadline had passed. Coffman argued
that the law “is not clear” about the deadline. [Rocky Mountain News, 6/18/08]
Challenged Tens of Thousands of Coloradoans’ Right to Vote
New York Times: Colorado Was Illegally Removing Voters Within 90 Days of Election. In 2008,
the New York Times reported that Colorado seemed to be in violation of federal law. “Michigan and
Colorado are removing voters from the rolls within 90 days of a federal election, which is not allowed
except when voters die, notify the authorities that they have moved out of state, or have been declared
unfit to vote,” the newspaper reported. [New York Times, 10/08/08]
Number Purged Far Exceeded Number Who Died or Relocated. According to the New York
Times analysis, the number of people purged from election rolls since August 1st, 2008, “far
exceeds the number who may have died or relocated during that period.” [New York Times, 10/08/08]
37,000 People Were Removed From Rolls in Three Weeks After July 21. According to the New
York Times analysis, “some 37,000 people were removed from the rolls in the three weeks after
July 21. During that time, about 5,100 people moved out of the state and about 2,400 died,
according to postal data and death records.” [New York Times, 10/08/08]
… But Coffman Said He Only Removed About 14,000. Responding to the New York Times
analysis, Coffman claimed that only about 14,000 – not 37,000 – voters had been removed from
the rolls, and that most of them had died or moved out of the state. He also said that he would
review the way voters were removed from rolls. [New York Times, 10/09/08]
Sued for Allegedly Illegally Purging Over 42,000 Voters from State Rolls. In 2008, Coffman
13
was accused of illegal purging over 42,000 voters from state rolls too close to a federal election, in
violation of the National Voter Registration Act. The accusations, brought by two state activist
groups and a union, resulted in a lawsuit against Coffman. That lawsuit was ultimately settled, with
both sides disputing what the terms of the settlement were. The plaintiffs interpreted the settlement
to mean Coffman would stop cancelling voters, but Coffman continued to cancel voters. [Rocky
… Then Was Ordered Stop Purging Names and Restore 146 Names. In 2008, the Denver
Post reported that a federal judge “angrily ordered” Coffman to stop purging names on voter
registration rolls. The judge, United States District Judge John Kane, warned that if Coffman did
not stop purging voters, “he’ll be listening to me personally.” State officials admitted that 146
more names had been purged since the settlement in the case was reached, and Coffman was
ordered to restore those 146 voters back on the rolls. [Denver Post, 11/02/08]
Coffman: Judge’s Order Was “Absolutely Ridiculous.” In 2008, Coffman said the judge’s
order to reinstate 146 voters was “absolutely ridiculous” and could lead to people casting illegal
votes. “I think it’s absolutely ridiculous for me to be ordered to go back and reinstate those
registrations,” he said. “Fortunately I think it’s late enough in the process that whatever damage
that will be done is so marginal it won’t compromise the integrity of the election. Had it
happened earlier, it absolutely would have compromised the integrity of the election.” [Denver
Post, 11/02/08]
Under Coffman’s Watch, Over 35,000 Newly Registered Voters Risked Having Ballots Tossed
Out for Failing to Include Copy of ID. In 2008, over 35,000 newly registered Colorado voters
risked having their ballots tossed out for failing to include a copy of their ID with their votes.
Specifically, 35,620 first-time voters whose identity had not been verified requested mail ballots.
But under state law, voters needed to include a copy of their ID, though the Rocky Mountain News
described how voters were getting conflicting information from elections officials. [Rocky Mountain
News, 10/30/08]
Under Coffman’s Watch, Over 6,000 Voters Were Caught in Check Box Technicality. In 2008,
at least 6,462 people failed to check a box on voter registration forms indicating that they did not
have a Colorado driver’s license or a state ID number, but still completed Social Security
information that implied they did not have such identification. Under state law, the voter registration
form was incomplete and must be sent back to the voter, who could check the box and return the
form. [Denver Post, 10/14/08]
… And Coffman’s Office Mistakenly Told Local Clerks Wrong Deadline to Fix It. In 2008,
Coffman’s office original advised county clerks that voters had until October 6th to correct their
box problem, when in fact voters had until election day. Coffman’s office later admitted their
mistake. [Denver Post, 10/14/08]
Colorado Common Cause: Thousands Of Voters Could Be Denied Right to Vote. In 2008,
Colorado Common Cause executive director Jenny Flanagan claimed that thousands of voters
could be denied the right to vote. “We’re talking about thousands of voters who could be denied
their right to vote on Election Day because of this technicality,” she stated. [Coffman op-ed, Denver
Post, 10/14/08]
14
Coffman: No Voters Will Be Disenfranchised. In a 2008 op-ed subtitled, “No voters
disenfranchised,” Coffman argued that the state’s voter registration program was “under attack
by liberal voting rights groups” and stated, “No one will be disenfranchised for incomplete voter
registration forms.” [Denver Post, 10/19/08]
Under Coffman’s Watch, S&P Downgraded Colorado’s Credit Rating
Under Coffman’s Watch, S&P Downgraded Colorado’s Credit Rating. In 2002, Standard & Poor’s
debt-rating agency downgraded Colorado’s credit rating from AA to AA-. “The Legislature knew that
the state was on credit watch throughout the last session, yet it chose to ignore S&P’s warning and
increase spending despite rapidly decreasing revenues,” Coffman said. [Associated Press, 6/26/02]
S&P Cited Weak Revenues. In its downgrade, Standard & Poor cited weak revenues that would
permanently hamper the state’s budgeting. [Rocky Mountain News, 6/27/02]
Wrote Op-Ed Blasting Legislature. In a 2002 op-ed, Coffman strongly criticized the legislature
for failing to compensate for S&P’s concerns in their budget. “The actions of the legislature are
akin to someone who has just been told he is approaching the limit on his credit card deciding to
buy a new entertainment center. It is simply irresponsible,” he explained. [The Gazette (Colorado
Springs, Colorado), 7/10/02]
S&P Sent Negative Credit Warnings on Certificates of Participation and School District Debt.
In 2002, Standard & Poor sent negative credit warnings to Colorado on its certificates of
participation and school district debt this week. Coffman explained the warnings were based on
recent state revenue forecasts. [Associated Press, 11/08/02]
Stashed Blank Checks Worth Up To $1 Billion in Safe Deposit Box
Stashed Blank Checks Worth Up To $1 Billion in Safe Deposit Box. While serving as state treasurer,
Coffman stashed blank checks worth up to $1 billion in a safe deposit box. Coffman and three other
state employees were authorized to sign the checks, which only required one signature. [Associated Press,
4/27/07]
… Because He Disagreed with Governor’s Disaster Plan. According to Coffman, he stashed
the blank checks because he was not satisfied with the plan created by ex-Governor Bill Owens
to keep the government running if a disaster shut down the state Capitol. [Associated Press, 4/27/07]
Did Not Inform Governor of His Plan. According to Coffman, he did not inform the Governor
of his plan because he claimed he had the authority to do it on his own. “We were talking about
a complete breakdown of government, and what we would do,” Coffman explained. [Associated
Press, 4/27/07]
Coffman: “I Developed A Continuity of Government Plan.” In an op-ed criticizing the
Associated Press story breaking his backup plans, Coffman claimed that he had developed a
“continuity of government” plan. “The real issue is the fact that I developed a continuity of
15
government plan to ensure that the state of Colorado could continue to function even in the
event of a natural disaster or a terrorist attack,” he argued. [Daily Camera, 5/06/07]
Coffman: “Karl Rove Is Right that Colorado’s Economy Is Improving”
Coffman: “Karl Rove Is Right that Colorado’s Economy Is Improving.” In 2004, Coffman agreed
with Karl Rove’s assessment of Colorado’s finances. “Karl Rove is right that Colorado’s economy is
improving,” he said. “‘But he’s not familiar with the structural problem we have.” [Denver Post, 2/15/04]
Coffman’s Company Failed to Pay Approximately $5,000 in Withholding Taxes On Time
Coffman’s Company Failed to Pay Approximately $5,000 in Withholding Taxes On Time. In
2000, Coffman paid the Colorado Property Management Group’s quarterly withholding taxes late.
According to the Denver Westword, the taxes were between ten and twelve days late, and cost Coffman
approximately $5,000 to cover the bill. “I’m very disappointed,” Coffman said. [Denver Westword, 8/24/00]
Hit With State Tax Lien for $241.33 in Unpaid Personal Income Taxes
Hit With State Tax Lien for $241.33 in Unpaid Personal Income Taxes. In 1990, Coffman was hit
with a tax lien from the State of Colorado for $241.33 for being delinquent on his individual income
tax. Coffman then satisfied the lien in 1992. [Notice of Lien for State Taxes, Arapahoe County Clerk,
5/31/90] [Release of Lien, Arapahoe County Clerk, 2/14/92]
2009-2013: Charged Taxpayers $28,774 For An Automobile Lease
2009-2013: Charged Taxpayers $28,774 For An Automobile Lease. From September 2009 to
January 2013, Coffman charged taxpayers $28,774 for an automobile lease. Below is a chart detailing
how much Coffman charged taxpayers each year.
Year
Amount
2013
$671.51
2012 $7,386.61
2011 $8,058.12
2010 $7,958.12
2009 $4,700.57
[Statement of Disbursements, U.S. House of Representatives, accessed 2/23/16]
2009 – 2015: Official Office Spent Over $7.6 Million; Spent $398,059 On Franked Mail, $293,645
On Travel, And $546,595 On Rent, Communications, And Utilities
Official Office Spent Over $7.6 Million Between 2009 And The End Of 2015; Spent $398,059 On
Franked Mail, $293,645 On Travel, And $546,595 On Rent, Communications, And Utilities.
Between joining Congress in 2009 and the end of 2015, Coffman’s official office spent over $7.6
million. He spent $398,059 on franked mail, $293,645 on travel, and $546,595 on rent,
communications, and utilities.
16
Category
Amount
Franked Mail
$398,059
Travel
$293,645
Printing and Reproduction
$382,586
Rent, Communications, and Utilities
$546,595
Supplies and Materials
$113,477
Other Services
$284,336
Personnel Compensation
$5,600,283
Total
$7,618,981
[House Statement of Disbursements, accessed 2/23/16]
2009 – 2015: Charged Taxpayers $262,829 For Travel, Lodging, And Auto Expenses
2009 – 2015: Charged Taxpayers $262,829 For Travel, Lodging, And Auto Expenses. Between
2009 and 2015, Coffman charged taxpayers $262,829.99 for automobile expenses, car rental,
commercial transportation, gasoline, lodging, private auto mileage, taxis, parking, tolls, travel
reimbursement, and travel subsistence.
Purpose
Amount
Automobile Expenses
$2,000.92
Car Rental
$1,118.37
Commercial Transportation
$182,710.41
Gasoline
$5,488.23
Lodging
$29,073.94
Private Auto Mileage
$21,357.44
Taxi, Parking, and Tolls
$8,641.54
Travel Reimbursement and Subsistence
$12,439.14
Total
$262,829.99
2009 – 2015: Charged Taxpayers $15,517 From Meals, Food And Beverage
2009 – 2015: Charged Taxpayers $15,517 From Meals, Food And Beverage. Between 2009 and
2015, Coffman charged taxpayers $15,517 for meals and food & beverage.
Purpose
Amount
Food & Beverage
$11,475.96
Meals
$4,041.54
Total
$15,517.50
Charged Taxpayers $42,009 For Trips To Foreign Countries
17
Charged Taxpayers $42,009 For Trips To Foreign Countries. Between 2009 and March 2016,
Coffman charged taxpayers $42,009.06 for trips to foreign countries.
2016: Charged Taxpayers $5,356 For Travel To Afghanistan And Kuwait. In 2016, Coffman
charged taxpayers $5,356.60 for his trip to Afghanistan and Kuwait.
Date
11/26 – 11/27
11/27 – 11/29
Per
diem
$12
$785
Country
Afghanistan
Kuwait
Transportation
Costs
$4,558.60
$5,356.60
Total
[2016 Q1 Foreign Travel Report, 3/07/16]
2015: Charged Taxpayers $12,054 For Travel To Qatar, Afghanistan, And Jordan. In 2015,
Coffman charged taxpayers $12,054.67 for his trip to Qatar, Afghanistan, and Jordan. His per diem
information for Afghanistan was not reported.
Date
Country
11/21 – 11/24
Qatar
11/22 – 11/23
Afghanistan
11/23 – 11/24
Jordan
Total
Per Diem
$417.96
N/A
$222.21
Transportation
Costs
$11,414.50
$12,054.67
[2015 Q2 Foreign Travel Report, 4/27/15]
2013: Traveled to United Arab Emirates, Afghanistan, and Bahrain. In 2013, Coffman travelled
to the United Arab Emirates, Afghanistan, and Bahrain with the Committee on Armed Services.
Transportation costs were not disclosed.
Date
Country
Per diem Transportation Total
11/18 -1 1/18 United Arab Emirates
11/18-11/19 Afghanistan
11/19- 11/21 Bahrain
Total:
$194.70
$28.00
$333.91
$556.61
N/A
N/A
N/A
$194.70
$28.00
$333.91
$556.61
[Foreign Travel Report, 2/25/13]
2012: Traveled to United Arab Emirates, Afghanistan, and Bahrain. In 2012, Coffman traveled
to United Arab Emirates, Afghanistan, and Bahrain with a group of Congress members on the
Committee on Armed Services.
Date
Country
Per diem Transportation
11/19 - 11/20 United Arab Emirates N/A
11/20 - 11/21 Afghanistan
N/A
11/22 - 11/23 Bahrain
$12.10
Total:
Total
Commerical Transportation N/A
Commerical Transportation N/A
Commerical Transportation $12.10
$2,337.50
18
2011: Traveled to United Arab Emirates, Afghanistan, And Cuba. In 2011, Coffman traveled to
United Arab Emirates and Afghanistan with a group of Congress members on the Committee on
Armed Services. He also traveled to Cuba with a group of Congress members on the Committee on
Armed Services.
Date
Country
11/21 – 11/22 United Arab Emirates N/A
11/22-11/23
Afghanistan
$5.00
4/12 - 4/12
Cuba
N/A
Total:
Total
Commercial Transportation $10,527.10
N/A
N/A
$10,527.10
[Foreign Travel Report, 2/14/11 and 8/16/11]
2010: Traveled to Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, and Afghanistan. In 2010, Coffman traveled
to Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, and Afghanistan with a group of Congress members on the
Date
Country
Per diem Transportation Total
11/22-11/23
11/23 – 11/24
11/24-11/25
11/25-11/25
Total:
Kuwait
United Arab Emirates
Afghanistan
$159.00
$710.00
$78.00
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
$159.00
$710.00
$78.00
N/A
$947.00
2009: Traveled to Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, and Afghanistan. In 2009, Coffman traveled
to Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, and Afghanistan with a group of Congress members on the
Date
Country
Total
5/25-5/26
5/26-5/27
5/27 –5/29
5/29-5/30
5/30-6/01
Total:
Kuwait
Iraq
Bahrain
Afghanistan
$497.47
N/A
$892.50
$78.00
$639.49
$497.47
N/A
$892.50
$78.00
$639.49
$10,229.58
Went On Privately-Funded Travel Valued At $92,083.83
Went On Privately-Funded Travel Valued At $92,083.83. From 2009 to 2011, Coffman went on
privately-funded travel valued at $92,083.83.
Destination
Atlanta, GA
Travel
Dates
8/1/2009 –
8/8/2009
Sponsor
American Israel
Education Foundation
Lodging
Expenses
$8,147.45
Meal
Expenses
Transportation
Expenses
Other
Expenses
$3,492.00
$1,390.08
$1,594.80
19
Denver, CO
Tel Aviv, Israel
Baltimore, MD
Charlottesville,
VA
Charlottesville,
VA
Los Angeles,
CA
Beijing, China
8/1/2009 –
8/8/2009
8/1/2009 –
8/8/2009
2/5/2009 –
2/7/2009
1/14/2010 –
1/16/2010
1/14/2010 –
1/16/2010
1/27/2011 –
1/29/2011
4/23/2011 –
5/1/2011
Chengdu, China
4/23/2011 –
5/1/2011
Qingdao, China
4/23/2011 –
5/1/2011
Shanghai, China
4/23/2011 –
5/1/2011
American Israel
American Israel
The Heritage
Foundation
The Heritage
Foundation
The Heritage
Foundation
The Heritage
Foundation
National Committee on
United States – China
Relations.
Relations.
Relations.
Relations.
Total
$8,147.45
$3,492.00
$1,390.08
$1,594.80
$8,147.45
$3,492.00
$1,390.08
$1,594.80
$498.00
$336.00
$90
$0
$258.00
$336.00
$110
$72
$258.00
$313.00
$110
$0
$450.00
$415.00
$677.40
$30.00
$1,214.61
$81.88
9,767.87
$0
$1,214.61
$81.88
9,767.87
$0
$1,214.61
$81.88
9,767.87
$0
$1,214.61
$81.88
9,767.87
$0
$12,203.52
$44,229.12
$92,083.83
$4,886.40
$30,764.79
Total
[U.S. House Gift Travel Filings, accessed 4/07/16]
Charged Taxpayers $184,225 For Mass Mail And Mass Communication; Ranked 1st In Colorado
Delegation For Such Spending In 2015
Charged Taxpayers $184,225 For Mass Mail And Mass Communication. In 2015, Coffman’s
official office charged taxpayers $184,225 for mass mail and mass communication. On mass mail,
Coffman spent $130,876.64 and on mass communications, he spent $53,348.49. In comparison to other
U.S. House members, Coffman ranked 14th in such spending. Below is a table detailing Coffman’s
spending.
Mass Mail
2015 Q1
2015 Q2
$0.00
$0.00
Mass Communications
2015 Q3
2015 Q4
$11,804.75
$119,071.89
2015 Q1
2015 Q2
$0.00
$0.00
Total: $130,876.64
2015 Q3
2015 Q4
$33,884.11
$19,464.38
Total: $53,348.49
Total: $184,225.13
2015: Ranked 1st Among Colorado Delegation In Mass Mail And Mass Communication Spending.
In 2015, Coffman’s official office spent the most on mass mail and mass communication compared to
the rest of Colorado’s U.S. House delegation. Below is a table showing the rank and total spending by
members of this delegation.
20
Rank
Last Name
First Name
Mass Mail & Mass Communications
14
Coffman
Mike
$184,225.13
110
Perlmutter
Ed
$79,502.12
195
Buck
Ken
$37,602.31
214
Polis
Jared
$31,848.09
237
Lamborn
Doug
$24,964.08
322
Tipton
Scott
$5,302.50
DeGette
Diana
$4,011.80
326
Said, “Everything Should Be On The Table” When It Comes To Deficit Reduction
Said, “Everything Should Be On The Table” When It Comes To Deficit Reduction. In August
2011, when asked about reducing the nation’s deficit, Coffman said, “The question raised about
defense. I believe that everything has to be on the table, to include defense. And I think, quite frankly,
I’ll tell you this – the military is top heavy today.” [Rep. Coffman Town Hall, 1:12 – 1:30; 8/27/11]
Voted to Allow Sales Taxes on Out-of-State Retailers
Voted to Allow Sales Taxes on Out-of-State Retailers. In 1990, Coffman voted for a bill that would
allow for sales taxes on tangible personal property purchased by and delivered to a person in Colorado
from an out-of-state retailer. The bill passed the House, 51-12. [HB 1003, 1/22/90; Legislative summary for HB
1003]
Proposed 10 Percent Seat Tax At Broncos Stadium
Proposed 10 Percent Seat Tax At Broncos Stadium. In 1998, Coffman proposed a 10 percent seat tax
at the new Denver Bronco’s stadium, as a substitute for part of an earlier 0.1 percent sales tax proposal.
“The seat tax shifts some of the burden onto the users” of the stadium, Coffman explained. His proposal
ultimately failed to pass the Senate. [Rocky Mountain News, 2/21/98]
Expected His Proposal Would Produce Considerably More Revenue. In 1998, Coffman
expected his seat tax proposal would produce considerably more revenue. [Rocky Mountain News,
2/11/98]
Rocky Mountain News: Coffman’s Proposal Shifts Cost to Fans. In their 1998 endorsement of
Coffman’s proposed tax, the Rocky Mountain News explained that Coffman’s proposal would shift
the cost of the new stadium to fans. “It’s not only fair, it’s politically smart. It shifts more of the cost
to the fans and reduces the length of time the sales tax is necessary. That may be crucial in
persuading the voters to pass the stadium proposal in November,” the newspaper wrote. [Editorial,
Rocky Mountain News, 2/15/98]
Failed to Launch Fake-Address Mail Plan to Aid Domestic-Violence Victims
Failed to Launch Fake-Address Mail Plan to Aid Domestic-Violence Victims. In 2008, Coffman
failed to setup an address-confidentiality program intended to help domestic violence victims. Under
21
the program, victims of rape, domestic advice, or stalking could use a fake address with the actual
address known only to the secretary of state’s office. [Denver Post, 1/23/08]
State Senator: “You Have Violated My Trust.” In 2008, Coffman was criticized for failing to
launch a fake-address mail plan to aid domestic-violence victims. “You have violated my trust,”
state Senator John Morse told Coffman, after Coffman asked for an extra $20,000 to fund the
program. Morse went on to accuse Coffman of committing a “deliberate act of rebellion” because
he never wanted to run the fake-address program. [Denver Post, 1/23/08]
Coffman’s Office Spent Money Meant For Program On Travel And Employees. Coffman’s office
had freely spent funding for the program even though revenues were significantly less than what was
expected. Consequently, Coffman said he would have to suspend the program unless the legislature
provided additional funding. [The Gazette (Colorado Springs), 1/23/08]
Program’s Director Spent $2,700 on Travel. As of January 2008, the program’s director spent
approximately $2,700 on travel to visit similar programs in other states and potential application
sites in Colorado. [Denver Post, 1/23/08]
Accused of Hiring Full-Time Employee in Massive Office Long Before Anyone Signed Up.
According to State Senator John Morse, a full-time employee was hired 11 months before anyone
could sign up for the program, and was installed in a 2,900 square foot office for the worker. [The
Gazette (Colorado Springs), 1/23/08]
Coffman Asked for $20,000 in Extra Funding. Appearing before the state legislature, Coffman
asked for an extra $20,000 in funding for the program, arguing the program’s revenues from
domestic violence fines were far less than the original estimates. [Denver Post, 1/23/08]
Protested Aurora’s Attempt to Make Itself A County
Protested Aurora’s Attempt to Make Itself A County. In 1996, Coffman protested the City of
Aurora’s attempt to make itself a county. [Rocky Mountain News, 7/23/96]
Proposed Welfare Reform that Gave Mothers 90 Days to Find A Job
Proposed Welfare Reform that Gave Mothers 90 Days to Find A Job. In 1996, Coffman proposed a
bill that would reform the state welfare system, giving welfare mothers vouchers for child care instead
of money and giving them 90 days to find jobs. “We’re saying that working a minimum-wage job is OK
under this scenario and there is value to work,” he explained. Explaining what would happen when a
welfare mother takes a minimum wage job, Coffman said, “When you have generation after generation
after generation seeing a parent that stays home all day I think you create a culture around that. This
seeks to break the culture.” [Denver Post, 1/27/96]
Would Prevent Young Mothers Living Independently from Receiving Benefits. According to
analysis by the Denver Post, Coffman’s legislation would prevent certain mothers, specifically were
legal minors living independently, from receiving benefits. Instead they would be required to attend
school and live with their parents, relatives, or in a supervised setting. [Editorial, Denver Post, 2/04/96]
22
Opposed Spending Up To $10 Million On Colorado Water Projects
Opposed Spending Up to $10 Billion on Colorado Water Projects. In 2002, Coffman opposed
spending up to $10 billion on water projects in Colorado. When asked if he would support funding for
such projects, Coffman said, “No. I would not support an appropriation out of the state’s general fund to
develop water projects. However, the state could borrow the money with municipalities and local water
districts making the debt service payments.” [Rocky Mountain News, 10/12/02]
Repeatedly Voted To Undermine The Clean Water Act
2011: Voted To Remove EPA’s Ability To Enforce Clean Water Act. In 2011, Coffman voted for a
bill which undermined the Clean Water Act by removing the EPA’s ability to enforce it. The bill
banned the EPA from issuing new or revising water-quality standards if a state standard had already
been approved by the agency without the state’s consent. The EPA would also be banned from
removing its approval of a state program or limiting federal funds to that program if it disagreed with
the way the regulation was implemented, or if the EPA disagreed with the state’s water quality
standard. This effectively removed the EPA’s authority to supervise and regulate the states. The bill
passed 239-184. [HR 2018, Vote #573, 7/13/11; New York Times Editorial, 7/15/11; CQ Floor Votes,
7/13/11]
2015: Voted For Amendment Prohibiting Funds Used To Regulate “Agricultural Activities”
Identified As Exemptions Under Clean Water Act. In May 2015, Coffman voted for an amendment
prohibiting the use of funds to regulate certain agricultural activities under the Clean Water Act.
“LaMalfa, R-Calif., amendment that would prohibit funds made available under the act from being used
to regulate agricultural activities identified as exemptions under certain sections of the Clean Water
Act.” The amendment passed, 239 to174. [ H.R. 2028, Vote #212, 5/01/15; CQ Floor Votes, 5/01/15]
2015: Voted For Halting EPA’s Waters Of The United States Rulemaking Relating To Smaller
Waterways That Feed Into Larger Ones. In May 2015, Coffman voted for the Regulatory Integrity
Protection Act which “would require the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to withdraw its Waters
of the United States rule. The rule would define the EPA’s oversight authority over streams, ponds and
small waterways that feed into larger ones...” According to Rep. Donna Edwards, “H.R. 1732 would
halt the current Clean Water rulemaking, and require the agencies to withdraw the proposed rule and
restart the rulemaking process. This is after one million public comments, a 208 day comment period,
and over 400 public hearings.” The bill passed 261 to 155. [HR 1732, Vote # 219, 5/12/15; The Hill,
4/29/15; Edwards Press Release, 4/29/15]
2015: Voted Against Amendment To Prohibit Issuing Final Clean Water Rules If They Violated
Previous Court Decisions. In May 2015, Coffman voted against an amendment to the Regulatory
Integrity Protection Act proposed by Rep. Donna Edwards. According to Edwards, “Under my
amendment, the administration cannot expand the scope beyond those water bodies covered prior to the
decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court in those two cases, and it cannot be inconsistent with Justices
Scalia’s and Kennedy’s judicial opinions in Rapanos. In addition to that, they can’t increase the
regulation of ditches.” The amendment failed 167 to 248. [HR 1732, Vote #217, 5/12/15; Edwards
Press Release, 4/29/15]
23
Voted Against Seven Initiatives To Ensure Clean And Safe Drinking Water
2011: Voted Against Regulating Pollutants in Drinking-Water Sources. In 2011, Coffman voted
against a motion which continued the EPA’s authority to regulate pollutants in drinking-water sources.
The motion stated that the legislation would not affect the EPA’s authority when it comes to regulating
pollutants, including arsenic or perchlorate, into public drinking-water sources. The motion failed 188238. [HR 2018, Vote #572, 7/13/11]
2013: Voted Against Preventing Contamination of Groundwater and the Great Lakes. In July
2013, Coffman voted against preventing contamination of groundwater and sources of drinking water,
including the Great Lakes, from coal ash waste disposal sites. The amendment failed 192-225. [HR
2218, Vote #417, 7/25/13]
2014: Voted Against Requiring Companies to Disclose Toxic Chemicals in Drinking Water. In
February 2014, Coffman voted against a motion that would require chemical manufacturers to report to
regulatory agencies on the potential risks of chemicals that could contaminate water supplies prior to
using them. The motion failed 187-231. [HR 3590, Vote #40, 2/05/14; CQ Floor Votes, 2/05/14]
2015: Voted Against Requiring Increased Disclosure On Groundwater Monitoring. In July 2015,
Coffman voted against an amendment that “would require all inactive surface impoundments follow
post-closure groundwater monitoring standards to meet current public disclosure requirements.” The
amendment failed, 177-244. [HR 1734, Vote #453, 3/25/15; CQ Floor Votes, 7/22/15]
2015: Voted Against An Amendment To Require Criteria To Prevent Toxic Contamination Of
Groundwater And To Protect Water Sources, Including Great Lakes. In July 2015, Coffman voted
against an amendment that “would require implementing agencies to require that all surface
impoundment structures meet criteria sufficient to prevent toxic contamination of ground water and to
protect drinking water sources, including the Great Lakes.” The amendment failed, 184-240. [HR 1734,
Vote #457, 3/25/15; CQ Floor Votes, 7/22/15]
2015: Voted Against Requiring Alternate Safe Drinking Water Within 24 Hours If Drinking
Water Had Unsafe Coal Pollution Levels. In July 2015, Coffman voted against an amendment that
“would require the owner or operator of a coal combustion residuals surface impoundment to survey all
nearby drinking water supply wells and to supply an alternative source of safe drinking water within 24
hours if well water sampling exceeds groundwater quality standards for constituents associated with the
presence of coal combustion residuals.” The amendment failed, 192-231. [HR 1734, Vote #455,
3/25/15; CQ Floor Votes, 7/22/15]
2015: Voted Against Requiring Inactive Hazardous Waste Sites To Follow Groundwater
Monitoring Standards. In July 2015, Coffman voted against an amendment that “would require all
inactive surface impoundments to follow post-closure groundwater monitoring standards in the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) rule.” The amendment failed, 177-245. [HR 1734, Vote
#454, 3/25/15; CQ Floor Votes, 7/22/15]
Said He Did Not Believe Humans Significantly Contributed To Climate Change And That It
Could Not Be Reversed, Claimed The Science Was Not Settled On Climate Change
24
Said He Did Not Believe Humans Significantly Contributed To Climate Change. In September
2014, when asked if he believed whether or not humans have been “significantly contributing to climate
change,” Coffman answered, “No.” [Denver Post, 6th Congressional Debate, 28:39 – 28:50, 9/23/14]
Questioned The Role That Carbon Emissions From Human Activity Had On Climate Change.
In 2013, questioned the role that carbon emissions, from human activity, have on climate change.
“There is no question that climate change is real since it has existed since the beginning of time and
will always be a factor that can negatively impact our environment. The role that carbon emissions,
from human activity, have on climate change is still a subject of debate but, in my view, there is no
question that it also has a negative impact,” Coffman said. [Coffman Guest Column, Carbon Valley
Farmer & Miner, 9/10/13]
Said Climate Change was “Naturally Occurring.” In 2012, Coffman said climate change was
“naturally occurring.” Climate change is naturally occurring. What influence do we have over that,
we certainly need to look into, but that's subject to debate,” Coffman said. [National Journal,
6/14/12]
Said Climate Change Could Not Be Reversed. In September 2014, when asked whether or not he
believed climate change could be reversed, Coffman said, “No.” [Denver Post, 6th Congressional
Debate, 28:52 – 29:06, 9/23/14]
Said Science was Not Settled on Climate Change. In 2014, Congressman Coffman said: “On the
climate change issue, I just think the science is not quite settled. Does it have an impact? Yes. […] Do I
know how much of an impact it has, man-made climate change? I don't know. But I think we need to do
everything responsible to bring down carbon emissions. Sometimes, my worry is we go too far.”
HEADLINE: “Climate Change Issue Makes Rep. Mike Coffman’s Head Spin” [Think
Progress, 9/24/14]
Claimed “Radical Environmentalists” Control a Lot of Research Grants Dealing with Climate
Change. In 2013, Coffman said “radical environmentalists” control a lot of research grants on climate
change. “And one thing that I certainly read from viable sources is that a lot of the research that’s being
done—when you put your application in to get a grant, if you don’t submit to the, you know, orthodoxy
of climate change by the radical environmentalists, you’re not going to get a grant,” Coffman said.
HEADLINE: “On Radio, Coffman Says 'Radical Environmentalists' Control A Lot Of
Climate Change Research Grants” [Colorado Pols, 8/22/13]
Introduced Bill To Outlaw The Public From Reviewing Oil And Gas Lease Sales, Voted To
Undermine States’ Rights To Restrict Offshore Development And Use; Called A “Stooge” For
The Oil And Gas Industry
Introduced Bill To Outlaw The Public From Reviewing Oil And Gas Lease Sales; Called A
“Stooge” For The Oil And Gas Industry. In 2012, the Denver-based “Checks and Balances Project”
25
called Coffman a “stooge” for the oil and gas industry after he and two of his fellow Colorado
Republican colleagues introduced a trio of legislation to allow increased drilling on public lands. In
April 2012, Coffman introduced the Providing Leasing Certainty Act, or H.R. 4382, to outlaw the
public, local governments and stakeholders from reviewing lease sales. The co-Director of the Checks
and Balances Project said of Coffman and his Republican colleagues, “Taking away the public’s right
to participate in decisions about land we own is criminal. It’s clear that these representatives are
working on behalf of industry groups like Western Energy Alliance [WEA] and not the public. Why
else would they invite WEA Vice President Kathleen Sgamma to testify about why they should shut
their own constituents out of decisions about what happens to their public lands?” [Colorado
Independent, 4/30/12]
Voted to Undermine States’ Rights to Restrict Off-Shore Development and Use. In 2013, Coffman
voted against an amendment preventing the underlying oil leasing measure from affecting states’
authority to restrict leasing and natural-resource development beneath states’ navigable waters. The
vote failed 209-210. [HR 2231, Vote #301, 6/28/13]
Accepted $686,361 From The Oil And Gas Industry
Accepted $686,361 From The Oil And Gas Industry. As of February 2016, the Center for
Responsive Politics reported that Coffman has accepted $632,750 from the oil and gas industry. [Center
for Responsive Politics, accessed 2/08/16]
Voted For The House Republican Budget That Would Protect $45 Billion In Subsidies For Big
Oil
Voted For The House Republican Budget That Would Protect $45 Billion In Subsidies For Big
Oil. In April 2014, Coffman voted for the FY 2015 House Republican budget. “[The] budget would
also protect $45 billion in tax subsidies over 10 years to oil companies, the top five of which are already
reaping $93 billion in profits from 2013 alone.” The budget resolution was adopted, 219-205. [H Con
Res 96, Vote #177, 4/10/14; Center for American Progress, 4/01/14]
Played Both Sides Of Wildfire Funding Issue; Called For Increased Wildfire Prevention Funding
After Having Cast One Of His Seven Votes Against It Just Four Months Earlier
Seven Times Voted Against Providing Funds For Wildfire Fighting And Prevention. Between
2009 and 2014, Coffman cast seven votes that were opposed to providing additional funds for wildfire
prevention. Below is a list of each vote.
2009: Opposed Funds to Help Fight Wildfires. In 2009, Coffman voted against the Interior
Appropriations bill. The measure included $3.6 billion for efforts to prevent and fight wildfires by
the U.S. Forest Service and Interior Department. Total amount included $1.9 billion for wildland
fire suppression, a $526 million increase above the 2009 non-emergency level. The total amount
also included $357 million in contingent fire suppression reserve funds. The bill passed 254-173.
[HR 2996, Vote #475, 6/26/09; CQ Bill Analysis]
2011: Voted To Cut $400 Million From Wildland Fire Management. On February 19, 2011,
26
House Republicans voted for a fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution (HR 1), which cut $400
million in funding for Wildland Fire Management programs. HR 1 only provided $2,972,600,000
for Wildland Fire Management, down from $3,372,600,000 in the previous fiscal year. HR 1 bill did
not include cuts to FLAME funding, which are accounts used to cover the cost of large or complex
fires when Wildland Fire Management funds are exhausted. This bill was not enacted into law.
[H.R. 1, Vote # 147, 2/19/11; Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2011
Appropriations, CRS, 5/12/11]
2011: Voted to Cut $528 From Wildland Fire Management, Including $122 Million from the
FLAME Funds. On April 14, 2011, the House of Representatives voted for the fiscal year 2011
continuing resolution (HR 1473), which cut $528 million in funding for Wildland Fire Management,
including $122 million from the FLAME funds. HR 1473 provided $2,844,300,000 for Wildland
Fire Management, including $352,000,000 for the FLAME funds. In the prior fiscal year, Congress
appropriated $3,372,600,000 for Wildland Fire Management and $474,000,000 for the FLAME
funds. FLAME funds are accounts used to cover the cost of large or complex fires when Wildland
Fire Management funds are exhausted. The bill was enacted into law. [H.R. 1473, Vote #268,
4/14/11; Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations, CRS, 5/12/11]
2012: Voted Against a Plan to Reduce the Risk of Wildfires. On June 19, 2012, House
Republicans voted against a plan that would have allowed States to treat insect-infected trees and
remove hazardous fuels on Federal land to reduce the risk of wildfires. [HR 2578, Vote #386,
6/19/12]
2012: Switch Vote To “No” On Wildfire Prevention. In 2012, Coffman changed his vote from
yes to no regarding to a wildfire prevention amendment. Coffman change his vote to “no” with one
minute left in the roll call on an amendment offered by Congressman Perlmutter that according to
The Cortez Journal, would “give the federal government authority to contract with states to remove
beetle-killed trees.” [The Cortez Journal, 6/22/12]
February 2014: Voted Against Funding That Would Help Fight And Prevent Wildfires. In
February 2014, Coffman voted against authorizing $50 million to fight wildfires. The motion would
authorize an additional $50 million for hazardous fuels reduction on public lands. The motion failed
194-222. [HR 2954, Vote #53, 2/06/14; CQ Floor Votes, 2/06/14]
July 2014: Voted Against Protecting The Supply Of Water For Drinking And To Fight
Wildfires In The Western United States. In July 2015, Coffman voted against a motion to
recommit that would ensure an adequate supply of water for safe drinking that is untainted by
arsenic, salt, or other toxins which become concentrated in diminished water supplies, to fight wild
fires, and to honor tribal water rights. The motion was rejected by a vote of 183-239. [HR 2898,
Vote #446, 7/16/2015; Democratic Leader – Motions to Recommit, 7/16/15]
… But In November 2014: Advocated For Increased Wildfire Prevention Funding. “U.S.
Representative Mike Coffman (R-CO) sent a letter to the President pressing him to increase funding for
the Western Watershed Enhancement Partnership in his Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Request. The Western
Watershed Enhancement Partnership was formed last year when the Departments of Agriculture and
Interior established a framework to partner with local entities to reduce the risks of wildfire upon
27
Western communities and their water supplies.” [Rep. Mike Coffman press release, 11/07/14]
Coffman: “We Must Take All Necessary Steps To Protect Our Forests And Our Watersheds
On Public Lands From Catastrophic Wildfires And Invasive Species.” “Colorado is a state
blessed with many natural resources, but some of the most important are our forest lands and
watersheds,” Coffman wrote in the letter. “These are vital resources for the economy and quality of
life for many of our families and businesses. We must take all necessary steps to protect our forests
and our watersheds on public lands from catastrophic wildfires and invasive species.” [Rep. Mike
Coffman press release, 11/07/14]
Ten Times Voted Against Reauthorizing The Export-Import Bank Despite It Supporting 494
Jobs, Five Small Businesses, And $81 Million In Exports In CO-06; Said Ex-Im Bank Was A
“Corporate Welfare Program”; Denver-Area Businesses And Industry Groups Urged
Reauthorization
Ten Times Voted Against Reauthorizing The Export-Import Bank. In 2015, Coffman failed to
reauthorize the Export-Import Bank ten times. [H Res 152, Vote #126, 3/19/15; H Res 319, Vote #371,
6/17/15; H.Res. 333, Vote #379, 6/24/15; H Res 388, Vote #483, 7/29/15; HR 420, Vote #497, 9/17/15;
H Res 421, Vote #502, 9/17/15; H Res 421, Vote #502, 9/17/15; H RES 449, Vote #529, 10/01/15; HR
597, Vote #576, 10/27/15; HR 22, Vote #673, 12/3/15]
Coffman: The Export-Import Bank Is “A Corporate Welfare Program That Is Past Its
Expiration Date.” In December 2015, in describing why he voted against the FAST Act, Coffman said,
“The bill also includes reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank, a corporate welfare program that is
past its expiration date.” [Rep. Mike Coffman press release, 12/07/15]
Export-Import Bank Had Supported 494 Jobs, 5 Small Businesses, And $81 Million Of Exports
In Colorado’s 6th Congressional District. From 2007 to 2016, the Export-Import Bank had supported
494 jobs, five small businesses, and $81 million of exports in Coffman’s district. The following details
the support that the Ex-Im Bank has provided to Colorado’s 6th Congressional District:
Amount
$81 Million
Funding Category
Total Export Value
$65 million
$134 million
Total Insured Shipments,
Guaranteed Credit or Disbursed
Loan Amount
Total Authorizations
5
Small Business Exporters
3
Minority-Owned Exporters
Description
The total dollar value of exports related to
Ex-Im Bank's authorized financing
The total dollar value of Total Insured
Shipments, Guaranteed Credit or Disbursed
Loan Amounts supported by Ex-Im Bank
The dollar amount that Ex-Im Bank has
agreed to insure or finance through an
insurance policy, a loan guarantee, or a direct
loan
The number of small businesses that export
goods and are supported by the Ex-Im Bank
The number of minority-owned businesses
that export goods and are supported by the
Ex-Im Bank
28
494
Jobs in Colorado’s 6th
Congressional District
Jobs supported calculated by taking estimate
of number of export jobs supported per $1
billion in export financing
[Export-Import Bank of the U.S., accessed 2/29/16; Ex-Im Coalition, accessed 2/29/16]
Denver-Area Business Groups Urged Coffman To Support Ex-Im Bank, Cited $705 Million In
Sales Supported In Colorado. In May 2014, multiple Denver-area business groups urged Coffman to
support the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank. “[T]he Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce
including its affiliates, the Metro Denver Economic Corporation, Colorado Competitive Council, and
the Colorado Space Coalition, have joined a national coalition to support economic growth in Colorado
by reauthorizing the U.S. Export-Import Bank… Last year, the Ex-Im Bank supported … $705 million
in sales supported in Colorado from 2007 – 2013.” [Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce letter,
5/30/14]
Colorado Association Of Commerce And Industry Supports Ex-Im Bank, Argues That 78 Percent
Of Colorado Beneficiaries Are Small Businesses. “The future of a federal bank that has helped
dozens of Colorado exporters sell to foreign buyers is being threatened by conservative lawmakers on
Capitol Hill. … The Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry, or CACI, wrote to the state’s
congressional delegation last month urging them to keep the bank alive beyond Sept. 30. CACI Senior
Vice President Loren Furman wrote that the Ex-Im Bank has helped Colorado companies export $705
million worth of products globally over the past seven years. ‘Undoubtedly, you will hear some argue
Ex-Im is ‘corporate welfare,’ but the vast majority of Ex-Im beneficiaries — roughly 90 percent
nationwide and 78 percent here in Colorado — are small businesses,’ Furman wrote.” [The Coloradoan,
7/12/14]
HEADLINE: “Federal Support Of Fort Collins Exporters Threatened” [The Coloradoan,
7/12/14]
Twice Voted Against Legislation That Would Provide Funding For Highways And
Transportation Infrastructure; Colorado Ranked 30th Nationwide In Number Of Structurally
Deficient Bridges
Voted Against Authorizing Funds to Fix Bridges in Need of Repair. In February 2014, Coffman
voted against a motion that would enact the SAFE Bridges Act, a bill that would authorize $5.5 billion
for bridges in need of repair. The motion failed, 187-231. [HR 3590, Vote #40, 2/05/14; CQ Floor
Votes, 2/05/14]
Voted Against Bipartisan Highway And Transportation Funding Bill. In November 2015, Coffman
voted against a bipartisan highway funding bill lauded by transportation advocates. “The House
approved a bill to spend up to $325 billion on transportation projects on Thursday after a weeklong
vote-a-rama and an intense debate about federal gas taxes. … The House voted to approve the bill in a
363-64 vote. It calls for spending $261 billion on highways and $55 billion on transit over six years.
The legislation authorizes highway funding for six years, but only if Congress can come up with a way
to pay for the final three years.” [HR 22, Vote #623, 11/05/15; The Hill, 11/05/15]
Said Funds For Bill Came From “Budget Gimmicks.” “Although I strongly support the need to
29
maintain our infrastructure, this transportation bill calls for a laundry list of budget gimmicks to pay
for it, like using interest income from the Federal Reserve’s bond-buying program. The gimmicks
allow the federal government to spend far more than it takes in.” [Rep. Mike Coffman press release,
12/03/15]
Colorado Ranked 30th Nationwide In Number Of Structurally Deficient Bridges. In 2015,
Colorado ranked 30th nationwide in number of structurally deficient bridges. The state had 521 bridges
that were structurally deficient, meaning “one or more of the key bridge elements… is considered to be
in ‘poor’ or worse condition.” [American Road & Transportation Builders Association, accessed
2/29/16]
Voted Against Overwhelmingly Bipartisan Budget Agreement
Coffman Voted Against Overwhelmingly Bipartisan Budget Agreement. In October 2015, Coffman
voted against a bipartisan budget deal that would raise federal spending levels and expand the
government's borrowing authority, avoiding a default. “House lawmakers in both parties joined forces
Wednesday to pass a sweeping budget deal … The final vote was 266 to 167, with 79 Republicans
joining every Democrat in sealing passage.” [HR 1314, Vote #579, 10/28/15; The Hill, 10/28/15]
2015: 94 Percent Party Unity Score
2015: 94 Percent Party Unity Score. According to CQ, Coffman voted with the Republican party 94
percent of the time in 2014. [CQ, accessed 5/06/16]
Skipped Vote To Consider Bill That Would Prevent Terrorists From Purchasing Guns, Appeared
On CNN Just 11 Minutes Prior; Later Voted To Block Consideration Of The Bill
Skipped Vote At 1:48 PM To Consider Bill To Prevent Terrorists From Purchasing Guns In The
U.S. On December 1, 2015, Coffman did not vote to consider a bill that would prevent people on the
terrorist watch list from buying firearms in the United States. The vote took place at 1:48 PM EST. [H
Res 539, Vote #646, 12/01/15]
Appeared On CNN Until 1:37 PM. On December 1, 2015, Coffman appeared on “Wolf” on CNN.
His segment ended at 1:37 PM EST. [CNN, 12/01/15]
Voted To Block Consideration Of Legislation To Close Terrorist Watchlist Gun Loophole. In
December 2015, Coffman voted to block consideration of legislation that would prevent people on the
terrorist watchlist from purchasing firearms in the United States. [H Res 539, Vote #646, 12/01/15]
Said Social Security Was A Ponzi Scheme
Said Social Security Was A Ponzi Scheme. In 2011, Coffman described Social Security as a “Ponzi
scheme.” During a radio interview he said:
“I am obviously going to support whoever the nominee is. But I have to admit to you
philosophically I am closer to Perry. Obviously, I hope he gets better on the debate stuff. I
30
think he did good. I think he did better on Social Security. I think obviously it is a Ponzi
scheme, but he has to say he is going to fix it. And he did that in the last debate where he
didn’t do that in the first debate. Now I think that was positive.” [Politico, 9/20/11]
Proposed Raising Age For Social Security Eligibility
Proposed Raising Age for Social Security Eligibility. In 2011, Coffman proposed raising the age for
Social Security eligibility for those 55 and younger. “Following the failed attempts of the bipartisan
congressional ‘supercommittee’ to agree on a deficit-reduction deal, the Democratic Congressional
Campaign Committee on Wednesday launched an aggressive effort to hold Republican Rep. Mike
Coffman ‘accountable’ for his budget priorities. … The congressman's reforms would raise the age for
Social Security eligibility for those 55 and younger and reduce Medicare benefits for the wealthy.”
Coffman: “I’ve Never Supported The Privatization Of Social Security”; … But Supported
Privatizing Social Security For Younger Generations And Twice Voted Against Protecting The
Program From Privatization
2014: Coffman: “I’ve Never Supported The Privatization Of Social Security.” In 2014, during a
debate, Coffman said, “I’ve never supported the privatization of Social Security.” [Colorado Public
Television Debate, YouTube, 9:02 – 9:06, 10/09/14]
… But, In 2008, Supported Privatizing Social Security For Younger Generations. In 2008, in
response to a Project Vote Smart survey question about whether or not he supported allowing
individuals to divert a portion of their Social Security taxes into personal retirement accounts,
Coffman selected the following response: “‘Allow workers to invest a portion of their payroll tax in
private accounts that they manage themselves.’ Indicate which principles you support (if any)
regarding Social Security. Other or expanded principles: ‘The system must recognize its
commitment to seniors but must gradually move younger generations toward individual saving
accounts.’” [2008 Colorado Congressional Political Courage Text, Project Vote Smart, 2008]
… And, In 2011, Voted Against Protecting Social Security and Medicare Benefits from
Privatization. In March 2011, Coffman voted against a measure that would have prohibited
continuing appropriations funds for fiscal year 2011 for being used in developing or implementing a
system that cuts Social Security benefits or that privatizes Social Security. The amendment also
prohibited funds from being used to develop or implement a system that cuts Medicare benefits,
eliminates guaranteed health coverage for seniors or establishes a Medicare voucher plan that limits
payments to beneficiaries in order to purchase health care in the private sector. The motion failed,
190-239. [HJR 48, Vote #178, 2/15/11]
… And, In 2014, Voted Against Ruling Out Privatizing Social Security. In April 2014, Coffman
voted against the Democratic budget alternative. The budget would rule out privatizing Social
Security. The budget failed, 163-261. [H Con Res 96, Vote #176, 4/10/14; House Democratic
Budget Substitute, FY 2015]
Voted For 2011 Ryan Budget That Would “End Medicare”
31
Voted For 2011 Ryan Budget That Would “End Medicare.” In 2011, Coffman voted for the 2011
budget resolution proposed by Congressman Paul Ryan. The resolution passed, 235-193. [H Con Res
34, Vote #277, 4/15/11; Associated Press, 4/15/11]
Wall Street Journal: Ryan Budget Would “End Medicare.” According to the Wall Street
Journal, “The plan would essentially end Medicare, which now pays most of the health-care bills for
48 million elderly and disabled Americans, as a program that directly pays those bills.” [Wall Street
Journal, 4/4/11]
Rep. Duffy Specifically Defended Budget’s Medicare Provisions. In an interview with the
Wausau Daily Herald, Duffy specifically defended the Ryan budget’s Medicare provisions. “I
think all of us who voted for it are on board,” he said. “To vote to reform Medicare, you sure
better think there’s a problem if you’re going to take that vote.” [Wausau Daily Herald, 5/19/11]
NPR: Plan Will Lead to “Rationing.” According to NPR, the CBO warned that higher payments
could affect care as beneficiaries might be less likely to use “new, costly, but possibly beneficial,
technologies and techniques.” According to NPR, that is “exactly the sort of rationing that so
frightened Republicans when they were fighting the health law – the health law that Ryan’s
proposal would repeal, by the way.” [NPR, 4/06/11]
Medicare Rights Center: Medicare And Medicaid Recipients Would Have To Foot The Bill.
Joe Baker, president of the Medicare Rights Center, said that “to ask people with Medicare and
Medicaid to foot the entire bill is not only unfair, but it will eventually lead to much less care and a
type of rationing […] There’s no doubt that putting more costs on consumers, particularly upfront,
leads them to access less care.” [National Journal, 4/04/11]
NCPSSM: Plan “Destroys Medicare and Cuts Social Security Benefits.” In April 2011, Max
Richtman, executive vice-president of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and
Medicare, told an audience that Ryan’s 2012 budget plan “forces millions of American seniors to
help foot the bill for a budget plan that puts the needs of middle-class Americans far below
preserving tax cuts for corporations and wealthy Americans.” “The Ryan plan would replace the
current Medicare program with vouchers and leave seniors and the disabled - some of our most
vulnerable Americans - hostage to the whims of the private marketplace,” Richtman said.
[NCPSSM press release, 4/05/11]
Ryan Plan Brings Back “Donut Hole” Coverage Gap for Prescription Drugs. According to the
Associated Press, Ryan’s plan brings back the coverage “gap in the Medicare prescription drug”
benefit. [Associated Press, 4/06/11]
Voted For 2012 Ryan Budget That Would Privatize Parts Of Medicare
Voted For 2012 Ryan Budget That Would Privatize Parts Of Medicare. In 2011, Coffman voted for
the 2012 budget resolution proposed by Congressman Paul Ryan. The resolution passed, 235-193. [H
Con Res 112, Vote #151, 3/29/12]
32
The Hill: Convert Medicare To Subsidies For Private Insurance. According to analysis by the
Congressional Budget Office, the 2012 Ryan budget “would convert some of the program’s funding
into subsidies for private insurance,” The Hill reported. “Seniors could choose between the
traditional single-payer program or a private plan,” the newspaper went on. [The Hill, 3/20/12]
New York Times: No Guarantee That Medicare Would Pay For Seniors’ Health Needs. In a
related editorial, the New York Times stated that the Ryan budget would mean “older Americans no
longer have a guarantee that Medicare will pay for their health needs.” The New York Times also
stated that the 2012 budget would convert Medicare to a “premium support” system. [New York
Times, 3/20/12]
Voted For Tea Party Budget That Would Make “Sweeping Cuts In Social Security And
Medicare” And Delay Eligibility For Social Security And Medicare
Voted For Tea Party Budget That Would Make “Sweeping Cuts In Social Security And
Medicare” And Delay Eligibility For Social Security And Medicare. In 2011, Coffman voted for an
amendment to the 2011 budget resolution that would replace it with the Republican Study Committee’s
“Honest Solutions” budget resolution. The amendment was rejected, 119-136. According to United
Press International, “The conservative Republican Study Committee unveiled a proposed 2012 U.S.
budget Thursday that would make sweeping cuts in Social Security and Medicare. The committee's
spending plan cuts deeper than the one introduced Tuesday by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., Politico
reported. The committee plan cuts discretionary spending except for defense to $218 billion in 2021,
down almost $190 billion from $409 billion in 2012. … Under the plan, eligibility for both Social
Security and Medicare would be delayed for everyone born from 1957 on. The age of eligibility would
increase by two months per year.” [H Con Res 34, Vote #275, 4/15/11; RSC press release, 4/15/11; United Press
International, 4/07/11]
Praised Flat Tax
Praised Flat Tax. In a 2011 interview, Coffman praised the flat tax, saying, “I think the flat tax has
tremendous value in it.” When the interviewer asked Coffman if he didn’t think a flat tax would hurt
lower income people, Coffman said, “No I don’t think it does, because I think that there are, the way
that it’s defined, or there’s a provision in there that has to be defined and that is, where is there an
exemption on it in terms of lower income people, so you can easily do that. But I think we’re at a point
now where about half of Americans I don’t think pay, have an income tax liability, and then it’s very
progressive from that point forward.” [Fox 31 interview, 12/08/11]
The Flat Tax Would Shift Burden from Rich to Non Rich. According to a report by the
Economic Policy Institute, lower tax rates for the wealthy under a flat tax will have to be financed
by some combination of higher taxes on the middle class and larger budget deficits. A flat tax that
raises the same revenues as our current tax code would shift a significant portion of the tax burden
from the rich to average workers. According to Citizens for Tax Justice, under a flat tax, the
fortunate few with incomes above $200,000 will see their taxes fall by an average of $53,940.
[Falling Flat: The Dubious Case for a Flat Tax, Economic Policy Institute, 1/17/96]
Signed Americans For Tax Reform’s Federal Taxpayer Protection Pledge, Which
33
Signed Americans for Tax Reform’s Federal Taxpayer Protection Pledge. In 2012, Coffman was
listed as a signer of Americans for Tax Reform’s federal Taxpayer Protection Pledge. [Americans for Tax
Reform, accessed 2/13/12]
ATR Opposed Bipartisan Gang of Ten Proposal to End Tax Loopholes Enjoyed by Oil
Companies. In 2008, a group of bipartisan Senators proposed closing the tax loopholes enjoyed by
oil companies, however the ATR stated that the Republicans who co-sponsored the proposal were
violating the Pledge as it would increase the net income taxes on oil companies. ATR’s specific
complaint that the proposal repealed section 199 tax credits which ATR valued at 30 Billion
Dollars. According to ATR’s letter opposing the bill, “On behalf of Americans for Tax Reform
(ATR), I strongly urge you to oppose the compromise energy plan agreed to by the “Gang of Ten”
on August 1, 2008. We commend the Senate’s bi-partisan attempt to solve the current energy crisis.
However, the compromise plan proposed by the original “Gang of Ten” Senators contains several
fatally flawed provisions. The most glaring of which is the repeal of IRS Sec. 199 which will raise
taxes on American energy production by $30 billion, and which by itself is a Taxpayer Protection
Pledge violation.” [Chattanooga Times Free Press, 9/13/08; ATR Letter, 9/10/08]
ATR Opposed Plan to Increase Oil Spill Liability Fund Financing. On May 28, 2010, the
House passed a bill which increased the taxes which oil companies must pay on a barrel of oil to
increase funding to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, to pay for damages from major spills like the
Gulf of Mexico disaster. When the bill made its way to the Senate, ATR wrote that supporting the
legislation would be a violation of the pledge as it increased the taxes on a barrel of oil. According
to ATR, “Americans for Tax Reform continues to oppose the tax extenders package in the US
Senate. Besides the tax increase on a barrel of oil, the bill as a whole is a tax increase – both a
marginal rate increase and an income tax increase, thus violating the Taxpayer Protection Pledge.”
[Associated Press, 5/29/10; AFP; 5/28/10; ATR, 6/22/10]
Said That He Would Support An Extension Of The Payroll Tax Cut; … But Voted Six Times
Against Considering Payroll Tax Cut Extension, Voted Against 1.1 Percent Payroll Tax Cut
August 2011: Said That He Would Support An Extension Of The Payroll Tax Cut. In August
2011, Coffman said that he would support an extension of the payroll tax cut, saying, “I will support an
extension of the payroll tax cut” [Rep. Coffman Town Hall, YouTube, 2:43 – 3:22, 8/27/11]
… But Three Months Later: Voted Six Times Against Considering Payroll Tax Cut Extension. In
2011, Coffman voted six times against the consideration of a payroll tax cut extension for working
Americans:
Vote #1: Coffman voted to order the previous question, preventing Democrats from considering the
Payroll Tax Holiday Extension Act of 2011, which extended middle class tax relief for 2012. The
previous question passed 239-184. [H Res 477, Vote #870, 11/30/11; Congressional Record, H7955-1957,
11/30/11]
Payroll Tax Holiday Extension Act of 2011, which extended middle class tax relief for 2012, and
the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2011, which extended
unemployment benefits. The previous question passed 236-184. [H Res 479, Vote #889, 12/06/11;
34
Congressional Record, H8151-8152, 12/06/11]
Payroll Tax Holiday Extension Act of 2011, which extended middle class tax relief for 2012, and
the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2011, which extended
unemployment benefits. The previous question passed 241-173. [H Res 487, Vote #902, 12/08/11;
Congressional Record, H8269-8270, 12/08/11]
Vote #4: Coffman voted to order the previous question, preventing Democrats from considering an
amendment in the nature of a substitute, which extended middle class tax relief, unemployment
benefits, and the Medicare reimbursement doctor fix. The previous question passed 236-182. [H Res
491, Vote #918, 12/13/11; Congressional Record, H8756, 12/13/11]
Middle Class Fairness and Putting America Back to Work Act of 2011, which extended middle
class tax relief, unemployment benefits, and the Medicare reimbursement doctor fix. The previous
question passed 235-173. [H Res 493, Vote #925, 12/14/11; Congressional Record, H8919, 12/14/11]
Vote #6: Coffman voted to order the previous question, preventing Democrats from considering a
bill passed by the Senate, which extended middle class tax relief, unemployment benefits, and the
Medicare reimbursement doctor fix for two months. The previous question passed 233-187. [H Res
502, Vote #944, 12/20/11; Congressional Record, H9956-9958, 12/20/11]
2011: Voted Against Additional 1.1 Percent Payroll Tax Cut for Working Families. In 2011,
Coffman voted against an additional 1.1 percent payroll tax cut for working families. The motion would
have increased the employee payroll tax cut to 3.1 percent for 2012 from 2.0 percent. According to an
analysis by the U.S. Department of Treasury’s Office of Tax Policy, expanding the tax cut to 3.1
percent would have been a “tax cut of about $1,550 for the typical American working family in 2012”
when compared to no extension of the payroll tax cut. The motion failed 183-244. [HR 3630, Vote #922,
12/13/11; HR 3630, Vote #922, 12/13/11; Congressional Record, H8820, 12/13/11; Office of Tax Policy – Treasury
Department, 11/30/11; CQ House Action Report, HR 3630, 12/12/11]
Voted For Extreme Plan That Would “Likely Result” In a Government Shutdown
Voted For Extreme Plan That Would “Likely Result” In a Government Shutdown. In 2013,
Coffman voted for an extreme House Republican continuing resolution that the Associated Press
reported would “likely result” in the shutdown of the federal government. According to the New York
Times: “After three years of cajoling, finessing and occasionally strong-arming his fitful conservative
majority, Speaker John A. Boehner waved the white flag on Wednesday, surrendering to demands from
his right flank that he tie money to keep the government open after Sept. 30 to stripping President
Obama’s health care law of any financing. […] The House’s stopgap spending measure would finance
the government through Dec. 15 at the current spending levels, which reflect the automatic spending
cuts that took effect in March, known as sequestration, while blocking the health care law, under which
the uninsured will be enrolled beginning on Oct. 1.” [Associated Press, 8/23/13; New York Times,
9/18/13]
The bill passed 230-189. [HJ Res 59, Vote #478, 9/20/13]
35
Wall Street Journal: A “kamikaze mission” that “rarely turns out well, least of all for the pilots.”
[Wall Street Journal Editorial, 9/16/13]
Karl Rove Op-Ed: An “ill-conceived tactic” and “means we’ll get” a government shutdown. [Karl
Rove op-ed, Wall Street Journal, 9/19/13]
CNN: “With one vote on Friday, the Republican-led House launched the latest spending battle in
Congress – one that could bring a government shutdown in less than two weeks.” [CNN, 9/20/13]
NPR: “While Boehner insisted on moving ahead with Friday’s vote, some prominent GOP
lawmakers in the Senate, such as Arizona Republican John McCain, have warned that forcing a
government shutdown over the Affordable Care Act could backfire on his party.” [National Public
Radio, 9/20/13]
MSNBC: “GOP pushes government toward shutdown” [MSNBC’s Daily Rundown, 9/20/13]
The Nation: “The fracas in Washington will probably cost the Republican Party far more than
anyone else.” [The Nation, 9/20/13]
USA Today: “ObamaCare foes taking hostages” [USA Today, 9/20/13]
Washington Post: “House Republicans rallied behind their right wing Friday to launch a full-scale
assault on President Obama’s health-care initiative, setting up a protracted confrontation with
Democrats that risks shutting down the government in just 10 days.” [Washington Post, 9/20/13]
HEADLINE: “Aurora Rep. Coffman Says His Vote That Shut Government Down Was Based On
Exception” “Coffman said he voted to delay the law known as Obamacare because of an exemption in
the law for members of Congress and their staffs.” [Aurora Sentinel, 10/1/13]
…Was Willing to Take the Consequences of Shutting Down the Government. In 2013, Coffman
when talking about the government shutdown said he was willing to take the consequences. “This a
debate we need to have […] I’m a Marine Corps combat veteran and my job is to lead and to do what’s
right, no matter the consequences. And so whatever the consequences of doing what’s right in
leadership are, I’m willing to take those consequences,” Coffman said. [FOX 31, 9/30/13]
HEADLINE: “Thousands Of Civilian Employees In Colorado Springs Could Be Impacted By
Government Shutdown” [The Gazette, 10/2/13]
HEADLINE: “Shutdown, Impasse Adding To Coffman's Vulnerability” [FOX 31, 10/15/13]
Said The Sequester Cuts He Voted For Were “Just Way Too Deep”; … But Repeatedly Voted To
Keep Sequester Cuts And Not Replace Them
Said The Sequester Cuts He Voted For Were “Just Way Too Deep.” At a July 2012 Reagan Club of
Colorado event in Denver, Coffman said of the debt ceiling deal, “But the umm… the sequester and the
36
cuts from the sequester are just way too deep.” [Reagan Club of Colorado, 7/06/12]
Voted to Approve Sequestration. On August 1, 2011, Coffman voted for a bipartisan bill that
provided processes to both increase the debt limit from $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillion and reduce the
deficit by up to $2.4 trillion through a process of sequestration. [S 365, Vote #690, 8/1/11; CQ Floor Votes,
8/1/11]
… But Repeatedly Voted to Keep the Sequester Cuts. In 2013, Coffman repeatedly voted to keep the
sequester cuts:
Republican Budget: Voted for Republican Budget, Which Contained Cuts From
Sequestration. [H Con Res 25, Vote #88, 3/21/13]
RSC Budget: Voted Against the RSC Budget, Which Contained Cuts From Sequestration. [H
Con Res 25, Vote #86, 3/21/13]
Voted for Sequester Cuts to House Committee Appropriations. [HR 115, Vote #82, 3/19/13]
… And Repeatedly Voted Against Replacing the Sequester. In 2013, Coffman repeatedly voted
against replacing the sequester cuts with a balanced approach:
House Democratic Budget: Voted Against the House Budget That Replaced the Sequester
with a Balanced Approach. [H Con Res 25, Vote #87, 3/21/13]
House Progressive Caucus Budget: Voted Against CPC Budget that Replaced Sequester. [H
Con Res 25, Vote #85, 3/20/13; Economic Policy Institute, 3/13/13]
Senate Democratic Budget: Voted Against Senate Budget That Replaced the Sequester with a
Balanced Approach. [H Con Res 25, Vote #83, 3/20/13; Politico, 3/12/13]
Voted Against Consideration of Replacing Sequester Cuts with Balanced Approach. [H Res 83,
Vote #51, 2/27/13; The Hill, 2/11/13]
Vote #33, 2/27/13]
Vote #41, 2/27/13]
Vote #59, 2/27/13]
Continuing Appropriations Measure: Voted Against Striking Sequester Cuts. [HR 933, Vote #61,
3/06/13]
Voted Against Protecting Seniors from Abusive, Deceptive, or Unfair Practices
In 2011, Coffman voted against ensuring the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau would retain its
37
ability to protect seniors from abusive, deceptive, or unfair practices.
Voted Against Protecting Consumers from Predatory Lending, Financial Fraud
In 2011, Coffman voted against banning individuals convicted of financial fraud from advertising or
soliciting non-publicly traded securities.
Voted to Remove Protections on Food, Toys, and Drinking Water
In February 2011, Coffman voted against a measure that would have required Congressional
committees to place a high priority on tracking, reviewing and preserving the standards that ensure the
safety of the food and drinking water supply, and the safety of children’s toys.
Pro-Life With No Exceptions
Pro-Life With No Exceptions. In 2010, Colorado Right to Life stated that Coffman was pro-life with
no exceptions. According to Colorado Right to Life, “Incumbent Republican Mike Coffman is on
record supporting Personhood and is on record as Pro-Life with no exceptions. However, he does not
appear to have co-sponsored the Personhood legislation introduced in Congress. We hope that he would
vote to support such legislation if he had the opportunity, as he has pledged.” [Colorado Right to Life blog,
10/02/10]
Flip-Flopped On Colorado Personhood Initiative After Supporting It In 2008, Refusing To
Describe His Position On It In 2012, And Opposing It In 2014
Colorado Personhood Amendment Would Ban Many Forms of Birth Control And Give Fertilized
Human Eggs The Same Constitutional Rights As A Living Person. According to a 2008 Denver
Post Editorial, the personhood amendment “goes far beyond banning abortion and many forms of birth
control.” In 2008, NPR reported, “Amendment 48 would define ‘personhood’ as beginning at the
moment of conception, giving fertilized human eggs the same constitutional rights as a person.” [Denver
Post, 6/2/08; National Public Radio, 10/31/08]
Personhood Would Require Rape Victims Keep the Pregnancy. “As far as the personhood
crowd is concerned, it doesn't matter whether a rape was forcible or not: if the rape made a
pregnancy, the rape victim must be legally required to gestate and give birth to a baby.” [Time,
10/20/11]
Personhood Could “Open the Door to Investigating Women Who Have Suffered
Miscarriages.” “By its own logic, the initiative would almost certainly ban common forms of birth
control like the IUD and the morning-after pill, call into question the legality of the common birthcontrol pill, and even open the door to investigating women who have suffered miscarriages.”
[Salon, 10/26/11]
Personhood “Could Have Criminalized Forms of Birth Control.” “Opponents of the
amendment, which would have given fetuses full rights as persons from the moment of fertilization
and could have criminalized forms of birth control that prevent implantation, said it reflected a
growing effort by the anti-abortion movement to target reproductive health services beyond
38
abortion.” [Politico, 11/09/11]
2008: Supported Colorado Personhood Amendment. In 2008, Coffman responded to a Colorado
Right to Life Candidate Questionnaire stating “Yes” in response to the question: “Do you support the
2008 Colorado Personhood amendment effort to define ‘person’ to include any human being from the
moment of fertilization?” [Colorado Right to Life, Candidate Questionnaire, 2008]
Coffman: I Supported “The Right to Life In All Its Stages.” On his 2008 campaign website,
Coffman said that he supported “the right to life in all its stages.” “In America we have a long
tradition of promoting life as an unalienable right, and I will always be an unapologetic advocate for
the right to life in all its stages,” [Coffman campaign website, 4/20/08]
Colorado Right To Life: “Congressman Coffman Answered All Our Questions Correctly To
Reflect He Is A No Exceptions Pro-Life Elected Official Who Supports The Personhood Of
The Baby In The Womb.” In 2012, Colorado Right to Life Vice President Leslie Hanks stated that
Coffman’s pro-life positions, as reported on their blog, reflected the group’s candidate survey
results. “Our blog reports on our candidate survey results,” Hanks said. “Congressman Coffman
answered all our questions correctly to reflect he is a no exceptions pro-life elected official who
supports the personhood of the baby in the womb.” Hanks further elaborated on the meaning of “no
exceptions” in the survey’s context. “Babies are persons, not ‘exceptions,’” she explained. “No
innocent baby should be punished for the crime of his or her father. If mom’s life is in danger, the
doctor has two patients, and he should make every effort to save both. BTW, five of the Republican
prez candidates have signed the PH pledge, so Mike is in good company.” [Colorado Independent,
1/06/12]
2012: Refused To Take Position On Personhood. “In 2012, [Coffman] told the Denver Post he ‘will
not be endorsing nor opposing any state or local ballot questions’ because he’s running for federal
office — which he’s doing again in 2014.” [Fox 31, 3/25/14]
Attempted to Dodge Personhood Question. In 2012, the Denver Post reported that when asked
about Personhood, Coffman “attempted to move on from the question, instead turning the focus to
jobs and military defense cuts, grumbles from the audience could easily be heard inside a packed
synagogue at the Temple Sinai.” [Denver Post, 10/11/12]
2014: Opposed Personhood. “GOP Congressman Mike Coffman is no longer supporting personhood,
his campaign confirmed Tuesday, making him the second Republican in the last five days to disavow
the movement to ban abortion — even in cases of rape or incest — that he’d previously supported.
Coffman, R-Aurora, made his abrupt 180 on the issue public through his campaign just hours after his
opponent, Democrat Andrew Romanoff, challenged Coffman to do so.” [Fox 31, 3/25/14]
HEADLINE: “Coffman … Flips Fast On Personhood” [Fox 31, 3/25/14]
HEADLINE: “Colorado’s Coffman Flips On ‘Personhood,’ Too” [MSNBC Maddow Blog,
3/26/14]
HEADLINE: “Mike Coffman Adjusts Abortion Stance In Cases Of Rape And Incest”
39
Said, “Parts” Of The Personhood Amendment Were Unintended. In 2014, Congressman
Coffman said “There are parts of it that are simply unintended. ... I think it's too overbroad and that
the voters have spoken.” [Denver Post, 4/17/14]
Cited Highly Edited Undercover Videos As Justification For Votes To Defund Planned
Parenthood And The Creation Of A Committee To Investigate The Organization; Grand Jury
Later Cleared Planned Parenthood Of Wrongdoing And Indicted Video Creators For Editing
Videos
Voted Six Times Against Funding For Planned Parenthood. As of January 2016, Coffman has voted
six times in the past year to attempt to defund Planned Parenthood, in part or whole. [HR 3134, Vote
#504, 9/18/15; Democratic Leader – Motions To Recommit, 9/18/15; HR 3134, Vote #505, 9/18/15;
Washington Post, 9/18/15; HR 3495, Vote #524, 9/29/15; Duffy Press Release, 9/29/15; H Con Res
79, Vote #527, 9/30/15; CQ Floor Votes, 9/30/15; HR 3762, Vote #568, 10/23/15; Fox News, 10/23/15;
HR 3762, Vote #6, 1/06/16; The Hill, 1/06/16]
Defended Vote To Freeze Planned Parenthood Funding By Saying Videos “Shock The
Conscience.” “The Planned Parenthood videos released this summer shock the
conscience. Imposing a one-year moratorium on Planned Parenthood funding will give Congress
and the American people time to investigate and evaluate the serious allegations made. I am
pleased to see that Colorado’s federally qualified health clinics will receive funding to ensure
women’s access to health care.” [Coffman Press Release, 9/18/15]
Responded To Question About Allegations Against Planned Parenthood By Saying, “It’s Just
One Thing After Another.” In July 2015 in an interview on the Dan Caplis radio show Coffman
responded to a video put out by an anti-choice group alleging Planned Parenthood engaged in the
sale of fetal organs. “I think it's very alarming. We will be doing some investigative work I think in
a couple of our House Committees to try to get down to the bottom of it. But, you know, what a
tragedy. You know it's just one thing after another with Planned Parenthood. I think they're coming
out of denial now and there's some admissions as to what they did. But we certainly want to get
down to the bottom of it,” Coffman said. [Rep. Coffman Interview with Dan Caplis, 710 KNUS,
12:13, 7/16/15]
Said Planned Parenthood’s Practices “Fly In The Face Of Human Decency.” “Rep. Mike
Coffman of Aurora said Saturday he supports women’s healthcare but not abortion practices that
‘fly in the face of human decency,’ and that’s why he joined other House Republicans to vote for a
budget bill Friday that defunds Planned Parenthood for one year.” [Denver Post, 10/24/15]
Said Planned Parenthood Should Lose Funding “Until They Clean Up Their Act.” “‘I strongly
support funding traditional women’s health services, like broad access to birth control and
contraception especially to poor and underserved communities, through community health centers
and other medical partnerships that act and operate in good faith every day,’ Coffman said in a
statement to the Denver Post Saturday. ‘Many longtime supporters of Planned Parenthood are not
only shocked by what’s been revealed, but also by Planned Parenthood’s arrogant response. Until
they clean up their act, we should fund critical women’s services through the many other
40
community health partners that operate across my district, the state and all across this country in a
way that doesn’t fly in the face of human decency.’” [Denver Post, 10/24/15]
Voted To Create Committee To Investigate Planned Parenthood After Edited Undercover Videos
Surfaced. In October 2015, Coffman voted “to create a special committee to investigate Planned
Parenthood and the handling of aborted fetal tissue, all but ensuring an already-fierce partisan battle
will continue into 2016. In a nearly party-line vote, lawmakers voted 242 to 184 to establish a 13member committee with broad power to investigate wrongdoing by Planned Parenthood amid
allegations that it has tried to profit from the sale of aborted tissue.” [H Res 461, Vote #538, 10/07/15;
The Hill, 10/07/15]
Grand Jury Cleared Planned Parenthood Of Wrongdoing, Indicted Creators Of Undercover
Videos For Editing Videos. “A grand jury here that was investigating accusations of misconduct
against Planned Parenthood has instead indicted two abortion opponents who made undercover videos
of the organization. Prosecutors in Harris County said one of the leaders of the Center for Medical
Progress — an anti-abortion group that made secretly recorded videos purporting to show Planned
Parenthood officials trying to illegally profit from the sale of fetal tissue — had been indicted on a
charge of tampering with a governmental record, a felony, and on a misdemeanor charge related to
purchasing human organs. … On Monday, the Harris County district attorney, Devon Anderson, said in
a statement that grand jurors had cleared Planned Parenthood of any wrongdoing.”
HEADLINE: Planned Parenthood Investigations Find No Fetal Tissue Sales” [NPR, 1/28/16]
HEADLINE: “Creator Of Anti-Planned Parenthood Videos Faces Felony Charge”
Voted To Defund Planned Parenthood After Using Their Logo In A Campaign Ad
Voted To Defund Planned Parenthood After Using Their Logo In A 2014 Campaign Ad. “Rep.
Mike Coffman (R-Colorado), who voted last week in favor of a bill to de-fund Planned Parenthood, is
defending his use of a Planned Parenthood logo in an ad for his 2014 re-election campaign … ‘Using
Planned Parenthood's expression of support is not the same thing as saying it's a good organization,’
said Coffman's spokeswoman Cinamon Watson in an email to 9NEWS.” [9News, 9/21/15]
Local TV Anchor Took Coffman To Task For “Doublespeak.” In September 2015, 9 News
anchor Kyle Clark tweeted, “Is the @RepMikeCoffman & PP unique? I can't name another pol
trumpeting praise from an organization he/she finds abhorrent. #copolitics” He then tweeted, “How
to turn typical #copolitics doublespeak into a truly convoluted on-the-record quote in 3...2...1...”
[@KyleClark, 9/21/15, 9/21/15]
Criticized In Denver Post Column For Flip-Flop on Planned Parenthood. “Coffman is already
taking heat for campaigning with Planned Parenthood's name in 2014 and voting to defund the
organization a year later. He claims the organization's services are easily replaced. But that's simply
not the case.” [Denver Post, 10/31/15]
HEADLINE: “Mike Coffman Votes For Budget Bill That Defunds Planned Parenthood”
41
HEADLINE: “Aurora Congressman Votes To Defund Planned Parenthood” [Durango
Herald, 10/25/15]
HEADLINE: “Rep. Mike Coffman At Once Champions Pregnant Workers Yet Votes To
Defund Planned Parenthood” [Colorado Independent, 9/29/15]
2016: Received A 4 Percent Rating From Planned Parenthood
2016: Received A 4 Percent Rating From Planned Parenthood. In 2016, Planned Parenthood issued
a 4 percent rating for Coffman. The group rates candidates based on their positions on votes on key
legislation related to “women’s health care and rights.” [2016 Congressional Scorecard, Planned
Parenthood Action Fund, accessed 4/11/16]
Co-Sponsored Bill To Redefine Rape; Bill Would Require Women To Suffer From “Forcible
Rape” – Not Just Rape – In Order To Qualify For Federally Funded Abortions; PolitiFact Rated
Claim That Coffman Co-Sponsored Bill To Redefine Rape As “Mostly True”
Co-Sponsored Bill To Redefine Rape; Bill Would Require Women To Suffer From “Forcible
Rape” – Not Just Rape – In Order To Qualify For Federally Funded Abortions. In 2011, Coffman
co-sponsored the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortions Act, which would redefine a ban on federal
funding for abortions to exempt only “forcible rape” and not “rape” generally. A Republican bill
seeking to permanently cut off federal funding for abortions has angered women's groups that say it
alters the definition of rape, permitting coverage for the procedure only in cases in which the rape is
considered ‘forcible.’ … The most well-known provision that would become permanent under the
bill is the Hyde Amendment, which prevents some federally funded health-care programs from
covering abortions. For years, it has allowed exemptions in cases of rape and incest, and when the
life of the woman is threatened. Under the proposed language, however, rape becomes ‘forcible
rape.’” [HR 3 Co-Sponsors, 112th Congress; Washington Post, 2/01/11]
National Women’s Law Center: “It Takes Us Back To A Time Where Just Saying No
Wasn’t Enough.” “Critics say the modifier could distinguish it from other kinds of sexual
assault that are typically recognized as rape, including statutory rape and attacks that occur
because of drugs or verbal threats. ‘It speaks to a distinction between rape where there must be
some element of force in order to rise to the standard, and rape where there is not,’ said Steph
Sterling, director of government relations for the National Women's Law Center. ‘The concern
here is that it takes us back to a time where just saying no was not enough.’” [Washington Post,
2/01/11]
PolitiFact: “Mostly True” That Coffman Co-Sponsored Bill To Redefine Rape; Critics
Argued That “Forcible Rape” Would Exclude Victims Of Statutory Rape And Date Rape.
“Coffman did co-sponsor the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortions Act, which attempted to redefine
a ban on federal funding for abortions to exempt ‘forcible rape’ -- and not rape in broader terms.
Critics said the ‘forcible rape’ language could rule out other forms of sexual assault that are
considered rape, including statutory rape, attacks where women are drugged or threatened, and date
42
rapes. … Emily’s List said that Coffman ‘co-sponsored a bill to redefine rape.’ The record shows
Coffman did co-sponsor the bill to redefine a ban on federal funding for abortions to exempt
‘forcible rape.’ … Given the totality of his actions on the legislation, we're rating this claim Mostly
True.” [PolitiFact, 2/02/16]
HEADLINE: “Democrats Highlight Coffman’s Support For Measure That Could Have
Redefined Rape” [Denver Post, 8/20/12]
HEADLINE: “GOP Abortion Bill Redefines Rape” [The Daily Beast, 1/30/11]
HEADLINE: “‘Forcible Rape’ Cut From Antiabortion Bill After Backlash From
Women’s Groups” [Washington Post, 2/03/11]
Co-Sponsored Bill To Redefine Rape With Rep. Todd Akin, Who Was Criticized For “Legitimate
Rape” Comments. “In the wake of comments by Rep. Todd Akin, R-Mo., about ‘legitimate rape’–
which drew nationwide criticism — Democrats are now highlighting legislation he and Republican
Rep. Mike Coffman co-sponsored in the U.S. House that could have redefined rape. Coffman, who is
running for re-election in the Aurora-based 6th Congressional District, is among many House
Republicans who in 2011 co-sponsored the ‘No Taxpayer Funding for Abortions Act.’ The measure
examined redefining a ban on federal funding for abortions to exempt only “forcible rape” — and not
rape in more broader terms.” [Denver Post, 10/20/12]
Only Member Of Congress To Co-Sponsor Two Competing Pregnant Workers Bills That Work
Against Each Other
Only Member Of Congress To Co-Sponsor The Pregnancy Discrimination Amendment Act
(PDAA) And The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) On The Same Day. In June 2015,
Coffman co-sponsored the Pregnancy Discrimination Amendment Act (PDAA) and the Pregnant
Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) on the same day. He was the only member of Congress to co-sponsor
both bills. [HR 2800, 6/23/15; HR 2654, 6/23/15]
The Pregnancy Discrimination Amendment Act Was Introduced As Alternative To The
Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. “In June 2015, some members of Congress introduced the
Pregnancy Discrimination Amendment Act (PDAA; S1590/HR2800) as an alternative to the
PWFA. While we applaud these members for paying attention to this important issue, the alternative
leaves many pregnant workers and their health behind, and is likely worse than the status quo.” [A
Better Balance, 7/08/15]
Pregnancy Discrimination Amendment Act Was Introduced Two Weeks After The Pregnant
Workers Fairness Act. [HR 2800, 6/17/15; HR 2654, 6/04/15]
National Women's Law Center: The Two Bills Differ Greatly; PWFA Strengthens Legal
Protections For Pregnant Workers, PDAA Diminishes Legal Protections For Pregnant Workers.
“According to its sponsors, the Pregnancy Discrimination Amendment Act, S. 1590, H.R. 2800,
(‘Amendment Act’) seeks to address a critical problem of pregnant workers being forced to choose
between their jobs and their health when they have a medical need for temporary accommodations. The
43
bill thus reflects the growing, bipartisan awareness of the need to strengthen legal protections for
pregnant workers. Unfortunately, the Amendment Act raises more legal questions than it answers and,
if enacted, could actually diminish the legal protections pregnant workers currently enjoy. By contrast,
the bipartisan Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, S. 1512, H.R. 2654, would provide a clear, flexible rule
ensuring reasonable accommodations for pregnant workers who need them.” [National Women’s Law
Center, 7/27/15]
Pregnancy Discrimination Amendment Act Did Not Go As Far As The Pregnant Workers
Fairness Act. “An alternative bill to strengthen protection from employment discrimination for
pregnant workers is the Republican-sponsored Pregnancy Discrimination Amendment
Act…However, this bill does not go nearly as far as the Pregnant Workers’ Fairness Act, and it is
not surprising that this week, the Washington Post published a piece on how Republicans are losing
the support of working mothers. [Spiggle Law Firm, accessed 9/22/15]
National Women’s Law Center: Bill Could Actually Diminish The Legal Protections Pregnant
Workers Currently Enjoy. “According to its sponsors, the Pregnancy Discrimination Amendment
Act, S. 1590, H.R. 2800, (‘Amendment Act’) seeks to address a critical problem of pregnant
workers being forced to choose between their jobs and their health when they have a medical need
for temporary accommodations … Unfortunately, the Amendment Act raises more legal questions
than it answers and, if enacted, could actually diminish the legal protections pregnant workers
currently enjoy.” [National Women’s Law Center, 7/27/15]
National Women’s Law Center: Bill Could Lead To Pregnant Workers Being Denied
Medically Needed Accommodations. H.R. 2800, the Pregnancy Discrimination Amendment Act
would narrow the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (‘PDA’), enacted in 1978, which makes clear that
employment discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions is a
prohibited. The bill would require employers to treat pregnant workers the same as a person who is
not pregnant, “but similar in their temporary ability or inability to work.” This word “could lead to
pregnant workers being denied medically needed accommodations based on distinctions that make
little sense” because the temporary nature of being pregnant could limit accommodations. [National
Women’s Law Center, 7/27/15]
National Women’s Law Center: Bill Would Weaken Legal Protection That Women May Not
Be Forced To Choose Between Having A Child And Having A Job. The change in language to
the Pregnancy Discrimination Act by H.R. 2800, the Pregnancy Discrimination Amendment Act
would weaken the protection that women may not be forced to choose between having a child and
having a job. “This change in language could also harm pregnant workers’ rights outside the
pregnancy accommodation context. The Supreme Court has long held that the PDA’s requirement
that pregnant workers be treated the same as others ‘similar in their ability or inability to work’
means that pregnant employees cannot be shut out of particular positions for reasons unrelated to
their ability to do their job. ‘In other words, women as capable of doing their jobs as their male
counterparts may not be forced to choose between having a child and having a job.’ By adding the
modifier ‘temporary’ to the PDA’s requirement, the Amendment Act would complicate and
undermine this analysis, weakening the key protection provided by the PDA for more than a
generation.” [National Women’s Law Center, 7/27/15]
44
Opposed Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to Prevent Wage Discrimination
Opposed Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to Prevent Wage Discrimination. In 2009, Coffman voted
against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. The Senate measure was nearly identical to some provisions in
the House passed version HR 11. The final bill allowed employees to sue employers for wage
discrimination within 180 days of their last paycheck affected by the alleged discrimination. The
measure was designed to overturn a 2007 Supreme Court decision (Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and
Rubber Co.) that ruled a worker could not bring a wage discrimination suit more than 180 days after the
initial discriminatory act. The Senate version of the bill did not include a provision from HR 12 that
would have required employers seeking to justify unequal pay for male and female workers to prove
that such disparities are job-related and required by a business necessity. [CQ House Action Reports
Legislative Week, 1/26/09]
The bill passed 250-177. [S 181, Vote #37, 1/27/09]
Said the Lilly Ledbetter Amendment Written by Trail Lawyers. In 2013, Coffman said the
Lilly Ledbetter amendment was written by trail lawyers. “I fully support equality for women in the
workplace. However, the Lilly Ledbetter amendment was written by trial lawyers for trial lawyers
so that any wage discrimination lawsuit could be filed decades after the employee left the job. By
that time, the ownership could have changed multiple times making all of the pay records and
witnesses difficult to locate,” Coffman said. [Office of Rep. Coffman, 8/30/14]
Drafted Bill to Make It Harder to Sue Perpetrators of Sexual Abuse
Drafted Bill to Make It Harder to Sue Perpetrators of Sexual Abuse. In 1995, Coffman drafted a
bill that would discourage “repressed-memory therapy” in cases of alleged sexual abuse and more
strictly limit when the accused could be held liable. According to Coffman, the bill would require
mental health workers to document that they advised their patients of the nature and possible
consequences of repressed-memory therapy, and would prevent perpetrators from being held liable for
civil damages more than six years after the abuse supposedly occurred – or more than six years after the
alleged child victim reaches the age of 18. [Denver Post, 12/19/95]
Denver Post Suggested Coffman Was Acting “Arrogant.” In 1996, the Denver Post criticized
Coffman’s legislation, writing, “Lawmakers must not be so arrogant as to assume they can legislate
in an area that is as little understood as the phenomenon of human memory.” “Trust is the most
important element in any counseling relationship, but lawmakers in effect would make counselors
tell their clients: Don’t trust me,” the newspaper went on. “The legislature should not dictate what
kinds of therapy mental health counselors can offer patients - particularly when the profession itself
is grappling with the very problem the bill purports to remedy,” it concluded. [Editorial, Denver Post,
1/19/96]
Coffman Criticized Denver Post’s Critique. In a letter to the Denver Post, Coffman criticized
their critique, explaining his legislation was meant to “protect the family.” “The legislation is not
perfect and will be improved through amendments. Its sole purpose is to protect the family. If
government ever needed to put a warning label on anything, it is the use of repressed memories in
psychotherapy,” he wrote. [Denver Post, 1/30/96]
45
Sponsored Bill Limiting Aid to Families with Dependent Children, Said Original Program
Encouraged Children Out Of Wedlock
Sponsored Bill Limiting Aid to Families with Dependent Children. In 1995, Coffman sponsored a
bill that would set a two-year limit on Aid to Families with Dependent Children. [Denver Post, 2/08/95]
Coffman Said Existing Program Encouraged Children Out of Wedlock. In 1995, Coffman said
that the existing AFDC program incentivized having children out of wedlock. “I want to send a
message down to the people: This is not a career choice; this is not a ladder. It’s a helping hand,” he
explained. [Denver Post, 2/08/95]
Co-Sponsored Bill To Prohibit Birthright Citizenship; … Then Supported Path To Citizenship
For Children Of Illegal Immigrants; … But Six Months Later: Supported Ending Birthright
Citizenship
January 2011: Co-Sponsored Rep. Steve King’s “Birthright Citizenship Act,” Which Would
Remove the Constitutional Guarantee of Citizenship to Children Born in the U.S. In January 2011,
Coffman co-sponsored HR 140, the Birthright Citizenship Act. According to Congressional Quarterly,
the bill would have prohibited “the automatic granting of citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal
immigrants.” According to the New York Times, “The right to United States citizenship for everyone
born on American soil is described in the 14th Amendment. [...] The 14th Amendment was adopted in
the wake of the Civil War to guarantee citizenship to the American-born children of freed slaves.”
[Congressional Quarterly, 1/24/11; 112th Congress Co-Sponsorships, accessed 7/22/13; New York
Times, 1/05/11; Denver Post, 2/13/11]
… Then In February 2013: Supported Pathway To Citizenship For Children Of Illegal
Immigrants. “A Colorado Republican congressman who only a year ago supported an end to birthright
citizenship now backs a pathway to citizenship for young illegal immigrants. Rep. Mike Coffman told a
town hall crowd in Aurora, Colo., on Sunday of his position change, according to the Denver Post.
While Coffman said he supports a pathway to citizenship for young illegal immigrants who were
brought to the United States as children, he wasn’t as sure about allowing adult illegal immigrants to
become citizens. … A Coffman spokesman confirmed the position change in the story to POLITICO.”
[Politico, 2/11/13]
HEADLINE: “GOP Pol Backs Youth Citizenship Path” [Politico, 2/11/13]
… But In August 2013: Supported Taking Away The Guarantee Of Citizenship To Children Born
In The U.S. In 2013, when asked by a reporter about his 2011 support of the extreme “Birthright
Citizenship Act,” that would remove the 14th Amendment’s citizenship guarantee for children born in
the U.S., Coffman doubled-down on his position. “The current law is, that, and I think the United States
is separate from other countries, that if you’re born in the United States that you are in fact a citizen of
the United States. You know I think we should probably be, adopt a policy of other countries that you
are a citizen of your parents…,” Coffman said. When the reporter sought clarification by asking “You
would like to see the change, right? Is that what you’re saying?” Coffman responded “Sure.” [Denver
Post, 5:50, 8/30/13]
Suggested Immigrants Brought Elderly Relatives to U.S. to Get Welfare
46
Suggested Immigrants Brought Elderly Relatives to U.S. to Get Welfare. In 1996, Coffman
suggested that immigrants brought elderly relatives to the United States “with the understanding that
they’re going to be covered” by welfare. [Denver Post, 1/13/97]
Consistently Voted Against DREAMers
2010: Voted Against The DREAM Act. In 2010, Coffman voted against the DREAM Act, which
would provide a path to legal residency for hundreds of thousands of young, undocumented immigrants
first brought to the United States illegally by their parents. The bill passed, 216-198. [HR 5281, Vote
#625, 12/08/10; Denver post, 12/08/10]
June 2013: Voted To Defund President Obama’s Executive Order That Protected DREAMers
From Deportation. In 2013, Congressman Coffman voted for an amendment to the 2014 Homeland
Security appropriations bill that would prohibit the use of Immigration and Customs Enforcement funds
to implement President Obama’s June 2012 order that protects the “DREAMers” from deportation—
those estimated 800,000 young undocumented immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children and
have since led law-abiding lives. The amendment also prohibits other prosecutorial discretion policies
that ensure the agency's immigration enforcement resources are targeted at serious criminals, and not at
those who pose no threat to U.S. communities, such as victims of domestic violence and other crimes
who come forward to seek protection and identify their abusers. The amendment passed, 224-201. [HR
2217, Vote #208, 6/06/13]
Colorado Independent: Congressman Coffman’s Support for the King Amendment
Demonstrated His Insincerity On Immigration. The Colorado Independent reported that
opposing the King amendment “would have been an easy way for Coffman to demonstrate the
sincerity of his new softer approach to immigration and tamp down criticism on the left that his
conversion is mere political opportunism that should fail to fool voters.” [Colorado Independent,
6/06/13]
Defended His Vote, Saying There Was Too Much Prosecutorial Discretion. “I strongly support
giving a path to citizenship for the children who grew up and graduated from school here as part of
a comprehensive immigration reform package but within these I.C.E. memos there is simply too
much prosecutorial discretion,” Coffman said. [Fox 31, 6/6/13]
HEADLINE: “Coffman Votes to Defund ‘Dreamers’ from Obama” [Denver Post, 6/7/13]
March 2014: Voted To Deport DREAMers. In 2014, Coffman voted for the Executive Needs to
Faithfully Observe and Respect Congressional Enactments of the Law Act of 2014 that “could end the
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy that keeps the [Dreamers] people from being deported.”
The bill passed 233 to 181. [H.R. 4138, Vote #124, 3/12/14]
HEADLINE: “House GOP Passes Immigration-Related Bill That Goes After Dreamers”
[Huffington Post, 3/12/14]
March 2014: Voted Against An Amendment Protecting Dreamers. In 2014, Coffman voted against
47
an amendment protecting Dreamers to an overall bill that limited or otherwise affect “the constitutional
authority of the executive branch to exercise prosecutorial discretion.” The amendment failed 190 –
225. [Nadler Amendment No. 2, Vote #121, 3/12/14]
May 2014: Voted for Steve King’s Amendment to Investigate Dreamers. In 2014, Coffman voted
for Congressman Steve King’s amendment “to pay for the Department of Justice to investigate the
release of immigrants, some with criminal charges or convictions by the Department of Homeland
Security.” The bill passed 218 to 193. [King of Iowa Amendment, Vote #246, 5/29/14; NBC News,
5/29/14]
Ku Klux Klan Praised King Amendment. In 2014, The Knights Party Ku Klux Klan website
posted: “Iowa Republican Steve King isn’t about to give up the fight to preserve America’s
integrity. He has been a leading figure in exposing the irrational immigration policies of D.C. and
this time around he’s got a few more on his side. In reference to the continued release of criminal
aliens in the U.S. he noted, ‘It is defacto amnesty that is going on at the Department of Homeland
Security, Let’s protect the American people from criminals being poured loose on the street by the
tens of thousands.’” [KKK, 6/2/14]
January 2015: Voted For Amendment To Defund Immigration Executive Order. On January 14,
2015, Coffman voted for an amendment to defund President Obama’s executive action on immigration.
“One of the amendments would choke off funding for Obama’s executive action announced in
November, which would allow some illegal immigrants to stay in the country and obtain work permits.”
The amendment was adopted 237 to 190. [HR 240, Vote #29, 1/14/15; The Hill, 1/14/15]
Supported English-Only Ballots, Said Minority Language Voters Should “Pull Out A Dictionary”
Said Minority Language Voters Should “Pull Out a Dictionary.” In 2011, Coffman said minority
language voters should “pull out a dictionary” if they want to read the ballots. “One thing they ought to
do is pull out a dictionary when they are at home, because the ballots have been sent to them a long
time in advance. [Pols emphasis] They can seek help from friends who speak English, look up words
they do not know; sometimes you have to put a little more effort to assimilate into our culture.”
[ColoradoPols, 4/21/14]
HEADLINE: “Coffman To Minority Language Voters: ‘Pull Out a Dictionary’” [ColoradoPols,
4/21/14]
Wanted to Eliminate Requirement that Areas with Large Non-Proficient English Speaking
Populations Print Multi-Lingual Ballots. In 2011, Coffman announced that he would introduce a bill
that would repeal a section of the 1973 Voting Rights Act that requires jurisdictions with large
populations of non-proficient English speakers to print ballots in more than one language. “Since
proficiency in English is already a requirement for U.S. citizenship, forcing cash-strapped local
governments to provide ballots in a language other than English makes no sense at all,” he explained.
Coffman: The Need For Multilingual Ballots “Greatly Exaggerated”; Said He Knew Spanish
Well Enough To Read A Ballot. “First of all, I think the need is greatly exaggerated. I think that, I
mean, I can speak Spanish well enough to be able to read a ballot if it were in Spanish. … There are
48
more intelligent ways, in other words, it could be, a county could say, if somebody applied for the
ballot, requested it, then maybe they get it. Or send a sample ballot to them, a dual-language sample
ballot. … There is a requirement in law that says, to be a naturalized U.S. citizen, that you have to
demonstrate basic proficiency in English. … The fact is, we do have a requirement in law. We don’t
have a requirement in law that says, if you’re English-deficient, that you have access to a ballot in
your native language.” [Rep. Coffman Interview With Fox News, YouTube, 2:56 – 4:30, 8/26/11]
August 2013: Said He Still Believed In English Only Ballots. In 2013, when asked if he still
believed in English only ballots Coffman said, “You know I still feel, part of my rewrite of
immigration law, I mean if the law says you’re supposed to know English, I think the that the
standards of citizenship in the United States under current law are too low that when we say in law
you’re supposed to be able to comprehend English. I mean that’s exactly what we ought to mean
and it shouldn’t be waiverable. We need to raise those standards for citizenship.” [Colorado Public
Radio, 8/22/13]
Authored Bill That Would Allow For Citizenship Through Military Service, Later Said Similar
Bill “Does Not Work For The Military”; Voted To Deport The Very People He Sought To Gain
Citizenship Through Enlistment
2013: Authored Bill That Would Allow For Citizenship Through Military Service. In 2013
Coffman introduced the Military Enlistment Opportunity Act that he wrote sought “to expand military
enlistment opportunities and create a system that mutually benefits the armed services and individuals
with temporary immigration status.” According to Coffman, under his bill “individuals who have
resided legally in the United States continuously for at least two years as well as the Deferred Action
Childhood Arrivals would be permitted to sign up for military service alongside American citizens and
lawful permanent residents.” [Our Colorado News, Coffman Guest Column, 1/31/13; Highland Ranch
Herald, Coffman Guest Column, 1/31/13]
Said The People In The Deferred Action Childhood Arrivals Program Should Have The
Chance To Become Citizens. “There have been over 154,000 young people who have been
accepted under the DACA program, and these patriotic individuals should have the chance to
honorably serve their country and become naturalized citizens,” wrote Coffman. [Highland Ranch
Herald, Coffman Guest Column, 1/31/13]
Said He Was Pleased With The Presidents’ Immigration Proposal Dealing With Military
Service For Undocumented Immigrants. “I am pleased that the President‘s immigration proposal
included a plan aimed at expanding the eligibility for military service to the young men and women
who were brought here as children through no fault of their own. Today I introduced the Military
Enlistment Opportunity Act that seeks to do just this. Regardless of the final outcome of the larger
comprehensive package being discussed by the Senate, I strongly believe this piece of the plan must
be adopted. This is a critical issue, not only because it gives these young people an opportunity to
earn citizenship through service to our nation, but it will also broaden the pool of eligible recruits
for our military,” Coffman said. [Office of Rep. Coffman, 1/30/13]
March 2014: Voted To Deport The Very People Who He Wanted To Enlist To Gain Citizenship.
In 2014, the Associated Press reported the Coffman’s vote to defund DACA “could have led to
49
deporting some of the people Coffman wants to aid in his military bill.” [Associated Press, 3/9/14]
Aurora Sentinel: Coffman’s Immigration Relies On Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals
That He Voted To Defund. According to the Aurora Sentinel, “In June 2013, Coffman voted
alongside other House Republicans to defund a key program in the Obama administration’s plan for
young immigrants. Coffman joined Colorado and House Republicans in voting to lift the executive
order for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals status. Coffman’s plan for military service as a
path to citizenship for enlisted military members relies first on the applicant to receive DACA
status.” [Aurora Sentinel, 1/23/14]
HEADLINE: “Kudos To Aurora Sentinel For Noticing That Coffman’s Vote Against
Dreamers Undermines Coffman’s Own Legislation” [Bigmedia.org, 1/24/14]
April 2014: Introduced Bill That Would Allow For Citizenship Through Military Service In 2014,
the Aurora Sentinel reported that Congressman Coffman was pushing “his Military Enlistment
Opportunity Act, a proposal that would allow undocumented minors a path to citizenship through the
military. That proposal would allow enlistees who have received Deferred Action for Childhood
Arrivals status a path to citizenship through military service. Currently, to enlist in the military,
immigrants must be permanent residents with a green card.” [Aurora Sentinel, 4/25/14]
April 2014: Said The ENLIST Act “Does Not Work For The Military.” In 2014, Coffman was
against ENLIST Act that would allow those brought to the U.S. illegally to join the military from being
included in National Defense Authorization Act. “I wholeheartedly agree with Chairman McKeon that
the ENLIST Act should not be included in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) because it
does not work for the military. Most notably, the Act would burden enlistment officers by saddling
them with the added task of checking immigration status of potential recruits – a task the Department of
Defense has testified it does not want. Going forward, I look forward to continuing my work with
Chairman McKeon to craft effective enlistment policy that would allow certain undocumented young
people to enlist and naturalize through military service,” Coffman said. [Office of Rep. Coffman, 4/4/14]
ENLIST Act Would Allow Those Brought To U.S. To Earn Citizenship Through The
Military. In 2014, CNN reported that the ENLIST Act, “would allow those who were brought
illegally to the United States when they were 15 or younger to enlist in the military and gain legal
status.” [CNN, 4/4/14]
2015: Introduced Bill That Would Allow Children Of Immigrants To Serve In The Military.
“Today, U.S. Representative Mike Coffman (CO-6) introduced the Military Enlistment Opportunity Act
of 2015. … ‘It is time we allow those young men and women brought to the United States as children
by their parents the same opportunity I had to demonstrate that loyalty and commitment through
military service. These young men and women were raised and educated in this country, and they are
ready willing and able to serve and defend the United States. Let them serve the country they love and
call home.’ Coffman's legislation extends eligibility for military service from U.S. Citizens and Lawful
Permanent Residents (LPR) to include individuals who meet all other requirements for enlistment, do
not have any record of unlawful activities since their arrival in the U.S., and have received background
checks and work authorization from the Department of Homeland Security.” [Rep. Mike Coffman press
release, 10/07/15]
50
HEADLINE: “Colorado Republican: Let ‘Dreamers’ Serve In Military.” “Rep. Mike Coffman
(R-06) is whipping votes against an amendment that would strip language from a defense bill that
would explore allowing certain illegal immigrants to serve in the military in exchange for U.S.
citizenship.” Coffman… said in a speech on the House floor: ‘Let our DREAMers serve. ... Let the
young men and women who were brought here as children, through no fault of their own, serve their
country. Let them serve the country that educated them. Let them serve the country they love. If
DREAMers want to put their life on the line for this country, we should give them the opportunity
and honor their willingness to serve.” [The Hill, 5/14/15]
HEADLINE: “Clinton Backs Military Service For Illegal Immigrants.” “Hillary Clinton is backing
a push to allow certain illegal immigrants to serve in the U.S. military…” [The Hill, 5/14/15]
Said Those Who Have Violated Immigration Laws Should Be Able To Stay In The Country
Indefinitely; … But Three Days Later: Flip-Flopped, Did Not Support A Path To Citizenship For
Those Who Had “Violated Our Laws”, Including Those Who Came To The U.S. Illegally
February 10th, 2013: Coffman: Those Who Violated Immigration Laws “Ought To Be Able To
Stay In This Country Indefinitely.” In 2013, while speaking to a group of pro-immigration advocates,
Coffman said, “Those that have been here and who may have violated immigration laws – but have not
violated criminal laws – ought to be able to stay in this country indefinitely and given a legal status. I
don’t think there’s any question about that.” [Together Colorado meeting with Rep. Coffman, 2:28 –
2:45, 2/10/13]
February 13th, 2013: Didn’t Support Path To Citizenship For Those Who Came Into The Country
Illegally. In 2013, when asked about his position on immigration, Coffman said, “I certainly don’t
support a path to citizenship for those that have violated our laws.” When asked if he meant “those who
came here who don’t have legal status,” Coffman said, “Yeah.” [Denver Post, 0:45 – 1:03, 2/13/13]
2014: Coffman: No Pathway To Citizenship For “Adults Who Have Knowingly Broken The
Law”. In 2014, when asked “should illegal immigrants have a pathway to citizenship,”
Congressman Coffman said: “I think for the adults who have knowingly broken the law I don’t
believe so.” [ABC Channel 7, 10/17/14]
2014: Aurora Sentinel: Coffman Opposed Path To Citizenship For Adults Who Illegally
Immigrated To The U.S. “Coffman said he doesn’t support a special path to citizenship for adults
in the country who knowingly illegally immigrated to the country…” [Aurora Sentinel, 4/28/14]
Latino Democrats Blamed Coffman For Trump’s Rise; CO State Rep. Joe Salazar Compared
Coffman’s Stances And Rhetoric Concerning Immigration To Donald Trump
Latino Dems Blamed Mike Coffman For Trump’s Rise. “Democratic Latino leaders partially blame
U.S. Rep. Mike Coffman for laying the ideological base for Donald Trump’s ‘racist’ platform.
Coffman, who has endorsed Sen. Marco Rubio for president, has remained silent on whether, in a
general election, he would support Trump, the GOP frontrunner, or Trump’s anti-immigrant platform,
which has been embraced by the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis and other white supremacists. Democrats
and liberal groups point out Coffman’s silence is particularly deafening in a moment when Republican
51
leaders, including Mitt Romney, have spoken against Trump and risk exploding the party trying to
dethrone its frontrunner during what may be a contested national GOP convention in Cleveland.”
[Colorado Independent, 3/03/16]
State Sen. Jessie Ulibarri: Mike Coffman “Has Never Been And Will Never Be A Friend” To
Colorado Immigrants. “Coffman, despite a recent change in rhetoric, has not been a supporter of
immigrants' rights or immigration reform. While his talking points have changed, his actions have not.
Throughout his 25-year political career, Coffman has espoused radical, anti-immigrant views … These
actions tell us that Coffman has never been and will never be a friend to Colorado's newest arrivals. It's
understandable that he would begin pandering to Latinos and immigrants now that he represents
Colorado's most ethnically diverse congressional district. However, voters in the 6th Congressional
District are smart enough to see that the distortion of my words by Coffman's campaign is meant solely
to gain votes in a tight election.” [Denver Post, 6/05/14]
Joe Salazar Compared Coffman’s Offensive Rhetoric To Donald Trump. “Trump & Coffman use
hyperbolic and offensive rhetoric towards immigrants to make you believe that all of your troubles are
because of somebody else. The real troubles, however, start and stop with the worst Congress in U.S.
history wholly controlled by Coffman’s party … Although Mike Coffman believes that learning
Spanish would endear him to immigrant communities, his rhetoric and record only demonstrate that he
is now effective in offending good, hard-working people in two languages. Let us not forget that he
also fought to change the Voting Rights Act to ban multilingual ballots in areas with large populations
of non-proficient English speakers (telling people they ought to grab a dictionary).” [Aurora Sentinel,
Salazar Op-Ed, 9/03/15]
Joe Salazar Compared Coffman’s Stance On Birthright Citizenship To Donald Trump.
“Congressman Mike Coffman was a loud supporter of the extreme anti-immigrant agenda long
before Donald Trump rode his xenophobia to the top of the Republican polls …Trump & Coffman
both want to end birthright citizenship. Interestingly, then-District Attorney Ken Buck held a
similar position in 2010 when he challenged Senator Michael Bennet for the U.S. Senate seat. I
wrote an op-ed piece on Buck’s patently unconstitutional position by citing an 1898 U.S. Supreme
Court case that firmly held that a U.S.-born son of Chinese immigrants was a U.S. citizen under the
Fourteenth Amendment. The case stemmed from a purely racist attack on Chinese
immigrants. Trump & Coffman’s position is a purely racist attack primarily on Mexican
immigrants. How sad is it that an 1898 U.S. Supreme Court is more forward thinking than these
21st century representatives of the Republican Party?” [Aurora Sentinel, Salazar Op-Ed, 9/03/15]
Joe Salazar Compared Coffman’s Support Of Building Border Fence To Donald Trump’s
Plan To Build A Wall. “Congressman Mike Coffman was a loud supporter of the extreme antiimmigrant agenda long before Donald Trump rode his xenophobia to the top of the Republican polls
… Trump & Coffman want to build a wall or fence along the 1,954 mile US-Mexico
border. Coffman actually made a big deal of introducing legislation to complete a fence, which he
called an ‘effective’ defense. This position is laughable for too many reasons to list. But, let us
keep in mind that while Coffman wants to build a 1,954 mile wall, he cannot even manage a
disastrous VA project in his own district.” [Aurora Sentinel, Salazar Op-Ed, 9/03/15]
Joe Salazar Compared Coffman Questioning The President’s Loyalty To Offensive Comments
52
Made By Donald Trump. “Congressman Mike Coffman was a loud supporter of the extreme antiimmigrant agenda long before Donald Trump rode his xenophobia to the top of the Republican polls
… Trump & Coffman both questioned whether or not President Obama was born in
America. Coffman was even so bold as to declare that ‘in his heart’ President Obama is ‘not an
American.’ Three years later, Trump is still trumpeting the same sad rhetoric.” [Aurora Sentinel,
Salazar Op-Ed, 9/03/15]
Voted To Submit Amicus Brief Opposed To President Obama’s DACA/DAPA Executive Orders,
But Claimed On Same Day That It Was Merely A “Show Vote”
Voted To Submit Amicus Brief Opposed To President Obama’s DACA/DAPA Executive Orders,
But Claimed On Same Day That It Was Merely A “Show Vote.”. “Today, U.S. Representative Mike
Coffman (R-CO) released the following statement regarding his vote in support of the U.S. House of
Representatives’ Amicus brief that condemns President Obama’s executive overreach: ‘This is a show
vote that adds nothing to the immigration debate or its resolution. The president clearly exceeded his
authority, but that doesn't mean that we should break families up. The president and this Congress
would do well to stop the tit for tat and start working together on a measure that bolsters security on the
border and keeps families together.’” [Rep. Coffman press release, 3/17/16]
HEADLINE: “Ryan: House Will File Brief With Supreme Court To Try To Block Obama’s
Immigration Policies”. “House Speaker Paul Ryan announced the House will vote soon on
legislation authorizing the chamber to file an amicus brief in the case pending before the Supreme
Court challenging President Barack Obama's executive actions on immigration. … The
President unveiled the programs over a year ago, but federal courts blocked implementation in
response to a challenge brought by Texas and 25 other states. Since then, the nearly 4.3 million
immigrants who would have been eligible have been caught in legal limbo. The Supreme Court will
likely rule on the case by early summer. If the court greenlights the programs that are considered a
centerpiece of the President's second term, they will go into effect before he leaves office.” [CNN,
3/01/16]
DCCC: Coffman Voted To Send Amicus Brief On Behalf Of The House Of Representatives To
The Supreme Court Against President Obama’s Executive Orders Protecting DACA And DAPA.
“Today, in a rare, historic vote to send an amicus brief on behalf of the House of Representatives to the
Supreme Court against President Obama’s immigration actions, Congressman Coffman voted to tear
apart hardworking immigrant families. The clearly political, Trump-inspired sentiment behind the vote
is made all the more outrageous by the fact that Coffman cast his vote without even having the text of
the amicus brief. … Today’s vote concerns President Obama’s immigration orders: an extension to
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) for eligible children who had been brought to the
United States through no fault of their own, and the new Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and
Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA), which shields eligible immigrant parents of U.S. citizens and
legal permanent residents from deportation and grants them with temporary work permits. It is
estimated that unfreezing DAPA and expanded DACA would result in tens of billions of dollars in
economic growth.” [DCCC Press Release, 3/17/16]
2012 – December 2016: 26,725 DACA Immigrants Were Approved To Live In Colorado. As of
December 2015, 26,725 DACA immigrants were approved to live in Colorado.
53
2012: Said Obama Was In His Heart “Not An American” And Questioned The President’s
Birthplace, Refused To Explain Himself And Praised Birthers
May 2012: Said Obama Was In His Heart “Not An American” And Questioned The President’s
Birthplace. During a May 2012 fundraiser in Elbert County, Congressman Coffman said, "I don't know
whether Barack Obama was born in the United States of America. I don't know that. But I do know this,
that in his heart, he's not an American. He's just not an American." [9News, 5/16/12; Denver Post,
5/16/12]
May 2012: Denver Post: Coffman Gave an “Apology that Contains More Arrogance than
Remorse”. “How many of you would advise Coffman that the best way to introduce himself in a new,
more competitive district is via stories on the top-rated TV station and in the state’s largest newspaper
in which he essentially puts on the tri-cornered hat and shows the world his “birther” card? And then
offering an apology that contains more arrogance than remorse? Wow.” [Denver Post, The Spot,
5/17/12]
May 2012: Refused to Explain His Comment Calling Obama “Not an American”. In a May 2012
interview with 9News, Coffman five times repeated his line, “I stand by my statement that I misspoke
and I apologize,” without further explaining his comments calling President Obama “not an American.”
[9News, 5/22/12]
May 2012: Hid from Reporter’s Requests for Explanation. “9NEWS Reporter Kyle Clark
approached Coffman outside a closed door fundraiser Tuesday night after the Coffman campaign
ignored several requests over several days to schedule an interview with the congressman. Coffman
reiterated that he misspoke and apologized, but would not elaborate. Coffman offered the same one-line
explanation to every question asked, including when he was asked if he would answer any question
with a different response.” [9News, 5/22/12]
June 2012: Praised Birthers. In 2012, Coffman went on the Dan Caplis radio show and said of
birthers “God bless people that do that […] I understand their passion.” [Denver Post, 6/3/12]
After Suggesting That Muslims In The Military Should Be Vetted For Radical Ties To Islam,
Coffman Spoke In Front Of The “Nation’s Leading Anti-Muslim Hate Group”; Co-Sponsored
Birthright Bill That The Group Lobbied In Favor Of
2011: Suggested Muslims in Military Should Be Vetted for Ties to Radical Islam. In a 2012
interview, Coffman suggested that Muslims in the military should be vetted for ties to radical Islam.
Coffman said, “We need that same mentality today, to have that active counter-intelligence effort, to
make sure that our ranks are not infiltrated by those sympathetic to radical Islam, like Major Hasan
[Fort Hood], like Private First Class Abdo. And I think that is very important. And I think that also it
would help Muslim Americans who are serving in the military, because then those soldiers, Marines,
and airmen, serving alongside of them would understand that they have been vetted and that they can be
trusted.” [Michael Brown interview, 12/16/11]
2015: Spoke In Front Of The “Nation’s Leading Anti-Muslim Hate Group.” “Republican Rep.
54
Mike Coffman spoke in September at the conference of an organization that has been profiled
repeatedly as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. ‘ACT For America is perhaps the
nation’s leading Anti-Muslim hate group … extremely out there in terms of their bigotry and extremism
and hate mongering,’ said Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. The New
York Times Magazine described the organization’s president Brigitte Gabriel, who also spoke at the
conference, as follows: ‘She presents a portrait of Islam so thoroughly bent on destruction and
domination that it is unrecognizable to those who study or practice the religion.’” [Colorado
HEADLINE: “Why Mike Coffman Spoke To The ‘Nation’s Leading Anti-Muslim Hate
Group’” [Colorado Independent, 10/06/15]
ACT! For America Lobbied The Birthright Citizenship Act Of 2011 That Coffman CoSponsored.
According to Congressional Quarterly, the bill would have prohibited “the automatic granting of
citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants.” According to the New York Times, “The right
to United States citizenship for everyone born on American soil is described in the 14th Amendment.
[...] The 14th Amendment was adopted in the wake of the Civil War to guarantee citizenship to the
American-born children of freed slaves.” [Congressional Quarterly, 1/24/11; 112th Congress CoSponsorships, accessed 7/22/13; New York Times, 1/05/11; Denver Post, 2/13/11]
Coffman Was Rated 100% By Act! For America. [Vote Smart, accessed 1/25/16]
ACT! Founder A “Radical Islamophobe.” “ACT!’s founder, Brigitte Gabriel, is a self-described
‘terrorism analyst’ known for her inflammatory statements conflating all Muslims with violent
extremists. She, like [anti-Muslim conspiracist Frank] Gaffney, has made a living spewing antiMuslim rhetoric and ideas, claiming that ‘every practicing Muslim is a radical Muslim’ and that the
‘peaceful majority’ of Muslims are ‘irrelevant.’ The New York Times Magazine is among those
who call her a "radical Islamophobe.’” [The Hill, 9/03/15]
ACT! Founder Believed Muslims Could Not Be Loyal United States Citizens. “The New York
Times Magazine is among those who call her a ‘radical Islamophobe,’ a designation she has earned
over and over, as illustrated by this statement she made during a 2007 Defense Department course
on Islam: ‘If a Muslim who has — who is — a practicing Muslim who believes the word of the
Koran to be the word of Allah, who abides by Islam, who goes to mosque and prays every Friday,
who prays five times a day — this practicing Muslim, who believes in the teachings of the Koran,
cannot be a loyal citizen to the United States of America.’” [The Hill, 9/03/15]
Refused To Denounce Donald Trump’s Plan To Ban All Muslims; Dodged Question On Whether
Or Not He Would Support Trump As Nominee
Failed To Denounce Trump’s Proposal To Ban All Muslims From The US. “Republican leaders in
Colorado are reacting to Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s call to block Muslims from
entering the United States, with mixed results … Rep. Mike Coffman released a statement, ‘As a
Marine Corps combat veteran, I know what it takes to protect our country and as a member of
Congress, I always have and always will represent all of the citizens of my district, regardless of their
55
religious affiliation, and protect their constitutional rights.’” [CBS 4 Denver, 12/08/15]
HEADLINE: “Top Colorado Republicans Silent On Support For A Trump Nomination”
HEADLINE: Colorado Pols: “Colorado GOP Critical Of Trump Muslim Comments…Except
For Mike Coffman.” [ColoradoPols, 12/09/15]
Did Not Believe That Colorado Should Recognize Same-Sex Marriage; Supported Colorado’s
Ban On Same-Sex Marriage
Did Not Believe That Colorado Should Recognize Same-Sex Marriage. In September 2014, when he
was asked if Colorado should recognize same-sex marriage, Coffman said, “No.” [Denver Post 2014
Debate Series, 27:55 – 28:05, 9/23/14]
Supported Colorado’s Ban On Same-Sex Marriage. In September 2014, when he was asked if he
supported Colorado’s ban on same-sex marriage, Coffman said, “Yes.” [Denver Post 2014 Debate
Series, 28:06 – 28:13, 9/23/14]
Voted Three Times Against Pay Raises for the Troops
Since 2010, Coffman voted three times again pay raises for the troops.
Supported Fee Increase for Military Retirees in TRICARE
In 2011, Coffman supported a proposal offered by Defense Secretary Gates that would levy a modest
fee increase on TRICARE health insurance for military retirees. However, Coffman proposed that such
an increase be tied to military retiree cost of living adjustments.
2011: Proposed Eliminating 100 Percent Education Reimbursement From GI Bill, Force Service
Members To Pay 25 Percent More So They Had “Skin In The Game”; … But In 1974: Coffman
Took Advantage Of GI Bill To Attend College
2011: Proposed Eliminating 100 Percent Education Reimbursement From GI Bill. In 2011,
Coffman proposed eliminating the 100 percent education reimbursement from the GI Bill. “[Coffman]
is proposing … half a billion dollars in cuts to beloved programs such as education reimbursements…
Coffman's cuts add shifting the 100 percent education reimbursement in the GI Bill to having the
military pay 75 percent and service members pay 25 percent so they ‘have skin in the game’ when
picking a school, he said. This would save $150 million a year.” [Denver Post, 4/21/11]
HEADLINE: “Coffman’s Proposed Military Cuts Face Strong Opposition” [Denver Post,
4/21/11]
… But In 1974: Coffman Took Advantage Of GI Bill To Attend College. According to Coffman’s
biography on his official U.S. House of Representatives website, “In 1974, he left active duty to attend
the University of Colorado under the G.I. Bill where he continued his military career by serving in the
56
U.S. Army Reserve. Coffman took a leave of absence from the U.S. Army Reserve and the University
of Colorado to attend D.G. Vaishnav College in Chennai, India in 1976 and the University of Veracruz
in Xalapa, Mexico in 1977. Coffman graduated from the University of Colorado in 1979 and
immediately transferred from the U.S. Army Reserve to the U.S. Marine Corps where he served as an
infantry officer.” [Rep. Mike Coffman official website, accessed 3/02/16]
Said United States-Led Invasion of Afghanistan Was “Initially Unnecessary”
In 2010, Coffman stated that the United States-led invasion of Afghanistan was “initially unnecessary.”
Said Killing Osama Bin Laden “Will Have Nothing” To Do With Ending War on Terror
In 2011, Coffman said that killing Osama bin Laden “will have nothing” to do with ending the war on
terror.
Skipped Vote On FY16 Defense Appropriations Bill, Which Would Have Prohibited Funding For
The Transfer Of Guantanamo Detainees To The U.S.; Voted Against Amendment Banning The
Transfer Or Release Of Prisoners From Guantanamo Bay
Did Not Vote On The Fiscal Year 2016 $578.6 Billion Defense Appropriations Bill. In June 2015,
Coffman did not vote on legislation to “provide $578.6 billion in discretionary funding for the Defense
department in fiscal 2016. The total would include $490.2 billion in base Defense department funds and
$88.4 billion for the Overseas Contingency Operations account, and would provide that $37.5 billion in
OCO funding be used in support of base budget requirements. The bill would provide roughly $218.8
billion for operations and maintenance, approximately $116.7 billion for procurement, approximately
$67.9 billion for research and development and $133.2 billion for military personnel, including a 2.3
percent pay raise. It also would provide roughly $31.7 billion for the Defense Health Program. The
measure would provide $715 million for security assistance to Iraqi forces fighting the Islamic State and
at least $600 million to aid Jordan in its fight against that group. It also would provide $600 million to
continue training and equipping moderate Syrian opposition forces and would appropriate $200 million
for lethal weapons for Ukraine. As amended, the bill would bar use of funds by the National Security
Agency or the Central Intelligence Agency to mandate that a company alter products or services to
permit electronic surveillance of users, except for mandates or requests authorized under the
Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act.” The bill passed 278-149. [HR 2685, Vote
#358; CQ Floor Votes, 6/11/15]
Bill Added $38 Billion Above The Budget Caps Created By The Sequester, Prohibited
Funding For Transfer Of Guantanamo Detainees To The United States. “The House on
Thursday approved this year's spending bill for the Pentagon in a 278-149 vote. Passage of the $579
billion bill came after the White House threatened a veto of the legislation over insufficient funding
levels and controversial policy riders that would prohibit funds from being used to transfer detainees
imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay to the United States. It also passed despite heavy opposition among
Democrats and some conservatives over the use of a war fund to boost defense spending next year.
Republicans added $38 billion to the war fund to give the Pentagon spending above the budget caps
created by the sequester, but they left the limits in place for nondefense spending. Democrats and
the White House want the sequester lifted in full.” [The Hill, 6/11/15]
57
Voted Against Amendment Banning The Transfer Or Release Of Prisoners From Guantanamo
Bay. In June 2015, Coffman voted against an amendment to the Commerce, Justice, Science, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, that would “strike section 527 from the bill which prohibits use
of funds to transfer, release, or assist in the transfer or release to or within the U.S., its territories, or
possessions Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or any other detainee who is not a U.S. citizen or a member of
the Armed Forces of the U.S. and is or was held on or after June 24, 2009, at the U.S. Naval Station,
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by the Department of Defense.” The amendment failed 170-256. [HR 2578,
Vote #276, 6/03/15]
Voted Against Prohibiting Funding For Defense Counsel For Foreign Detainees At
Guantanamo Bay. In June 2015, Coffman voted against an amendment to “prohibit use of funds to
provide for defense counsel for any foreign detainee at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention
facility.” The amendment failed, 133-297. [HR 2685, Vote #355; CQ Floor Votes, 6/11/15]
Voted Against Multiple Bills That Would Reduce Backlog Of Veterans’ Claims; Dismissed
Criticism Of His Vote By Saying “They Got Their Funding”; Wrote Letter Instead Of Voting For
Funding
Voted Against Quicker Disability Claims Processing. In 2013, Coffman voted against an amendment
that would help reduce the backlog of disability claims for veterans. The amendment would add $9.2
million in funding (double the funds in the underlying appropriations bill) to hire an additional 94
claims processors to help reduce the veterans disability claims backlog. The amendment failed 198-227.
[HR 2216, Vote #192, 6/04/13]
Voted Against Considering Veterans Backlog Reduction Act. In 2013, Coffman voted against
considering the Veterans Backlog Reduction Act, which would direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
to pay provisional benefits for certain non-adjudicated claims. The previous question was approved
224-195. A vote against the motion would have allowed for consideration of the veterans bill. [H Res
Aurora Sentinel: Coffman Voted Against Bill “To Reduce The Growing Backlog Of
Veterans.” In 2014, the Aurora Sentinel called out Coffman for criticizing the VA’s backlog of
claims while also voting against funding to address this issue. “Aurora U.S. Rep. Mike Coffman, a
Republican, as recently as January voted against a spending bill that would have set aside as much
as $100 million for overtime and additional training for claims processors to reduce the growing
backlog of veterans waiting for care.” [Aurora Sentinel, 5/29/14]
HEADLINE: “As He Calls For VA Secretary To Resign, Rep. Mike Coffman’s Recent Vote Is
Highlighted” [Denver Post, 5/29/14]
HEADLINE: “Despite Clear Calls For VA Resignations, Voting Records For Vets Still
Cloudy” [Aurora Sentinel, 5/29/14]
HEADLINE: “Romanoff: Coffman Should Also Be Held Accountable For VA Problems”
[FOX 31, 5/29/14]
58
Dismissed Criticism Of His Vote, Saying “They Got Their Funding.” In 2014, when asked about the
vote, Coffman said, “That was an omnibus bill with lots of other things certainly in it and that bill did
pass and they got their funding. There have been dramatic increases in VA funding that certainly is not
the issue.” [CNN Interview, YouTube, 5:00 – 6:37, 5/31/14]
Wrote Letter Urging Action on VA Claims Backlog. In 2013, Coffman wrote a letter with Democrat
Congressman Patrick Murphy urging the President to address the Veterans Administration claims
backlog. “The President must use his Office to aggressively push the VA to reduce the backlog. The
extraordinarily long wait times represent a barrier between our veterans and their ability to receive the
healthcare and other benefits that they have earned through their service to our country,” Coffman said.
[Office Mike Coffman, 5/28/13]
April 2015: Caught Fundraising Off VA Problems; Took Down Ads And Donation Page After
Criticisms; Restored Donation Page Months Later
April 2015: Fundraised Off Of Mismanagement At The Department Of Veterans’ Affairs. “Rep.
Mike Coffman, a Colorado Republican, appears to be fundraising off of the recent scandals that have
plagued Veterans Affairs hospitals around the country… A search of Coffman’s name brings up a site
which leads to a page about the scandal where you can enter your email and donate.” [Buzzfeed,
4/21/15]
HEADLINE: “Colorado Congressman Fundraising Off Of VA Problems?” [BuzzFeed,
4/21/15]
Pulled Google Ads And Donation Page In Wake Of Criticism. “Colorado Republican
Congressman Mike Coffman, a military veteran who represents the state’s 6th District west of
Denver, appears to have taken down reelection-campaign Google ads that raised a storm this week
among Democrats. They accused him of exploiting concerns about the scandal-plagued Veterans
Affairs administration to raise campaign money. The Coffman ads for a ‘Let’s Hold the VA
Accountable’ website popped up this week at the top of Google searches of the congressman’s
name, as Buzzfeed first reported Tuesday.” According to BuzzFeed, Coffman also removed the
donation page associated with the “Let’s Hold the VA Accountable” webpage. [Colorado
Independent, 4/22/15; BuzzFeed, 4/21/15]
HEADLINE: “Coffman Google Ads Gone In Wake Of Critical Reports” [Colorado
… But February 2016: Donation Page Restored. In February 2016, the donation page linked to
Coffman’s “Let’s Hold the VA Accountable” campaign webpage was active. Whether or not
Coffman has continued to fundraise on these pages is not known. [Mike Coffman for Congress
campaign website, accessed 2/09/16]
Coffman: VA Suffers From “Lack Of Oversight”; Coffman Has Been Chairman Of The Veterans
Affairs Oversight And Investigations Subcommittee Since January 2013
59
Coffman: VA Suffers From “Lack Of Oversight.” In December 2015, in talking about the problems
at the VA, Coffman said, “‘What you have in the VA is mismanagement in the procurement system
combined with a lack of oversight,’ Mr. Coffman said.” [Washington Times, 12/09/14]
Cost Overruns At Aurora VA Hospital Mainly Due To “Ineffective Oversight.” “Parking at the
new VA hospital in Aurora won't come cheap — especially for U.S. taxpayers. According to new
cost estimates obtained by The Denver Post, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs plans to spend
more than $180 million on three parking complexes at the unfinished medical facility, which is
expected to open no earlier than 2017. That's nearly triple the $66.5 million the VA planned to pay
in 2011. Broadly, the price hike can be blamed on many of the same factors that have led to cost
overruns across the project — namely poor planning and ineffective oversight.” [Denver Post,
7/15/15]
… But Coffman Has Been Chairman Of The Veterans Affairs Oversight And Investigations
Subcommittee Since January 2013. Since January 2013, Coffman has been the Chairman of the
Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the Committee on Veterans Affairs. When he was first
appointed to the position, Coffman said that he wanted to “use his new position … to press the Veterans
Administration to accelerate the process for adjudicating claims submitted by veterans who have
returned home from Iraq and Afghanistan and to make sure that all veterans are receiving the medical
care and the benefits that they have earned.” [Rep. Mike Coffman press release, 1/16/13]
Despite Acknowledging Cost Overages In 2013, Coffman Claimed To Have Been “Shocked” In
2015 By Over-Budget VA Hospital
November 2013: Knew Project Costs Were Projected To Surpass $1 Billion. “[A]ccording to a
GAO study on April 30 of this year the Aurora project is I believe 144 percent over budget … And your
cost estimate I believe is $604 million for the Aurora project and the contractor is saying that it is going
to cost over $1 billion to build the project.” [House Committee on Veterans Affairs Hearing, 11/20/13]
July 2013: Had “Every Confidence” That Project Would Be Over Budget. “‘I don't have any
confidence that it will be on time,’ Coffman said. ‘And I have every confidence it will be over
budget. There's a pattern of mismanagement of projects by the VA.’” [Denver Post, 7/02/13]
HEADLINE: “VA Hospital In Aurora Will Be Late And Cost More, Delegation Says”
HEADLINE: “Federal Report: Aurora Veterans Hospital Will Cost More And Take
Longer To Complete” [FOX 31, 7/08/13]
… But In March 2015: Said He Was “Shocked” By Aurora VA Hospital Cost Overruns. “The
already over-budget Aurora VA Hospital is going to cost more than $1 billion over the projected cost.
On Tuesday the deputy secretary of the Veterans Administration said the new estimate on the project is
close to $2 billion. There is currently an $880 million cap on the project, which construction crews are
expected to reach next month. Republican U.S. Rep. Mike Coffman of Aurora has introduced
legislation that will increase that cap. ‘I’m shocked — really — the cost overruns are going to be over a
billion dollars, projected by the Army Corps of Engineers who is taking over the project from the VA,’
60
Coffman told CBS4. ‘Sticker shock.’” [CBS Denver, 3/17/15]
HEADLINE: “Rep. Coffman Feels ‘Sticker Shock,’ Learns VA Hospital Will Be $1 Billion
Over Budget” [CBS Denver, 3/17/15]
Opposed Multiple Bills That Would Have Provided Funding For Aurora Hospital Years Before
Crisis Began
Opposed Two Bills That Would Have Provided Nearly $200 Million In Funding For The Aurora
Hospital Years Before Crisis Began. “Two large bills that provided nearly $200 million in funding for
the hospital in Aurora were opposed by Coffman in the years leading up to this most recent spate of
criticism for mismanagement. A funding bill in 2009 for $119 million and a funding bill in 2011 for $42
million set aside for the VA hospital in Aurora were both opposed by Coffman.” [Aurora Sentinel,
9/19/14]
Aurora Sentinel: “$200 Million In Funding For The Hospital In Aurora Were Opposed By
Coffman In The Years Leading Up To This Most Recent Spate Of Criticism For
Mismanagement.” [Aurora Sentinel, 9/19/14]
April 2010: Voted To Approve $800 Million In Funding For VA Hospital In Aurora. In April
2010, Coffman voted to authorize funding to build the VA Medical Center in Aurora, Colorado.
“Previously Congress authorized $568.4 million for the construction of a new VA Medical Center. S.
1963, the Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2009 increases the VA construction
project authorization to the full estimated cost of $800 million,” read a press release from Colorado
Rep. Ed Perlmutter. The bill passed 419 to 0. [Perlmutter Press Release, 5/05/10; S 1963, Vote #214,
4/21/10]
December 2010: Voted Against A Bill To Provide $119 Million In Funding For Aurora Hospital.
In December 2010, Coffman voted against a bill that would provide $119 million in funding for the
Veterans’ Affairs hospital in Aurora, Colorado. Coffman voted in favor of the initial appropriations bill
in July 2007, but then twice voted against it. “After years of promises, controversy, reversals and
confusion, a massive funding bill on its way to the president’s desk will ensure construction of a standalone, regional veterans hospital on the Fitzsimons campus. Although officials broke ground on the
$800-million facility in August, the $119 million made available in the spending bill allows for design
and construction of the 200-bed facility to start in earnest … Congress has approved a total of $800
million in funding for the new hospital, but the money will come in phases. The new installment of
$119 million clinches the deal, proponents say.” The bill passed 193 to 165. [Aurora Sentinel, 12/14/09;
HR 3082, Vote #529, 7/10/09, Vote #622, 12/08/10, Vote #662, 12/21/10]
September 2014: Voted In Favor Of Bill To Appropriate $450 Million To VA Hospital Project.
“Coffman voted in favor of a 2011 spending bill that appropriated $450 million to the VA project.”
[Aurora Sentinel, 9/19/14]
December 2011: Voted Against Securing Remaining $42 Million In Funding For VA Hospital In
Aurora. In December 2011, Coffman voted against final passage of an appropriations bill that would
have secured the remaining $42 million in funding for the Veterans’ Affairs hospital in Aurora,
61
Colorado. “As part of the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act passed by the
House today, Perlmutter helped secure the remaining $42 million for construction of the new VA
Medical Center to be built at the Anschutz medical campus in Aurora,” read a press release from
Colorado Rep. Ed Perlmutter. The bill passed 296 to 121. [Perlmutter Press Release, 6/14/11; HR 2055,
Vote #941, 12/16/11]
2015: Introduced Legislation To Address VA Hospital Cost Overruns, Put Army Corps Of
Engineers In Charge
January 2015: Coffman Introduced Legislation To Increase Aurora Medical Center
Authorization Cap. In January 2015, Coffman introduced the Aurora VA Hospital Financing and
Construction Reform Act of 2015. According to Coffman, “would increase the authorization cap to help
the VA to finally finish the Aurora Medical Center, with the much-needed help of the Army Corps of
Engineers.” [HR 593, 1/28/15; House Committee on Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations Hearing, 3/19/15]
Cap Increase Stipulated That VA Must Submit Plan To Fix Mistakes, Fire Construction
Officials. “While it is my top priority to get this hospital built so that Colorado veterans get the
service they deserve, we simply cannot authorize a nearly $1 billion authorization cap increase
without VA presenting the options it has to correct its own poor decisions with only half of a
hospital to show for it … But, what is absolutely clear is that before any money is given to the VA
to bail them out of the mess they created in Aurora, VA construction officials responsible for this
travesty must be held accountable. These individuals should not be simply taken out of the chain of
command for VA construction; they should be FIRED.” [House Committee on Veterans Affairs
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Hearing, 3/19/15]
U.S. Army Corps Of Engineers Estimated Aurora Hospital Project Would Cost $1.73 Billion.
According to testimony from Meghan Flanz, Director of the Department of Veteran’s Affairs Office
of Accountability Review, “Based on the USACE’s estimate to complete construction, VA
estimates that that the final cost of the project will total $1.73 billion.” [House Committee on
Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Hearing, 3/19/15]
Cap Increase Would Not Address Full Cost Of Project. According to testimony from Meghan Flanz,
Director of the Department of Veteran’s Affairs Office of Accountability Review, “Section two of the
bill would extend the authorization of the major medical facility project to replace the VA Medical
center in Denver, Colorado, in an amount not to exceed $1,100,000,000 … Based on the USACE’s
estimate to complete construction, VA estimates that that the final cost of the project will total $1.73
billion, which is larger than the amount that would be authorized in H.R. 593. Therefore, we would like
to work with the Committee to ensure any enacted authorization addresses the full estimated cost of the
project.” [House Committee on Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
Hearing, 3/19/15]
Cap Increase Bill Would Be Duplicative. According to testimony from Meghan Flanz, Director of the
Department of Veteran’s Affairs Office of Accountability Review, “Turning to section three, while we
support the intent of this section, we are concerned that the legislation is duplicative of actions already
underway and may result in unintended consequences for us as well as USACE. VA has not waited for
62
legislation to begin the process of bringing USACE on as our construction agent for the Aurora
Project.” [House Committee on Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
Hearing, 3/19/15]
March 2015: Introduced Second Bill To Increase Aurora Medical Center Authorization Cap,
Strip VA Of Authority To Construct Future Hospitals. In March 2015, Coffman introduced the VA
Construction, Accountability, and Reform Act. According to Coffman, “The bill raises the current
authorization cap on the hospital so it can be finished, prohibits bonuses from being paid until the
hospital is fully operational, requires an investigation into the billion dollar cost overruns, and transfers
all future construction authority for VA hospitals to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.” [HR 1681,
3/26/15; Coffman Press Release, 3/26/15]
New Bill Would Cover Full Cost Of Project. H.R. 1681 would authorize the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs “to carry out the major medical facility project to replace the Department of
Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Denver, Colorado, in an amount not to exceed a total of
$1,730,000,000.” [HR 1681, 3/26/15]
July 2015: Introduced Bill That Would Strip Construction Authority From VA. “A bill to strip the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) from managing construction projects over $100 million cleared
an important legislative hurdle today, passing the House Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Health on a
unanimous voice vote. The bill, HR. 3106, the Construction Reform Act of 2015, strips the VA of all
construction management authority on projects over $100 million and transfers it to non-VA federal
entities, such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or the General Services Administration (GSA). In
March 2015 U.S. Representative Mike Coffman introduced bipartisan legislation to strip the VA of
construction authority for all projects over $10 million, transferring management authority to the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers.” [Rep. Mike Coffman press release, 7/22/15]
Voted Against Multiple Bills That Would Reduce Backlog Of Veterans’ Claims; Dismissed
Criticism Of His Vote By Saying “They Got Their Funding”; Wrote Letter Instead Of Voting For
Funding
Voted Against Quicker Disability Claims Processing. In 2013, Coffman voted against an amendment
that would help reduce the backlog of disability claims for veterans. The amendment would add $9.2
million in funding (double the funds in the underlying appropriations bill) to hire an additional 94
claims processors to help reduce the veterans disability claims backlog. The amendment failed 198-227.
[HR 2216, Vote #192, 6/04/13]
Voted Against Considering Veterans Backlog Reduction Act. In 2013, Coffman voted against
considering the Veterans Backlog Reduction Act, which would direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
to pay provisional benefits for certain non-adjudicated claims. The previous question was approved
224-195. A vote against the motion would have allowed for consideration of the veterans bill. [H Res
Aurora Sentinel: Coffman Voted Against Bill “To Reduce The Growing Backlog Of
Veterans.” In 2014, the Aurora Sentinel called out Coffman for criticizing the VA’s backlog of
claims while also voting against funding to address this issue. “Aurora U.S. Rep. Mike Coffman, a
63
Republican, as recently as January voted against a spending bill that would have set aside as much
as $100 million for overtime and additional training for claims processors to reduce the growing
backlog of veterans waiting for care.” [Aurora Sentinel, 5/29/14]
HEADLINE: “Despite Clear Calls For VA Resignations, Voting Records For Vets Still
Cloudy” [Aurora Sentinel, 5/29/14]
HEADLINE: “Romanoff: Coffman Should Also Be Held Accountable For VA Problems”
[FOX 31, 5/29/14]
Wrote Letter Urging Action on VA Claims Backlog. In 2013, Coffman wrote a letter with Democrat
Congressman Patrick Murphy urging the President to address the Veterans Administration claims
backlog. “The President must use his Office to aggressively push the VA to reduce the backlog. The
extraordinarily long wait times represent a barrier between our veterans and their ability to receive the
healthcare and other benefits that they have earned through their service to our country,” Coffman said.
[Office Mike Coffman, 5/28/13]
Joked About Putting The VA In Charge Of ISIS; VA Spokesperson: Coffman’s “Comments Do
Not Belong In Our Public Discourse”
Joked About Putting The VA In Charge Of ISIS. “Rep. Mike Coffman, a Colorado Republican who
has prominently led the charge to have a Veterans Affairs hospital stifled by bureaucratic delays built in
his district, joked he’d like to put VA leadership in charge of ISIS on Friday. ‘I was speaking before a
group the other day and said it’s too bad we can’t take VA leadership and export it and give it to some
of our adversaries around the planet. Let them suffer under VA’s leadership,’ said Coffman. ‘Can you
imagine if the VA was in charge of ISIS?’ he added using the beheading comparison.
‘They’d probably say: ‘Oh, you know if wasn’t quite 2,000 that we beheaded, it was really 24… is the
accurate number. And we’re sorry that, in fact, they were all our own terrorists that we beheaded
because they got misclassified in the system as Christians.’’” [Buzzfeed, 6/15/15]
HEADLINE: “Republican Congressman: Put The VA In Charge Of ISIS — They’d Get
Beheadings Wrong” [Buzzfeed, 6/15/15]
HEADLINE: “GOP Congressman Jokes That The VA Should Run ISIS” [Huffington Post,
6/15/15]
HEADLINE: “GOP Rep: It's Too Bad Veterans Affairs Isn't Running ISIL” [Talking Points
Memo, 6/15/15]
64
HEADLINE: “GOP Congressman Cracks an ISIS Joke That Leaves Radio Host Asking What
He Put in His Orange Juice” [International Journal Review, 6/16/15]
VA Spokesperson: Coffman’s “Comments Do Not Belong In Our Public Discourse.” “A VA
spokeswoman chided U.S. Rep. Mike Coffman on Monday for statements the Aurora Republican made
recently in which he imagined the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs running the terrorist group ISIS.
His ‘comments do not belong in our public discourse,’ said VA spokeswoman Victoria Dillon in a
statement. ‘Veterans and VA employees find them highly offensive. (VA) Secretary (Robert)
McDonald has spoken to Representative Coffman.’” [Denver Post, 6/15/15]
HEADLINE: “VA Chastises GOP Congressman For Suggesting The Agency Should Run
ISIS” [Huffington Post, 6/16/15]
National Council of La Raza: Coffman is “Telling Us One thing and Voting Another”
In 2014, Jesus Altamirano of the National Council of La Raza said in regards to immigration Coffman
was “telling us one thing and voting another.” [Associated Press, 3/9/14]
For Further Information
We encourage questions, comments or requests for further information about this report. If there is
information missing that should be included, or something that doesn’t appear to be correct, let us know
and we’ll do our best to track it down, and if necessary, correct it. Please feel free to contact us (202)
863-1500.
Disclaimer
By accepting this report, you are accepting responsibility for all information and analysis included.
Therefore, it is your responsibility to verify all claims against the original documentation before you
make use of it.
Make sure you understand the facts behind our conclusions before making any specific charges against
anyone.
Double-check the original documentation from which we have drawn our conclusions before
incorporating these findings into direct mail, radio, television, or any statements from your campaign.
Call our office if you are unclear about anything.
65
Key Moments on Video
COFFMAN: “I am obviously going to support whoever the nominee is. But I have to admit to you
philosophically I am closer to Perry. Obviously, I hope he gets better on the debate stuff. I think he did
good. I think he did better on Social Security. I think obviously it is a Ponzi scheme, but he has to say he
is going to fix it. And he did that in the last debate where he didn’t do that in the first debate. Now I think
that was positive.” [KNUS Radio, 9/14/11]
Praised Flat Tax
INTERVIEWER: What do you think of the candidates who believe in the flat tax?
COFFMAN: I think the flat tax has tremendous value in it.
INTERVIEWER: You don’t think it hurts the lower income?
COFFMAN: No I don’t think it does, because I think that there are, the way that it’s defined, or
there’s a provision in there that has to be defined and that is, where is there an exemption on it in
terms of lower income people, so you can easily do that. But I think we’re at a point now where
about half of Americans I don’t think pay, have an income tax liability, and then it’s very
progressive from that point forward. [YouTube, 12/8/11]
Coffman: “I Am A Proud Member Of The Party Of No”
In 2010, Coffman said he was a “proud member of the party of no.”
“Good afternoon Colorado. I am a proud member of the party of no. If voting against a unconstitutional
health care bill is being a member of the party no then I am proud to be a member of the party of no. If
voting against the reckless spending in Washington that is burying this country in debt and putting a
crushing burden on the children and grandchildren and generations yet burn in this country is called about
being a member of the party of no then I am proud to be a member of the party of no. If opposing this
country becoming a European style social welfare state means being a member of the party of no then I
am a proud to be a member of the party of no,” Coffman said. [Tea Party Express Event, YouTube,
3/31/10]
Refused to Explain His Comment Calling Obama “Not an American”
In a May 2012 interview with 9News, Coffman five times repeated his line, “I stand by my statement that
I misspoke and I apologize,” without further explaining his comments calling President Obama “not an
American.” Transcript:
9NEWS: I apologize for showing up unannounced. I called your staff, they won’t return my phone calls.
So, let me ask you, after your comments about the President, do you feel that voters are owed a better
explanation than just, ‘I misspoke?’
66
COFFMAN: I think that, um, as I…I stand by my statement that I misspoke and I apologize.
9NEWS: Ok, and who are you apologizing to?
COFFMAN: You know, I stand by my statement that I misspoke and I apologize.
9NEWS: I apologize, we talk to you all the time. You’re a very forthcoming guy. Who’s telling you not to
talk and to handle it like this?
COFFMAN: I stand by my statement that I wrote, that you have. And I misspoke and I apologize.
9NEWS: Was it that you thought it would go over well in Elbert County where folks are very conservative
and you’d never say something like that in the suburbs.
COFFMAN: I stand by my statement that I misspoke and I apologize.
9NEWS: Is there anything that I can ask you that you’ll answer differently?
9NEWS: Thank you Congressman.
COFFMAN: Thank you.
[9News, 5/22/12]
Said former Congressman Tom Tancredo was his “Hero”
In 2010, Coffman said former Congressman Tom Tancredo was his hero.
“It is a great honor for me to introduce, somebody that is my hero. Somebody that has served this country
with honor and integrity and courage. Somebody when the republican establishment in Washington went
so and violated the principles that got them elected, who did not stand with them and that is former
congressman Tom Tancredo,” Coffman said. [Tea Party Express Event, YouTube 3/31/10]
Headline: Coffman Celebrates His Love For Tom Tancredo [ColoradoPols, 8/31/12]
Unable To Remember Term “Birth Control” During Debate
Unable to Remember Term “Birth Control” During Debate. In August 2014, Coffman was unable to
answer a question regarding women’s rights and abortion during a debate, going so far as to be unable to
remember the term birth control. Coffman was described as “affable and knowledgeable, but also
unsteady, some of his answer wandering and heavy with jargon” during the debate. “‘I’m pro-life,’ said
Coffman, starting out strong. But he paused and then said it again. ‘I’m pro-life’ — and then came a
string of half thoughts. ‘I — But I don’t support personhood — I support women’s access — that Hobby
Lobby decision — to …’ He finished with something that may have been ‘birth control,’ but he was
67
already shaking his head.” [Colorado Independent, 8/14/14; Mike Coffman – Andrew Romanoff debate,
YouTube, 8/14/14]
Suggested Undocumented Children be Place in Detention Centers in Central America
Suggested Undocumented Children be Place in Detention Centers in Central America. In 2014, 9
News reported that Congressman Coffman suggested the children be put in detention centers in Central
America. “They are here and we have a responsibility for them […] That responsibility, in my view, could
be met by, instead of having detention centers here in the United States, having detention centers back in
their home country,” Coffman said. [9 News, 7/25/14]
Congressman Coffman Suggested the U.S. Government Pay for Detention Centers. In 2014,
Coffman suggested the US government establish agreements with El Salvador, Honduras and
Guatemala and tell leaders there that “we're going to fund detention centers in your country where
these children will be safely housed and cared for until family members can claim them. […] The
minute you have the first plane land, then I think you will put a stop to the flood of these children that
are coming up at tremendous risk,” Coffman said. [9 News, 7/25/14]
HEADLINE: “Coffman calls for immigrant detention centers outside U.S.” [9 News, 7/25/14]
Said Humans Had Not Significantly Contributed To Climate Change And Climate Change
Couldn’t Be Reversed
Said Humans Had Not Significantly Contributed To Climate Change. In September 2014, when
asked if he believed whether or not humans have been “significantly contributing to climate change,”
Coffman answered, “No.” [Denver Post, 6th Congressional Debate, 28:39 – 28:50, 9/23/14]
believed climate change could be reversed, Coffman said, “No.” [Denver Post, 6th Congressional Debate,
28:52 – 29:06, 9/23/14]
Said Minority Language Voters Should “Pull Out a Dictionary”
Said Minority Language Voters Should “Pull Out a Dictionary.” In August 2011, when talking about
his opposition to bilingual ballots, Coffman said minority language voters should “pull out a dictionary” if
they want to read ballots. In the Univision segment, Coffman said, “One thing they ought to do is pull out
a dictionary when they are at home, because the ballots have been sent to them a long time in advance.
They can seek help from friends who speak English, look up words they do not know; sometimes you
have to put a little more effort to assimilate into our culture.” [Colorado Pols, 0:11 – 0:30, 4/21/14]
When Asked To Reject Campaign Contributions From Special Interests, Coffman Refused, Saying,
68
contributions from special interests, telling the audience that “I think everybody in here is a special
interest of some kind.” The dialogue between the two candidates is as follows:
Romanoff: “If you want to demonstrate leadership on this issue, join me right now, on this stage, in
turning down contributions from special interest groups and refunding the money that you’ve taken. In
fact, I’ll see your point and raise you. We’ll turn down, together, all the money that’s come in from
any special interest group, any lobbyist, any outside organizations to the best of our ability. We could
lead; we could make national news right now. Will you join me in that effort?”
Coffman: “Well I think everybody in here is a special interest person of some kind.”
When Asked About His Stance On Abortions In The Case Of Rape And Incest, Coffman Said, “I’m
Not Focused On Social Issues”
Not Focused On Social Issues.” In 2012, when asked about his stance on abortions in the case of rape
and incest, Coffman dodged answering, saying, “I’m not focused on social issues.” [BigMedia.org,
12/31/12]
Laughed About Sending An Extra $300 Million To Aurora VA Construction Project
Laughed About Raising The Cap On Construction Project. In March 2015, when asked if the Aurora
VA hospital construction project will get finished if Congress approves a higher cap, Coffman agreed and
laughed about raising the cap, saying, “We got to increase the cap and we’ve got to find the money,
haha.” [Facebook, Denver 7 Interview with Rep. Coffman, 2:10 – 6:23, 3/12/15]
Introduced Legislation To Increase Spending Cap By Nearly $300 Million. “Aurora Congressman
Mike Coffman introduced a bill Wednesday that would allow the Army Corps of Engineers to
permanently manage construction of the Aurora VA hospital and raise the hospital’s $800 million
spending cap to $1.1 billion.” [Aurora Sentinel, 1/29/15]
Claimed To Have Never Made A Mistake
Claimed To Have Never Made A Mistake. “There was once when I made a mistake, I thought I made a
mistake, but I didn’t.” [KBDI Congressional Debate, YouTube, 0:45 – 1:17, 6/01/08]
69
Personal Finances
Significant Findings
 Hit with $241.33 tax lien for unpaid taxes
 From 2009 to 2015, Coffman received more than $1.3 million from his state
pension and congressional salary
In 1990, Coffman was subject to a state tax lien for $241.33 in unpaid personal
income taxes. He satisfied the lien in 1992. Since being elected to Congress in 2008,
Coffman appeared to earn both a state pension and a Congressional salary.
In 1990, Coffman was hit with a tax lien from the State of Colorado for $241.33 for being delinquent on
his individual income tax. [Notice of Lien for State Taxes, Arapahoe County Clerk, 5/31/90]
Coffman then satisfied the lien in 1992. [Release of Lien, Arapahoe County Clerk, 2/14/92]
2009-2015: Received More Than $1.3 Million From State Pension And Congressional Salary
From 2009 To 2015, Received State Pension And Congressional Salary. “The most outspoken critic of
the federal pension system for members of Congress is already collecting $55,546 a year from Colorado's
state pension program. … [T]he 58-year-old is collecting money from the Colorado Public Employees
Retirement Association from his time working for the state, including stints as Colorado's secretary of
state and treasurer in the mid-2000s, according to 2012 financial disclosures.” [Denver Post, 7/09/13]
7/09/13]
Received More Than $1.3 Million From State Pension And Congressional Salary Between 2009 And
2015. From 2009 to 2015, Coffman had earned both a state pension and a Congressional salary:
Year
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
TOTAL:
State Pension
$54,000.00
$55,000.00
$55,000.00
$55,546.80
$57,224.00
$58,367.70
$335,138.50
$174,000.00
$174,000.00
$174,000.00
$174,000.00
$174,000.00
$174,000.00
$1,044,000.00
70
Total
$228,000.00
$229,000.00
$229,000.00
$229,546.80
$231,224.00
$232,367.70
$1,379,138.50
5/15/15; CRS, 9/07/11]
Reported in May 2015 for FY 2014
Failed To Report Transactions On PFDs Since Joining Congress
Failed To Report Transactions On PFDs Since Joining Congress. According to an amendment that
Coffman filed to his FY14 PFD, he incorrectly checked the “No” box on every single PFD he has ever
filed for the question: “Did you, your spouse, or your dependent child purchase, sell, or exchange any
securities or reportable real estate in a transaction exceeding $1,000 during the reporting period?” His
amended FY14 PFD, in the “Schedule B – Transactions” section, lists “TSP Government Securities
Investment Fund” and indicates that he made a purchasing transaction worth between $15,001-$50,000.
The same is listed on his 2014 original, 2013, and 2012 PFDs. He lists no transactions on his 2011, 2010,
2009, and 2008 PFDs. [Personal Financial Disclosure Amendment, 7/15/15]
Assets And Unearned Income: $553,008-$1,245,000 In Assets, Earned Between $50,001 And
$100,000 In Income
Assets And Unearned Income: $553,008-$1,245,000 In Asset Values, Between $50,001 And $100,000
In Income. According to his FY 2014 PFD, Coffman reported holding between $553,008 and $1,245,000
in assets and earned between $50,001 and $100,000 in income from these assets.
Spouse
(SP)
SP
SP
Asset/Income Source
American Cap World Growth +
Income Fund
Franklin Mutual Beacon Fund
Class C
Invesco Charter Fund Class A
PERAdvantage U.S. Large Cap
Stock Fund
TIAA Traditional (c428372-1)
CREF Stock (u428372-9)
TSP Government Securities
Investment Fund
PERA
Totals
Value of Asset
Type of Income
$1,001-$15,000
Tax-Deferred
$1,001-$15,000
$1,001-$15,000
Tax-Deferred
Tax-Deferred
$50,001-$100,000
$50,001-$100,000
$100,001-$250,000
Tax-Deferred
Tax-Deferred
Tax-Deferred
$100,001-$250,000
$250,001-$500,000
$553,008-$1,245,000
Tax-Deferred
Defined Benefit Plan
Amount of
Income
(Blank)
(Blank)
(Blank)
(Blank)
(Blank)
(Blank)
(Blank)
$50,001-$100,000
$50,001-$100,000
[Personal Financial Disclosure, 5/15/15]
NOTE: Coffman filed two amendments to his FY 2014 PFD. The above information reflects the changes
he made to his PFD.
Transactions: Made One Transaction Valued Between $15,001 And $50,000
71
Transactions: Made One Transaction Valued Between $15,001 And $50,000. According to his FY
2014 PFD, Coffman made one transaction valued between $15,001 and $50,000.
Asset
Investment Fund
Type of Transaction
Purchase
Date
Amount of Transaction
Monthly $15,001-$50,000
Earned Income: Reported $158,367.70 In Earned Income
Earned Income: Reported $158,367.70 In Earned Income. According to his FY 2014 PFD, Coffman
reported $158,367.70 in earned income between he and his wife.
Source
State of Colorado
State of Colorado (PERA)
Total
Type
Spouse Salary
State Pension
Amount
$100,000
$58,367.70
$158,367.70
Liabilities: Reported $165,003-$400,000 In Liabilities
Liabilities: Reported $165,003-$400,000 In Liabilities. According to his FY 2014 PFD, Coffman
reported liabilities between $165,003 and $400,000.
Spouse
(SP)
SP
SP
Creditor
American State Bank,
Greenwood Village, CO
Greentree Rapids City SD
Bank of America, Simi, CA
Date Liability
Incurred
Type of Liability
1/10 2nd Mortgage, Residence
1/14 1st Mortgage, Residence
6/10 1st Mortgage, Residence
Total
Amount of Liability
$15,001-$50,000
$100,001-$250,000
$50,001-$100,000
$165,003-$400,000
Reported in May 2014 for FY 2013
Received $52,224 in Earned Income
Coffman reported receiving $52,224 in FY2013 in pension from the Colorado Public
Employees Retirement Association. His spouse earned $131,121 in salary from the State of
Colorado. [Personal Financial Disclosure Form, May 2014]
Held Assets Worth At Least $281,007, and Earned No Income off Assets
In FY2013, Coffman reported having assets worth between $281,007 and $665,000, and earned no
income off of his assets. [Personal Financial Disclosure Form, May 2014]
72
Value of Asset
Type of
Income
Amount of
Income
$50,001 - $100,000
Tax-Deferred
None
$15,001 - $50,000
Tax-Deferred
None
$15,001 - $50,000
Tax-Deferred
None
$50,001 - $100,000
$50,001 - $100,000
Tax-Deferred
Tax-Deferred
None
None
Invesco Charter Fund Class A
$1,001 - $15,000
Tax-Deferred
None
TSP Government Securities &
Investment Fund
$100,001 - $250,000
Tax-Deferred
None
Asset
PERA Advantage US Large
Cap Stock Fund
American Cap World Growth
& Income Fund
Franklin Natural Beacon Fund
Class C
SP TIAA Traditional
SP CREF Stock
$281,007 $665,000
Total
[Personal Financial Disclosure Form, May 2014]
Made Transactions Worth At Least $15,001
In FY2013, Coffman reported making one transaction, worth between $15,001 and $50,000. [Personal
Financial Disclosure Form, May 2014]
Asset
Type of
Transaction
Capital Gain >
$200?
TSP Government
Securities
Investment Fund
Purchase
No
Date Amount of Transaction
$15,001 - $50,000
Held Liabilities of At Least $100,001 to $250,000
In FY2013 Coffman held liabilities of at least $100,001 to $250,000 incurred for mortgages. [Personal
Financial Disclosure Form, May 2014]
SP/DC/JT
Creditor
Date
Liability
Incurred
SP
Citibank, O'Fallon, MO
Feb-01
Type of
Liability
Amount
1st
Mortgage
$100,001 $250,000
73
SP
American State Bank,
Greenwood Village
1035 Leyden
St, Dennet.
Jun-10
N/A
2nd
Mortgage
Reported in May 2013 for CY 2012
Received $55,546.80 in Earned Income
Coffman reported earning $55,546.80 in pension in 2012 from the Colorado Public Employee Retirement
Association. His spouse earned $131,121 in salary from the State of Colorado. [Financial Disclosure
Form, filed May 2013]
In 2012, Coffman held assets worth between $168,007 and $395,000, and reported earning no income off
the assets. [Financial Disclosure Form, filed May 2013]
Asset and/or Income
Source
PERAdvantage US Large
Cap Stock Fund
American Cap World
Growth & Income Fund C
Franklin Mutual Beacon
Fund Class C
Invesco Charter Fund Class
A
TIAA Traditional
SP
(C428372-1)*
SP CREF Stock (U428372-9)*
Great West Stable Value
SP
Fund – DELETED**
Investment Fund
Total
Value of Asset
Type of
Income
Amount of
Income
$50,001 - $100,000
Tax-Deferred
None
$1,001 - $15,000
Tax-Deferred
None
$1,001 - $15,000
Tax-Deferred
None
$1,001 - $15,000
Tax-Deferred
None
$15,001 - $50,000
Tax-Deferred
None
$50,001 - $100,000
$50,001 - $100,000
DELETED**
Tax-Deferred
None
Tax-Deferred
None
DELETED** DELETED**
$50,001 - $100,000
Tax-Deferred
$168,007 - $395,000
None
None
[Financial Disclosure Form, filed May 2013]
* NOTE: “TIAA Traditional” and “CREF Stock” were originally listed as one item, “TIAA CREF” valued at
$50,001 - $100,000. The item was amended and broken into two separate funds “for purposes of meeting the
disclosure requirements.” [Amendment to Financial Disclosure Form, July 2013]
74
**NOTE: From Coffman’s amendment, filed in July 2013: Change Great West Stable Value Fund from “Spouse”
to my account and then delete. The Great West Stable Value Fund was part of a 457 Plan for State of Colorado
employees that was rolled over into PERAdvantage U.S. Large Cap Stock Fund in 2011 when the Public
Employees Retirement Association (PERA) took over the administration of the state’s 457 Deferred Compensation
Plan. Hotchkis and Wiley Large Cap Value Fund was rolled over into the Great West Stable Value Fund, as part of
the same 457 plan, prior to filling my first disclosure in 2008 and should not have been listed in prior reports.
[Amendment to Financial Disclosure Form, July 2013]
Made Transactions Worth At Least $15,001
In 2012, Coffman made one transaction worth between $15,001 and $50,000, when he purchased a TSP
Government Securities Investment Fund. He failed to report the date of the transaction. [Financial
Disclosure Form, filed May 2013]
Held Liabilities Worth At Least $150,002
In 2012, Coffman held liabilities worth between $150,002 and $350,000, incurred for two mortgages.
Creditor
SP
SP
Citibank, 1000
Technology Drive,
O'Fallon, Missouri
63368-2240*
American State
Bank, Greenwood
Village, CO
Total
Date
Incurred
Type of
Liability
Amount of Liability
1st mortgage
for residential $100,001 - $250,000*
property*
Jun 2010
2nd mortgage
$50,001 - $100,000
$150,002 - $350,000
*NOTE: Originally this liability was omitted from Coffman’s Financial Disclosure Form, and was added in an
amendment. [Amendment to Financial Disclosure Form, July 2013]
Coffman reported earning $55,000 of PERA from the State of Colorado in 2011. His spouse earned
$122,000 in salary from the State of Colorado. [Financial Disclosure Form, filed May 2012]
In 2011, Coffman held assets worth between $450,006 and $1,050,000, and reported earning no income
off the assets. [Financial Disclosure Form, filed May 2012]
75
Value
Type of
Income
Amount of
Income
$100,001 - $250,000
None
None
$50,001 - $100,000
None
None
$50,001 - $100,000
None
None
$50,001 - $100,000
$100,001 - $250,000
None
None
None
None
$100,001 - $250,000
None
None
Asset
Hotchkis & Wiley Large
Cap Value
Fund
Capital World Growth and
Income Fund
AIM Charter Fund
SP TIAA CREF
SP
Fund
$450,006 None
$1,050,000
Total
In 2011, Coffman held liabilities worth between $50,001 and $100,000 incurred for a second mortgage
credited by American State bank, Greenwood Village, Colorado. The mortgage was taken out by
Coffman’s spouse. [Financial Disclosure Form, filed May 2012]
Travel Payments and Reimbursements Totaling More Than $350
Source
Date(s)
The Heritage
Foundation
National
Committee
on US China
Relations
January
27 - 29
April 23 May 1
City of Departure Destination – City of
Return
DC - Los Angeles Denver
Denver - Beijing Qingdao, Chengdu,
Shanghai, DC
Lodging? Food?
Family
member
Included?
Days not at
sponsor’s
expense
yes
yes
No
0
yes
yes
No
0
76
Held Assets Worth At Least $1,000,007, and Earned At Least $2,501 in Income off Assets
In 2010, Coffman held assets worth between $1,000,007 and $2,050,000, and earned between $2,501 and
$5,000 in income from his assets. The income came from rent from a rental property valued at between
$250,001 and $500,000. [Financial Disclosure Form, filed May 2011]
Asset
SP
SP
SP
Cap Value
Fund
Capital World Growth
and Income Fund
AIM Charter Fund
TIAA CREF
Fund
Rental Property
Total
Value
Type of
Income
Amount of
Income
$100,001 - $250,000
None
None
$50,001 - $100,000
None
None
$50,001 - $100,000
None
None
$50,001 - $100,000
$250,001 - $500,000
None
None
None
None
$250,001 - $500,000
None
None
$250,001 - $500,000
Rent
$2,501- $5,000
$1,000,007 $2,501- $5,000
$2,050,000
In 2010, Coffman held liabilities worth between $300,002 and $600,000, incurred for two mortgages.
Creditor
Date
Incurred
SP
Citi Mortgage of
Des Moines, Iowa
Jun 2003
SP
American State
Bank, Greenwood
Village, CO
Jun 2010
Type of
Liability
Mortgage
on 1030
Leyden St,
Denver
2nd
Mortgage
Total
Amount of Liability
$250,001 - $500,000
$50,001 - $100,000
$300,002 - $600,000
77
Source
The
Heritage
Foundation
Dates
City of
Departure Destination –
City of
Return
DC Jan 14 - 16 Charlottesville,
VA - DC
Lodging?
Food?
yes
yes
Days not
Family
at
member
sponsor's
included?
expense
No
0
NOTE: Originally Coffman’s spouse’s salary was listed as “State of Colorado, State Employee, $122,000,” and the
listing was amended to “State of Colorado, Spouse Salary, $122,000.” [Amendment to Financial Disclosure Form,
September 2010]
Held Assets Worth At Least $545,007, and Earned At Least $5,001 in Income off Assets
In 2009, Coffman held assets worth between $545,007 and $1,250,000, and earned between $5,001 and
$15,000 in income from his assets. The income came from rent from a rental property valued at between
$250,001 and $500,000. [Financial Disclosure Form, filed May 2010]
Asset
SP
SP
SP
Cap Value
Fund
Income Fund
AIM Charter Fund Class A,
Stock
TIAA Traditional Annuity
Contract*
Fund**
1025 Leyden St, Denver,
Colorado**
Value
Type
of
Income
Amount of
Income
$50,001 - $100,000
None
None
$15,001 - $50,000
None
None
$15,001 - $50,000
None
None
$15,001 - $50,000
None
None
$100,001 - $250,000
None
None
$100,001 - $250,000
None
None
$250,001 - $500,000
Rent
$5001- $15000
78
Total
545,007 - $1,250,000
$5001- $15000
*NOTE: Originally listed as “TIAA CREFF,” later amended to “TIAA Traditional Annuity Contract”
** NOTE: Originally listed as “AIM Charter Fund,” later amended to AIM Charter Fund Class A, Stock”
*** NOTE: Originally listed as “Rental Property,” later amended to 1025 Leyden Street, Denver, Colorado.”
[Amendment to Financial Disclosure Form, September 2010]
In 2010, Coffman held liabilities worth between $100,001 and $250,000, incurred for a mortgage on 1030
Leyden St, Denver, Colorado. The mortgage was owned by Coffman’s spouse, and credited by Citi
Mortgage of Des Moines, Iowa. [Financial Disclosure Form, filed May 2010]
Source
The Heritage
Foundation
City of
Family
Departure Lodging? Food? member
Destination –
included?
City of Return
Dates
February 5-7
DC - Baltimore
- DC
Number of
days not at
sponsor's
expense
yes
yes
no
none
yes
yes
yes
none
yes
yes
yes
none
American Israel Education Foundation
for Mike
Coffman
for Cynthia
Coffman
Aug 1-8
Aug 1-9
DC - Tel Aviv
- Denver
Atlanta - Tel
Aviv - Denver
Coffman reported earning $68,000 as Secretary of State of the State of Colorado in 2008. His spouse
earned $122,000 in salary, also from the State of Colorado. [Financial Disclosure Form, filed May 2009]
Held Assets Worth At Least $153,006, and Reported Earned No Income off Assets
In 2008, Coffman held assets worth between $153,006 and $345,000, and reported earning no income
from his assets. [Financial Disclosure Form, filed May 2009]
Asset
Value
Type Amount
of
of
Income Income
79
Cap Value
Fund
Income Fund
AIM Charter Fund
TIAA CREF
Fund
Total
$50,001 - $100,000
None
None
$1,001 - $15,000
None
None
$1,001 - $15,000
None
None
$1,001 - $15,000
$50,001 - $100,000
None
None
None
None
$50,001 - $100,000
None
None
$153,006 - $345,000
None
Reported in May 2008
Earned Income
The following outlines Coffman’s earned income:
Year
Source
State of Colorado
2008 (as of May)
State of Colorado
State of Colorado
Type
Salary (as Secretary of
State)
Spouse Salary (as
Deputy Attorney)
State Employee
Amount
Current
Preceding
Year
Year
$22,833.00
$68,500.00
$42,333.00
$127,000.00
$122,000.00
[Personal Financial Disclosures]
Assets and Unearned Income
The following outlines Coffman and his wife’s assets and unearned income:
Year
2008 (as of
May)
Owner
Source
Hotchkis &
Wiley Large
Cap Value
Franklin
Mutual
Beacon Fund
Capitol World
Growths &
Income Fund
Value
Type
Income
Current
Preceding
$50,001$100,000
-
$2,501-$5,000
$2,501-$5,000
$1,001$15,000
-
$201-$1,000
$1-$200
$1,001$15,000
-
$201-$1,000
$1-$200
80
AIM Charter
Fund
TIAA CREF
$1,001$15,000
$100,001$250,000
Great West
$50,001Stable Value
$100,000
Fund
TOTAL $203,006$495,000
-
$201-$1,000
$1-$200
-
$2,501-$5,000
$1,001-$2,500
-
$1,001-$2,500
$201-$1,000
$6,606$3,706-$9,100
$15,500
Agreements
The following outlines Coffman’s agreements:
Date
Parties To
State of Colorado/Mike
Coffman
June 10, 2005
Terms
Took unpaid military leave of
absence to serve in Iraq with
USMC
Gifts
The following outlines Coffman’s gifts:
2003: Accepted $955 in Gifts
As of 2003, Coffman accepted $300 tickets to the Seeds of Hope Banquet from John and Carol
Saeman.
In 2003, Coffman accepted $955 worth of gifts. [Denver Post, 1/16/03]
2004: Accepted $1,700 in Gifts
In 2004, Coffman reported $1,700 in gifts. [Associated Press, 1/15/04]
Opposed Sports Tickets as Gifts
In 2004, Coffman opposed sports tickets for gifts, explaining that the last time he got
some, the group he wanted to talk to preferred to watch the game. [Rocky Mountain News,
1/20/04]
2006: Accepted $200 in Tickets to Attend Speech by Ann Coulter
In March 2006, Coffman accepted $200 in tickets to a speech by author Ann Coulter. [Rocky
81
No Evidence of Bankruptcy Filings
As of 2012, there is no evidence that Coffman has filed for bankruptcy. [Nexis Bankruptcy Filings search,
accessed 2/14/12]
Worth $1.1 Million
In 2011, it was reported that Coffman was worth $1.1 million. [Colorado Independent, 11/17/11]
82
Professional Career
 Ran property management company
 Company failed to pay approximately $5,000 in withholding taxes on time
Before and during his service as a state legislator, Coffman ran a property
management company, a property maintenance company and a real estate
brokerage. In 2000, his property management company failed to pay
approximately $5,000 in withholding taxes on time.
Professional Career
The following outlines Coffman’s professional career:
1985-2000: President of Property Management Company
Between 1985 and 2000, Coffman served as president of Colorado Property Management Group,
which oversaw residents, apartments, condominiums, and high rise buildings in downtown
Denver. [Associated Press, 10/09/98]
NOTE: According to Roll Call, Coffman owned stake in a property management company as early
as 1983, however no further records regarding the company was found.
1985-2000: President of Property Maintenance Company
Between 1985 and 2000, Coffman served as president of Colorado Property Maintenance, a real
estate maintenance company. [Certificate of Assumed or Trade Name, Doc no. 19871630019, 6/13/85]
1987-1999: President of Real Estate Brokerage
Between 1987 and 1999, Coffman served as president of Apartments and Homes, a real estate
brokerage. [Certificate of Assumed or Trade Name, Doc no. 19871626668, 6/13/85]
Coffman’s Company Failed to Pay Approximately $5,000 in Withholding Taxes On Time. In 2000,
Coffman paid the Colorado Property Management Group’s quarterly withholding taxes late. According to
the Denver Westword, the taxes were between ten and twelve days late, and cost Coffman approximately
$5,000 to cover the bill. “I’m very disappointed,” Coffman said. [Denver Westword, 8/24/00]
83
All Three Businesses Were Located at Same Address
Between 1985 and 2000, all three of Coffman’s businesses – Colorado Property Management Group,
Colorado Property Maintenance, and Apartments and Homes – were located at 13697 East Iliff Avenue,
Suite 6 in Aurora, CO 80014. [Articles of Incorporation, Doc no. 19871624076, 5/31/85]
1985-2000: Colorado Property Management Group
Between 1985 and 2000, Coffman served as president of the Colorado Property Management Group,
formerly known Aurora Property Management.
The company oversaw residents, apartments, condominiums, and high rise buildings in downtown
Denver. [Associated Press, 10/09/98]
The following outlines key dates regarding the company:
1985: Incorporated as Real Estate Brokerage
In 1985, Aurora Property Management incorporated in the state of Colorado.
Its office was located at 13697 East Iliff Avenue in Aurora. [Articles of Incorporation, Doc no.
19871624076, 5/31/85]
Served on Board of Directors With Two Others
When Coffman incorporated the company in 1985, he served on the company board with
two others, Steven P. Hyatt and Michael R. Guerin. [Articles of Incorporation, Doc no.
19871624076, 5/31/85]
By 1993, Hyatt served as Vice President and Secretary, while Coffman served as
President. Guerin no longer served on the company’s board. [Colorado Corporate Report, Doc
no. 19931084712, 8/17/93]
By 1999, Coffman served as President and Lynda Reifman served as vice president. Hyatt
and James Williamson served as company directors. [Biennial report, Doc no. 199991239545,
12/20/99]
1993: Changed Name
In 1993, Aurora Property Management’s name was changed to Colorado Property Management
Group. [Articles of Amendment to the Articles of Incorporation, Doc no. 19931131527, 11/12/93]
2000: Sold to Undisclosed Buyer
In 2000, Coffman sold the company to an undisclosed buyer. [Denver Westword, 8/24/00]
1985-2000: Colorado Property Maintenance
84
Between 1985 and 2000, Coffman served as president of Colorado Property Maintenance, a real estate
maintenance company. [Certificate of Assumed or Trade Name, Doc no. 19871630019, 6/13/85]
1985 (June): Registered as Division of Coffman’s Real Estate Business
In June 1985, Aurora Property Management registered the name Aurora Property Maintenance.
Its office was located at 13697 East Iliff Avenue in Aurora. [Certificate of Assumed or Trade Name, Doc
no. 19871630019, 6/13/85]
1985 (December): Incorporated As Its Own Company
In December 1985, Aurora Property Management withdrew the name Aurora Property
Maintenance. [Certificate of Withdrawal of Trade Name, Doc no. 19871650920, 12/24/85]
That same day, Aurora Property Maintenance incorporated as its own company. [Articles of
Incorporation, Doc no. 19871650921, 12/24/85]
Served on Board of Directors
19871650921, 12/24/85]
By 1993, Hyatt served as Vice President and Secretary, while Coffman served as
President. Guerin no longer served on the company’s board. [Colorado Corporate Report, Doc
no. 19921016201, 2/12/92]
1993: Changed Name
In 1993, Aurora Property Maintenance’s name was changed to Colorado Property Maintenance.
[Articles of Amendment to the Articles of Incorporation, Doc no. 19931131526, 11/12/93]
2000 (Approximately): Left Company
By 2000, Coffman no longer served as an officer or director for Colorado Property Maintenance.
[Periodic Report, Doc no. 200021026698, 2/04/02]
1987-1999: Apartments and Homes
Between 1987 and 1999, Coffman served as vice president and secretary of Apartments and Homes, a real
estate brokerage. [Certificate of Assumed or Trade Name, Doc no. 19871626668, 6/13/85]
85
1985: Registered as Division of Coffman’s Real Estate Business
In June 1985, Aurora Property Management registered the name Apartments & Homes.
Its office was located at 13697 East Iliff Avenue in Aurora. [Certificate of Assumed or Trade Name, Doc
no. 19871626668, 6/13/85]
1987: Incorporated As Its Own Company
In 1987, Aurora Property Management withdrew the name Apartments & Homes. [Certificate of
Withdrawal of Trade Name, Doc no. 19871713856, 3/04/87]
That same day, Apartments and Homes incorporated as its own company. [Articles of Incorporation,
Doc no. 19871713857, 3/04/87]
Served on Board of Directors
19871713857, 3/04/87]
By 1993, Hyatt served as President, while Coffman served as Vice President and
Secretary. Guerin no longer served on the company’s board. [Colorado Corporate Report, Doc
no. 19931052785, 5/13/93]
1999 (Approximately): Left Company
By 1999, Coffman no longer served as an officer or director for Apartment and Homes. [Biennial
Report, Doc no. 19991082973, 5/31/99]
86
Political Career
 Held elected office since 1989
 Held his own swearing-in ceremony so he could make a speech
 Often aspired to higher office
 Mirrored Bill Owens’ political career
Coffman is a career politician who has held elected office since 1989. He once held
his own swearing-in ceremony so he could make a speech, and often aspired to
higher office.
Political Career
The following outlines Coffman’s political career:
1985: Ran for At-Large Seat on Aurora City Council
In 1985, Coffman ran for an at-large seat on the Aurora city council.
He lost the election. [The Gazette (Colorado Springs), 12/06/98]
1980s: Served as Volunteer Aide to State Representative Bill Owens
In the 1980s, Coffman served as State Representative Bill Owens’ volunteer aide. [Rocky Mountain
News, 4/09/97]
1989-1994: Served as State Representative
Between 1989 and 1994, Coffman served as state representative from Colorado’s 40th District.
[Rocky Mountain News, 4/09/97; National Journal Almanac, accessed 2/15/12]
Missed Most of a Legislative Session
While serving on active duty between 1990 and 1991, Coffman missed most of a
legislative session. [Rocky Mountain News, 1/23/96; Denver Post, 7/12/98]
1994-1998: Served as State Senator
87
Between 1994 and 1998, Coffman served as state senator from Colorado’s 27th District. [Various]
Coffman first won a special election to the seat when it was vacated by Bill Owens, who became
state treasurer. Coffman defeated opponent Douglas Johnson 66 to 32 percent, in a vote held by a
vacancy committee. [Rocky Mountain News, 12/16/94]
1999-2006: Served as State Treasurer
Between 1999 and 2006, Coffman served as state treasurer. [Various]
Briefly Stepped Down to Return to Military Service
In 2005, Coffman stepped down as state treasurer to return to military service in Iraq.
[Associated Press, 5/05/05]
He returned in 2006. [Coffman official website, accessed 2/15/12]
Defeated Better Funded Opponent
In 1998, Coffman defeated Democratic opponent Jim Polsfut, 51 to 45 percent, despite
being outspent nearly $80,000. [Denver Post, 11/05/98]
2007-2008: Served as Secretary of State
Between 2007 and 2008, Coffman served as Secretary of State. [Various]
2009-Present: Served as Congressman
Since 2009, Coffman has served as Congressman from Colorado’s 6th Congressional District.
[Various]
Expected to Have Most Competitive Reelection Bid in Sixth District
In 2012, Coffman was expected to have the most competitive reelection bid in the sixth district of
Colorado. “He lost several key Republican counties—including Arapahoe and Douglas to 4th
Congressional Representative Cory Gardner, who now has one of the safest congressional districts in the
state.” [KUNC.org, 1/17/12]
House Republican Whip: As Goes the Sixth CD, So Goes the House
In a February 2012 fundraising email for Coffman, Republican Minority Whip Rep. Kevin
McCarthy said if Republicans lose Colorado’s 6th Congressional District they will lose the House
majority. He wrote, “If we lose the 6th District, we may very well lose our House majority. It
really is that simple.” [Denver Post, 2/15/12]
Held His Own Swearing-In Ceremony So He Could Make A Speech
88
In 2007, Coffman held his own swearing-in ceremony so he could make a speech
“Initially, they said they were going to let us speak, but then they decided against that, so I just thought,
‘I’ll do my own thing,’” he said. [Rocky Mountain News, 1/04/07; Associated Press, 1/09/07]
Preempted Traditional Ceremony At 11AM By Holding His At 9AM
According to the Denver Post, “Incoming Secretary of State Mike Coffman has decided to preempt the traditional 11 a.m. swearing-in with one of his own, at 9 a.m.” [Editorial, Denver Post,
1/06/07]
Sworn In A Second Time Later That Day
Two hours after his own swearing-in ceremony, Coffman was sworn in a second time. [Associated
Press, 1/09/07]
Often Aspired to Higher Office
The following outlines Coffman’s aspirations to higher office:
2000: Mentioned as Replacement Lieutenant Governor
In 2000, when Colorado’s Lieutenant Governor left to join the Bush Administration, Coffman was
mentioned as one of the candidates to fill in. [Assoc
iated Press, 12/27/00]
2001: Formed Committee to Run for Congress
In 2001, Coffman created an exploratory committee in anticipation of running for Congress.
“It is simply an option that I’m looking at,” he said. “In order to make that option a viable one, I
need to start raising money now.” [The Gazette (Colorado Springs, Colorado), 7/06/01]
In 2002, Coffman decided against running in the 7th Congressional district, after redistricting maps
would have required him to move to the district. [Associated Press, 2/07/02]
2004: Considered Running for Senate
In 2004, Coffman considered running for Colorado’s Senate seat. [Associated Press, 3/03/04]
He later decided against it. [Associated Press, 3/11/04]
2005: Formed Committee to Run for Governor
In 2005, Coffman formed a committee to run for governor. [Associated Press, 2/01/05]
He then announced he would not run three months later. [Associated Press, 4/09/05]
89
… Then Set Sights on 7th Congressional District
After announcing he would not run for Governor, former Democratic state party chairman
Tim Knaus said that Coffman had set his sights on the 7th Congressional District, held by
gubernatorial candidate Congressman Bob Beauprez. [Denver Post, 4/10/05]
Withdrew from Plans to Chair Lobbying Group
In 2007, Coffman withdrew from plans to chair a lobbying group that would campaign for drilling on the
Road Plateau.
He previously accepted the offer to chair the group, Americans for American Energy. [Rocky Mountain
News, 8/03/07]
Shared Lunch with Anti-Tax Advocate Douglas Bruce
As of 2003, Coffman shared lunch with anti-tax advocate Douglas Bruce. [Rocky Mountain News, 1/01/03]
Close to Congressman Bob Schaffer
In 2003, Coffman was close to Congressman Bob Schaffer. [Rocky Mountain News, 1/01/03]
Endorsed Perry for President
In 2011, Coffman endorsed Perry for President. [Greeley Gazette, 1/2/12]
Chair of Perry Campaign, Touted Perry’s Ideas and Experience
In 2011, Coffman was the chair of the Perry campaign in Colorado. “Governor Perry’s experience,
ideas and proven record of job creation make him the candidate we need to get our nation working
again,” Coffman said. “I am looking forward to being a part of Gov. Perry’s campaign team.”
Had Not Made Decision on Who to Support for President After Perry Dropped Out
In 2012, Coffman did not disclose who he would support for President after his endorsed
candidate Rick Perry dropped out of the race for Presidency. Coffman is facing a competitive race
this fall to keep his seat in the newly drawn 6th Congressional District. Two Democrats are in a
primary battle to run against him. “In answer to your question, Congressman Coffman hasn’t
made a decision,” said a spokesman from the Committee. [Blog, Denver Post, 1/19/12]
90
… State Legislator
 Earned $17,500 annually as state legislator
 Allowed state treasurer to hold risky bonds
 Missed two-thirds of meetings for state’s deferred compensation plan
 Accused of urging defeat of four moderate GOP legislators
Coffman earned $17,500 annually as a state legislator. He voted to allow the state
treasurer to hold risky bonds and missed two-thirds of the meetings for the state’s
deferred compensation plan. He was once accused of urging defeat of moderate
GOP legislators, which he denied.
Earned $17,500 Annually as State Legislator
Between 1989 and 1998, Coffman earned $17,500 annually as a state legislator.
… Potentially Totaling $175,000 by the Time He Left Office
Assuming Coffman was paid $17,500 each year between 1989 and 1998, he could have earned up
to $175,000 as a state legislator.
NOTE: Coffman served on active duty between 1990 and 1991, so it is unclear whether he was
paid a full state legislator’s salary during those years.
Allowed State Treasurer to Hold Risky Bonds
As chairman of the Senate Finance Committee in the mid 1990s, Coffman helped grant the state treasurer
the ability to hold BBB-rated bonds.
Previously if the ratings for the bonds were downgraded to BBB, the state would have to sell them
immediately, often at a loss, Coffman explained. [Denver Post, 10/11/98]
… And Allowed Surplus in Workers Compensation Fund to Be Invested in Stocks
As chairman of the Senate Finance Committee in the mid 1990s, Coffman helped allow any
surplus in the workers’ compensation fund to be invested in stocks. [Denver Post, 10/11/98]
91
Served on Board of State’s Deferred Compensation Plan
By 1998, Coffman had served as a board member on Colorado’s Deferred Compensation plan. [Denver
Post, 7/12/98]
The plan was established in 1981 “to provide state employees and officials with a means of investing a
portion of their state compensation on a tax-deferred basis.” [Accountants’ Report of Deferred Compensation Plan,
7/30/07]
… But Missed Two-Thirds of Its Meetings
According to a 1998 analysis by the Associated Press, Coffman missed two thirds of the meetings
of the state’s Deferred Compensation plan over the past three years.
Coffman said that he made the important votes. [Associated Press, 10/03/98]
Later Claimed Experience at Selecting Investment Options
In 1998, Coffman said that because he served on board of the state’s Deferred Compensation plan,
he had experience at selecting investment options in which public employees may invest taxdeferred savings. [Denver Post, 7/12/98]
Accused of Urging Defeat of Four Moderate GOP Legislators
In 1995, Coffman was accused of urging the defeat of four moderate GOP legislators, Elsie Lacy, Al
Meiklejohn, Dave Wattenberg, and Dottie Wham. [Rocky Mountain News, 7/31/95]
… But Coffman Denied Allegations
Responding to the allegations, Coffman said, “Nobody in his right mind is ever going to say a
fellow Republican ought to be defeated - unless they’re running against them in a primary.” [Rocky
Wanted to Put Tobacco Settlement Funds in Trust Fund
In 1998, Coffman wanted to create a trust fund for all or part of the money from Colorado’s tobacco
settlement. The legislature would then be allowed to spend the interest income from that fund. [Associated
Press, 12/14/98]
Coffman’s proposal to sell 75 percent of its expected tobacco settlement was later rejected by the state
legislature. [Pueblo Chieftain, 7/19/00]
Wanted to Sell 75 Percent of Settlement Payments to Private Brokerage
In 1999, Coffman proposed selling 75 percent of the state’s settlement payments to a private
brokerage, which in turn would sell them to private investors.
92
The treasurer’s office estimated the sale would generate $963 million in gross proceeds, while
costs could amount to $62 million. [Associated Press, 8/25/99]
Coffman’s Plan Would Have $940 Million Now Instead of $2.9 Billion Potentially Later
Under Coffman’s plan to sell Colorado’s rights to tobacco income, the state would receive $940
million upfront instead of $2.9 billion over the next 30 years.
The state’s receiving the full $2.9 billion depended on expectations that tobacco sales would
remain high and that the companies would avoid future legal issues. [Editorial, Denver Rocky Mountain
News, 5/05/00]
Proposed Refunding $563 Million in State Surpluses to Colorado Residents
In 1998, Coffman proposed refunding a $563 million state surplus to Coloradoans. [Associated Press, 9/15/98]
93
… State Treasurer
 Said state finances were suffering from “some grave miscalculations”
 S&P downgraded state’s credit rating
 S&P sent negative credit warnings
 Quit attending meetings with state’s pension fund
 College tuition fund could not meet its promises
 Stashed blank checks worth up to $1 billion in safe deposit box
 Broke campaign law to oppose ballot amendment
 Twice bailed out cash-strapped school districts with state funds
Coffman had a controversial tenure as state treasurer. As treasurer, he said that
state finances were suffering from “some grave miscalculations,” while S&P
downgraded the state’s credit rating and sent negative credit warnings. Coffman
quit attending meetings with the state’s pension fund and the state’s college tuition
could not meet its promises. But Coffman, without the Governor’s knowledge,
stashed blank checks worth up to $1 billion in a safe deposit box. He also broke
campaign law to oppose a ballot amendment, for which he was fined $335.
Coffman twice bailed out cash-strapped districts with state funds.
Coffman: State Finances Were Suffering From “Some Grave Miscalculations”
In a 2003 speech at a Colorado Treasury Management Association meeting, Coffman said that Colorado’s
finances were suffering from “some grave miscalculations,” including strong reliance on income taxes to
fund the state’s budget. [Rocky Mountain News, 3/12/03]
In 2002, Standard & Poor’s debt-rating agency downgraded Colorado’s credit rating from AA to AA-.
94
“The Legislature knew that the state was on credit watch throughout the last session, yet it chose to ignore
S&P’s warning and increase spending despite rapidly decreasing revenues,” Coffman said. [Associated
Press, 6/26/02]
S&P Cited Weak Revenues
In its downgrade, Standard & Poor cited weak revenues that would permanently hamper the state’s
budgeting. [Rocky Mountain News, 6/27/02]
Coffman Wrote Op-Ed Blasting Legislature
In a 2002 op-ed, Coffman strongly criticized the legislature for failing to compensate for S&P’s
concerns in their budget.
“The actions of the legislature are akin to someone who has just been told he is approaching the
limit on his credit card deciding to buy a new entertainment center. It is simply irresponsible,” he
explained. [The Gazette (Colorado Springs, Colorado), 7/10/02]
Under Coffman’s Watch, S&P Sent Negative Credit Warnings on Certificates of Participation and
School District Debt
In 2002, Standard & Poor sent negative credit warnings to Colorado on its certificates of participation and
school district debt this week.
Coffman explained the warnings were based on recent state revenue forecasts. [Associated Press, 11/08/02]
Sat On State Public Employees’ Retirement Association Board
In 2004, Coffman sat on the state Public Employees’ Retirement Association Board. [Rocky Mountain News,
1/22/04]
… Then Quit Attending Meetings and Sent Deputy to Fill Spot
In 2004, Coffman quit attending PERA board meetings and sent his deputy to fill the treasurer’s
spot on the board.
He then took his concerns to the media and sent press releases urging PERA to call of its merger
with the Denver Public Schools Retirement System. [Rocky Mountain News, 3/09/04]
… After Warning that State Pension Fund May Be In Jeopardy
In 2003, Coffman warned that the state’s pension fund may be in jeopardy after legislators
lowered the state’s contribution from the general fund. [Associated Press, 10/10/03]
Rocky Mountain News: Coffman “Blew Up Bridges” With PERA
95
In 2004, the Rocky Mountain News reported that Coffman “blew up bridges” with the state’s
Public Employees’ Retirement Association (“PERA”).
Scheduled to appear at PERA’s building at 2:30 to discuss why PERA should not merge with
Boulder County employees’ pension fund, Coffman showed up late and then left suddenly,
“bolting from the room before PERA board members could finish addressing him,” the newspaper
reported.
“I think you see me as a problem, but my goal is a resolution of the situation,” Coffman said. “If
my style offends you, I’m sorry.” [Rocky Mountain News, 2/21/04]
Under Coffman’s Watch, Prepaid Tuition Fund Could Not Meet Its Promises
In 2002, the state’s Prepaid Tuition Fund could not meet promises made to investors “to pay for
tomorrow’s college tuition at today’s prices” because of weak market returns and rising tuition costs.
Consequently, the Colorado Student Obligation Bond Authority, which was responsible for the program,
had sent letters to 7,800 enrolled families, giving them until February 2003 to pull out their money or
accept lower-than-expected returns. [Pueblo Chieftain, 12/19/02]
… And Thousands of Accounts Were Cancelled from the Fund
In 2003, approximately 4,300 of the program’s 12,000 accounts had been canceled or rolled over
into other savings plans.
With fewer accounts, the fund’s assets were $34 million, down 40 percent from the original $64
million in assets when investors first learned the fund’s performance was in jeopardy. [Associated
Press, 2/20/03]
Coffman Earlier Called for Bailout Program
In 2002, Coffman called on lawmakers to bail out the Prepaid Tuition Fund so investing families
would not have to come up with money they had expected to receive through the program. [Pueblo
Chieftain, 12/19/02]
Pueblo Chieftain: Coffman Was Early Critic of Program
In 2002, the Pueblo Chieftain reported that Coffman was an early critic of the program,
warning of shortcomings in the defined-benefit plan and pushing the state’s legislature to
offer an alternative program. [Pueblo Chieftain, 12/19/02]
Fort Collins Coloradoan: Coffman Helped Fix State’s Prepaid Tuition Program
According to the Fort Collins Coloradoan, Coffman helped fix the state’s Prepaid Tuition
Program.
96
“He helped fix the state’s Prepaid Tuition Program, which was costing participants money
by charging them more in fees than they got back in interest,” it explained. [Fort Collins
Coloradoan, 11/01/02]
Called for Audit of Program
In 2004, Coffman called for a performance audit of the Prepaid Tuition Program, saying the
program’s expenses were too high and that its financial estimates were off the mark.
“Their conduct has not changed. The state auditor needs to intervene and look at them,” he said.
Stashed Blank Checks Worth Up To $1 Billion in Safe Deposit Box. While serving as state treasurer,
Coffman stashed blank checks worth up to $1 billion in a safe deposit box. Coffman and three other state
employees were authorized to sign the checks, which only required one signature. [Associated Press, 4/27/07]
… Because He Disagreed with Governor’s Disaster Plan. According to Coffman, he stashed the
blank checks because he was not satisfied with the plan created by ex-Governor Bill Owens to
keep the government running if a disaster shut down the state Capitol. [Associated Press, 4/27/07]
Did Not Inform Governor of His Plan. According to Coffman, he did not inform the Governor
of his plan because he claimed he had the authority to do it on his own. “We were talking about a
complete breakdown of government, and what we would do,” Coffman explained. [Associated Press,
4/27/07]
Coffman: “I Developed A Continuity of Government Plan.” In an op-ed criticizing the
Associated Press story breaking his backup plans, Coffman claimed that he had developed a
“continuity of government” plan. “The real issue is the fact that I developed a continuity of
government plan to ensure that the state of Colorado could continue to function even in the event
of a natural disaster or a terrorist attack,” he argued. [Daily Camera, 5/06/07]
Forced School District to Make Massive Cuts to Balance Budget
The following outlines Coffman’s forcing St. Vrain Valley’s school district to make massive budget cuts
to balance its budget:
District Used Inaccurate Figure to Account for Its Reserves, Hiding Its Debt
In 2002, school district officials had a $9.8 million overrun in their budget without the cash
surplus to cover it.
The district’s overspending in 2001 left the district with only $5 million in the bank, but in 2002,
officials based their budget on $15.2 million in the bank, thereby ignoring their $5 million
projection.
97
Consequently, the district ended the 2002 school year with $855,118 in debt. But its officials
budgeted as if they had over $2 million in the bank. [Denver Post, 12/15/02]
S&P Then Cut District Rating
In 2002, Standard & Poor dropped the rating on St. Vrain Valley’s School District from Aminus to BB. [The Bond Buyer, 12/20/02]
Moody’s Then Cut District Rating
In 2002, the district’s bond rating was cut from A1 to Baa1. [Associated Press, 12/03/02]
Coffman Called for Criminal Investigation
In 2002, Coffman called for a criminal investigation into the school district after it estimated a
$10.3 million deficit. [Associated Press, 12/03/02]
The Boulder District Attorney then began investigating the district’s finances. [Associated Press,
12/24/04]
… And Proposed Eliminating Interest-Free Loans for School Districts
In 2002, Coffman proposed eliminating interest-free loans for school districts.
He explained that without the ability to charge interest, his only other option was to seize a
district’s tax receipts, which could shut down schools, or grant an extension. [Associated
Press, 12/11/02]
Coffman Agreed to Lend District Millions in Exchange for Detailed Financial Rescue Plan
In 2002, Coffman agreed to lend the school district $2.5 million of the $13 million it needed to
keep operating. He said that before he would lend the district more money, it would need to
produce a detailed plan to pull itself out of its financial hole.
“I will need to know penny for penny how the district will balance the budget and a schedule to do
it in a reasonable time period,” he said. [Denver Post, 12/08/02]
Coffman Called for More Cuts After District Proposed Plan
In 2002, Coffman called for more cuts than the school district’s proposed 15 percent across-theboard cut, arguing the plan was a “total failure.”
“This is not at all what I expected or needed to get from the district,” he said.
Coffman also criticized the proposed cuts for hitting too close to the classroom. [Associated Press,
12/12/02]
98
Suggested School District Might Have to Close Their Doors
In 2002, opposing a bailout for the school district, Coffman suggested that the school
district might have to close their doors.
“I absolutely am opposed to a bailout,” he said. “But if they make a good effort in terms of
cutting their budget and bringing it into line within a reasonable period of time, I think the
state should give them a loan. If they don’t, that means they’re going to have to close their
doors.” [Rocky Mountain News, 12/11/02]
… Then Admitted He Overreacted
In 2002, Coffman admitted he overreacted to how the school district was handling its
situation.
“There was some posturing on my part,” he said. “I had no control over the process at that
time. I needed to send a very hard message to them (the St. Vrain district) so they knew
what was expected.”
Coffman had been criticized for interrupting the district’s own efforts to develop a
recovery plan, and for making politically motivated statements. [Denver Post, 12/17/02]
Coffman Proposed Seven Percent Cut and Massive Cuts to District’s Administrative Budget
In 2002, Coffman proposed a plan to balance the school district’s budget, requiring teachers to
give up their 7.125 pay raise, and cutting $2.25 million – approximately 35 percent – from the
district’s administrative budget.
“Additionally, $2.25 million would be eliminated from the district’s administrative budget, or
about a 35 percent reduction, likely resulting in job cuts,” the Associated Press explained.
Plan Also Included 15 Percent Cut to Non-Salaried Operating Budget
In 2002, Coffman’s plan included cuts to the district’s non-salaried operating budget.
Plan Included Requiring Administrators to Pay for Families’ Health Insurance
In 2002, Coffman’s plan included requiring administrators to pay for their families’ health
insurance.
Previously, the school district covered the cost for the administrators but not for its other
employees. [Denver Post, 12/22/02]
Coffman’s Proposal Was Accepted
99
In 2002, after some controversy, the district accepted Coffman’s plan.
The controversy came over proposed compensation cuts for administrators, which would have
been a seven percent pay cut for teachers and administrators and for administrators to pay for their
health insurance as the same rate as teachers’. [Associated Press, 12/19/02, 12/20/02]
School Association Considered Suing Coffman
In 2002, the Colorado Association of School Executives said it was considering suing
Coffman over the settlement he imposed on the St. Vrain school district. [Editorial, Rocky
School District Criticized for Violating Tax Requirements After Accepting Coffman’s Deal
In 2003, Douglas Bruce threatened to sue the school district for violating provisions of the state
Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights.
Specifically, under the agreed-to plan, the school district would continue to owe the state $7
million at the end of the fiscal year, which would violate the requirement that a district cannot
carry debt from one fiscal year to the next.
TABOR also required that a district have three percent of its budget in reserves. [Denver Post,
1/08/03]
Coffman’s Offer to Loan Funds for Reserve Was Rejected by Attorney General
In 2003, Coffman offered to loan the district funds to cover its reserve, but after getting
advice from the Attorney General, it was decided that loaning the district the funds would
violate state law. [Associated Press, 1/13/03]
Coffman Suspended Loan While Deciding Whether District’s Plan Would Hurt Students
In 2003, Coffman suspended a $2.2 million loan to the school district while he weighed whether
the district’s plan to reduce teacher workloads would hurt students. [Rocky Mountain News, 2/11/03]
He ultimately allowed a $1 million loan to go forward. [Rocky Mountain News, 2/12/03]
Cut to Administrative Costs Resulted in Elimination of 21 Jobs
According to the Rocky Mountain News, the cut to administrative costs would come through the
elimination of 21 jobs, including high-level administrators.
Another 13 jobs would be funded through different sources and six jobs were reclassified to lower
salaries. [Rocky Mountain News, 4/23/03]
Prosecutors Found No Evidence of Criminal Wrongdoing
100
In 2003, Boulder County prosecutors said they found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing by St.
Vrain Valley School District’s administrators, and no chargers were planned. [Associated Press,
7/08/03]
Provided $1.5 Million Loan to Cash-Strapped School District
In 2003, Coffman approved a $1.5 million loan to the Elizabeth school district. [Denver Post, 2/28/03]
Court ruled that Coffman violated the Fair Campaign Practice Act when he issued three press releases in
2000 opposing a statewide ballot measure and urging voters to defeat it. Coffman’s press releases
criticized Amendment 23, which proposed an increase in money for public school funding through a new
education fund. The complaint was brought by Common Cause. Coffman was ordered to pay a civil
penalty of $334.92. [Denver Post, 12/07/04; Rocky Mountain News, 12/07/04]
Accused Governor of Creating $720 Million “Slush Fund”
In 2003, Coffman accused Governor Bill Owens of selling the state’s rights to tobacco money in order to
create a $720 million “slush fund” to be raided at legislative and executive whim.
Under Owens’ plan, $720 million of the $800 million the state would receive from the tobacco settlement
would go to a rainy day fund and the remaining $80 million to the state’s general fund.
Coffman preferred that any funds from selling the state’s rights would go to repaying the state’s trust
funds. [Denver Post, 11/30/03]
Created His Own Plan to Move Operations to Bank with Blank Checks
In 2005, Coffman developed his own plan to move operations to a conference room in a bank. [Associated
Press, 4/27/07]
… Because He Was Not Satisfied with State’s Backup Plan
According to Coffman, he developed his backup plan to move operations to a bank because he
was not satisfied with the state’s plan to run a backup computer system. [Associated Press, 4/27/07]
Used Same Bank as One Where He Kept Blank Checks
According to Coffman, the conference room was located in the same bank where the state kept its
blank checks. [Associated Press, 4/27/07]
Coffman: “I Developed A Continuity of Government Plan”
In an op-ed criticizing the Associated Press story breaking his backup plans, Coffman claimed that
he had developed a “continuity of government” plan.
101
“The real issue is the fact that I developed a continuity of government plan to ensure that the state
of Colorado could continue to function even in the event of a natural disaster or a terrorist attack,”
he argued. [Daily Camera, 5/06/07]
Tried to Keep State Money From School District For Refusing to Set Up Charter School
In 2003, Coffman requested Governor Bill Owens to withhold state money from a school district that
refused to set up a charter school.
Specifically, Coffman wanted to deduct money from the school district’s monthly per pupil payments
equal to the amount the charter school would receive under state funding formulas, and then send the
money directly to the charter school. [Associated Press, 7/10/03]
… But Governor Rejected Coffman’s Request, Calling It “Without Legal Merit”
In 2003, Governor Owens sharply criticized Owens’ request, writing, “I would be deeply
concerned if a governor had the ability to arbitrarily and unilaterally withhold state funds from
Colorado school districts to coerce compliance with policy decisions he did not agree with.”
Owens also stated, “Following an extensive legal analysis, it is clear that your request is without
legal merit.” [Associated Press, 7/10/03; Rocky Mountain News, 7/11/03]
Pressured American Heart Association to Sideline Lobbyist
During the 2000 debate over Coffman’s plan to securitize Colorado’s share of the tobacco industry’s
settlement, he pressured the American Heart Association to sideline one of their lobbyists from the state
legislature.
The lobbyist Michael Huttner had testified at several hearings vociferously opposing Coffman’s plan.
“I find myself in an awkward adversarial position with your organization,” Coffman wrote in a letter.
“Mr. Huttrier has routinely distorted the facts and attributed to me comments I have never made. His use
of half truths and deception, I believe, reflects poorly upon your organization.”
Coffman later said that he wanted the Association to get someone with a finance background, and that he
went up the Association’s “chain of command” to influence the organization. [Denver Business Journal,
5/05/00; Associated Press, 5/24/00]
Democrats Called for Official Investigation into Coffman’s Behavior
In 2000, the state Democratic Party asked a district judge to investigate allegations that Coffman
missed his authority to broker the sale of the state’s tobacco settlement money.
State chairman Tim Knaus accused Coffman of collaborating with two bankers to prevent the
group’s lobbyist Michael Huttner from testifying at hearings. Knaus further alleged that the
bankers would stand to benefit from Coffman’s plan. [Associated Press, 5/24/00]
102
Set Up Task Force to Examine Venture Capital Program
In 2003, Coffman created a task force to examine the state’s CAPCO program. The program, passed by
the legislature in 2001, created “certified capital companies” to invest venture capital in the state.
“There seems to be some value (to CAPCO), but we’re not channeling it appropriately,” Coffman
explained. [Rocky Mountain News, 7/17/03]
… Then Made Surprise Call to Eliminate CAPCO Programs
In 2003, Coffman made a surprise call to eliminate CAPCO programs and cancelled the final
meeting of his task force. [Rocky Mountain News, 9/26/03]
“The CAPCO program is a textbook case on what not to do on economic development,” he
explained. “The program is so flawed that the only viable solution is eliminating it entirely.”
Wanted to Take CAPCO Tax Credits and Apply Them to Insurance
In 2003, Coffman announced a plan that would reduce the state’s insurance premium tax
by $100 million in exchange for $100 million in canceled CAPCO tax credits. [Rocky
“Any concern that this proposal is a boon to insurance companies is misguided. The
reduction in insurance premium taxes will be passed on directly to consumers in the
insurance rate-setting process,” he explained. [Rocky Mountain News, 9/27/03]
Deputy Insurance Commissioner Cast Doubt on Effectiveness of Coffman’s Plan
In 2003, Deputy Commissioner of Insurance for Finance and Administration Janet Byrne
said that Coffman’s proposal glossed over the complexity of insurance rate-setting, and
that most rates were based on projects of claims, not taxes.
“It would be difficult for the division to determine conclusively that the (tax cut) will be
returned to the policyholders by way of the rate-setting process,” she said.
However, Coffman’s spokesman said that legislation could solve the problem. [Rocky
Stunned Most Members of His Task Force
Responding to Coffman’s 2003 calls to eliminate CAPCO, most members of his task force were
stunned.
With the exception of the task force’s chairman, most members were not informed of Coffman’s
decision before his announcement. [Denver Post, 9/26/03]
103
Formed Advisory Group to Reform State Fiscal System
In 2003, Coffman formed an advisory group to reform the state’s fiscal system. [Rocky Mountain News,
5/25/03]
Had Five Meetings
In 2003, the advisory group was scheduled to have five meetings. The meetings were scheduled
for June 6, June 20, July 18, August 1, and August 15 at the Denver Chamber of Commerce
Building.
The first meeting was to review three voter-approved constitutional amendments, including
TABOR, the Gallagher Amendment cap on residential property taxes, and Amendment 23
guaranteeing funding increases for public schools. [Pueblo Chieftain, 6/07/03]
The first meeting took four hours. [Rocky Mountain News, 6/07/03]
Included 70 Participants Representing 28 Organizations
In 2003, the advisory group included 70 participants representing 28 organizations.
Those organizations included Action 22, Club 20, Progressive 15, AARP, the Colorado
Association of Commerce and Industry, the National Federation of Independent Business, all the
major school lobbying associations, and the Colorado Education Network, which wrote
Amendment 23. [Pueblo Chieftain, 6/07/03]
Opposed Mandated Increases in School Funding Over 10 Years
In 2000, Coffman opposed an education-funding initiative that would mandate guaranteed increases in
school funding over 10 years and create a fund expected to draw nearly $4.6 billion in the next decade.
[Denver Rocky Mountain News, 12/09/00]
“It doesn’t give us flexibility, particularly in a bad economy,” Coffman explained. “As long as we’re in a
surplus position, we’ll be OK. But if we were in a recession, I think it would provide some difficult issues
for the state.” [Denver Rocky Mountain News, 9/24/00]
The initiative ultimately passed. [Associated Press, 11/08/00]
Subject to Complaint for Using Public Resources to Oppose Mandate
In 2000, Colorado Common Cause filed a complaint against Coffman for violating the state’s
campaign laws by using “the machinery of the state,” including his staff, letterhead, and website to
oppose the school-finance proposal. [Denver Post, 2/13/01]
Leading up to the vote on the proposal, Coffman issued press releases written by his staff that
announced his opposition to the proposal, placed a link to sites opposing the initiative on his
104
official state Web page, and sent out e-mails opposing the initiative from state computers. [Rocky
Coffman was later found guilty of violating the Fair Campaign Practices Act, and was ordered to
pay a $334.92 fine. [Denver Post, 8/03/01]
Criticized Initiative for Eliminating Government’s Economic Flexibility
In his 2000 op-ed, Coffman criticized the initiative for eliminating government’s economic
flexibility.
“The governor and legislature are currently increasing school funding at a higher rate than this but,
placing the requirement to do so within Colorado’s constitution, will eliminate the flexibility the
general assembly and governor need to react when the state’s economy dips or growth in the total
number of students ends,” he explained. [Denver Rocky Mountain News, 10/15/00]
Proposed College Savings Program that Would Invest Funds in Market
In 1999, Coffman proposed an alternative state program for saving for college tuition that would allow
people to put up money to invest in the market.
Coffman admitted the investment would be subject to market fluctuations. “But if you just look at the
averages of the market, you’re going to do a lot better,” he said. “If you want to be very, very
conservative, the rate of return would be 8 to 10 percent.” [Associated Press, 1/29/99]
The plan would be called the Scholars Choice and would be managed by Salomon Smith Barney.
Opposed Merger of Pension Plans for Denver Teachers and State Employees
In 2004, Coffman opposed the merger of pension plans for Denver teachers and state employees.
“I want PERA to get its act together,” Coffman said. “If they don’t understand the magnitude of the
problem now, do we really want them absorbing another pension plan into the fold?” [Rocky Mountain News,
1/29/04]
Supported Selling Tobacco Settlement
In 2003, Coffman supported selling Colorado’s share of the national tobacco settlement to get immediate
funds to balance the state’s budget. [Associated Press, 10/31/03]
Asked Lawmakers to Increase Contribution Rate for State and School Employees
In 2004, Coffman asked lawmakers to increase the contribution rate for state and school employees back
to its 2000 level, when the rate was decreased from 10.4 percent of payroll to 10.15 percent. [Associated
Press, 1/21/04]
105
Oversaw Returning Nearly $1 Million to Taxpayers
In 2002, Coffman oversaw returning nearly $1 million to Colorado taxpayers who claimed previously
unclaimed property, which had ended up under the state’s control.
Coffman called the program the Great Colorado Payback. [Colorado Springs Business Journal, 8/23/02]
Proposed Creation of Rainy Day Fund
In 2002, Coffman proposed a constitutional amendment that would create a state rainy day fund. [Pueblo
Chieftain, 10/11/02]
“The state is currently facing an unprecedented drop in revenues that no economists considered remotely
possible just two years ago,” he explained. “By creating a rainy day fund, by mandating that the state
government save more during good times, Colorado could largely avoid facing these problems in the
future.” [Associated Press, 10/09/02]
Said Money for Rainy Day Fund Could Come from Revenue Returned to Taxpayers
In 2002, Coffman said that money from the rainy day fund could come from a portion of the
excess revenue that was normally refunded to taxpayers, known as the TABOR surplus, and used
for special interest tax cuts. [Denver Post, 11/05/02]
Sold $650 Million in Short-Term Debt Securities
In 2006, Coffman sold $650 million in short-term debt securities, called General Tax and Revenue
Anticipation Notes.
The sale, which involved competitive bids, included Citigroup who bid $475$million, JP Morgan Chase
& Co. who bid $100 million, Bank of America Corporation who bid $50 million, Morgan Stanley & Co.
who bid $15 million, and Lehman Brothers Inc. who bid $10 million. [Denver Business Journal, 6/27/06]
Sold $200 Million in Short Term Debt Securities
In 2006, Coffman sold $200 million in short-term debt securities, called Education Tax and
Revenue Anticipation.
The sale, which involved competitive bids, saw Citigroup posting the winning bid, submitting an
interest rate bid of 3.75 percent. [Denver Business Journal, 12/12/06]
106
… Secretary of State
 Denver Post called Coffman’s voting plan “flawed”
 Recertified nearly all voting equipment he previously deemed unfit
 Certified voting machines made by company who shared political consultant
 Hired GOP activist to manage state’s elections technology
 Reportedly illegally removed voters within 90 days of election… and was
angrily ordered by judge to stop
 Failed to launch fake-mail program to aid domestic violence victims… while
program’s director spent thousands on travel
 Admitted he “created a lot of confusion” while in office
 Pointedly criticized by longtime Secretary of State for belittling the office
Though he only served in office for two years, Coffman had an extremely
controversial tenure as Secretary of State. He decertified many of the state’s voting
machines in the lead up to the 2008 election, prompting the Denver Post to call his
plan “flawed”. Controversially, one of set of machines he did certify from the
beginning was owned by a company who shared a political consultant with
Coffman’s campaign, and whose machines had identical flaws to other machines
that were decertified. Coffman eventually recertified nearly all the equipment.
Meanwhile, he hired a GOP activist to manage the state’s elections technology,
only to reassign him after the activist was caught selling voter data to Republicans.
A New York Times expose found that Coffman was illegally purging voters before
the 2008 election, with 37,000 people removed three weeks in late summer. A
lawsuit ensued, with the judge eventually ordering Coffman to stop purging and
restore several names. He also failed to launch a fake-mail program to aid
domestic violence victims, while the program’s director spent $2,700 on travel and
Coffman was accused mismanaging funds. “You have violated my trust,” one state
senator trust. Coffman later said he “created a lot of confusion” as Secretary of
State and was pointedly criticized by a longtime Secretary of State for belittling
the office.
107
Denver Post: Coffman’s Voting Plan Is “Flawed”
In a 2007 editorial called, “Coffman’s voting plan is flawed,” the Denver Post criticized Coffman for his
decision to decertify or require upgrades for current voting technologies.
“While Coffman’s objectives are laudable, the review’s findings and lack of technical details raise more
questions than answers with less than two months to go before Colorado’s primaries,” the newspaper
argued. [Denver Post, 12/27/07]
Coffman: “I Created A Lot Of Confusion”
In 2008, Coffman admitted that he created “a lot of confusion” after decertifying thousands of electronic
voting machines.
“I think I created a lot of confusion, and in hindsight that wasn’t a good thing to do,” he said. [Rocky
Pointedly Criticized by Longtime Secretary of State
In 2008, former Colorado Secretary of State Natalie Meyer wrote a pointed op-ed criticizing Coffman for
belittling the significance of the Secretary of State.
“As a former Colorado secretary of state for 12 years, and one who now lives in the 1st Congressional
District, I have been unusually silent about the 6th Congressional District Republican race for U.S. Rep.
Tom Tancredo’s seat,” she said.
“However, after reading Mike Coffman’s rationale for giving up the Colorado secretary of state office
after only a few months into this term, I can no longer keep silent.” [Meyer op-ed, Rocky Mountain News,
7/02/08]
Meyer: Coffman “Is Wrong to Thoughtlessly Give Up The Office”
In her 2008 op-ed, Meyer wrote that Coffman “is wrong to thoughtlessly give up the office” of
Secretary of State. [Meyer op-ed, Rocky Mountain News, 7/02/08]
Meyer: “Did He Not Understand What He Was Getting Into?”
In her 2008 op-ed, Meyer wrote, “Coffman’s assertions and timing are confusing (and frustrating
to me personally as a former secretary of state). Did he not understand what he was getting into?
Does he not understand his role now?” [Meyer op-ed, Rocky Mountain News, 7/02/08]
New York Times: Colorado Was Illegally Removing Voters Within 90 Days of Election
In 2008, the New York Times reported that Colorado seemed to be in violation of federal law.
108
“Michigan and Colorado are removing voters from the rolls within 90 days of a federal election, which is
not allowed except when voters die, notify the authorities that they have moved out of state, or have been
declared unfit to vote,” the newspaper reported. [New York Times, 10/08/08]
Number Purged Far Exceeded Number Who Died or Relocated
According to the New York Times analysis, the number of people purged from election rolls since
August 1st, 2008, “far exceeds the number who may have died or relocated during that period.”
[New York Times, 10/08/08]
37,000 People Were Removed From Rolls in Three Weeks After July 21
According to the New York Times analysis, “some 37,000 people were removed from the rolls in
the three weeks after July 21. During that time, about 5,100 people moved out of the state and
about 2,400 died, according to postal data and death records.” [New York Times, 10/08/08]
… But Coffman Said He Only Removed About 14,000
Responding to the New York Times analysis, Coffman claimed that only about 14,000 –
not 37,000 – voters had been removed from the rolls, and that most of them had died or
moved out of the state.
He also said that he would review the way voters were removed from rolls. [New York Times,
10/09/08]
Sued for Allegedly Illegally Purging Over 42,000 Voters from State Rolls
In 2008, Coffman was accused of illegal purging over 42,000 voters from state rolls too close to a
federal election, in violation of the National Voter Registration Act.
The accusations, brought by two state activist groups and a union, resulted in a lawsuit against
Coffman. That lawsuit was ultimately settled, with both sides disputing what the terms of the
settlement were. The plaintiffs interpreted the settlement to mean Coffman would stop cancelling
voters, but Coffman continued to cancel voters. [Rocky Mountain News, 10/31/08]
… Then Was Ordered Stop Purging Names and Restore 146 Names
In 2008, the Denver Post reported that a federal judge “angrily ordered” Coffman to stop
purging names on voter registration rolls.
The judge, United States District Judge John Kane, warned that if Coffman did not stop
purging voters, “he’ll be listening to me personally.”
State officials admitted that 146 more names had been purged since the settlement in the
case was reached, and Coffman was ordered to restore those 146 voters back on the rolls.
109
Coffman: Judge’s Order Was “Absolutely Ridiculous”
In 2008, Coffman said the judge’s order to reinstate 146 voters was “absolutely ridiculous”
and could lead to people casting illegal votes.
“I think it’s absolutely ridiculous for me to be ordered to go back and reinstate those
registrations,” he said. “Fortunately I think it’s late enough in the process that whatever
damage that will be done is so marginal it won’t compromise the integrity of the election.
Had it happened earlier, it absolutely would have compromised the integrity of the
election.” [Denver Post, 11/02/08]
In 2008, Coffman failed to setup an address-confidentiality program intended to help domestic violence
victims.
Under the program, victims of rape, domestic advice, or stalking could use a fake address with the actual
However, Coffman’s office had freely spent funding for the program even though revenues were
significantly less than what was expected. Consequently, Coffman said he would have to suspend the
program unless the legislature provided additional funding. [The Gazette (Colorado Springs), 1/23/08]
… While Program’s Director Spent $2,700 on Travel
As of January 2008, the program’s director spent approximately $2,700 on travel to visit similar
programs in other states and potential application sites in Colorado. [Denver Post, 1/23/08]
Coffman Asked for $20,000 in Extra Funding
Appearing before the state legislature, Coffman asked for an extra $20,000 in funding for the
program, arguing the program’s revenues from domestic violence fines were far less than the
original estimates. [Denver Post, 1/23/08]
Accused of Hiring Full-Time Employee in Massive Office Long Before Anyone Signed Up
State Senator: “You Have Violated My Trust”
In 2008, Coffman was criticized for failing to launch a fake-address mail plan to aid domesticviolence victims.
“You have violated my trust,” state Senator John Morse told Coffman, after Coffman asked for an
extra $20,000 to fund the program.
110
Morse went on to accuse Coffman of committing a “deliberate act of rebellion” because he never
wanted to run the fake-address program. [Denver Post, 1/23/08]
In 2007, Coffman hired GOP political activist Dan Kopelman as the state’s elections technology manager.
Kopelman previously worked on Coffman’s campaigns and was former president of Denver Metro Young
Republicans. [Editorial, Denver Post, 5/10/07]
… And Then Reassigned Him After Selling Voter Data to Republicans
In 2007, Kopelman was reassigned from some of his duties as elections technology manager after
being investigated for selling vote data to Republicans through a commercial website. [Editorial,
Denver Post, 5/10/07]
Requested State Auditor to Investigate Whether Kopelman Accessed State Information
Responding to the revelation that Kopelman was improperly selling data, Coffman requested the
state auditor to investigate whether Kopelman accessed state information for his political
consulting firm. [Rocky Mountain News, 5/11/07]
The audit later found no evidence that Kopelman accessed state information. [Denver Post, 12/04/07]
In 2007, a voting machine manufacturer whose machines were approved by Coffman used the same
consultant as Coffman was using while he ran for Congress.
Coffman had reviewed the state’s voting machine companies as the result of a court-ordered review that
began in 2006. Several companies’ machines were decertified, including those of Election Systems &
Software, Hard InterCivic, and Sequoia Voting Systems.
The company, Premier Election Solutions, had hired Phase Line Strategies, which Coffman was already
using for his Congressional campaign. [Rocky Mountain News, 12/20/07, 12/22/07]
… And Was One of a Few to Get Certified
After Coffman’s review, Premier Election Solutions was the only one of four companies to have
all its equipment approved for the 2008 elections. [Rocky Mountain News, 12/20/07]
Coffman Said He Learned of Connection A Couple Months Ago
According to the Denver Post, Coffman said that he learned of the connection between his
consultant and Premier Election Solutions a couple months ago.
111
“At that point, he should have changed political consultants. No harm, no foul. At the very
least, he should have disclosed the situation,” the newspaper reported. [Editorial, Denver Post,
12/22/07]
Premier Machines Had Over 70 Deficiencies
According to a 2007 email obtain by the Rocky Mountain News, Premier machines had over 70
deficiencies, including the inability to detect security breaches and to transmit electronic securely.
[Rocky Mountain News, 6/07/08]
... The Same Flaws That Caused Other Machines to Be Decertified
According to the Rocky Mountain News, the Premier machines’ deficiencies were “the
same flaws that caused other machines to be decertified initially.” [Rocky Mountain News,
6/07/08]
Other States Discovered Same Flaws and Severely Restricted Machines
According to Verified Voting Foundation’s senior project director Warren Stewart,
Coffman’s approval of Premier machines was “confusing” because other states had found
the same deficiencies and severely restricted the use of the machines. [Rocky Mountain News,
6/07/08]
Liberal Group Called for Coffman’s Resignation
Responding to lobbying firm conflict of interest, liberal group ProgressNowAction called for
Coffman’s resignation. [Rocky Mountain News, 12/20/07]
Recertified Nearly All Voting Equipment He Previously Deemed Unfit
In 2008, Coffman recertified nearly all the electronic voting and tallying machines deemed unfit for use
later the previous year.
Coffman explained that the recertified machines were based on new information from manufacturers, a
new law that gave him more flexibility, and new policies he imposed.
“It’s important for voters to know that the certified equipment is secure and can accurately count every
vote,” he said. [Rocky Mountain News, 2/29/08]
… And Recertified All Equipment By Less Than A Week Later
Less than a week after recertifying nearly all voting equipment he decertified the previous year,
Coffman recertified the remaining systems that he previously decertified. [Associated Press, 3/04/08]
Reversal Was Result of New Law Giving Coffman More Leeway
112
According to the Rocky Mountain News, Coffman’s reversal was “the result of a measure signed
into law two weeks ago, HB 1155, that gives him more leeway to reapprove voting equipment.”
Decertified Many Voting Machines in First Year in Office
In 2007, Coffman declared that many of the state’s voting machines were unreliable. [Associated Press,
12/19/07]
Under Coffman’s Watch, Study Found Colorado Failed to Meet Requirement Set by Federal
Voting Law
In 2008, a study by Project Vote found that Colorado “has been failing to meet the requirement of a
federal voting law—the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA)—that requires state agencies to offer
voter registration services to citizens when they apply for public assistance.”
Among the studies key findings were:
 “The number of voter registration applications coming from public assistance offices across the
state has remained at a low level since the enactment of the NVRA in 1993.”

“Of the 900,000 unregistered adult citizens in Colorado in 2006, 229,000 had household incomes
below $25,000 and are likely to be in contact with public assistance offices.”

“Voter registration performance at public assistance offices varies enormously from county to
county. Some of the largest counties in Colorado reported zero voter registrations from their
public assistance offices.”

“Visits by Colorado ACORN to public assistance offices in El Paso, Denver, Arapahoe and
Adams counties found numerous instances of non-compliance with the NVRA.”
[projectvote.org, 1/28/08]
Under Coffman’s Watch, Over 6,000 Voters Were Caught in Check Box Technicality
In 2008, at least 6,462 people failed to check a box on voter registration forms indicating that they did not
have a Colorado driver’s license or a state ID number, but still completed Social Security information that
implied they did not have such identification.
Under state law, the voter registration form was incomplete and must be sent back to the voter, who could
check the box and return the form. [Denver Post, 10/14/08]
… And Coffman’s Office Mistakenly Told Local Clerks Wrong Deadline to Fix It
In 2008, Coffman’s office original advised county clerks that voters had until October 6th to
correct their box problem, when in fact voters had until Election Day.
Coffman’s office later admitted their mistake. [Denver Post, 10/14/08]
113
Colorado Common Cause: Thousands Of Voters Could Be Denied Right to Vote
In 2008, Colorado Common Cause executive director Jenny Flanagan claimed that thousands of
voters could be denied the right to vote.
“We’re talking about thousands of voters who could be denied their right to vote on Election Day
because of this technicality,” she stated. [Coffman op-ed, Denver Post, 10/14/08]
Coffman: No Voters Will Be Disenfranchised
In a 2008 op-ed subtitled, “No voters disenfranchised,” Coffman argued that the state’s voter
registration program was “under attack by liberal voting rights groups” and stated, “No one will be
disenfranchised for incomplete voter registration forms.” [Denver Post, 10/19/08]
Under Coffman’s Watch, Over 35,000 Newly Registered Voters Risked Having Ballots Tossed Out
for Failing to Include Copy of ID
In 2008, over 35,000 newly registered Colorado voters risked having their ballots tossed out for failing to
include a copy of their ID with their votes.
Specifically, 35,620 first-time voters whose identity had not been verified requested mail ballots. But
under state law, voters needed to include a copy of their ID, though the Rocky Mountain News described
how voters were getting conflicting information from elections officials. [Rocky Mountain News, 10/30/08]
In 2008, Coffman’s chief of staff Jacque Ponder was observed handing out “Mike Coffman for Congress
2008” stickers at a Republican campaign event, in “apparent breach of ethics,” the Rocky Mountain News
reported. [Rocky Mountain News, 3/08/08]
Coffman Denied Chief’s Breach Was Result of His Ethics Policies
Responding to allegations that Ponder was campaigning on his behalf, Coffman said that her
actions were not subject to his ethics policy because she worked in his administration division,
unrelated to the elections division where his policy was intended. [Rocky Mountain News, 3/08/08]
Previous Chief of Staff was Longtime Aide
In 2007, Coffman hired his longtime aide Brian Anderson to be his chief of staff while serving as
Secretary of State. [Denver Post, 1/29/07]
Supported Paper Ballot Voting
In December 2007, Coffman announced that paper ballot voting was the most trustworthy method for
counting votes.
114
“I have more confidence in having votes cast on paper ballots at the polls rather than relying exclusively
on electronic voting machines or in voting by mail,” he said.
He further stated that he did not support a push by county clerks to conduct all-mail elections. [Rocky
… Then Opposed Paper Ballot Voting
Four months later, in March 2008, Coffman said he would side with county clerks and oppose a
paper voting bill in legislature.
“I don’t believe that voting on paper ballots is less subject to the potential for fraud than voting on
electronic machines or voting by mail,” he said. [Rocky Mountain News, 3/13/08]
He argued that county clerks should be able to use electronic voting machines instead of having to
spend an estimated $15 million on paper ballots and optical scanners. [The Gazette (Colorado Springs),
3/15/08]
Would Not Explain Why He Changed His Stance
When questioned in an email interview, Coffman would not say why he changed his stance on
paper ballots. [Rocky Mountain News, 3/13/08]
Voting Watchdog: Colorado Was Poorly Prepared to Handle Voting Machine Problems
In 2008, the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University issued a report concluding that Colorado
was poorly prepared to handle electronic voting machine problems on Election Day. [Rocky Mountain News,
10/17/08]
State Audit Found Coffman Failed to Properly Supervise His Employees
In 2007, a state audit concluded that Coffman failed to properly supervise his employees. [Associated Press,
2/12/09]
Criticized for Campaigning During Office Hours
In 2008, Coffman was criticized by Colorado Ethics Watch (“CEW”) for campaigning during office
hours.
According to the watchdog’s count, Coffman spent 18.5 hours across three months meeting people who
later gave his congressional campaign a combined $36,000. [Denver Post, 4/04/08]
Coffman Spent Two Hours at Lunch at Rotary Club as Donor’s Guest
According to CEW, Coffman spent two hours at a Rotary Club luncheon as the guest of an
individual who later donated $1,000 to Coffman’s campaign. [Denver Post, 4/04/08]
115
Allowed GOP Legislative Candidates on Ballot After Deadline Passed. In 2008, Coffman allowed
three GOP legislative candidates on the ballot a week after the deadline had passed. Coffman argued that
the law “is not clear” about the deadline. [Rocky Mountain News, 6/18/08]
Sued to Prevent Independent Ethics Commission to Hold Hearing on Complaint Against Him
In 2009, Coffman sued to block the state’s Independent Ethics Commission from holding a hearing on a
complaint against him.
The complaint, brought by Colorado Ethics Watch, alleged that Coffman improperly allowed an
employee who dealt with elections to also operate a partisan political business. [Associated Press, 2/12/09]
Coffman’s lawsuit was later rejected by the court. [Associated Press, 3/06/09]
Sued Attorney Who Represented Ethics Watchdog Group
In 2009, Coffman sued Chantell Taylor, who represented the Colorado Ethics Watch, for wrongfully
claiming a state commission found that Coffman “technically violated state law.”
The commission found that “although there may have been a technical violation of state law, this was
mitigated by the vigorous and immediate remedial action taken by both Coffman and (his assistant),” but
Coffman argued that the finding implied possible technical violations on him employee’s part, on his
own.
“I think there are ethical standards lawyers have to follow and Ms. Taylor clearly violated those
standards,” Coffman explained. [Associated Press, 9/24/09]
Testified Before Independent Ethics Commission
In 2009, Coffman testified before the state’s Independent Ethics Commission regarding allegations that he
knowingly let a state elections worker run a partisan side business, and improperly recertified voting
machines represented by a political consulting firm also doing work for him. [Denver Post, 3/07/09]
The Commission later cleared Coffman of both allegations. [Denver Business Journal, 4/14/09]
Said Ethics Watchdog Waged “A Two-Year Jihad” On Him
Testifying before the Independent Ethics Commission, Coffman accused that the Colorado Ethics
Watch of waging “essentially a two-year jihad.”
“It was essentially a two-year jihad... so they could go back to their donors and say they were
doing a good job,” he said. [Denver Post, 3/07/09]
Denied He Knew His Employee Ran Political Business On The Side
116
Testifying before the Independent Ethics Commission, Coffman said he did not know his former
employee Dan Kopelman was selling voter lists to Republicans. [Associated Press, 3/06/09]
Specifically Unaware That Employee Was Offering Election Information
In 2009, Coffman said he was unaware that Kopelman was offering election information
for sale on the Live Wires website. [Denver Post, 3/07/09]
… But Secretary Said She Regularly Received Emails from Employee’s Business
In 2009, Coffman’s secretary Abby Thomas testified that she regularly received emails regarding
GOP happenings from Kopelman’s business, called Political Live Wires.
Thomas also said she went over the emails with Coffman. [Denver Post, 3/07/09]
Refused Governor’s Executive Order to Create Bargaining Partnership with State Workers
In 2007, Coffman refused Governor Bill Ritter’s executive order to create a bargaining partnership with
state workers.
Under Ritter’s plan, workers would have the right to collectively negotiate on matters of workplace
safety, training, and efficiency. Workers, represented by a union of their choice, could bargain on “issues
of mutual concern,” including wages, health care, and staffing. [Denver Post, 11/04/07]
Ordered Counties Add Paper Ballots to Voting Machines… But Didn’t Have Authority
In 2007, Coffman ordered three counties to add paper ballots to their voting machines, then determined
that he did not have the authority to do that. [Rocky Mountain News, 3/14/07]
Cost of Voter Database Rose While Coffman Hired Consultants to Fix Glitches
In 2008, the cost of a new $13 million statewide voter database rose while Coffman hired more
consultants to fix glitches in the database.
The system, called State of Colorado Registration and Election (“SCORE”), would be used later that year
and was more than two years late because of problems with the initial contractor.
One of Coffman’s consultants, a national consulting firm, commanded a cost up to $125,000 to fix errors.
Ended Municipal Status of Several Communities in Douglas County
In 2007, Coffman ruled that ten towns in Douglas County would no longer be designated so because
residents failed to maintain a local government.
117
Those towns were Acequia, Deckers, Douglas, Franktown, Greenland, Huntsville, Lehigh, Louviers,
Russelville and Westcreek. [Denver Post, 11/15/07]
Town Challenged Coffman’s Ruling
Responding to Coffman’s ruling, members of Franktown challenged his ruling, arguing that they
wanted control to preserve the heritage of the town, as well as allow development to pay for water
and sewer services.
But opponents believed it was a dodge to avoid county zoning that normally allowed only one
home on 35 acres. [Denver Post, 11/15/07]
118
… Congressman
 Originally intended to run in Colorado’s 7th Congressional District
 Announced candidacy for 6th Congressional District less than a year after
becoming Secretary of State… then refused to step down to campaign
 Shunned by top Colorado Republicans during primary for 6th Congressional
District
 Predicted Republicans would challenge Tancredo over “credibility issues” and
left pro-war rally to protest Tancredo’s failure to serve in Vietnam… then
praised Tancredo for standing up to the establishment
Coffman long pined to serve in Congress. He originally intended to run in
Colorado’s 7th Congressional District in 2001, but eventually decided against
running after redistricting. Then in 2007, less than a year after becoming
Secretary of State, and despite the urgings of local Republicans to stay in office,
Coffman announced his candidacy for the 6th Congressional District and refused to
step down to campaign. For his actions, Coffman was actively shunned by top
Colorado Republicans during the 2008 GOP primary.
Coffman has a confused relationship with former officeholder Tom Tancredo. In
the early 2000s, Coffman predicted Republicans would challenge Tancredo over
“credibility issues” and once walked out of a pro-war rally to protest Tancredo’s
failure to serve in Vietnam. But in 2008, Coffman praised Tancredo for standing
up to the political establishment.
Announced Run for Congress Less Than A Year After Becoming Secretary of State. In January
2007, Coffman was sworn in as Secretary of State. Then in November 2007, Coffman filed to run for
Congress. [Associated Press, 1/09/07; Associated Press, 11/06/07]
… And Refused to Step Down to Campaign. In 2007, Coffman said that he would not step down
from his position as Secretary of State to campaign for Congress. “I will serve as the secretary of
state all the way to January of 2009,” he said. [Denver Post, 11/22/07]
Refused to Resign after Winning GOP Primary. In 2008, Coffman refused to resign from his
position as Secretary of State after winning the GOP primary for the 6th Congressional seat. “Just
119
like you shouldn’t change horses midstream, I will continue my efforts to ensure a successful
election in November,” he said. [Rocky Mountain News, 8/16/08]
Shunned By Top Colorado Republicans During GOP Primary for Congressional Seat
In 2008, the Denver Post reported that “During the primary campaign, high-profile Republicans in
Colorado actively shunned Coffman.” [Denver Post, 8/17/08]
State Republicans Strongly Urged Coffman Not to Run for Congress
In 2007, state Republicans strongly urged Coffman not to run for Congress and vacate his seat as
Secretary of State.
“I’m profoundly disappointed that Mike appears willing to do something that would turn that
office over to Democrats,” state GOP chair Dick Wadhams said. [Rocky Mountain News, 11/01/07]
Intended to Run in Colorado’s New 7th Congressional District
In 2001, Coffman intended to run in the state’s 7th Congressional seat. [Rocky Mountain News, 3/04/01]
2001: Took Regular Trips to Washington to Visit NRCC
In 2001, Coffman took regular trips to Washington to visit the National Republican Congressional
Committee. [Rocky Mountain News, 6/30/01]
Said There Was Good Chance He Would Run, And Was Willing to Move
In 2001, Coffman said that there was a good chance he would run if the district included
his home, and that he was willing to move even if it did not. [Associated Press, 7/06/01]
2001: Created Exploratory Committee
In 2001, Coffman created an exploratory committee in anticipation of running for Congress.
“It is simply an option that I’m looking at,” he said. “In order to make that option a viable one, I
need to start raising money now.” [The Gazette (Colorado Springs, Colorado), 7/06/01]
2002: Decided Against Running
In 2002, Coffman decided against running in the 7th Congressional district, after redistricting maps
would have required him to move to the district. [Associated Press, 2/07/02]
Confused Relationship with Former Congressman Tancredo
The following outlines Coffman’s confused relationship with Tancredo:
120
2002: Considered Heir Apparent to Tancredo’s Seat
In 2002, the Rocky Mountain News called Coffman the “Republican heir apparent” to
Congressman Tom Tancredo’s seat. [Rocky Mountain News, 9/26/02]
2002: Predicted Republicans Would Challenge Tancredo Over “Credibility Issues”
In 2002, Coffman predicted that some Republicans would challenge Congressman Tom Tancredo
in 2004 over “credibility issues.” [Rocky Mountain News, 11/06/02]
2003: Left Rally to Protest Tancredo
In 2003, Coffman walked away from a pro-war rally with Congressman Tom Tancredo because of
questions regarding Tancredo’s failure to serve in Vietnam.
“I didn’t make a statement about it publicly,” Coffman said. “I never intended to do so. You guys
found out about it – I don’t know how.”
“I just didn’t feel (Tancredo) had the moral authority to send other young people off to war when
he was not willing to go himself.” [Rocky Mountain News, 3/27/03]
… Then Apologized to Tancredo
In 2003, Coffman apologized to Congressman Tancredo for walking off stage because of
questions regarding Tancredo’s failure to serve in Vietnam. [Rocky Mountain News, 4/01/03]
2008: Praised Congressman Tancredo for Standing Up to Political Establishment
In 2008, Coffman praised Congressman Tancredo for standing up to the political establishment.
“What I admired so much about Congressman Tancredo was that he had the courage to stand up to
the political establishment in Washington, to the Republicans in his own party when they ceased
to govern by the conservative values that got them elected,” he said. [Rocky Mountain News, 7/30/08]
Pushed to Fund City Potentially Located in New Congressional District
In 2001, Coffman pushed to loan funds to the city of Centennial, which was potentially located in the
state’s new 7th Congressional district.
As part of the plan, Coffman requested that a bill be drafted to loan the funds to Centennial at a low
interest rate. [Rocky Mountain News, 3/04/01]
… When The City’s Mayor Didn’t Ask for Funding
Though Coffman offered to loan state funds to Centennial, the city’s mayor Randy Pye said it did
not need the funding.
121
Moreover, local legislators said they would not sign onto Coffman’s proposed bill without the
mayor’s approval.
“I’m being strong-armed a little bit by Mr. Coffman and am baffled by it,” the mayor said.
[Coffman LTE, Rocky Mountain News, 3/04/01]
Coffman LTE: Mayor Should Reconsider My Offer
In a 2001 letter to the editor, Coffman urged the mayor of Centennial to reconsider his offer.
“The State of Colorado has a long history of lending a helping hand to local governments. It is in
this spirit that I offered assistance to Colorado’s newest city. I urge Mayor Pye to look beyond the
personal reasons - whatever they may be - that caused him to arbitrarily reject the proposal
developed at Treasurer Milliken’s request,” he wrote. [Rocky Mountain News, 3/09/01]
Caucuses
The following outlines caucuses of which Coffman is a member:
Name
Balanced Budget Amendment Caucus
Tea Party Caucus
Year Joined
2010
2010
[Coffman.house.gov, accessed 2/15/12 ;
washingtonpost.com, accessed 2/15/12]
Member of Republican Study Committee
As of 2012, Coffman was a member of the Republican Study Committee.
[rsc.jordan.house.gov; accessed 2/15/12]
Endorsed by Club for Growth
In 2008, Coffman was endorsed by the conservative group Club for Growth.
[clubforgrowth.org; 10/10/08]
Committees
The following outlines committees of which Coffman is a member:
Name
Armed Services
Natural Resources
Small Business
Year Joined
2009
2009
2009
[Various]
Chaired Small Business Subcommittee on Investigations, Oversight, and Regulations
122
In 2011, Coffman chaired the House Small Business subcommittee on Investigations, Oversight
and Regulations. [Coffman press release, 12/15/11]
123
Birther Scandal
Said Obama Was In His Heart “Not An American” And Questioned The President’s Birthplace
Said Obama Was In His Heart “Not An American” And Questioned The President’s Birthplace.
During a May 2012 fundraiser in Elbert County, Congressman Coffman said, "I don't know whether
Barack Obama was born in the United States of America. I don't know that. But I do know this, that in his
heart, he's not an American. He's just not an American." [9News, 5/16/12; Denver Post, 5/16/12]
Timeline:
May 12th, 2012: Coffman spoke at a private, closed door fundraiser and gave his shameful and now
infamous remarks, saying he didn't know where the president was born and that "in his heart he isn't an
American." [Denver Post, 5/12/12; Denver Post, 5/16/12]
May 16th, 2012: When Coffman found out that there was audio of his speech, he issued a half-hearted
written apology that only raised more questions. Using his military background as a qualified apology,
Coffman wrote, “I misspoke and I apologize[…] I have confidence in President Obama’s citizenship and
legitimacy as President of the United States […] Coffman went on to say in his written apology:
"However, I don't believe the president shares my belief in American Exceptionalism. His policies reflect
a philosophy that America is but one nation among many equals. As a Marine, I believe America is
unique and based on a core set of principles that make it superior to other nations.” [Huffington Post, 5/17/12]
May 22nd, 2012: After refusing to return phone calls and canceling his public events, Coffman was finally
tracked down outside one of his fundraisers. Coffman gave the same canned response over and over
again. [9 News, 5/22/12]
Morning Of May 24th, 2012: Coloradans read Coffman's public apology in the Denver Post where he
said, “I have rejected the notion that [the President] is anything other than American.” [Denver Post,
5/24/12]
May 24th, 2012: Just hours after telling the public that he rejected the notion that President Obama was
anything other than an American, Coffman went on a right wing radio station where he was interviewed
by a self-confessed supporter. He not only admitted that the apology was written "for political reasons"
and that he made his initial attacks because he thought he was speaking at a "closed door gathering" and
thought he was “off the record”, but also went on to encourage the Birther movement saying “god bless
those people. I understand their passion.” [KHOW Radio Denver, 5/24/12]
Denver Post: Coffman Gave an “Apology that Contains More Arrogance than Remorse”
Denver Post: Coffman Gave an “Apology that Contains More Arrogance than Remorse”. “How
many of you would advise Coffman that the best way to introduce himself in a new, more competitive
district is via stories on the top-rated TV station and in the state’s largest newspaper in which he
essentially puts on the tri-cornered hat and shows the world his “birther” card? And then offering an
apology that contains more arrogance than remorse? Wow.” [Denver Post, The Spot, 5/17/12]
124
Refused to Explain His Comment Calling Obama “Not an American”
Refused to Explain His Comment Calling Obama “Not an American”. In a May 2012 interview with
9News, Coffman five times repeated his line, “I stand by my statement that I misspoke and I apologize,”
without further explaining his comments calling President Obama “not an American.” Transcript:
9NEWS: I apologize for showing up unannounced. I called your staff, they won’t return my phone calls.
So, let me ask you, after your comments about the President, do you feel that voters are owed a better
explanation than just, ‘I misspoke?’
COFFMAN: I think that, um, as I…I stand by my statement that I misspoke and I apologize.
9NEWS: Ok, and who are you apologizing to?
9NEWS: I apologize, we talk to you all the time. You’re a very forthcoming guy. Who’s telling you not to
talk and to handle it like this?
COFFMAN: I stand by my statement that I wrote, that you have. And I misspoke and I apologize.
9NEWS: Was it that you thought it would go over well in Elbert County where folks are very conservative
and you’d never say something like that in the suburbs.
COFFMAN: I stand by my statement that I misspoke and I apologize.
9NEWS: Is there anything that I can ask you that you’ll answer differently?
9NEWS: Thank you Congressman.
COFFMAN: Thank you. [9News, 5/22/12]
Hid from Reporter’s Requests for Explanation
“9NEWS Reporter Kyle Clark approached Coffman outside a closed door fundraiser Tuesday night after
the Coffman campaign ignored several requests over several days to schedule an interview with the
congressman. Coffman reiterated that he misspoke and apologized, but would not elaborate. Coffman
offered the same one-line explanation to every question asked, including when he was asked if he would
answer any question with a different response.” [9News, 5/22/12]
Praised Birthers
In 2012, Coffman went on the Dan Caplis radio show and said of birthers “God bless people that do that
[…] I understand their passion.” [Denver Post, 6/3/12]
Coffman: Obama "Probably Won't Admit" to Reading U.S. Constitution
125
“If so we continue on that trajectory, [mandatory spending] will literally crowd out discretionary spending
and crowd out defense. And if you read the Constitution, which I'm sure the president at some point in his
life has [laughs], but he probably won't admit it, you know, certainly the one thing that's, spelled out in
the Constitution that's the responsibility of Congress is to maintain the common defense.” [Mike Rosen
Show on 850 KOA, 2/15/12; Huffington Post, 2/17/12]
126
… Headlines from Birther Scandal
New York Daily News: “Mike Coffman, Republican congressman in Colorado: President Obama is
‘not an American’”
Full headline: ““Mike Coffman, Republican congressman in Colorado: President Obama is ‘not an
American’ The lawmaker — who has been serving in Congress since 2009 — issued a statement saying
he was sorry on Wednesday night” [New York Daily News, 5/17/12]
HEADLINE: “Rep. Coffman Apologizes For Reigniting ‘Birther’ Debate”
Fox 31 Denver, 5/16/12
9News: “Rep. Mike Coffman: Obama in his heart 'not an American'”
[9News, 5/16/12]
Denver Post: “Mike Coffman says Obama "not an American" at heart, then apologizes”
Denver Post, The Spot Blog: “Coffman says Obama ‘not an American’”
KDVR: Coffman: Obama “just not an American”
[KDVR, 5/16/12]
VIDEO: Progressive group petitions Rep. Coffman to ‘stop embarrassing Colorado’
Huffington Post: Colorado's Mike Coffman is Acting 'UnAmerican'
Berthoud Recorder Editorial Board: Coffman Gets It Wrong
[Berthoud Recorder, 2/23/12]
127
Government Shutdown
Voted Against Protecting Nutrition Assistance for Pregnant Mothers, Veterans in Shutdown or
Default
In September 2013, Coffman voted against protecting nutrition assistance for pregnant mothers, veterans,
seniors or people with disabilities in the event of a government shutdown or default on our debt.
The amendment failed 193-230. [HR 3102, Vote #475, 9/19/13]
Voted Against Protecting Social Security and Medicare from Shutdown
In September 2013, Coffman voted against critical protections in the event of a shutdown brought on by
the Republican continuing resolution that could bring on a government shutdown over health care
funding.
The amendment would fund military personnel accounts, the Social Security Administration’s
administrative expenses, the Health and Human Services Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
program management account and the Veterans Benefit Administration’s operating expenses through
September 30, 2014.
It also would bar the use of funds provided by the bill to implement a system that would privatize the
Social Security program, reduce the insurance benefits it provides or to establish a Medicare voucher plan
that provides limited payments to purchase health care in the private sector.
The amendment would increase funding for the Essential Air Service by $2.7 million. [CQ Votes,
9/20/13]
The amendment failed 190-228. [HJ Res 59, Vote #477, 9/20/13]
Voted For Extreme Plan That Would “Likely Result” In a Government Shutdown
In 2013, Coffman voted for an extreme House Republican continuing resolution that the Associated Press
reported would “likely result” in the shutdown of the federal government. [Associated Press, 8/23/13]
According to the New York Times: “After three years of cajoling, finessing and occasionally strongarming his fitful conservative majority, Speaker John A. Boehner waved the white flag on Wednesday,
surrendering to demands from his right flank that he tie money to keep the government open after Sept. 30
to stripping President Obama’s health care law of any financing. […] The House’s stopgap spending
measure would finance the government through Dec. 15 at the current spending levels, which reflect the
automatic spending cuts that took effect in March, known as sequestration, while blocking the health care
law, under which the uninsured will be enrolled beginning on Oct. 1.” [New York Times, 9/18/13]
The bill passed 230-189. [HJ Res 59, Vote #478, 9/20/13]
Effort to Shut Down Government Panned as Extreme, Futile
128

A “kamikaze mission” that “rarely turns out well, least of all for the pilots.” [Wall Street
Journal Editorial, 9/16/13]

An “ill-conceived tactic” and “means we’ll get” a government shutdown. [Karl Rove op-ed,
Wall Street Journal, 9/19/13]

“With one vote on Friday, the Republican-led House launched the latest spending battle in
Congress – one that could bring a government shutdown in less than two weeks.” [CNN,
9/20/13]

“While Boehner insisted on moving ahead with Friday’s vote, some prominent GOP
lawmakers in the Senate, such as Arizona Republican John McCain, have warned that forcing
a government shutdown over the Affordable Care Act could backfire on his party.” [National
Public Radio, 9/20/13]

“GOP pushes government toward shutdown” [MSNBC’s Daily Rundown, 9/20/13]

“The fracas in Washington will probably cost the Republican Party far more than anyone
else.” [The Nation, 9/20/13]

“ObamaCare foes taking hostages” [USA Today, 9/20/13]

“House Republicans rallied behind their right wing Friday to launch a full-scale assault on
President Obama’s health-care initiative, setting up a protracted confrontation with Democrats
that risks shutting down the government in just 10 days.” [Washington Post, 9/20/13]

“John Boehner’s inability to control the Republicans’ Tea Party faction could fuel a debtceiling crisis and the shutdown of the U.S. government.” [Barron’s, 9/20/13]

“House GOP vote increases risk of shutdown” [Boston Globe, 9/20/13]

“House takes first step toward government shutdown, votes to cut Obamacare funding”
[Orlando Sentinel, 9/20/13]
Headline: Aurora Rep. Coffman says his vote that shut government down was based on exception
…Was Willing to Take the Consequences of Shutting Down the Government
In 2013, Coffman when talking about the government shutdown said he was willing to take the
consequences.
“This a debate we need to have […] I’m a Marine Corps combat veteran and my job is to lead and to do
what’s right, no matter the consequences. And so whatever the consequences of doing what’s right in
leadership are, I’m willing to take those consequences,” Coffman said. [FOX 31, 9/30/13]
129
Headline: Thousands of civilian employees in Colorado Springs could be impacted by government
shutdown [The Gazette, 10/2/13]
Headline: Shutdown, impasse adding to Coffman's vulnerability [FOX 31, 10/15/13]
Vote to Shutdown the Government was Objections to Health Care Reform
In 2013, the Aurora Sentinel reported: “Congressman Mike Coffman said his vote yesterday that resulted
in a government shutdown came over fundamental objections to the Affordable Care Act.” [Aurora
Sentinel, 10/1/13]
Said he had Objections to Health Care Reforms Exceptions to Members of Congress and Staff
“Under its own law, members of Congress are supposed to be in Obamacare as written. Leadership went
to the White House and got the administration to provide a rule to provide an exception […] I think it
would be good for members of Congress and their staff to find out what the real world is like,” Coffman
said. [Aurora Sentinel, 10/1/13]
Headline: Aurora Rep. Coffman says his vote that shut government down was based on exception
Would Rather Negotiate During A Shutdown than Fund The Government
In 2013, while the government was shutdown Coffman said he would not support clean budget because
“This is a negotiation… I think there’s a belief that compromise is wrong but I believe that to govern,
particularly in divided government, you have to compromise.” [Denver Post, 10/2/13]
Headline: Rep. Mike Coffman isn’t Ready to Endorse the “Clean Budget” [Denver Post, 10/2/13]
FOX 31: Coffman Could Have Voted for a Clean C.R. Vote
“Had [Coffman] and the other House Republicans who say they support the clean C.R. voted with
Democrats on this appeal, it could have allowed a vote on the clean C.R. by Tuesday evening.”
[FOX 31, 10/8/13]
Denver Post: Coffman Said He Would Not Sign Petition for a Clean Vote
“Coffman said Wednesday, however, he would not sign onto a special petition being pushed by
Democrats that would force a floor vote on a ‘clean’ continuing resolution.” [Denver Post,
10/9/13]
…Then supported a Clean CR
Called for a Clean Spending Bill to Reopen the Government
130
“I have done my best to delay, defund and dismantle all or parts of Obamacare because I believe that
much of it will be harmful to this country in the long run […] However, the debate over attaching
Obamacare to a spending bill must end and I will argue before my colleagues in the House that we need to
pass a “clean” spending bill to immediately reopen the government,” Coffman said. [Denver Post, 10/8/13]
Headline: Rep. Mike Coffman: I support a “clean” continuing resolution to fund the government
While Negotiating Colorado Suffers:
Headline: Government shutdown chokes flood-ravaged Colorado town [USA Today, 10/3/13]
Headline: Government shutdown hits Colorado research labs hard [Denver Post, 10/3/13]
Headline: Colorado Springs has top percentage of workforce affected by shutdown [Denver Post, 10/3/13]
Headline: Shutdown forces furloughs for thousands in Colorado Springs [The Gazette, 10/2/13]
Voted for Budget Resolution with Medical Device Tax Repeal
In 2013, days before the government would shut down, Coffman voted for a continuing resolution that
would fund the government through December 15 and would repeal the 2.3 percent medical device tax
that helped fund the Affordable Care Act.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, the medical device tax would generate $29 billion in
revenue over 10 years. Despite Republican claims, studies noted that the device would not drive
companies out of the country because the tax applies to medical devices manufactured in the US and
abroad. [Washington Post, 9/28/13]
The motion passed 248-174. [HJ Res 59, Vote #497, 9/29/13]
Reid: Clean CR or Republicans Would Force Shut Down
According to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Democrats would reject any changes to the
Affordable Care Act attached to a continuing resolution to fund the government.
“To be absolutely clear, the Senate will reject both the one-year delay of the Affordable Care Act
and the repeal of the medical device tax,” Reid said in that statement. “After weeks of futile
political games from Republicans, we are still at square one: Republicans must decide whether to
pass the Senate’s clean CR, or force a Republican government shutdown.” [Washington Post,
9/28/13]
Voted for Budget Resolution to Delay Obamacare and Restrict Women’s Access to Care
In 2013, days before the government would shut down, Coffman voted for a continuing resolution that
would fund the government through December 15 but added an amendment would delay the Affordable
Care Act by one year as well as a “conscience clause” for employers and insurers.
131
According to CNN, the so-called “conscience clause” would “allow employers and insurers to opt out of
preventative care for women which they find objectionable on moral or religious grounds. That
prominently includes birth control, which most insurers are required to provide for free under current
Obamacare rules.” [CNN, 9/28/13]
“To be absolutely clear, the Senate will reject both the one-year delay of the Affordable Care Act and the
repeal of the medical device tax,” Reid said in that statement. “After weeks of futile political games from
Republicans, we are still at square one: Republicans must decide whether to pass the Senate’s clean CR,
or force a Republican government shutdown.” [Washington Post, 9/28/13]
The motion passed 231-192. [HJ Res 59, Vote #498, 9/29/13]
Republicans: Vote Would Not Affect Pre-Existing Conditions, Children Covered on Parents’
Plan
“GOP aides said that under the legislation headed toward a vote, most portions of the health law
that already have gone into effect would remain unchanged. That includes requirements for
insurance companies to guarantee coverage for pre-existing conditions and to require children to
be covered on their parents’ plans until age 26. It would not change a part of the law that reduces
costs for seniors with high prescription drug expenses.” [Associated Press, 9/28/13]
Voted to Provide Pay to Military in Event of a Government Shutdown
In 2013, Coffman voted to provide pay and allowances to military personnel, including active military
reservists, certain Defense and Homeland Security Department civilian employees, during a government
shutdown. Funds would be made available until January 15, 2015 or the enactment of a law providing
regular appropriations.
The bill passed 423-0. [HR 3210, Vote #499, 9/29/13]
Voted for Budget Resolution that Delayed Individual Mandate
In 2013, hours before the government would shut down, Coffman voted for a continuing resolution to
fund the government until December 15 and delay for one year the individual mandate in the Affordable
Care Act. It would also require the president, vice president and political appointees to purchase health
insurance through the health care laws state insurance exchanges and would limit the subsidies they may
receive for purchasing insurance.
Republicans pushed to limit the subsidies for members of Congress, arguing that members were living
under different rules. “We also approved a measure to ensure that Congress has to live under the same
laws as the people we represent,” Texas Rep. Pete Sessions said in a statement. [Sessions press release,
9/30/13]
The resolution passed 228-201. [HJ Res 59, Vote #504, 9/30/13]
132
Fact Check: There is No Exemption or Special Subsidy for Members of Congress
According to major nonpartisan organizations, there is no special subsidy or exemption for
members of Congress.

CNN: Congress, Staff are Not Exempt from Obamacare. “Congress is no more exempt
than any other employer who drops coverage and then helps employees purchase insurance
on the exchanges.” [CNN, 9/25/13]

PolitiFact: “False.” “Cruz… said the president ‘just granted all of Congress an
exception.’ … We rate Cruz’s claim False.” [PolitiFact, 8/14/13]

FactCheck.org: “Lawmakers and their Staffs Face Additional Requirements that
other Americans Don’t.” “Congress isn’t ‘exempt’ from the law…In fact, as we’ve said
before, lawmakers and their staffs face additional requirements that other Americans
don’t… federal employees will have to get insurance through the exchanges set up by the
Affordable Care Act. Other Americans with work-based insurance aren’t subject to such a
requirement.” [FactCheck.org, 8/30/13]

Roll Call: Norm Ornstein, AEI: False. “On the assertion that Members of Congress are
exempt from the provisions of the Affordable Care Act: also false. Members of Congress
are subject under the health care reform law to the same mandate that others are to
purchase insurance, and their plans must have the same minimum standards of benefits that
other insurance plans will have to meet. Members of Congress currently have not a goldplated free plan but the same insurance options that most other federal employees have,
and they do not have it provided for free.” [Roll Call, 5/11/11]

The Hill: “At least two House Republicans have acknowledged that the policy is not an
exemption from the healthcare law. Rep. Krisi Noem (R-S.D.) reportedly told one of her
constituents that Congress is not exempt, and Rep. Rodney Davis (R-Ill.) also pushed back
against talk of an exemption. ‘two House Republicans have acknowledged that the policy
is not an exemption from the healthcare law. Rep. Krisi Noem (R-S.D.) reportedly told one
of her constituents that Congress is not exempt, and Rep. Rodney Davis (R-Ill.) also
pushed back against talk of an exemption. [The Hill, 9/30/13]

National Review: “They haven’t been “exempted” from the amendment that forces them
onto the exchanges, in a way no other American is […] The net result of the law and the
workaround isn’t a “special handout” for congressional employees […] But people who
happen to be paid by the federal treasury don’t deserve to have the entire value of their
existing coverage stripped away, as almost no Americans will experience. [National
Review, 9/27/13]

House Republicans Backed a Plan That Virtually Guaranteed a Government Shutdown
According to the Washington Post: “The U.S. government was poised to shut down for the first
time in 17 years late Monday, as House Republicans clung tenaciously to their demand that any
133
agreement to fund federal agencies must also undermine President Obama’s 2010 health-care law.
With a midnight deadline fast approaching, the House voted 228 to 201 to approve the third GOP
proposal in two weeks to fund the government – a plan that would delay enforcement of the
‘individual mandate,’ a cornerstone of the legislation that requires all Americans to obtain health
coverage in 2014.” [Washington Post, 9/30/13]
OMB: Shutdown will Cost $2 Billion
“And why everyone should care: a shutdown will cost, not save, taxpayers’ money. A study from
the Office of Management and Budget puts the overall economic price tag for a shutdown around
$2 billion.” [ABC News, 9/29/13]
A Shutdown could Delay Financial Support for more than 1,000 Small Businesses a Week
“In FY2012, the SBA’s flagship 7(a) and 504 loans programs supported 53,847 businesses and
609,437 jobs, for an average of just over 1,000 businesses per week. A shut down would put a stop
to this critical source of small business credit until the government resumes operation.” [Small
Business Administration FY14 Budget Justification, accessed 9/24/13]
First-Time Homebuyers Seeking Government-Backed Mortgages “Could face Delays”
“Many low-to-moderate incomes borrowers and first-time homebuyers seeking governmentbacked mortgages could face delays. […] The Federal Housing Administration, which guarantees
about 30 percent of home mortgages, wouldn’t underwrite or approve any new loans during the
shutdown.” [Associated Press, 9/28/13]
A Number of Head Start Programs “Would Feel the Impact Right Away”
“A small number of Head Start programs, about 20 out of 1,600 nationally, would feel the impact
right away. The federal Administration for Children and Families says grants expiring about Oct.
1 would not be renewed. Over time more programs would be affected. Several of the Head Start
programs that would immediately feel the pinch are in Florida. It’s unclear if they would continue
serving children.” [U.S. News, 9/29/13]
Supported Piecemeal Funding of Government During Shutdown
In 2013, during the first full day of the government shutdown, Coffman voted to fund portions of the
Department of Veterans Affairs not previously deemed essential. Brought up as a suspension vote, the
vote received limited debate and required two-thirds of those present for passage.
Democrats argued that Republicans were playing “political games,” releasing “one hostage” at a time.
Rarely are appropriations bills brought up under suspension.
“The fact that [Appropriations] committee Republicans went along at the expense of their Democratic
colleagues dramatized how much the panel has slipped its old traditions and been humiliated by this GOP
leadership. The panel said it only learned of the plan to call up piecemeal bills when it was announced by
134
Cantor at a morning press conference. And by that point, it was difficult for Chairman Hal Rogers (RKy.) to raise any effective protest,” Politico reported.
“It’s pathetic,” said Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). “It’s beneath the dignity. I keep saying that
but we keep getting further beneath the dignity of what our responsibilities are in this House.” [Politico,
10/01/13]
The motion failed to reach a two-thirds majority, 264-164. [HJ Res 72, Vote #506, 10/01/13]
Voted for Piecemeal Funding on DC Budget
In 2013, Coffman voted to authorize the District of Columbia to expend local funds without
Congressional approval as proposed in its most recent budget submitted to Congress.
While DC Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton supported the motion, Democrats “accused the GOP
of using the funding bill, one of three debated on Tuesday evening, as part of a political ploy.”
[Roll Call, 10/01/13]
Voted for Piecemeal Funding for National Parks and Museums
In 2013, Coffman voted to provide funding for the National Parks Service, the National Gallery of
Art, the Smithsonian Institution and the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum at post-sequester fiscal
2013 levels.
Again Voted for Piecemeal Funding for National Parks and Museums
In 2013, Coffman voted to provide funding for the National Parks Service, the National Gallery of
Art, the Smithsonian Institution and the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum at post-sequester fiscal
2013 funding levels.
The bill passed 252-173. [CQ Floor Votes, 10/02/13; HJ Res 70, Vote #513, 10/02/13]
Voted for Piecemeal Funding for National Institutes of Health
In 2013, Coffman voted to provide funding for the National Institutes of Health at post-sequester
fiscal 2013 levels.
Voted for Piecemeal Funding For Veterans Benefits
135
In 2013, Coffman voted to provide funding for veterans programs, including disability payments,
education benefits and home loans. The bill would also fund the Veterans Benefits Administration
at an annualized rate of $2.5 billion to process disability claims.
Voted for Piecemeal Funding for FEMA
In 2013, Coffman voted to provide funding for Federal Emergency Management Agency at postsequester FY 2013 levels.
Voted for Piecemeal Funding for WIC
In 2013, Coffman voted to provide funding for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for
Women, Infants and Children at post-sequester FY2013 levels.
Voted for Piecemeal Funding for the FDA
In 2013, Coffman voted to provide funding for the Food and Drug Administration at postsequester FY 2013 levels.
Voted for Piecemeal Funding for Head Start
In 2013, Coffman voted to provide funding for Head Start at post-sequester FY 2013 levels.
Voted for Piecemeal Funding for the FAA
In 2013, Coffman voted to provide funding for the Federal Aviation Administration at postsequester FY 2013 funding levels.
Voted for Piecemeal Funding for Some Homeland Security Programs
In 2013, Coffman voted to provide funding for select Department of Homeland Security activities
at post-sequester FY 2013 levels.
136
Activities funded included border and customs protection, immigration and citizenship services,
the Coast Guard, and biometric data used to track individuals who may be terrorists, criminals or
undocumented immigrants.
Voted for Piecemeal Funding for National Nuclear Security
In 2013, Coffman voted to provide funding for nuclear weapons and non-proliferation programs
under the National Nuclear Security Administration at post-sequester FY 2013 levels.
Voted for Piecemeal Funding for Native American Programs
In 2013, Coffman voted to provide funding for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Indian
Education and Indian Health Service at post-sequester FY 2013 levels.
Blocked Vote on Re-Opening Government
In 2013, on the second day of a government shutdown, Coffman voted to block consideration of a vote on
a clean government funding resolution.
According to Talking Points Memo, “The House rejected Wednesday an effort by House Democrats to
put a clean temporary spending bill on the floor, closing one opportunity to re-open the federal
government.” Following the vote, Fox News reporter Chad Pergram tweeted, “House rejects effort to
consider clean CR to re-open gov’t on procedural vote. 230 to 194.” [Talking Points Memo, 10/02/13;
Twitter, 10/02/13]
Earlier in the day, “the number of House Republicans hit 20 – surpassing the magic 17 votes needed to
pass a clean funding bill if all 200 Democrats stick together and team up with them.” [Huffington Post,
10/02/13]
The motion to block consideration of the bill passed 230-194. [HJ Res 70, Vote #512, 10/02/13]
Voted for a Bipartisan Compromise Plan to Re-open Government, Avert Debt Default
In October 2013, just days before the U.S. government could have defaulted on its obligations, Coffman
voted for a bipartisan compromise that would re-open the federal government and avert a catastrophic
debt default.
According to the New York Times, “Under the agreement, the government would be funded through Jan.
15, and the debt ceiling would be raised until Feb. 7. The Senate will take up a separate motion to instruct
137
House and Senate negotiators to reach accord by Dec. 13 on a long-term blueprint for tax and spending
policies over the next decade.” [New York Times, 10/16/13]
Said he would Donate Salary during the Shutdown
In 2013, tweeted he donate his salary during the government shutdown.
“I refuse to take salary when #Congress is so dysfunctional that we #shutdown I will donate full salary 2
@RedCross for #Coloradoflood relief” [@RepMikeCoffman, 10/1/13]
Introduced Bill to Pay Military during Government Shutdown, but Not Civilian Personnel
In 2013, Coffman introduced H.R. 3210 Pay Our Military Act that was to ensure military personnel would
get paid.
According to Huffington Post, Pay Our Military Act “will protect pay and allowances for members of the
Armed Forces when the government shuts down at midnight.” [H.R. 3210 Pay Our Military Act; Public
Law, 9/30/13; Huffington Post, 9/30/13]
Defense Department Said Bill Did Not Provide Legal Authority for a Blanket Recall
In 2013, the Defense Department comptroller said Coffman bill did not provide legal authority for blanket
recall of all civilians.
“We concluded that POMA did not provide legal authority for a blanket recall of all civilians […] Had the
law been intended to provide for recall, it should have said, ‘recall all civilians,’” said Defense
Department comptroller Robert Hale. [CBS, 10/10/13]
Headline: Pentagon: Shutdown still hurting Defense Department, in spite of military pay law
[CBS, 10/10/13]
Headline: As DOD Executes Shutdown Plan, Confusion Erupts Over ‘Pay Our Military Act’
[Inside Defense SITREP, 10/2/13]
Headline: Pay protected but shutdown stings military multiple ways [The Daily Herald, 10/11/13]
Looked Forward to the next Debt Ceiling Standoff
In 2013, Coffman said he was looking forward to the next debt-ceiling standoff.
Coffman said “he was looking forward to attempting to win budget concessions from Democrats as a
condition of raising the debt ceiling again in January,” the Colorado Independent reported.
Headline: Coffman looking forward to next debt-ceiling standoff [Colorado Independent, 10/17/13]
138
Theme – Saying One Thing, Doing Another
 Coffman: “I’ve never supported the privatization of Social Security”; … But
supported privatizing Social Security for younger generations and twice voted
against protecting the program from privatization
 Said that he would support an extension of the Payroll Tax Cut; … But voted six
times against considering Payroll Tax Cut extension, voted against 1.1 percent
Payroll Tax Cut
 Co-sponsored two pregnant workers bills that work against each other
 Co-sponsored bill to prohibit Birthright Citizenship; … Then supported path to
citizenship for children of illegal immigrants; … But six months later: supported
ending Birthright Citizenship
 Despite advocating for action on VA claims backlog, Coffman voted against multiple
bills to reduce backlog
 Despite acknowledging cost overages in 2013, Coffman claimed to be “shocked” in
2015 by over-budget VA hospital; Opposed multiple bills that would have provided
funding for Aurora hospital years before crisis began
 Said the sequester cuts he voted for were “just way too deep”; … But repeatedly
voted to keep sequester cuts and not replace them
 Played both sides of wildfire funding issue; called for increased wildfire prevention
funding after having cast one of his seven votes against it just four months earlier
 Authored bill that would allow for citizenship through military service, but later said
similar bill “does not work for the military”; voted to deport the very people he
sought to gain citizenship through enlistment
 Said those who have violated immigration laws should be able to stay in the country
indefinitely; … But three days later: Did not support a path to citizenship for those
who had entered the U.S. illegally
139
 Said he supported a woman’s access to birth control; … But praised the Hobby
Lobby Supreme Court decision, which restricts women’s access to birth control
 Criticized public employees for accepting pension benefits while earning wages and
said Americans must “make sacrifices”; … But from 2009 to 2015, Coffman
received state pension and congressional salary
 2014: Criticized Democratic opponent for employing lobbyists on campaign; … But
twice employed former lobbyists for official positions in D.C. office
 October 2014: Criticized opponent for airing “misleading” and “dishonest”
campaign ad; … But during same month, Coffman was criticized for airing
“misleading” and “unfounded” attack ad
National Council of La Raza: Coffman is “Telling Us One thing and Voting Another”
National Council of La Raza: Coffman is “Telling Us One thing and Voting Another”. In 2014, Jesus
Altamirano of the National Council of La Raza said in regards to immigration Coffman was “telling us
one thing and voting another.” [Associated Press, 3/9/14]
Coffman: “I’ve Never Supported The Privatization Of Social Security”; … But Supported
Privatizing Social Security For Younger Generations And Twice Voted Against Protecting The
Program From Privatization
2014: Coffman: “I’ve Never Supported The Privatization Of Social Security.” In 2014, during a
debate, Coffman said, “I’ve never supported the privatization of Social Security.” [Colorado Public
Television Debate, YouTube, 9:02 – 9:06, 10/09/14]
… But In 2008: Supported Privatizing Social Security For Younger Generations. In 2008, in
response to a Project Vote Smart survey question about whether or not he supported allowing
individuals to divert a portion of their Social Security taxes into personal retirement accounts,
Coffman selected the following response: “‘Allow workers to invest a portion of their payroll tax in
private accounts that they manage themselves.’ Indicate which principles you support (if any)
regarding Social Security. Other or expanded principles: ‘The system must recognize its commitment
to seniors but must gradually move younger generations toward individual saving accounts.’” [Project
Vote Smart, accessed 3/06/16]
… And In 2011: Voted Against Protecting Social Security and Medicare Benefits from
Privatization. In March 2011, Coffman voted against a measure that would have prohibited
continuing appropriations funds for fiscal year 2011 for being used in developing or implementing a
system that cuts Social Security benefits or that privatizes Social Security. The amendment also
prohibited funds from being used to develop or implement a system that cuts Medicare benefits,
140
eliminates guaranteed health coverage for seniors or establishes a Medicare voucher plan that limits
payments to beneficiaries in order to purchase health care in the private sector. The motion failed,
190-239. [HJR 48, Vote #178, 2/15/11]
… And In 2014: Voted Against Ruling Out Privatizing Social Security. In April 2014, Coffman
voted against the Democratic budget alternative. The budget would rule out privatizing Social
Security. The budget failed, 163-261. [H Con Res 96, Vote #176, 4/10/14; House Democratic Budget Substitute,
FY 2015]
Said That He Would Support An Extension Of The Payroll Tax Cut; … But Voted Six Times
Against Considering Payroll Tax Cut Extension, Voted Against 1.1 Percent Payroll Tax Cut
August 2011: Said That He Would Support An Extension Of The Payroll Tax Cut. In August 2011,
Coffman said that he would support an extension of the payroll tax cut, saying, “I will support an
extension of the payroll tax cut” [Rep. Coffman Town Hall, YouTube, 2:43 – 3:22, 8/27/11]
… But Three Months Later: Voted Six Times Against Considering Payroll Tax Cut Extension. In
2011, Coffman voted six times against the consideration of a payroll tax cut extension for working
Americans:
Payroll Tax Holiday Extension Act of 2011, which extended middle class tax relief for 2012. The
previous question passed 239-184. [H Res 477, Vote #870, 11/30/11; Congressional Record, H7955-1957,
11/30/11]
Payroll Tax Holiday Extension Act of 2011, which extended middle class tax relief for 2012, and the
Emergency Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2011, which extended unemployment
benefits. The previous question passed 236-184. [H Res 479, Vote #889, 12/06/11; Congressional Record,
H8151-8152, 12/06/11]
Payroll Tax Holiday Extension Act of 2011, which extended middle class tax relief for 2012, and the
benefits. The previous question passed 241-173. [H Res 487, Vote #902, 12/08/11; Congressional Record,
H8269-8270, 12/08/11]
Vote #4: Coffman voted to order the previous question, preventing Democrats from considering an
benefits, and the Medicare reimbursement doctor fix. The previous question passed 236-182. [H Res
Middle Class Fairness and Putting America Back to Work Act of 2011, which extended middle class
tax relief, unemployment benefits, and the Medicare reimbursement doctor fix. The previous question
passed 235-173. [H Res 493, Vote #925, 12/14/11; Congressional Record, H8919, 12/14/11]
141
Vote #6: Coffman voted to order the previous question, preventing Democrats from considering a bill
passed by the Senate, which extended middle class tax relief, unemployment benefits, and the
Medicare reimbursement doctor fix for two months. The previous question passed 233-187. [H Res 502,
Vote #944, 12/20/11; Congressional Record, H9956-9958, 12/20/11]
2011: Voted Against Additional 1.1 Percent Payroll Tax Cut for Working Families. In 2011,
Coffman voted against an additional 1.1 percent payroll tax cut for working families. The motion would
have increased the employee payroll tax cut to 3.1 percent for 2012 from 2.0 percent. According to an
analysis by the U.S. Department of Treasury’s Office of Tax Policy, expanding the tax cut to 3.1 percent
would have been a “tax cut of about $1,550 for the typical American working family in 2012” when
compared to no extension of the payroll tax cut. The motion failed 183-244. [HR 3630, Vote #922, 12/13/11;
HR 3630, Vote #922, 12/13/11; Congressional Record, H8820, 12/13/11; Office of Tax Policy – Treasury
Department, 11/30/11; CQ House Action Report, HR 3630, 12/12/11]
Co-Sponsored Two Pregnant Workers Bills That Work Against Each Other
Co-Sponsored The Pregnancy Discrimination Amendment Act (PDAA) And The Pregnant
Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) On The Same Day. In June 2015, Coffman co-sponsored the Pregnancy
Discrimination Amendment Act (PDAA) and the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) on the same
day. He was the only member of Congress to co-sponsor both bills. [HR 2800, 6/23/15; HR 2654,
6/23/15]
The Pregnancy Discrimination Amendment Act Was Introduced As Alternative To The
Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. “In June 2015, some members of Congress introduced the
Pregnancy Discrimination Amendment Act (PDAA; S1590/HR2800) as an alternative to the PWFA.
While we applaud these members for paying attention to this important issue, the alternative leaves
many pregnant workers and their health behind, and is likely worse than the status quo.” [A Better
Balance, 7/08/15]
Pregnancy Discrimination Amendment Act Was Introduced Two Weeks After The Pregnant
Workers Fairness Act. [HR 2800, 6/17/15; HR 2654, 6/04/15]
National Women's Law Center: The Two Bills Differ Greatly; PWFA Strengthens Legal
Protections For Pregnant Workers, PDAA Diminishes Legal Protections For Pregnant Workers.
“According to its sponsors, the Pregnancy Discrimination Amendment Act, S. 1590, H.R. 2800,
(‘Amendment Act’) seeks to address a critical problem of pregnant workers being forced to choose
between their jobs and their health when they have a medical need for temporary accommodations. The
bill thus reflects the growing, bipartisan awareness of the need to strengthen legal protections for pregnant
workers. Unfortunately, the Amendment Act raises more legal questions than it answers and, if enacted,
could actually diminish the legal protections pregnant workers currently enjoy. By contrast, the bipartisan
Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, S. 1512, H.R. 2654, would provide a clear, flexible rule ensuring
reasonable accommodations for pregnant workers who need them.” [National Women’s Law Center,
7/27/15]
Pregnancy Discrimination Amendment Act Did Not Go As Far As The Pregnant Workers
Fairness Act. “An alternative bill to strengthen protection from employment discrimination for
pregnant workers is the Republican-sponsored Pregnancy Discrimination Amendment Act…However,
142
this bill does not go nearly as far as the Pregnant Workers’ Fairness Act, and it is not surprising that
this week, the Washington Post published a piece on how Republicans are losing the support of
working mothers. [Spiggle Law Firm, accessed 9/22/15]
National Women’s Law Center: Bill Could Actually Diminish The Legal Protections Pregnant
Workers Currently Enjoy. “According to its sponsors, the Pregnancy Discrimination Amendment
Act, S. 1590, H.R. 2800, (‘Amendment Act’) seeks to address a critical problem of pregnant workers
being forced to choose between their jobs and their health when they have a medical need for
temporary accommodations … Unfortunately, the Amendment Act raises more legal questions than it
answers and, if enacted, could actually diminish the legal protections pregnant workers currently
enjoy.” [National Women’s Law Center, 7/27/15]
National Women’s Law Center: Bill Could Lead To Pregnant Workers Being Denied Medically
Needed Accommodations. H.R. 2800, the Pregnancy Discrimination Amendment Act would narrow
the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (‘PDA’), enacted in 1978, which makes clear that employment
discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions is a prohibited. The
bill would require employers to treat pregnant workers the same as a person who is not pregnant, “but
similar in their temporary ability or inability to work.” This word “could lead to pregnant workers
being denied medically needed accommodations based on distinctions that make little sense” because
the temporary nature of being pregnant could limit accommodations. [National Women’s Law Center,
7/27/15]
National Women’s Law Center: Bill Would Weaken Legal Protection That Women May Not Be
Forced To Choose Between Having A Child And Having A Job. The change in language to the
Pregnancy Discrimination Act by H.R. 2800, the Pregnancy Discrimination Amendment Act would
weaken the protection that women may not be forced to choose between having a child and having a
job. “This change in language could also harm pregnant workers’ rights outside the pregnancy
accommodation context. The Supreme Court has long held that the PDA’s requirement that pregnant
workers be treated the same as others ‘similar in their ability or inability to work’ means that pregnant
employees cannot be shut out of particular positions for reasons unrelated to their ability to do their
job. ‘In other words, women as capable of doing their jobs as their male counterparts may not be
forced to choose between having a child and having a job.’ By adding the modifier ‘temporary’ to the
PDA’s requirement, the Amendment Act would complicate and undermine this analysis, weakening
the key protection provided by the PDA for more than a generation.” [National Women’s Law Center,
7/27/15]
Co-Sponsored Bill To Prohibit Birthright Citizenship; … Then Supported Path To Citizenship For
Children Of Illegal Immigrants; … But Six Months Later: Supported Ending Birthright
Citizenship
January 2011: Co-Sponsored Rep. Steve King’s “Birthright Citizenship Act,” Which Would
Remove the Constitutional Guarantee of Citizenship to Children Born in the U.S. In January 2011,
Coffman co-sponsored HR 140, the Birthright Citizenship Act. According to Congressional Quarterly, the
bill would have prohibited “the automatic granting of citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal
immigrants.” According to the New York Times, “The right to United States citizenship for everyone
born on American soil is described in the 14th Amendment. [...] The 14th Amendment was adopted in the
143
wake of the Civil War to guarantee citizenship to the American-born children of freed slaves.”
[Congressional Quarterly, 1/24/11; 112th Congress Co-Sponsorships, accessed 7/22/13; New York Times,
1/05/11; Denver Post, 2/13/11]
… Then In February 2013: Supported Pathway To Citizenship For Children Of Illegal
Immigrants. “A Colorado Republican congressman who only a year ago supported an end to
birthright citizenship now backs a pathway to citizenship for young illegal immigrants. Rep. Mike
Coffman told a town hall crowd in Aurora, Colo., on Sunday of his position change, according to the
Denver Post. While Coffman said he supports a pathway to citizenship for young illegal immigrants
who were brought to the United States as children, he wasn’t as sure about allowing adult illegal
immigrants to become citizens. … A Coffman spokesman confirmed the position change in the story
to POLITICO.” [Politico, 2/11/13]
HEADLINE: “GOP Pol Backs Youth Citizenship Path” [Politico, 2/11/13]
… But In August 2013: Supported Taking Away The Guarantee Of Citizenship To Children Born
In The U.S. In 2013, when asked by a reporter about his 2011 support of the extreme “Birthright
Citizenship Act,” that would remove the 14th Amendment’s citizenship guarantee for children born in the
U.S., Coffman doubled-down on his position. “The current law is, that, and I think the United States is
separate from other countries, that if you’re born in the United States that you are in fact a citizen of the
United States. You know I think we should probably be, adopt a policy of other countries that you are a
citizen of your parents…,” Coffman said. When the reporter sought clarification by asking “You would
like to see the change, right? Is that what you’re saying?” Coffman responded “Sure.” [Denver Post, 5:50,
8/30/13]
Despite Advocating For Action On VA Claims Backlog, Coffman Voted Against Multiple Bills That
Would Reduce Backlog Of Veterans’ Claims; Dismissed Criticism Of His Vote By Saying “They
Got Their Funding”
May 2013: Voted Against Considering Veterans Backlog Reduction Act. In 2013, Coffman voted
against considering the Veterans Backlog Reduction Act, which would direct the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs to pay provisional benefits for certain non-adjudicated claims. The previous question was
approved 224-195. A vote against the motion would have allowed for consideration of the veterans bill.
[H Res 232, Vote #180, 5/23/13; Congressional Record, H2925, 5/23/13]
Aurora Sentinel: Coffman Voted Against Bill “To Reduce The Growing Backlog Of Veterans.”
In 2014, the Aurora Sentinel called out Coffman for criticizing the VA’s backlog of claims while also
voting against funding to address this issue. “Aurora U.S. Rep. Mike Coffman, a Republican, as
recently as January voted against a spending bill that would have set aside as much as $100 million
for overtime and additional training for claims processors to reduce the growing backlog of veterans
waiting for care.” [Aurora Sentinel, 5/29/14]
HEADLINE: “Despite Clear Calls For VA Resignations, Voting Records For Vets Still Cloudy”
144
May 2013: Wrote Letter Urging Action on VA Claims Backlog. In 2013, Coffman wrote a letter with
Democrat Congressman Patrick Murphy urging the President to address the Veterans Administration
claims backlog. “The President must use his Office to aggressively push the VA to reduce the backlog.
The extraordinarily long wait times represent a barrier between our veterans and their ability to receive
the healthcare and other benefits that they have earned through their service to our country,” Coffman
said. [Office Mike Coffman, 5/28/13]
June 2013: Voted Against Quicker Disability Claims Processing. In 2013, Coffman voted against an
amendment that would help reduce the backlog of disability claims for veterans. The amendment would
add $9.2 million in funding (double the funds in the underlying appropriations bill) to hire an additional
94 claims processors to help reduce the veterans disability claims backlog. The amendment failed 198227. [HR 2216, Vote #192, 6/04/13]
Despite Acknowledging Cost Overages In 2013, Coffman Claimed To Be “Shocked” In 2015 By
Over-Budget VA Hospital; Opposed Multiple Bills That Would Have Provided Funding For
Aurora Hospital Years Before Crisis Began
November 2013: Knew Project Costs Were Projected To Surpass $1 Billion. “[A]ccording to a GAO
study on April 30 of this year the Aurora project is I believe 144 percent over budget … And your cost
estimate I believe is $604 million for the Aurora project and the contractor is saying that it is going to cost
over $1 billion to build the project.” [House Committee on Veterans Affairs Hearing, 11/20/13]
July 2013: Had “Every Confidence” That Project Would Be Over Budget. “‘I don't have any
confidence that it will be on time,’ Coffman said. ‘And I have every confidence it will be over budget.
There's a pattern of mismanagement of projects by the VA.’” [Denver Post, 7/02/13]
HEADLINE: “VA Hospital In Aurora Will Be Late And Cost More, Delegation Says” [Denver
Post, 7/02/13]
HEADLINE: “Federal Report: Aurora Veterans Hospital Will Cost More And Take Longer
To Complete” [FOX 31, 7/08/13]
… But In March 2015: Said He Was “Shocked” By Aurora VA Hospital Cost Overruns. “The
already over-budget Aurora VA Hospital is going to cost more than $1 billion over the projected cost. On
Tuesday the deputy secretary of the Veterans Administration said the new estimate on the project is close
to $2 billion. There is currently an $880 million cap on the project, which construction crews are expected
to reach next month. Republican U.S. Rep. Mike Coffman of Aurora has introduced legislation that will
increase that cap. ‘I’m shocked — really — the cost overruns are going to be over a billion dollars,
projected by the Army Corps of Engineers who is taking over the project from the VA,’ Coffman told
CBS4. ‘Sticker shock.’” [CBS Denver, 3/17/15]
145
HEADLINE: “Rep. Coffman Feels ‘Sticker Shock,’ Learns VA Hospital Will Be $1 Billion Over
Budget” [CBS Denver, 3/17/15]
Opposed Two Bills That Would Have Provided Nearly $200 Million In Funding For The Aurora
Hospital Years Before Crisis Began. “Two large bills that provided nearly $200 million in funding for
the hospital in Aurora were opposed by Coffman in the years leading up to this most recent spate of
criticism for mismanagement. A funding bill in 2009 for $119 million and a funding bill in 2011 for $42
million set aside for the VA hospital in Aurora were both opposed by Coffman.” [Aurora Sentinel,
9/19/14]
Aurora Sentinel: “$200 Million In Funding For The Hospital In Aurora Were Opposed By
Coffman In The Years Leading Up To This Most Recent Spate Of Criticism For
Mismanagement.” [Aurora Sentinel, 9/19/14]
April 2010: Voted To Approve $800 Million In Funding For VA Hospital In Aurora. In April 2010,
Coffman voted to authorize funding to build the VA Medical Center in Aurora, Colorado. “Previously
Congress authorized $568.4 million for the construction of a new VA Medical Center. S. 1963, the
Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2009 increases the VA construction project
authorization to the full estimated cost of $800 million,” read a press release from Colorado Rep. Ed
Perlmutter. The bill passed 419 to 0. [Perlmutter Press Release, 5/05/10; S 1963, Vote #214, 4/21/10]
December 2010: Voted Against A Bill To Provide $119 Million In Funding For Aurora Hospital. In
December 2010, Coffman voted against a bill that would provide $119 million in funding for the
Veterans’ Affairs hospital in Aurora, Colorado. Coffman voted in favor of the initial appropriations bill in
July 2007, but then twice voted against it. “After years of promises, controversy, reversals and confusion,
a massive funding bill on its way to the president’s desk will ensure construction of a stand-alone,
regional veterans hospital on the Fitzsimons campus. Although officials broke ground on the $800-million
facility in August, the $119 million made available in the spending bill allows for design and construction
of the 200-bed facility to start in earnest … Congress has approved a total of $800 million in funding for
the new hospital, but the money will come in phases. The new installment of $119 million clinches the
deal, proponents say.” The bill passed 193 to 165. [Aurora Sentinel, 12/14/09; HR 3082, Vote #529,
7/10/09, Vote #622, 12/08/10, Vote #662, 12/21/10]
September 2014: Voted In Favor Of Bill To Appropriate $450 Million To VA Hospital Project.
“Coffman voted in favor of a 2011 spending bill that appropriated $450 million to the VA project.”
December 2011: Voted Against Securing Remaining $42 Million In Funding For VA Hospital In
Aurora. In December 2011, Coffman voted against final passage of an appropriations bill that would
have secured the remaining $42 million in funding for the Veterans’ Affairs hospital in Aurora, Colorado.
“As part of the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act passed by the House
today, Perlmutter helped secure the remaining $42 million for construction of the new VA Medical Center
to be built at the Anschutz medical campus in Aurora,” read a press release from Colorado Rep. Ed
Perlmutter. The bill passed 296 to 121. [Perlmutter Press Release, 6/14/11; HR 2055, Vote #941,
12/16/11]
146
NOTE: This vote was also a vote to shut down the government over unemployment insurance.
deficit by up to $2.4 trillion through a process of sequestration. [S 365, Vote #690, 8/1/11; CQ Floor Votes,
8/1/11]
sequester cuts:
Republican Budget: Voted for Republican Budget, Which Contained Cuts From Sequestration.
[H Con Res 25, Vote #88, 3/21/13]
Con Res 25, Vote #86, 3/21/13]
… And Repeatedly Voted Against Replacing the Sequester. In 2013, Coffman repeatedly voted against
replacing the sequester cuts with a balanced approach:
House Democratic Budget: Voted Against the House Budget That Replaced the Sequester with a
Balanced Approach. [H Con Res 25, Vote #87, 3/21/13]
House Progressive Caucus Budget: Voted Against CPC Budget that Replaced Sequester. [H Con
Res 25, Vote #85, 3/20/13; Economic Policy Institute, 3/13/13]
Vote #51, 2/27/13; The Hill, 2/11/13]
Vote #33, 2/27/13]
Vote #41, 2/27/13]
Vote #59, 2/27/13]
147
Continuing Appropriations Measure: Voted Against Striking Sequester Cuts. [HR 933, Vote #61,
3/06/13]
Authored Bill That Would Allow For Citizenship Through Military Service, Later Said Similar Bill
“Does Not Work For The Military”; Voted To Deport The Very People He Sought To Gain
Citizenship Through Enlistment
2013: Authored Bill That Would Allow For Citizenship Through Military Service. In 2013 Coffman
introduced the Military Enlistment Opportunity Act that he wrote sought “to expand military enlistment
opportunities and create a system that mutually benefits the armed services and individuals with
temporary immigration status.” According to Coffman, under his bill “individuals who have resided
legally in the United States continuously for at least two years as well as the Deferred Action Childhood
Arrivals would be permitted to sign up for military service alongside American citizens and lawful
permanent residents.” [Our Colorado News, Coffman Guest Column, 1/31/13; Highland Ranch Herald,
Coffman Guest Column, 1/31/13]
Said The People In The Deferred Action Childhood Arrivals Program Should Have The Chance
To Become Citizens. “There have been over 154,000 young people who have been accepted under
the DACA program, and these patriotic individuals should have the chance to honorably serve their
country and become naturalized citizens,” wrote Coffman. [Highland Ranch Herald, Coffman Guest
Column, 1/31/13]
Said He Was Pleased With The Presidents’ Immigration Proposal Dealing With Military
Service For Undocumented Immigrants. “I am pleased that the President‘s immigration proposal
included a plan aimed at expanding the eligibility for military service to the young men and women
who were brought here as children through no fault of their own. Today I introduced the Military
Enlistment Opportunity Act that seeks to do just this. Regardless of the final outcome of the larger
comprehensive package being discussed by the Senate, I strongly believe this piece of the plan must
be adopted. This is a critical issue, not only because it gives these young people an opportunity to earn
citizenship through service to our nation, but it will also broaden the pool of eligible recruits for our
military,” Coffman said. [Office of Rep. Coffman, 1/30/13]
March 2014: Voted To Deport The Very People Who He Wanted To Enlist To Gain Citizenship. In
2014, the Associated Press reported the Coffman’s vote to defund DACA “could have led to deporting
some of the people Coffman wants to aid in his military bill.” [Associated Press, 3/9/14]
Aurora Sentinel: Coffman’s Immigration Relies On Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals
That He Voted To Defund. According to the Aurora Sentinel, “In June 2013, Coffman voted
alongside other House Republicans to defund a key program in the Obama administration’s plan for
young immigrants. Coffman joined Colorado and House Republicans in voting to lift the executive
order for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals status. Coffman’s plan for military service as a path
to citizenship for enlisted military members relies first on the applicant to receive DACA status.”
HEADLINE: “Kudos To Aurora Sentinel For Noticing That Coffman’s Vote Against Dreamers
Undermines Coffman’s Own Legislation” [Bigmedia.org, 1/24/14]
148
April 2014: Introduced Bill That Would Allow For Citizenship Through Military Service In 2014,
the Aurora Sentinel reported that Congressman Coffman was pushing “his Military Enlistment
Opportunity Act, a proposal that would allow undocumented minors a path to citizenship through the
military. That proposal would allow enlistees who have received Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals
status a path to citizenship through military service. Currently, to enlist in the military, immigrants must
be permanent residents with a green card.” [Aurora Sentinel, 4/25/14]
Said The ENLIST Act “Does Not Work For The Military.” In 2014, Coffman was against ENLIST
Act that would allow those brought to the U.S. illegally to join the military from being included in
National Defense Authorization Act. “I wholeheartedly agree with Chairman McKeon that the ENLIST
Act should not be included in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) because it does not work
for the military. Most notably, the Act would burden enlistment officers by saddling them with the added
task of checking immigration status of potential recruits – a task the Department of Defense has testified it
does not want. Going forward, I look forward to continuing my work with Chairman McKeon to craft
effective enlistment policy that would allow certain undocumented young people to enlist and naturalize
through military service,” Coffman said. [Office of Rep. Coffman, 4/4/14]
ENLIST Act Would Allow Those Brought To The U.S. To Earn Citizenship Through Military
Service. In 2014, CNN reported that the ENLIST Act, “would allow those who were brought illegally
to the United States when they were 15 or younger to enlist in the military and gain legal status.”
[CNN, 4/4/14]
2015: Introduced Bill That Would Allow Children Of Immigrants To Serve In The Military.
“Today, U.S. Representative Mike Coffman (CO-6) introduced the Military Enlistment Opportunity Act
of 2015. … ‘It is time we allow those young men and women brought to the United States as children by
their parents the same opportunity I had to demonstrate that loyalty and commitment through military
service. These young men and women were raised and educated in this country, and they are ready
willing and able to serve and defend the United States. Let them serve the country they love and call
home.’ Coffman's legislation extends eligibility for military service from U.S. Citizens and Lawful
Permanent Residents (LPR) to include individuals who meet all other requirements for enlistment, do not
have any record of unlawful activities since their arrival in the U.S., and have received background checks
and work authorization from the Department of Homeland Security.” [Rep. Mike Coffman press release,
10/07/15]
HEADLINE: “Colorado Republican: Let ‘Dreamers’ Serve In Military.” “Rep. Mike Coffman
(R-06) is whipping votes against an amendment that would strip language from a defense bill that
would explore allowing certain illegal immigrants to serve in the military in exchange for U.S.
citizenship.” Coffman… said in a speech on the House floor: ‘Let our DREAMers serve. ... Let the
young men and women who were brought here as children, through no fault of their own, serve their
country. Let them serve the country that educated them. Let them serve the country they love. If
DREAMers want to put their life on the line for this country, we should give them the opportunity and
honor their willingness to serve.” [The Hill, 5/14/15]
HEADLINE: “Clinton Backs Military Service For Illegal Immigrants.” “Hillary Clinton is backing a
push to allow certain illegal immigrants to serve in the U.S. military…” [The Hill, 5/14/15]
149
Said Those Who Have Violated Immigration Laws Should Be Able To Stay In The Country
Indefinitely; … But Three Days Later: Flip-Flopped, Did Not Support A Path To Citizenship For
Those Who Had “Violated Our Laws”, Including Those Who Came To The U.S. Illegally
February 10th, 2013: Coffman: Those Who Violated Immigration Laws “Ought To Be Able To Stay
In This Country Indefinitely.” In 2013, while speaking to a group of pro-immigration advocates,
Coffman said, “Those that have been here and who may have violated immigration laws – but have not
violated criminal laws – ought to be able to stay in this country indefinitely and given a legal status. I
don’t think there’s any question about that.” [Together Colorado meeting with Rep. Coffman, 2:28 – 2:45,
2/10/13]
February 13th, 2013: Didn’t Support Path To Citizenship For Those Who Came Into The Country
Illegally. In 2013, when asked about his position on immigration, Coffman said, “I certainly don’t support
a path to citizenship for those that have violated our laws.” When asked if he meant “those who came here
who don’t have legal status,” Coffman said, “Yeah.” [Denver Post, 0:45 – 1:03, 2/13/13]
2014: Coffman: No Pathway To Citizenship For “Adults Who Have Knowingly Broken The
Law”. In 2014, when asked “should illegal immigrants have a pathway to citizenship,” Congressman
Coffman said: “I think for the adults who have knowingly broken the law I don’t believe so.” [ABC
Channel 7, 10/17/14]
2014: Aurora Sentinel: Coffman Opposed Path To Citizenship For Adults Who Illegally
Immigrated To The U.S. “Coffman said he doesn’t support a special path to citizenship for adults in
the country who knowingly illegally immigrated to the country…” [Aurora Sentinel, 4/28/14]
Said He Supported A Woman’s Access To Birth Control; … But Praised The Hobby Lobby
Supreme Court Decision, Which Restricts Women’s Access To Birth Control
Said He Supported A Woman’s Access To Birth Control. “I support a woman’s access to … birth
control.” [Highlands Ranch Debate, YouTube, 0:23 – 0:39, 8/14/14]
… But Praised Hobby Lobby Decision, Which Allows Employers To Deny Women Birth Control
Coverage. “If you work at certain types of for-profit companies, they no longer have to cover the cost of
any contraception that they say violates their religious beliefs… The ruling may depress use of IUDs at
some privately held corporations that deem it a form of emergency contraception…” [Time, 7/01/14]
Supported the Hobby Lobby Decision. In 2014 KDVR reported: “Tyler Sandberg, Coffman’s
campaign manager, explained after the debate that Coffman supports the Supreme Court’s ruling in
the Hobby Lobby case, which allows religious corporations exemptions on subsidies that cover their
employees’ birth control under the Affordable Care Act; and, Sandberg said, Coffman also supports
access to birth control.” [KDVR, 8/14/14]
Criticized Public Employees For Accepting Pension Benefits While Earning Wages, Called On
Congress To End Federal Pensions And Said Americans Must “Make Sacrifices”; … But From
2009 To 2015, Coffman Received State Pension And Congressional Salary
150
2004: Criticized Public Employees For Receiving Retirement Benefits While Continuing To Earn
Wages. In 2004, Coffman announced plans to curb the practice of public employees “double-dipping” by
taking retirement benefits while continuing to earn wages doing work from which they retired.
“Taxpayers deserve better from those serving in government,” he said. [Rocky Mountain News, 11/05/04]
legislation “to amend Title 5, United States Code, to provide for the termination of further retirement
benefits for Members of Congress, except the right to continue participating in the Thrift Savings
Plan, and for other purposes.” According to a press release from Coffman’s office, “Congress needs to
set an example for the country and I believe that ending our pension plan would be a good start.”
[H.R. 423, Introduced 1/25/13; Rep. Mike Coffman press release, 1/24/14]
“Lead by Example.” In January 2012, during a House Oversight and Reform hearing, Coffman spoke in
support of his bill (H.R. 2913) that would eliminate the federal pension program for lawmakers. He said:
Corps about leadership, it was about leading by example. Never ask anyone to do anything that
you yourself would not be willing to do. [YouTube, House Oversight and Government Reform
Committee hearing, 10:58 – 11:33, 1/25/12]
year from Colorado's state pension program. … [T]he 58-year-old is collecting money from the Colorado
Public Employees Retirement Association from his time working for the state, including stints as
Colorado's secretary of state and treasurer in the mid 2000s, according to 2012 financial disclosures.”
7/09/13]
Year
2009
2010
2011
2012
State Pension
$54,000.00
$55,000.00
$55,000.00
$55,546.80
$174,000.00
$174,000.00
$174,000.00
$174,000.00
151
Total
$228,000.00
$229,000.00
$229,000.00
$229,546.80
2013
$57,224.00
$174,000.00
$231,224.00
2014
$58,367.70
$174,000.00
$232,367.70
TOTAL:
$335,138.50
$1,044,000.00
$1,379,138.50
5/15/15; CRS, 9/07/11]
2014: Criticized Democratic Opponent For Employing Lobbyists On Campaign; … But Twice
Colorado helping you on your campaign. … This is a ridiculous Washington game. You have lobbyists on
your campaign. If you think it’s wrong, get those lobbyists off your campaign. Get them off now.”
… But In 2015: Hired Former Lobbyist For Official Position In D.C. Office. In March 2015,
Coffman hired a lobbyist to serve as his official office’s Legislative Director. Dina Rochkind, who
had been employed by Coffman from at least March to September 2015 (the most recent Statement of
Disbursement), had been the Director of Federal Affairs for Chrysler Group from 2007 to 2011 and
Vice President of Federal Government Affairs for Quicken Loans from 2013 to 2015. [U.S. House of
Representatives, Statement of Disbursements, accessed 2/25/16; Center for Responsive Politics,
accessed 2/25/16]
… And From 2008 To 2011: Employed Former Lobbyist For Official Position In D.C. Office.
From 2008 to 2011, Coffman employed a former lobbyist to serve as his official office’s
Communications Director. From 2006 to 2008, Nathaniel Sillin was a Government and Public Affairs
Associate at R&R Partners – a lobbying with an office in Washington, D.C. that lobbies on behalf of
multiple clients. [Center for Responsive Politics, accessed 3/03/16; Nathaniel Sillin’s LinkedIn,
accessed 3/03/16]
October 2014: Criticized Opponent For Airing “Misleading” And “Dishonest” Campaign Ad; …
But During Same Month, Coffman Was Criticized For Airing “Misleading” And “Unfounded”
Attack Ad
record, exactly like you did to Senator Bennett; no difference in 2010, when you distorted his record, and
the Denver Post called you out for it in an editorial and said that your attacks were misleading and they
were below the belt, and I don’t think it’s any different now.” [KUSA Debate, YouTube, 4:34 – 4:50,
10/06/14]
dishonest and they called sleazy. … What you did to Michael Bennett was fundamentally wrong and it
was dishonest.” [Aurora Chamber of Commerce Debate, YouTube, 6:08 – 6:40, 8/15/14]
152
October 2014: Coffman Attack Ad – Which Criticized His Opponent For “False Ads” – Called Out
For Being “Unfounded” And “Misleading,” Using “Scare Tactics” To Leave “False Impression” On
Viewers. “It contains elements of truth, but many of the claims are unfounded or misleading. Ultimately,
the scare tactics used leave viewers with a creepy feeling and a false impression.” [Editorial, Denver Post,
10/28/14]
August 2014: Said “Transparency Is The Answer” To Campaign Finance Issues; … But In
February 2014: Voted Against Allowing Treasury to Require Disclosure of Secret Political Donors
August 2014: Said “Transparency Is The Answer” To Campaign Finance Issues. In August 2014,
when asked about campaign finance reform, Coffman said, “I think transparency is the answer, and every
time, it seems, we try and fix the system, somebody comes up with an idea to fix the system it becomes
less transparent, and unfortunately more money will be spent on this race by outside groups than by the
candidates themselves.” [Aurora Chamber of Commerce Debate, YouTube, 2:07 – 2:28, 8/15/14]
September 2014: Said “The Voters Have To Know Where Your Money Is Coming From” And
The PAC Money He Received Was “Transparent.” In September 2014, when asked why he
accepted PAC money, Coffman said, “Well I think anything that is transparent; I think that the voters
have to know where your money is coming from. I think that’s very important. … The problem, when
you say you’re not taking PAC money, but then you take money from members – who are taking PAC
money – and you have lobbyists on your campaign, helping you on your campaign, and so, uh, I just
that that doing fundraisers for you, calling on corporations every day, I just think it’s disingenuous. I
think it’s hypocritical to point fingers.” [Denver Post Debate, 49:58 – 50:59, 9/23/14]
… But In February 2014: Voted Against Allowing Treasury To Require Disclosure Of Secret
Political Donors. In February 2014, Coffman voted against a motion that would allow the Treasury
Secretary to issue regulations requiring the disclosure of secret political donors. The motion failed, 191230. [HR 3865, Vote #68, 2/26/14; CQ Floor Votes, 2/26/14]
2010: Voted Against Increased Transparency And Disclosures In Campaign Finance Reform. In
2010, Coffman voted against campaign finance reforms that required transparency and disclosure in
campaign spending. The bill would tighten disclosure rules on campaign advertising by corporations,
unions, and other independent groups and would prohibit corporations that are foreign-controlled or
have received government assistance from making expenditures in political campaigns. Democrats
argued that the bill would dull the effect of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. Federal
Election Commission, which determined that corporations have the same free-speech rights as
individuals and can spend corporate funds to sway elections. The legislation would free organizations
with 500,000 or more members, have existed for at least 10 years, and meet other criteria from having
to identify their top donors. Those groups would still be required to abide by most of the bill’s new
regulations, but not the disclaimer requirement that requires a “stand by your ad” provision. The bill
passed, 219-206. [HR 5175, Vote #391, 6/24/10; CQ Today, 6/24/10]
2012: Against All Abortions Unless Mother’s Life Was At Risk; 2013: Supported Abortion
Exceptions For Rape, Incest, And Protecting The Life Of The Mother; 2015: Voted Against Adding
Exception To Anti-Choice Bill To Protect The Health Of The Woman
153
2012: Against All Abortions Unless Mother’s Life Was At Risk. “In 2012, [Coffman] said, ‘I am
against all abortions, except when it is necessary to protect the life of the mother.’” [PolitiFact, 2/02/16]
2013: Supported Abortion Exceptions For Rape, Incest, And Protecting The Life Of The Mother. In
2013, “Coffman said that while he supported a House bill to limit late-term abortions, ‘I strongly support
the exceptions for rape, incest, and protecting the life of the mother that have been included in this
legislation.” [PolitiFact, 2/02/16]
2015: Voted Against Adding Exception To Anti-Choice Bill To Protect The Health Of The Woman.
In May 2015, Coffman voted against adding a woman’s health exception to a 20-week abortion bill. “U.S.
Rep. Julia Brownley’s attempt to amend a bill calling for a ban on abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy
was defeated Wednesday, and the House went on to pass the ban. The Westlake Village Democrat’s
motion and amendment would have added language to the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act that
would have permitted abortions after 20 weeks if a woman’s health were at risk. It was defeated on a
mostly party-line 181-246 vote.” [H.R. 36, Vote #222, 5/13/15; Ventura County Star, 5/13/15]
Seven Times Voted Against Providing Funds For Wildfire Fighting And Prevention. Between 2009
and 2014, Coffman cast seven votes that were opposed to providing additional funds for wildfire
Appropriations bill. The measure included $3.6 billion for efforts to prevent and fight wildfires by the
U.S. Forest Service and Interior Department. Total amount included $1.9 billion for wildland fire
suppression, a $526 million increase above the 2009 non-emergency level. The total amount also
included $357 million in contingent fire suppression reserve funds. The bill passed 254-173. [HR
2996, Vote #475, 6/26/09; CQ Bill Analysis]
House Republicans voted for a fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution (HR 1), which cut $400 million
in funding for Wildland Fire Management programs. HR 1 only provided $2,972,600,000 for
Wildland Fire Management, down from $3,372,600,000 in the previous fiscal year. HR 1 bill did not
include cuts to FLAME funding, which are accounts used to cover the cost of large or complex fires
when Wildland Fire Management funds are exhausted. This bill was not enacted into law. [H.R. 1, Vote
# 147, 2/19/11; Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations, CRS, 5/12/11]
including $122 million from the FLAME funds. HR 1473 provided $2,844,300,000 for Wildland Fire
Management, including $352,000,000 for the FLAME funds. In the prior fiscal year, Congress
appropriated $3,372,600,000 for Wildland Fire Management and $474,000,000 for the FLAME funds.
FLAME funds are accounts used to cover the cost of large or complex fires when Wildland Fire
Management funds are exhausted. The bill was enacted into law. [H.R. 1473, Vote #268, 4/14/11; Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations, CRS, 5/12/11]
154
2012: Voted Against a Plan to Reduce the Risk of Wildfires. On June 19, 2012, House Republicans
voted against a plan that would have allowed States to treat insect-infected trees and remove
hazardous fuels on Federal land to reduce the risk of wildfires. [HR 2578, Vote #386, 6/19/12]
2012: Switch Vote To “No” On Wildfire Prevention. In 2012, Coffman changed his vote from yes
to no regarding to a wildfire prevention amendment. Coffman change his vote to “no” with one
minute left in the roll call on an amendment offered by Congressman Perlmutter that according to The
Cortez Journal, would “give the federal government authority to contract with states to remove beetlekilled trees.” [The Cortez Journal, 6/22/12]
Wildfires In The Western United States. In July 2015, Coffman voted against a motion to recommit
that would ensure an adequate supply of water for safe drinking that is untainted by arsenic, salt, or
other toxins which become concentrated in diminished water supplies, to fight wild fires, and to honor
tribal water rights. The motion was rejected by a vote of 183-239. [HR 2898, Vote #446, 7/16/2015;
Democratic Leader – Motions to Recommit, 7/16/15]
Interior established a framework to partner with local entities to reduce the risks of wildfire upon Western
communities and their water supplies.” [Rep. Mike Coffman press release, 11/07/14]
Coffman: “We Must Take All Necessary Steps To Protect Our Forests And Our Watersheds On
Public Lands From Catastrophic Wildfires And Invasive Species.” “Colorado is a state blessed
with many natural resources, but some of the most important are our forest lands and watersheds,”
Coffman wrote in the letter. “These are vital resources for the economy and quality of life for many
of our families and businesses. We must take all necessary steps to protect our forests and our
watersheds on public lands from catastrophic wildfires and invasive species.” [Rep. Mike Coffman
press release, 11/07/14]
Advocated For A Return To The Glass-Steagall Act, Breaking Up The Big Banks; … But Later
Voted To Deregulate Wall Street And Weaken Reforms Aimed At Preventing Another Bailout
Advocated For A Return To The Glass-Steagall Act. “I think this too big to fail notion that, if you look
at the Dodd-Frank bill, it institutionalizes too big to fail and what it calls systemic risks. I think that’s
wrong and I think it’s going to create some horrible distortions in this country. I think we need to go back
to the Glass-Steagall, the Glass-Steagall Act, where we [inaudible] the big banks and we break up the
investment banking and commercial banking. I co-sponsored a bill that does that.” [Rep. Coffman town
155
hall, YouTube, 6:03 – 6:37, 2/27/11]
… But Voted For Bill To Deregulate Wall Street. In January 2015, Coffman voted for legislation
that combined the text from eleven bills and would roll back or delay a number of regulations in the
Dodd-Frank financial reform law. “The most serious attack of the bunch came in the form of a partial
two-year delay of the Volcker Rule, which would ban banks from speculating in securities markets
with taxpayer money. The bill would have allowed Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase to hold onto
almost $50 billion in risky corporate debt packages known as collateralized loan obligations through
2019.” The bill passed, 271 to 154. [HR 37, Vote #37, 1/14/15; Huffington Post, 1/10/14]
… And Voted To Weaken Wall Street Reform And Roll Back Rules Limiting Risky Bank
Investments. In January 2015, Coffman voted for a bill “to relax some requirements under the 2010
Dodd-Frank financial regulatory law. The measure would delay until July 2019 a provision of the
law’s Volcker Rule intended to limit risky investments by banks, and make other changes.” The vote
failed to reach a 2/3 majority, 276 to 146. [HR 37, Vote #9, 1/7/15; Bloomberg, 1/7/15]
… And Voted For Lobbyist-Drafted Law That Would Weaken Financial Protection Rules
Aimed At Preventing Another Bailout. In October 2013, Coffman voted for the Swaps Regulatory
Improvement Act, a bill that would roll back a provision of the Dodd-Frank law requiring banks to
separate some derivatives trading into separate units not backed by the government’s insurance fund.
The New York Times reported that Citigroup lobbyists drafted more than 70 of the 85 lines of the bill.
The AFL-CIO criticized that the bill would “effectively subsidize swaps dealing by Wall Street banks
that benefit from taxpayer-backed guarantees.” The bill passed, 292-122. [HR 992, Vote #569, 10/30/13;
New York Times, 10/30/13; AFL-CIO, 10/30/13]
Coffman Campaign Ad Highlighted Support For Women’s Issues; Critics Rebutted, Pointed To
Coffman’s Vote Against The Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
Coffman Ad Highlighted Support for Women’s Issues. In August 2014, Coffman released an ad
focusing on his efforts on behalf of women, including protections for service members reporting sexual
assault and support for the Violence Against Women Act. “I am proud that Democratic Congresswoman
Jackie Speier and I were able to pass legislation strengthening protections for victims of sexual assault in
the military. We must never let the young men and women who risk their lives defending our country fear
retaliation for coming forward against their assailants,” said Coffman. [KDVR, 8/26/14]
Pro-Women Stance Rebutted By Democratic Opponent, Opposition to Fair Pay Cited. In August
2014, Coffman’s pro-women positions from his ad were questioned by the Romanoff campaign, which
noted that Coffman had voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and had “[restricted] women’s
access to health care.” [Denver Post, 8/26/14]
Criticized For Touting Support Of VAWA Despite Praising The Hobby Lobby Decision And
Personhood In Colorado. In August 2014, Coffman’s changing positions on women’s issues and health
care were noted, particularly his touting his support for the Violence Against Women Act. This was
contrasted by Coffman’s recent support of Personhood in Colorado and his celebration of the recent
Hobby Lobby ruling. [MSNBC, 8/27/14]
156
Voted To Protect His Own Pay But Thrice Voted Against Ensuring Members Of Military Get Paid
In The Event Of A Government Shutdown; Later Introduced Bill To Ensure Members Of Military
Were Paid During Government Shutdown
Voted Protect His Own Pay In The Event Of A Government Shutdown. In 2011, Coffman voted
against a measure that would have struck all of the provisions in the bill and would have prohibited
Members of Congress and the President from receiving basic pay for any period in which there is more
than a 24-hour lapse in appropriations. The measure would have also have prohibited the Members and
President from receiving retroactive pay. The measure failed 188-237. [HR 1255, Vote #223, 4/01/11]
… But Voted Three Times Against Ensuring Members Of Military Get Paid During Shutdown. In
2011, 2012, and 2015, Coffman voted against ensuring members of the military get paid in the event of a
government shutdown. Below are the three votes.
2012: Voted Against Ensuring Members Of Military Get Paid During Shutdown. In 2012,
Coffman voted against a motion to protect soldiers’ pay in the case of a government shutdown. The
motion would add a provision to the continuing resolution that extended funding for Military, Reserve
and National Guard personnel for a full fiscal year. The motion failed, 189-232. [HJRes 117, Vote #578,
9/13/12; Rep. Ron Barber press release, 9/13/12]
2011: Voted Against A Motion To Recommit That Would Have Provided Pay To Service
Members During A Government Shutdown. In 2011, Coffman voted against a motion to recommit
which would have ensured that Service Members would have gotten paid in the event of a government
shutdown. The motion would have added a new section to the bill providing that the salaries of the
members of the armed forces would not be interrupted in the event of a government shutdown. The
motion failed 191-236. [HR 1363, Vote #246, 4/07/11]
2015: Voted Against Ensuring A Pay Raise For Service Members And Ensure They Were Paid
In The Event Of A Government Shutdown. In May 2015, Coffman voted against a motion to
recommit that would ensure a 2.3% pay increase for fiscal year 2016 for service members and would
ensure that service members are paid in the event of a government shutdown. [HR 1735, Vote #238,
5/15/15]
Introduced Bill That Would Ensure Military Members Get Paid During A Shutdown. “U.S.
Representative Mike Coffman introduced the Pay Our Military Act in response to a potential shutdown of
the Federal government. A shutdown could occur on Thursday, October 1 if Congress does not pass a
continuing resolution to fund the government. Coffman’s legislation would ensure that men and women
serving in the armed services continue to receive pay even in the case of a shutdown. The bill would also
protect the pay of Department of Defense civilians and contractors necessary to support service members,
as well as National Guard troops activated in the event of a presidential emergency declaration.” [Rep.
Mike Coffman press release, 9/29/15]
157
Theme – Typical Politician
 Coffman spokeswoman: Coffman would “obviously” support the Republican
nominee; later backtracked statement
 Criticized public employees for accepting pension benefits while earning
wages, called on congress to end federal pensions and said Americans must
“make sacrifices”; … But from 2009 to 2015, Coffman received state pension
and congressional salary
 Voted to increase his legislative per diem by 29 percent
 Held his own swearing-in ceremony so he could make a speech
 Served on state boards but failed to attend meetings
 Broke campaign law to oppose ballot amendment
 Announced run for Congress less than year after becoming Secretary of State
 Mirrored former Governor Bill Owens’ political career
 Praised Joe Wilson for “You lie” comments
 Voted against cutting the House gym, barbershop, salon and dining room
 voted against banning taxpayer funded first class airfare or corporate jets for
members
Coffman could come across as a typical politician. His spokesperson said Coffman
would “obviously” support the GOP nominee but later backtracked. Since his
election to Congress, Coffman appeared to earn a significant state pension and a
Congressional salary at the same time, though he criticized public employees for
double-dipping. In state legislature, he voted to increase his legislative per diem by
29 percent and to authorize reimbursement for travel expenses. Coffman once held
his own swearing-in ceremony so he could make a speech and broke campaign law
to oppose a ballot amendment. He served on state boards but failed to attend
158
meetings. Coffman announced his run for Congress less than a year after
becoming Secretary of State, and followed former Governor Bill Owens’ footsteps
for most of his political career.
Criticized Public Employees For Accepting Pension Benefits While Earning Wages, Called On
Congress To End Federal Pensions And Said Americans Must “Make Sacrifices”; … But From
2009 To 2015, Coffman Received State Pension And Congressional Salary
2004: Coffman Criticized Public Employees For Receiving Retirement Benefits While Continuing
To Earn Wages. In 2004, Coffman announced plans to curb the practice of public employees “doubledipping” by taking retirement benefits while continuing to earn wages doing work from which they
retired. “Taxpayers deserve better from those serving in government,” he said. [Rocky Mountain News,
11/05/04]
legislation “to amend Title 5, United States Code, to provide for the termination of further retirement
benefits for Members of Congress, except the right to continue participating in the Thrift Savings
Plan, and for other purposes.” According to a press release from Coffman’s office, “Congress needs to
set an example for the country and I believe that ending our pension plan would be a good start.”
[H.R. 423, Introduced 1/25/13; Rep. Mike Coffman press release, 1/24/14]
“Lead by Example.” In January 2012, during a House Oversight and Reform hearing, Coffman spoke in
support of his bill (H.R. 2913) that would eliminate the federal pension program for lawmakers. He said:
Corps about leadership, it was about leading by example. Never ask anyone to do anything that
you yourself would not be willing to do. [YouTube, House Oversight and Government Reform
Committee hearing, 10:58 – 11:33, 1/25/12]
year from Colorado's state pension program. … [T]he 58-year-old is collecting money from the Colorado
Public Employees Retirement Association from his time working for the state, including stints as
Colorado's secretary of state and treasurer in the mid 2000s, according to 2012 financial disclosures.”
7/09/13]
159
Year
State Pension
Total
2009
$54,000.00
$174,000.00
$228,000.00
2010
$55,000.00
$174,000.00
$229,000.00
2011
$55,000.00
$174,000.00
$229,000.00
2012
$55,546.80
$174,000.00
$229,546.80
2013
$57,224.00
$174,000.00
$231,224.00
2014
$58,367.70
$174,000.00
$232,367.70
TOTAL:
$335,138.50
$1,044,000.00
$1,379,138.50
5/15/15; CRS, 9/07/11]
2014: Criticized Democratic Opponent For Employing Lobbyists On Campaign; … But Twice
Colorado helping you on your campaign. … This is a ridiculous Washington game. You have lobbyists on
your campaign. If you think it’s wrong, get those lobbyists off your campaign. Get them off now.”
… But In 2015: Hired Former Lobbyist For Official Position In D.C. Office. In March 2015,
Coffman hired a lobbyist to serve as his official office’s Legislative Director. Dina Rochkind, who had
been employed by Coffman from at least March to September 2015 (the most recent Statement of
Disbursement), had been the Director of Federal Affairs for Chrysler Group from 2007 to 2011 and Vice
President of Federal Government Affairs for Quicken Loans from 2013 to 2015. [U.S. House of
Representatives, Statement of Disbursements, accessed 2/25/16; Center for Responsive Politics, accessed
2/25/16]
… And From 2008 To 2011: Employed Former Lobbyist For Official Position In D.C. Office. From
2008 to 2011, Coffman employed a former lobbyist to serve as his official office’s Communications
Director. From 2006 to 2008, Nathaniel Sillin was a Government and Public Affairs Associate at R&R
Partners – a lobbying with an office in Washington, D.C. that lobbies on behalf of multiple clients.
[Center for Responsive Politics, accessed 3/03/16; Nathaniel Sillin’s LinkedIn, accessed 3/03/16]
Voted to Increase His Per Diem by 29 Percent
In 1989, Coffman voted for a bill that would increase the per diem paid to member of the general
assembly for their attendance at meetings of the legislative council, the committee on legal services, or
interim committees from $75 to $99 – a 32 percent increase.
160
It would also increase the per diem paid to members per legislative day for members who reside in the
Denver metropolitan area from $35 to $45 – a 29 percent increase. [Legislative Summary for HB 1214]
The bill passed the House, 35-28. [HB 1214, 2/27/89]
... And To Authorize Reimbursement of Travel Expenses Related to Legislative Business
The bill would also authorize the reimbursement of members for travel expenses incurred for
travel within their district which is related to legislative business. [Legislative Summary for HB 1214]
Taxpayer Watchdog Called Vote on Bill the “Vote of Shame”
In 1989, the Colorado Union of Taxpayers called the vote “The Vote of Shame”:
[Colorado Union of Taxpayers scorecard, 1989-1990]
Claimed He was a Leader in Cutting Congressional Pay and Pensions
In 2012, Coffman wrote the Congress needed to be reformed. He claimed to be a leader in introducing
legislation to cut congressional pay and budgets, end the congressional pension system and end the
system of automatic pay raises for members of Congress and introducing a constitutional amendment for
mandatory term limits. [Op-ed, Rep. Coffman, Denver Post, 1/4/12]
Proposed Bills on Congressional Pay Raise and Pensions
In 2011, it was reported that Coffman proposed a bill to ban “stealth’’ pay hikes by preventing any
congressional pay raise from taking effect unless members of Congress first cast a recorded vote.
Another Coffman bill would cut congressional salaries by 10 percent. He also favored ending the
gold-plated congressional pension plan enjoyed by members of Congress. [Editorial, Boston
Globe, 1/4/12]
161
Held His Own Swearing-In Ceremony So He Could Make A Speech
In 2007, Coffman held his own swearing-in ceremony so he could make a speech
“Initially, they said they were going to let us speak, but then they decided against that, so I just thought,
‘I’ll do my own thing,’” he said. [Rocky Mountain News, 1/04/07; Associated Press, 1/09/07]
Preempted Traditional Ceremony At 11AM By Holding His At 9AM
According to the Denver Post, “Incoming Secretary of State Mike Coffman has decided to preempt the traditional 11 a.m. swearing-in with one of his own, at 9 a.m.” [Editorial, Denver Post,
1/06/07]
Sworn In A Second Time Later That Day
Two hours after his own swearing-in ceremony, Coffman was sworn in a second time. [Associated
Press, 1/09/07]
Served on State Boards But Failed to Show Up
Served on Board of State’s Deferred Compensation Plan. By 1998, Coffman had served as a board
member on Colorado’s Deferred Compensation plan. The plan was established in 1981 “to provide state
employees and officials with a means of investing a portion of their state compensation on a tax-deferred
basis.” [Denver Post, 7/12/98; Accountants’ Report of Deferred Compensation Plan, 7/30/07]
… But Missed Two-Thirds of Its Meetings. According to a 1998 analysis by the Associated Press,
Coffman missed two thirds of the meetings of the state’s Deferred Compensation plan over the past
three years. Coffman said that he made the important votes. [Associated Press, 10/03/98]
Later Claimed Experience at Selecting Investment Options. In 1998, Coffman said that because
he served on board of the state’s Deferred Compensation plan, he had experience at selecting
investment options in which public employees may invest tax-deferred savings. [Denver Post, 7/12/98]
Sat On State Public Employees’ Retirement Association Board. In 2004, Coffman sat on the state
Public Employees’ Retirement Association Board. [Rocky Mountain News, 1/22/04]
… Then Quit Attending Meetings and Sent Deputy to Fill Spot. In 2004, Coffman quit attending
PERA board meetings and sent his deputy to fill the treasurer’s spot on the board. He then took his
concerns to the media and sent press releases urging PERA to call of its merger with the Denver
Public Schools Retirement System. [Rocky Mountain News, 3/09/04]
Court ruled that Coffman violated the Fair Campaign Practice Act when he issued three press releases in
2000 opposing a statewide ballot measure and urging voters to defeat it. Coffman’s press releases
criticized Amendment 23, which proposed an increase in money for public school funding through a new
162
education fund. The complaint was brought by Common Cause. Coffman was ordered to pay a civil
penalty of $334.92. [Denver Post, 12/07/04; Rocky Mountain News, 12/07/04]
In January 2007, Coffman was sworn in as Secretary of State. Then in November 2007, Coffman filed to
run for Congress. [Associated Press, 1/09/07; Associated Press, 11/06/07]
… And Refused to Step Down to Campaign
In 2007, Coffman said that he would not step down from his position as Secretary of State to
campaign for Congress.
“I will serve as the secretary of state all the way to January of 2009,” he said. [Denver Post, 11/22/07]
Refused to Resign after Winning GOP Primary
In 2008, Coffman refused to resign from his position as Secretary of State after winning the GOP
primary for the 6th Congressional seat.
“Just like you shouldn’t change horses midstream, I will continue my efforts to ensure a successful
election in November,” he said. [Rocky Mountain News, 8/16/08]
Mirrored Bill Owens’ Political Career
Beginning in the 1980s, Coffman’s political career mirrored that of Bill Owens:




In the 1980s, Coffman served as a volunteer aide to Owens when Owens was a state
representative.
In 1988, Coffman succeeded Owens in the House when Owens was elected to the Senate
In 1994, Coffman succeeded Owens in the Senate when Owens was elected state treasurer
In 1999, Coffman succeeded Owens as state treasurer
[Rocky Mountain News, 4/09/97; National Journal, 11/04/98]
… But Later Said He Was “Persona Non Grata” With Governor Owens
In 2008, Coffman described his relationship with Governor Owens as, “I was persona non grata.”
Accused Owens of Creating A “Slush Fund”
In 2003, Coffman accused Governor Bill Owens of selling the state’s rights to tobacco
money in order to create a $720 million “slush fund” to be raided at legislative and
executive whim.
163
Under Owens’ plan, $720 million of the $800 million the state would receive from the
tobacco settlement would go to a rainy day fund and the remaining $80 million to the
state’s general fund.
Coffman preferred that any funds from selling the state’s rights would go to repaying the
state’s trust funds. [Denver Post, 11/30/03]
Praised Joe Wilson for Yelling “You Lie” during Obama’s Joint Session of Congress
Coffman’s comments from a February Elbert County Lincoln Day Dinner:
“I was sitting behind my friend from South Carolina, Joe Wilson. Joe sits with me on the Armed Services
Committee and has got to be one of the nicest people I’ve ever met: quiet, soft-spoken. Obama said, ‘In
my bill, it does not allow illegal immigrants to get benefits.’ And so I saw Joe Wilson lean forward and I
saw him raise his finger up, and then he goes, ‘You lie! You lie’ And I’m thinking, ‘Wow, this is going to
be a story tomorrow’. I saw him the next morning, and he looked like he didn’t get a lick of sleep the
whole night. And I put my arm around his shoulder and I said, ‘You know, Joe, I think something good is
going to come out of this; and I think the American people are going to understand why you did what you
did. And the reason he did what he did is because Joe Wilson had offered in committee the enforcement
packages that the Democrats purposely left out concerning illegal immigration. Joe Wilson, over the next
couple weeks, raised $2 million on his campaign website.” [Denver Post, 6/05/12; “BroImp” Youtube,
2/21/10]
Image available here: http://www.coloradopols.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=17839
Allowed Repealing Health Care While Keeping Benefits for Members of Congress
In January 2011, Coffman voted against a motion that would not allow Congress to repeal the health
reform bill without a majority of members of the House and Senate agreeing to forgo federal benefits
themselves.
The motion to recommit instructed the repeal bill to be sent back to three committees and altered to
require a majority of House and Senate members to give up federal health care benefits before repeal
could take place.
164
“Congress should live by the same rule it imposes on everyone else,” said Rep. Robert Andrews. “There
are serious consequences of this bill and we believe that repealing it is unfair and just plain wrong. It
would even be more wrong for those who support the repeal to live by a different standard.” [The Hill,
1/19/11]
The bill failed, 185-245. [H.R. 2, Vote #13, 1/19/11]
Lives in Home Next to Golf Course
Since 1992, Coffman has lived in a home next to the Meadow Hills Country Club. [Warranty Deed, Arapahoe
County Clerk, 3/12/92]
Proposed Ending Congressional Pension Program
In 2011, Coffman proposed ending the Congressional pension program. He said his plan wasn’t to save
money, but to show shared sacrifice. “These are extremely difficult economic times and we are in a debt
crisis that will require sacrifices on the part of all Americans,” Coffman said in a statement. “Congress
needs to set an example for the country and I believe that ending our pension plan would be a good start.”
Polis spokesman Chris Fitzgerald questioned why Coffman was willing to get rid of his pension, but
unwilling to disclose whether or not he accepted government funded healthcare. [Blog, Denver Post,
9/15/11]
Voted Against Considering Bill to Deny COLA Adjustments for Members of Congress
In 2013, Coffman voted to deny consideration of a bill that would prohibit members of Congress from
receiving an automatic Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) for the 113th Congress.
The previous question was approved 227-188. A vote against the motion would have allowed for
consideration of the bill to deny the adjustment. [H Res 99, Vote #59, 3/06/13]
Voted Against Pay if Nation Defaulted
In 2013, Coffman voted for an amendment to the Full Faith and Credit Act that would bar the Treasury
secretary from borrowing above the debt limit to pay for compensation for members of Congress.
The amendment was adopted 340-84. [HR 807, Vote #140, 5/09/13]
Voted Against Cutting the House Gym, Barbershop, Salon and Dining Room
In April 2014, Coffman voted against the Democratic budget alternative. The budget would call the
Committee on House Administration to find ways to cut funds for the House gym, barbershop, salon and
dining room. [House Democratic Budget Substitute, FY 2015]
The budget failed, 163-261. [H Con Res 96, Vote #176, 4/10/14]
Voted Against Banning Taxpayer Funded First Class Airfare or Corporate Jets for Members
165
In April 2014, Coffman voted against the Democratic budget alternative. The budget would affirm that no
taxpayer funds could be used to purchase first class flights or lease corporate jets for members of
Congress. [House Democratic Budget Substitute, FY 2015]
Voted for Considering Resolution that Would Require the House to Pass a Budget Before it Could
Adjourn for Recess
In November 2013, Coffman voted for considering a resolution that would require the House to adopt a
budget resolution prior to adjourning for winter recess. A vote against ordering to the previous question
would have brought the resolution to the floor for a vote. [Congressional Record, 11/20/13]
The previous question passed, 223-195. [H Res 420, Vote #592, 11/20/13]
“Voted With His Party 94 Percent Of The Time”
“Voted With His Party 94 Percent Of The Time.” “They are eager to paint Coffman, who has voted
with his party 94 percent of the time since he's been in Congress, according to CQ Vote Watch, as out of
touch with his district.” [Roll Call, 7/07/15]
Claimed To Have Grown Up In A Working-Class Family “Earning The Minimum Wage”
Claimed To Have Grown Up In A Working-Class Family “Earning The Minimum Wage.”
“Coffman insists he can relate to the district's many newcomers. ‘I grew up in a working-class family in
Aurora, earning the minimum wage,’ Coffman said in the debate. ‘I know what it's like to work hard and
for many hours to achieve the American dream.’” [AP, 11/04/14]
Coffman Attack Ad – Which Criticized His Opponent For “False Ads” – Criticized For Being
“Unfounded” And “Misleading,” Using “Scare Tactics” To Leave “False Impression” On Viewers
Coffman Attack Ad – Which Criticized His Opponent For “False Ads” – Called Out For Being
“Unfounded” And “Misleading,” Using “Scare Tactics” To Leave “False Impression” On Viewers.
“It contains elements of truth, but many of the claims are unfounded or misleading. Ultimately, the scare
tactics used leave viewers with a creepy feeling and a false impression.” [Editorial, Denver Post,
10/28/14]
HEADLINE: “Coffman Ad Spooks Viewers But Falls Short On Attacks Against Romanoff”
Attack Ad Described As “Highly Misleading,” Left Viewers With A “False Impression.” In
October 2014, Coffman’s campaign was criticized for airing a “highly misleading” attack ad against
Democratic opponent Andrew Romanoff. “Claim 1: ‘The Denver Post called Andrew Romanoff’s
attacks over the top, shameful.’ … While the narrator discusses Romanoff’s ‘shameful’ and ‘over the
top’ campaign ads, five television screens flicker above the accusations. The videos playing on those
166
screens are from Romanoff’s campaign against Coffman this year. The article being cited is not. …
But the editorial is from 2010. It pertains to an ad from an entirely different election, against an
entirely different opponent, four years ago. … They had nothing to do with his current race against
Coffman. … [G]iven the highly misleading combination of current videos with outdated words, this
segment of ‘Agenda’ leaves viewers with a false impression.” [Editorial, Denver Post, 10/28/14]
Attack Ad “Does Not Support Its Claim” Against Opponent. In October 2014, Coffman’s
campaign was criticized for airing an attack ad that did not “support its claim” against his opponent.
“Claim 2: ‘He’s hiding an extreme agenda. Romanoff backs Obamacare.’ Romanoff openly
announced his support for the Affordable Care Act on a radio show with Ed Schultz on Jan. 2. … If
Romanoff said it willingly in an interview, is he really hiding his agenda or his support of the ACA?
The ‘extreme agenda’ being hidden is not further described in the ad. … [T]he ad does not support its
claim about a hidden agenda. Given that Romanoff’s agenda finds points of agreement with Coffman,
the subjective term ‘extreme’ seems misplaced in this context.” [Editorial, Denver Post, 10/28/14]
“Majority Of The Information Is Untrue, And It Misleads Viewers.” In October 2014, Coffman’s
campaign was criticized for airing an attack ad in which a “majority of the information [was] untrue,
and it misleads viewers.” “Claim 3: Obamacare is ‘slashing seniors’ Medicare.’ The narrator accuses
Romanoff of slashing seniors’ Medicare, while the on-screen text dictates a more specific claim as a
zombie-like Romanoff marches closer into view: ‘Andrew Romanoff: Cut Medicare Advantage
Average $1,198 for Seniors.’ To back this claim, the ad points to an article from the American Action
Forum, a right-leaning affiliate of the partisan group American Action Network. Citing this group
raises an immediate red flag, as the credibility of AAF as an unbiased source is questionable. … The
‘cuts’ mentioned… are actually reductions in new Medicare spending over a 10-year time frame. The
reductions will not cut Medicare’s current funding or limit its budget. The bulk of the Medicare
savings will be accumulated by minimizing excessive reimbursements to hospitals, providers and
private Medicare Advantage plans. … Considering all of this, the claim receives a D. All of the cuts
and slashes mentioned appear to be reductions in future growth, not reductions in current spending.
The majority of the information is untrue, and it misleads viewers.” [Editorial, Denver Post, 10/28/14]
October 2014: Criticized Opponent For Airing “Misleading” And “Dishonest” Campaign Ad;
During Same Month, Coffman Was Criticized For Airing “Misleading” And “Unfounded” Attack
Ad
record, exactly like you did to Senator Bennett; no difference in 2010, when you distorted his record, and
the Denver Post called you out for it in an editorial and said that your attacks were misleading and they
were below the belt, and I don’t think it’s any different now.” [KUSA Debate, YouTube, 4:34 – 4:50,
10/06/14]
dishonest and they called sleazy. … What you did to Michael Bennett was fundamentally wrong and it
was dishonest.” [Aurora Chamber of Commerce Debate, YouTube, 6:08 – 6:40, 8/15/14]
167
October 2014: Coffman Attack Ad – Which Criticized His Opponent For “False Ads” – Called Out
For Being “Unfounded” And “Misleading,” Using “Scare Tactics” To Leave “False Impression” On
Viewers. “It contains elements of truth, but many of the claims are unfounded or misleading. Ultimately,
the scare tactics used leave viewers with a creepy feeling and a false impression.” [Editorial, Denver Post,
10/28/14]
168
Theme – Part of Culture of Corruption
 Hired GOP activist as state’s elections technology manager
 Certified voting machine company who shared his political consultant
 Chief of Staff breached ethics to campaign for Coffman
 Criticized for campaigning during office hours
 Allowed GOP candidates on ballot after deadline passed
 Threatened registration of tens of thousands of Colorado voters
 Non-profit group accused of campaign on behalf of Coffman
Coffman is no stranger to corruption controversy. He hired a GOP activist at
Colorado’s elections technology manager and certified the machines of a company
who shared his political consultant. Coffman’s chief of staff breached ethics to
campaign for Coffman and Coffman himself was criticized for campaigning
during office hours. He allowed GOP candidates on the ballot after the deadline
passed. And Coffman threatened to prevent registration for tens of thousands of
Colorado voters.
Hired GOP Activist as State’s Elections Technology Manager. In 2007, Coffman hired GOP political
activist Dan Kopelman as the state’s elections technology manager. Kopelman previously worked on
Coffman’s campaigns and was former president of Denver Metro Young Republicans. [Editorial, Denver
Post, 5/10/07]
Reassigned Him After Selling Voter Data to Republicans. In 2007, Kopelman was reassigned from
some of his duties as elections technology manager after being investigated for selling vote data to
Republicans through a commercial website. [Editorial, Denver Post, 5/10/07]
Requested State Auditor to Investigate Whether Kopelman Accessed State Information.
Responding to the revelation that Kopelman was improperly selling data, Coffman requested the state
auditor to investigate whether Kopelman accessed state information for his political consulting firm.
169
The audit later found no evidence that Kopelman accessed state information. [Rocky Mountain News,
5/11/07; Denver Post, 12/04/07]
Certified Voting Machines Made By Company Who Shared Political Consultant. In 2007, a voting
machine manufacturer whose machines were approved by Coffman used the same consultant as Coffman
was using while he ran for Congress. Coffman had reviewed the state’s voting machine companies as the
result of a court-ordered review that began in 2006. Several companies’ machines were decertified,
including those of Election Systems & Software, Hard InterCivic, and Sequoia Voting Systems. The
company, Premier Election Solutions, had hired Phase Line Strategies, which Coffman was already using
for his Congressional campaign. [Rocky Mountain News, 12/20/07, 12/22/07]
… And Was One of a Few to Get Certified. After Coffman’s review, Premier Election Solutions
was the only one of four companies to have all its equipment approved for the 2008 elections. [Rocky
Coffman Said He Learned of Connection A Couple Months Ago. According to the Denver
Post, Coffman said that he learned of the connection between his consultant and Premier Election
Solutions a couple months ago. “At that point, he should have changed political consultants. No
harm, no foul. At the very least, he should have disclosed the situation,” the newspaper reported.
Premier Machines Had Over 70 Deficiencies. According to a 2007 email obtain by the Rocky
Mountain News, Premier machines had over 70 deficiencies, including the inability to detect
security breaches and to transmit electronic securely. [Rocky Mountain News, 6/07/08]
... The Same Flaws That Caused Other Machines to Be Decertified. According to the
Rocky Mountain News, the Premier machines’ deficiencies were “the same flaws that caused
other machines to be decertified initially.” [Rocky Mountain News, 6/07/08]
Other States Discovered Same Flaws and Severely Restricted Machines. According to
Verified Voting Foundation’s senior project director Warren Stewart, Coffman’s approval of
Premier machines was “confusing” because other states had found the same deficiencies and
severely restricted the use of the machines. [Rocky Mountain News, 6/07/08]
Liberal Group Called for Coffman’s Resignation. Responding to lobbying firm conflict of
interest, liberal group ProgressNowAction called for Coffman’s resignation. [Rocky Mountain News,
12/20/07]
Chief of Staff Breached Ethics by Campaigning for Coffman. In 2008, Coffman’s chief of staff Jacque
Ponder was observed handing out “Mike Coffman for Congress 2008” stickers at a Republican campaign
event, in “apparent breach of ethics,” the Rocky Mountain News reported. [Rocky Mountain News, 3/08/08]
170
Coffman Denied Chief’s Breach Was Result of His Ethics Policies. Responding to allegations
that Ponder was campaigning on his behalf, Coffman said that her actions were not subject to his
ethics policy because she worked in his administration division, unrelated to the elections division
where his policy was intended. [Rocky Mountain News, 3/08/08]
Previous Chief of Staff was Longtime Aide. In 2007, Coffman hired his longtime aide Brian
Anderson to be his chief of staff while serving as Secretary of State. [Denver Post, 1/29/07]
2014: Hypocritically Violated Department Of Defense Directives Regulating Political Depictions Of
Former Military Personnel In Uniform
2014: Hypocritically Violated Department Of Defense Directives Regulating Political Depictions Of
Former Military Personnel In Uniform. In September 2014, Coffman sent out a mailer that may have
violated Department of Defense directives regulating political activities by current and former military
personnel. “Many people may see the apparent violations represented in the mailers as small beans.
Coffman would not be not one of those people. The fact that the Pentagon ordered an investigation of
Thorsen’s appearance with the Paul campaign and reprimanded him for violating regulations didn’t fully
satisfy Coffman. Coffman said that knowing and following the regulations is what matters.” [Colorado
HEADLINE: “Touting Military Service, Coffman Strays Beyond Code Of Conduct”
Coffman Sent Letter to Secretary Panetta Regarding Soldier’s Violation of Political Directives.
In 2012, Coffman sent a “scolding” letter to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta regarding the appearance
of Army Cpl. Jesse Thorsen at a Ron Paul rally in uniform. “The soldier’s activities not merely skirted
the margins of what is acceptable behavior, but demonstrated either a complete contempt for the
standing policy or an unconscionable ignorance of it,” Coffman wrote. [Colorado Independent,
9/04/14]
Denied Breaking DoD Rules With Mailer Photos. In September 2014, Coffman’s campaign denied that
a mailer featuring Coffman in uniform multiple times violated Department of Defense directives on
featuring elected officials in uniform. The rule precludes using a uniformed photo as the “primary graphic
representation.” “Mike Coffman is proud of his service to this country, and it is absolutely critical to
understanding the leadership he has shown across many decades. The campaign has put disclaimers on all
advertising that has used images of Mike Coffman in military uniform,” said Coffman campaign manager
Tyler Sandberg. [Denver Post, 9/10/14]
Voted to Keep First-Class Fights at Taxpayer Expense. In 2012, Coffman voted against a barring the
use of taxpayer funds for the purchase of first class airfare or for leasing corporate jets. “Further, it is the
policy of this resolution that no taxpayer funds may be used to purchase first class airfare or to lease
corporate jets for Members of Congress,” the amendment stated. The proposal, offered as a substitute
amendment, died, 163-262. [H Con Res 112, Vote #150, 3/29/12; Section 412 of Van Hollen Amendment
#6, House Report 112-423]
171
Voted Against Cutting Funding for Member Gym, Beauty Salon, Barber Shop, and House Dining
Room. In 2012, Coffman voted against a Democratic budget proposal that would task the Committee on
House Administration with identifying ways to cut subsidies paid to the House gym, Barber shop, Salon,
and the House dining room. “The Committee on House Administration shall review the policies
pertaining to the services provided to Members of Congress and House Committees, and shall identify
ways to reduce any subsidies paid for the operation of the House gym, Barber shop, Salon, and the House
dining room,” the amendment stated. The proposal, offered as a substitute amendment, died, 163-262. [H
Con Res 112, Vote #150, 3/29/12; Section 412 of Van Hollen Amendment #6, House Report 112-423]
Voted Against Prohibiting Congressional Pensions for Millionaire Lobbyists. In May 2012, Coffman
voted against a motion to make former members of Congress who are registered lobbyists earning more
than $1 million annually ineligible to receive retirement benefits. It also would require that members of
Congress contribute more toward their retirement benefits. The motion failed 170-232. [HR 5652, Vote
#246, 5/10/12; CQ Floor Votes, 5/10/12]
Voted Against Prohibiting Congressional Pensions for Millionaire Lobbyists
In May 2012, Coffman voted against a motion to make former members of Congress who are registered
lobbyists earning more than $1 million annually ineligible to receive retirement benefits.
It also would require that members of Congress contribute more toward their retirement benefits. [CQ
Floor Votes, 5/10/12]
The motion failed 170-232. [HR 5652, Vote #246, 5/10/12]
Chris Hansen to Run Coffman’s Campaign
In 2012, Gardner’s chief of staff 29-year-old Chris Hansen was going back to Colorado to run Rep.
Coffman’s campaign. [Blog, Denver Post, 1/9/12]
Criticized for Campaigning During Office Hours
In 2008, Coffman was criticized by Colorado Ethics Watch (“CEW”) for campaigning during office
hours.
According to the watchdog’s count, Coffman spent 18.5 hours across three months meeting people who
later gave his congressional campaign a combined $36,000. [Denver Post, 4/04/08]
172
Coffman Spent Two Hours at Lunch at Rotary Club as Donor’s Guest
According to CEW, Coffman spent two hours at a Rotary Club luncheon as the guest of an
individual who later donated $1,000 to Coffman’s campaign. [Denver Post, 4/04/08]
In 2008, Coffman allowed three GOP legislative candidates on the ballot a week after the deadline had
passed.
Coffman argued that the law “is not clear” about the deadline. [Rocky Mountain News, 6/18/08]
New York Times: Colorado Was Illegally Removing Voters Within 90 Days of Election. In 2008, the
New York Times reported that Colorado seemed to be in violation of federal law. “Michigan and
Colorado are removing voters from the rolls within 90 days of a federal election, which is not allowed
except when voters die, notify the authorities that they have moved out of state, or have been declared
unfit to vote,” the newspaper reported. [New York Times, 10/08/08]
Number Purged Far Exceeded Number Who Died or Relocated. According to the New York
Times analysis, the number of people purged from election rolls since August 1st, 2008, “far exceeds
the number who may have died or relocated during that period.” [New York Times, 10/08/08]
37,000 People Were Removed From Rolls in Three Weeks After July 21. According to the New
York Times analysis, “some 37,000 people were removed from the rolls in the three weeks after July
21. During that time, about 5,100 people moved out of the state and about 2,400 died, according to
postal data and death records.” [New York Times, 10/08/08]
… But Coffman Said He Only Removed About 14,000. Responding to the New York Times
analysis, Coffman claimed that only about 14,000 – not 37,000 – voters had been removed from
the rolls, and that most of them had died or moved out of the state. He also said that he would
review the way voters were removed from rolls. [New York Times, 10/09/08]
Sued for Allegedly Illegally Purging Over 42,000 Voters from State Rolls. In 2008, Coffman was
accused of illegal purging over 42,000 voters from state rolls too close to a federal election, in
violation of the National Voter Registration Act. The accusations, brought by two state activist groups
and a union, resulted in a lawsuit against Coffman. That lawsuit was ultimately settled, with both sides
disputing what the terms of the settlement were. The plaintiffs interpreted the settlement to mean
Coffman would stop cancelling voters, but Coffman continued to cancel voters. [Rocky Mountain News,
10/31/08]
… Then Was Ordered Stop Purging Names and Restore 146 Names. In 2008, the Denver Post
reported that a federal judge “angrily ordered” Coffman to stop purging names on voter
registration rolls. The judge, United States District Judge John Kane, warned that if Coffman did
not stop purging voters, “he’ll be listening to me personally.” State officials admitted that 146
173
more names had been purged since the settlement in the case was reached, and Coffman was
ordered to restore those 146 voters back on the rolls. [Denver Post, 11/02/08]
Coffman: Judge’s Order Was “Absolutely Ridiculous.” In 2008, Coffman said the judge’s
order to reinstate 146 voters was “absolutely ridiculous” and could lead to people casting illegal
votes. “I think it’s absolutely ridiculous for me to be ordered to go back and reinstate those
registrations,” he said. “Fortunately I think it’s late enough in the process that whatever damage
that will be done is so marginal it won’t compromise the integrity of the election. Had it happened
earlier, it absolutely would have compromised the integrity of the election.” [Denver Post, 11/02/08]
Under Coffman’s Watch, Over 35,000 Newly Registered Voters Risked Having Ballots Tossed
Out for Failing to Include Copy of ID. In 2008, over 35,000 newly registered Colorado voters risked
having their ballots tossed out for failing to include a copy of their ID with their votes. Specifically,
35,620 first-time voters whose identity had not been verified requested mail ballots. But under state
law, voters needed to include a copy of their ID, though the Rocky Mountain News described how
voters were getting conflicting information from elections officials. [Rocky Mountain News, 10/30/08]
Under Coffman’s Watch, Over 6,000 Voters Were Caught in Check Box Technicality. In 2008,
at least 6,462 people failed to check a box on voter registration forms indicating that they did not have
a Colorado driver’s license or a state ID number, but still completed Social Security information that
implied they did not have such identification. Under state law, the voter registration form was
incomplete and must be sent back to the voter, who could check the box and return the form. [Denver
Post, 10/14/08]
… And Coffman’s Office Mistakenly Told Local Clerks Wrong Deadline to Fix It. In 2008,
Coffman’s office original advised county clerks that voters had until October 6th to correct their
box problem, when in fact voters had until election day. Coffman’s office later admitted their
mistake. [Denver Post, 10/14/08]
Colorado Common Cause: Thousands Of Voters Could Be Denied Right to Vote. In 2008,
Colorado Common Cause executive director Jenny Flanagan claimed that thousands of voters
could be denied the right to vote. “We’re talking about thousands of voters who could be denied
their right to vote on Election Day because of this technicality,” she stated. [Coffman op-ed, Denver
Post, 10/14/08]
Coffman: No Voters Will Be Disenfranchised. In a 2008 op-ed subtitled, “No voters
disenfranchised,” Coffman argued that the state’s voter registration program was “under attack by
liberal voting rights groups” and stated, “No one will be disenfranchised for incomplete voter
registration forms.” [Denver Post, 10/19/08]
Watchdog Group Filed IRS Complaint against Non Profit Supposedly Campaigning on Behalf of
Coffman
In May 2012, Colorado Ethics Watch filed a complaint with the Internal Revenue Service against the
Open Government Insitute of Colorado for alleged actions meant to benefit Coffman’s campaign despite
being a non-profil 501(c)(3) organization.
174
The watchdog group asked for an investigation into a matter in which OGI Executive Director Jessica
Peck spoke at a Colorado Republican Business Coalition meeting advocating for their work with
Coffman, saying during the meeting, “Congress Coffman, we’re working on some things that may in a
very non-partisan way benefit you in your endeavors. November. So, I’m going to talk a little bit about
that. So, I come here as a partisan Republican…”
“Ms. Peck’s remarks are tantamount to telling a roomful of potential donors that a contribution to OGI is
a tax-deductible way of supporting Rep. Coffman’s reelection campaign,” said Luis Toro, director of
Colorado Ethics Watch. “The IRS has made it clear that 501(c)(3) organizations may not support or
oppose candidates for office. There are many non-profit organizations in Colorado, representing every
point of view, who take care to follow these rules, and none of us want one bad apple to spoil the bunch.”
Audit Cited Coffman’s Lack of Management as Secretary of State in Complying with State Rules
In 2007, a legislative audit performed on the Colorado Department of State’s implementation of the Help
America Vote Act found that Coffman was responsible for allowing a Department of State employee to
own and operate a partisan political business while employed within the Elections Division.
The audit noted that the business appears to “raise criticism and the appearance of a conflict of interest”
given his particular job responsibilities. In addition, the “Secretary of State… shares responsibility for
these violations…management did not initiate or verify proper disclosure or approval.” [Performance
Audit, Department of State, November 2007]
Coffman Lacked Oversight of Office When Four Other Employees Engaged in Business
Outside Employment
In 2007, Under Coffman’s watch as the Secretary of State his employee office broke two state
personnel rules when he set up a partisan Web site. An audit found that Dan Kopelman ran a
political consulting firm, Political Live Wires, which served mostly Republican interests, while
working at the Secretary of State’s office.
Auditors found that Coffman lacked oversight of his employees. Four other employees did not
receive required written permission before engaging in outside employment and businesses. “State
auditors found that Kopelman, a political ally of Coffman, did violate two state personnel rules
when he continued to operate a side business by hosting a partisan political Web site while
working in the elections division.” [Rocky Mountain News, 12/4/07]
Biggest PAC Donor Was Eric Cantor’s Leadership PAC
As of 2012, Coffman’s biggest PAC donor was Every Republican Is Crucial (“ERIC”) PAC, Eric
Cantor’s leadership PAC. [ericpac.com, accessed 2/16/12]
… After He Said He Was “Not Averse” To Eliminating PACs
In 1994, Coffman said he was “not averse to eliminating political action committees.” [Rocky
175
Voted To Throw Out Votes of Members Not Properly Sworn-In
In 2011, Coffman voted for a resolution that struck six votes cast by Reps. Michael Fitzpatrick and Pete
Sessions as they were both in another part of the Capitol when the Speaker was administering the oath of
office to House members in the chamber. The two members conducted official – including voting and
making submissions to the Congressional Record – despite having missed the swearing-in ceremony.
In addition to deleting the six votes, the resolution ratified Sessions’ election to a standing committee and
his participation in its proceedings. [CQ Today, 1/07/11]
It was subsequently reported that Fitzpatrick and Sessions were absent because they were attending a
fundraiser on the Capitol grounds, an apparent violation of ethics rules.
The Philadelphia Inquirer editorialized that “by effectively launching his reelection bid even before taking
the oath of office, Fitzpatrick comes off as cynical or clueless…Whatever the case, Fitzpatrick subjected
himself to national embarrassment by missing the House opening last week to attend a reception attended
by more than 500 supporters at the Capitol Visitor Center.” [Philadelphia Inquirer, Editorial, 1/14/11]
Rep. Andrew Weiner suggested that the Republicans had ignored their recently adopted rules package
which included a requirement that all legislation be made public three business days before a vote. Weiner
argued that the resolution demanded more care consideration, insisting “we are dealing with a
constitutional issue and one that is without precedence.” [CQ Today, 1/07/11]
The resolution passed, 257-159. [H Res 27, Vote #11, 1/07/11]
Pressured American Heart Association to Sideline Lobbyist
During the 2000 debate over Coffman’s plan to securitize Colorado’s share of the tobacco industry’s
settlement, he pressured the American Heart Association to sideline one of their lobbyists from the state
legislature.
The lobbyist Michael Huttner had testified at several hearings vociferously opposing Coffman’s plan.
“I find myself in an awkward adversarial position with your organization,” Coffman wrote in a letter.
“Mr. Huttrier has routinely distorted the facts and attributed to me comments I have never made. His use
of half truths and deception, I believe, reflects poorly upon your organization.”
Coffman later said that he wanted the Association to get someone with a finance background, and that he
went up the Association’s “chain of command” to influence the organization. [Denver Business Journal,
5/05/00; Associated Press, 5/24/00]
Democrats Called for Official Investigation into Coffman’s Behavior
In 2000, the state Democratic Party asked a district judge to investigate allegations that Coffman
missed his authority to broker the sale of the state’s tobacco settlement money.
176
State chairman Tim Knaus accused Coffman of collaborating with two bankers to prevent the
group’s lobbyist Michael Huttner from testifying at hearings. Knaus further alleged that the
bankers would stand to benefit from Coffman’s plan. [Associated Press, 5/24/00]
Pushed to Fund City Potentially Located in New Congressional District
In 2001, Coffman pushed to loan funds to the city of Centennial, which was potentially located in the
state’s new 7th Congressional district.
As part of the plan, Coffman requested that a bill be drafted to loan the funds to Centennial at a low
interest rate. [Rocky Mountain News, 3/04/01]
… When The City’s Mayor Didn’t Ask for Funding
Though Coffman offered to loan state funds to Centennial, the city’s mayor Randy Pye said it did
not need the funding.
Moreover, local legislators said they would not sign onto Coffman’s proposed bill without the
mayor’s approval.
“I’m being strong-armed a little bit by Mr. Coffman and am baffled by it,” the mayor said.
[Coffman LTE, Rocky Mountain News, 3/04/01]
Coffman LTE: Mayor Should Reconsider My Offer
In a 2001 letter to the editor, Coffman urged the mayor of Centennial to reconsider his offer.
“The State of Colorado has a long history of lending a helping hand to local governments. It is in
this spirit that I offered assistance to Colorado’s newest city. I urge Mayor Pye to look beyond the
personal reasons - whatever they may be - that caused him to arbitrarily reject the proposal
developed at Treasurer Milliken’s request,” he wrote. [Rocky Mountain News, 3/09/01]
Testified Before Independent Ethics Commission
In 2009, Coffman testified before the state’s Independent Ethics Commission regarding allegations that he
knowingly let a state elections worker run a partisan side business, and improperly recertified voting
machines represented by a political consulting firm also doing work for him. [Denver Post, 3/07/09]
The Commission later cleared Coffman of both allegations. [Denver Business Journal, 4/14/09]
Said Ethics Watchdog Waged “A Two-Year Jihad” On Him
Testifying before the Independent Ethics Commission, Coffman accused that the Colorado Ethics
Watch of waging “essentially a two-year jihad.”
“It was essentially a two-year jihad... so they could go back to their donors and say they were
doing a good job,” he said. [Denver Post, 3/07/09]
177
Denied He Knew His Employee Ran Political Business On The Side
Testifying before the Independent Ethics Commission, Coffman said he did not know his former
employee Dan Kopelman was selling voter lists to Republicans. [Associated Press, 3/06/09]
Specifically Unaware That Employee Was Offering Election Information
In 2009, Coffman said he was unaware that Kopelman was offering election information
for sale on the Live Wires website. [Denver Post, 3/07/09]
… But Secretary Said She Regularly Received Emails from Employee’s Business
In 2009, Coffman’s secretary Abby Thomas testified that she regularly received emails regarding
GOP happenings from Kopelman’s business, called Political Live Wires.
Thomas also said she went over the emails with Coffman. [Denver Post, 3/07/09]
Voted to Censure Rep. Charles Rangel
In 2010, Coffman voted to censure Rep. Charles Rangel and require him to pay restitution for any unpaid
estimated taxes on income from his property in the Dominican Republican.
According to an ethics investigation, Rangel improperly solicited donations for an education center
bearing his name, failed to pay taxes and inaccurately reported his income. The panel found Rangel guilty
of 11 of the 13 charges against him and recommended censure.
Rangel apologized for his actions and implored members to vote with compassion, drawing comparisons
between previous censure-worthy actions and his own “sloppy, or even stupid” actions. [CQ Today,
12/02/10]
Voted Against Substituting Reprimand for Censure
In 2010, Coffman voted against an amendment substituting a written reprimand instead of censure
for Rep. Charles Rangel.
According to an ethics investigation, Rangel improperly solicited donations for an education
center bearing his name, failed to pay taxes and inaccurately reported his income. The panel found
Rangel guilty of 11 of the 13 charges against him and recommended censure.
Some members, including the amendment’s author, Rep. G.K. Butterfield, felt that censure was
too harsh a penalty. Reprimand carries less stigma than censure and would not have required
Rangel’s presence in the chamber after the vote. Two other members of the New York delegation,
178
Republican Rep. Peter King and Democratic Rep. Jerrold Nadler, said that neither the substance of
the charges nor historical precedent warranted severe punishment. [CQ Today, 12/02/10]
The amendment failed, 146-267. [H Res 1737, Vote #606, 12/02/10]
Was Critical of Auto-Emissions Testing Company for Using Its Political Clout
In 1996, Coffman was critical of the automobile-emissions testing company Envirotest, saying, “If this
contractor didn’t have the political clout that they have, there is no way that they would be in place
today.” [Denver Post, 7/28/96]
Had Automobile Lease on the Taxpayer Dime
In 2011, Coffman had an automobile lease through the federal government. According to his 2011 3rd
Quarter Statements of Disbursements, the taxpayers were paying the $671.51 per month lease. [2011 3nd
Quarter Statements of Disbursement, accessed 11/29/11]
Coffman: We Must Demonstrate We Are Servants of the American People and Not an Exempted
Political Elite
"If we vote to end the congressional pension plan and demonstrate to the American people that we
understand we are servants of the people and not a political elite exempt from the challenges felt by most
Americans today," said Colorado Rep. Mike Coffman, "it will do much to restoring the trust we should
have." [Indianapolis Star, 6/01/12]
Introduced Bill to Terminated the Defined Benefit Pension Plan for Lawmakers
In September 2011, Coffman introduced HR 2913, a bill that would “provide for the termination of
further retirement benefits for Members of Congress, except the right to continue participating in the
Thrift Savings Plan.” [HR 2913, 9/14/11]
Coffman: HR 2913 Ends Congressional Pension Program But Honors Accrued Benefits
During a January 2012 House Oversight and Reform hearing, Coffman said of his legislation:
“What House Resolution 2913 does is it, in effect, ends the congressional pension program. It
does so by honoring all accrued benefits that members have earned under this program but not
allowing any more benefits to accrue.” [House Oversight and Government Reform, 1/25/12]
Coffman’s Bill Will Honor Accrued Benefits and Reimburse Members Who Leave before Five
Years Required for Pension to Kick in
In Coffman’s submitted comments to the House Oversight and Government Reform’s Subcommittee
on Federal Workforce, US Postal Service and Labor Policy, Coffman wrote:
“Under my bill, members of Congress will still be required to pay into Social Security and may still
participate in the defined contribution Thrift Savings Plan available to all federal employees. My
legislation would also honor any retirement benefits already accrued by members of Congress prior to
179
its enactment. In addition, it would reimburse members who will have served for less than five years
for the 1.3% of salary contributions already paid into the pension plan from which they will never
collect.” [House Oversight and Government Reform, Coffman Written Testimony, 1/25/12]
Coffman: There Is a “Disconnect between Taxpayers and the Government that Represents Them”
In Coffman’s submitted comments to the House Oversight and Government Reform’s Subcommittee on
Federal Workforce, US Postal Service and Labor Policy, Coffman wrote:
“There are certainly a lot of contributors to low approval ratings, but I think a large part is because of the
disconnect between taxpayers and the government that represents them. Washington, DC, simply does not
have the same financial pressure that squeezes the rest of America. The federal government has the power to
continually borrow and spend money that we do not have, federal lawmakers receive annual pay raises
automatically unless they act to stop it, and the congressional pension system is vastly superior to what is
available to the average American.” [House Oversight and Government Reform, Coffman Written Testimony, 1/25/12]
Coffman: Founding Fathers Did Not Envision “the Congress as a Career in and of Itself” Reliant
upon the Government “To Provide Them with a Pension for the Rest of Their Lives”
During a January 2012 House Oversight and Reform hearing, Coffman said:
“I believe that the founding fathers of this country envisioned a Congress where its
members came from other professions to serve in the Congress and didn’t see the
Congress as a career in and of itself where they would be reliant upon the taxpayers of
the United States to provide them with a pension for the rest of their lives and so I feel
that this also fits in that vision by doing away with the defined pension benefit program.
We would still have a defined benefit contribution program that is available to all federal
employees whereby members can put up to $17,000 into the defined contribution pension
plan and have a five percent match of their salary that is matched by the taxpayers of the
United States and I think this is more in line with what our private sector counterparts get
all across America.” [House Oversight and Government Reform, 1/25/12]
Agreed To Exchange Legislative Strategy For Campaign Cash And Special Attention; Groups
Called For Coffman To Exit Program And An Ethics Investigation Into His Agreement
Agreed To Be Member Of NRCC’s Patriot Program, Criticized By Democratic Opponent For
Trading His Independence For Campaign Cash. “The document — a memorandum of understanding
to be included in the NRCC’s Patriot Program, which supports some of the House’s most endangered
Republicans — includes a provision that requires members to submit a ‘written legislative strategy’ to the
committee. That legislative strategy must also detail ‘political justifications’ in order to be part of the
program, which provides fundraising and organizational support to its members. … In Colorado, GOP
Rep. Mike Coffman’s Democratic opponent pounced to try and say Coffman traded his independence for
the promise of campaign cash.” [Roll Call, 9/10/15]
Patriot Program Requires Members Of Congress To Provide The NRCC With “Political
Justification” For Legislative Goals In Return For “Special Attention” And “Campaign Cash.”
“Two dozen House Republicans have agreed to privately detail their ‘legislative strategy’ to party
180
operatives, promising to offer ‘political justifications’ for their goals in Congress. … The initiative,
designed to protect potentially vulnerable incumbents, brings with it special attention and access to
mounds of campaign cash.” [Washington Post, 9/03/15]
HEADLINE: “Contract With The NRCC – The Deal GOPers Make To Get Reelected”
ProgressNow Colorado Called On Coffman To Remove His Name From Patriot Program Contract.
“Following revelations in the Washington Post last week about a contract imposed on vulnerable
Republican members of Congress requiring detailed information about their ‘legislative agenda’ in
exchange for financial support, ProgressNow Colorado, the state’s largest online progressive advocacy
organization, called on Rep. Mike Coffman to immediately remove his name from the National
Republican Congressional Committee’s ‘Patriot Program’ contract, and disclose communications with the
NRCC about his legislative agenda.” [ProgressNow Colorado press release, 9/09/15
HEADLINE: “Rep. Mike Coffman Accused Of Violating House Ethics Rules.” “Rep. Mike Coffman
is being accused of violating House ethics rules for providing the National Republican Congressional
Committee with his legislative agenda — including financial plans and budgets — in exchange for money
and extra attention to his race in the 6th Congressional District. The American Democracy Legal Fund, a
group that defines its mission as holding candidates accountable for possible ethics or legal violations,
filed the complaint last week with the U.S. House of Representatives Office of Congressional Ethics.”
1989: Voted to Increase His Per Diem by 29 Percent, Authorize Reimbursement Of Travel
Expenses Related To Legislative Business
Voted to Increase His Per Diem by 29 Percent. In 1989, Coffman voted for a bill that would increase
the per diem paid to member of the general assembly for their attendance at meetings of the legislative
council, the committee on legal services, or interim committees from $75 to $99 – a 32 percent increase.
It would also increase the per diem paid to members per legislative day for members who reside in the
Denver metropolitan area from $35 to $45 – a 29 percent increase. The bill passed the House, 35-28. [HB
1214, 2/27/89; Legislative Summary for HB 1214]
Voted to Authorize Reimbursement of Travel Expenses Related to Legislative Business. In 1989,
Coffman voted for a bill that would authorize the reimbursement of members for travel expenses incurred
for travel within their district which is related to legislative business. The bill passed the House, 35-28.
[HB 1214, 2/27/89; Legislative Summary for HB 1214]
Colorado Union Of Taxpayers: Coffman Took The “Vote of Shame.” In 1989, the Colorado
Union of Taxpayers called the vote “The Vote of Shame.” “The Vote of Shame: 1989 HB 1214:
While ‘We The People’ reduced the Legislative session to 120 days because we believe that less
government is better government, our politicians voted themselves year round pay through *Interim
Committees*; and, to add taxes to insult, increased their tax free per diem by 41%, up to $99 a day.
They also increased regular session pay by a like amount at a time when the cost of living increase
was 5%. On top of this largess the politicians voted themselves Tax Free Travel expense
reimbursements, figured from the remotest point in their districts – a place where many have never
181
visited. C.U.T. believes these politicians place their own greed over a responsible spending of Our
Tax Dollars. Where are the Statesmen?” [Colorado Union of Taxpayers scorecard, 1989-1990]
1995: Voted To Revise State Pension Benefits; Taxpayer Watchdog Claimed Bill Would Allow
Pension At 100 Percent Of Salary
Voted To Revise State Pension Benefits. In 1995, Coffman voted for a bill that would revise
contribution and benefit provisions and limits for public employees’ retirement association benefits. The
bill passed the Senate, 34-0. [SB 33, 1/24/95]
Taxpayer Watchdog Claimed Bill Would Allow Pension At 100 Percent Of Salary. In 1995, the
Colorado Union of Taxpayers claimed that the bill “sets the stage for pensions to reach 100% of
salaries after 40 years of employment.” “This discourages early retirement and increases retirement
funding costs, ironically, while school districts are offering bonuses for early retirement!” [Colorado
Union of Taxpayers legislative scorecard, 1995]
Voted Against Considering Bill To Deny COLA Adjustments for Members of Congress
In 2013, Coffman voted to deny consideration of a bill that would prohibit members of Congress from
receiving an automatic Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) for the 113th Congress. The previous question
was approved 227-188. A vote against the motion would have allowed for consideration of the bill to
deny the adjustment. [H Res 99, Vote #59, 3/06/13]
Voted Against Banning Taxpayer Funded First Class Airfare or Corporate Jets for Members
In April 2014, Coffman voted against the Democratic budget alternative. The budget would affirm that no
taxpayer funds could be used to purchase first class flights or lease corporate jets for members of
Congress. [House Democratic Budget Substitute, FY 2015]
Voted Against Prohibiting Insider Trading by Members of Congress
In 2011, Coffman voted against a motion which would have directed the SEC to prohibit insider trading
by members and employees of Congress.
The motion would have required that the SEC develop rules to prohibit members of Congress and their
employees from using nonpublic information gained through their job to benefit themselves in the trading
of commodities, securities or swaps or futures. [CQ Floor Vote, 12/13/11]
182
183
Theme – Fiscally Irresponsible
 Said, “Karl Rove is right that Colorado’s economy is improving”
 S&P downgraded Colorado’s rating while Coffman was treasurer
 Had personal tax issues
 Stashed blank checks worth up to $1 billion in safe deposit box… and did not
tell the Governor
 Said Social Security was a Ponzi scheme
 Praised the flat tax
 Voted for budgets that ended Medicare and delay eligibility for Social Security
and Medicare
 Voted to shut down government
Coffman once said in 2004, “Karl Rove is right that Colorado’s economy is
improving,” though two years earlier Standard and Poor downgraded the state’s
credit rating. Coffman has had personal tax issues and, as treasurer, he stashed
blank checks worth up to $1 billion in a safe deposit box and did not tell the
Governor. He said that Social Security was a Ponzi scheme and praised the flat
tax. Coffman voted for budgets that ended Medicare and delay eligibility for Social
Security and Medicare, and even voted to shut down government.
Coffman: “Karl Rove Is Right that Colorado’s Economy Is Improving”
Coffman: “Karl Rove Is Right that Colorado’s Economy Is Improving.” In 2004, Coffman agreed
with Karl Rove’s assessment of Colorado’s finances. “Karl Rove is right that Colorado’s economy is
improving,” he said. “‘But he’s not familiar with the structural problem we have.” [Denver Post, 2/15/04]
In 2002, Standard & Poor’s debt-rating agency downgraded Colorado’s credit rating from AA to AA-.
184
“The Legislature knew that the state was on credit watch throughout the last session, yet it chose to ignore
S&P’s warning and increase spending despite rapidly decreasing revenues,” Coffman said. [Associated
Press, 6/26/02]
Had Personal Tax Issues
The following outlines Coffman’s personal tax issues:
In 1990, Coffman was hit with a tax lien from the State of Colorado for $241.33 for being
delinquent on his individual income tax. He satisfied the lien in 1992. [Release of Lien, Arapahoe
County Clerk, 2/14/92]
In 2000, Coffman paid the Colorado Property Management Group’s quarterly withholding taxes
late.
According to the Denver Westword, the taxes were between ten and twelve days late, and cost
Coffman approximately $5,000 to cover the bill.
“I’m very disappointed,” Coffman said. [Denver Westword, 8/24/00]
While serving as state treasurer, Coffman stashed blank checks worth up to $1 billion in a safe deposit
box.
Coffman and three other state employees were authorized to sign the checks, which only required one
signature. [Associated Press, 4/27/07]
… Because He Disagreed with Governor’s Disaster Plan
According to Coffman, he stashed the blank checks because he was not satisfied with the plan
created by ex-Governor Bill Owens to keep the government running if a disaster shut down the
state Capitol. [Associated Press, 4/27/07]
Did Not Inform Governor of His Plan
According to Coffman, he did not inform the Governor of his plan because he claimed he had the
authority to do it on his own.
“We were talking about a complete breakdown of government, and what we would do,” Coffman
explained. [Associated Press, 4/27/07]
185
In 2011, Coffman described Social Security as a “Ponzi scheme.” During a radio interview he said:
“I am obviously going to support whoever the nominee is. But I have to admit to you
philosophically I am closer to Perry. Obviously, I hope he gets better on the debate stuff. I
think he did good. I think he did better on Social Security. I think obviously it is a Ponzi
scheme, but he has to say he is going to fix it. And he did that in the last debate where he
didn’t do that in the first debate. Now I think that was positive.” [politico.com, 9/20/11]
Praised Flat Tax
In a 2011 interview, Coffman praised the flat tax:
INTERVIEWER: What do you think of the candidates who believe in the flat tax?
COFFMAN: I think the flat tax has tremendous value in it.
INTERVIEWER: You don’t think it hurts the lower income?
COFFMAN: No I don’t think it does, because I think that there are, the way that it’s
defined, or there’s a provision in there that has to be defined and that is, where is there an
exemption on it in terms of lower income people, so you can easily do that. But I think
we’re at a point now where about half of Americans I don’t think pay, have an income tax
liability, and then it’s very progressive from that point forward. [Fox 31 interview, 12/08/11]
… Though The Flat Tax Would Shift Burden from Rich to Non Rich
According to a report by the Economic Policy Institute, lower tax rates for the wealthy under a flat
tax will have to be financed by some combination of higher taxes on the middle class and larger
budget deficits.
A flat tax that raises the same revenues as our current tax code would shift a significant portion of
the tax burden from the rich to average workers.
According to Citizens for Tax Justice, under a flat tax, the fortunate few with incomes above
$200,000 will see their taxes fall by an average of $53,940. [Falling Flat: The Dubious Case for a
Flat Tax, Economic Policy Institute, 1/17/96]
Voted for 2011 Ryan Budget
In 2011, Coffman voted for the 2011 budget resolution proposed by Congressman Paul Ryan. [Associated
Press, 4/15/11]
The resolution passed, 235-193. [H Con Res 34, Vote #277, 4/15/11]
… Though The Ryan Budget Would End Medicare
186
According to the Wall Street Journal, “The plan would essentially end Medicare, which now pays
most of the health-care bills for 48 million elderly and disabled Americans, as a program that
directly pays those bills.” [Wall Street Journal, 4/4/11]
National Debt Increases $8 Trillion Under Ryan Budget
Under Ryan’s budget, the national debt would still increase $8 trillion over the coming decade to
$23 trillion. [Roll Call, 4/06/11]
Voted for Extreme Tea Party Budget
In 2011, Coffman voted for an amendment to the 2011 budget resolution that would replace it with the
Republican Study Committee’s “Honest Solutions” budget resolution. [RSC press release, 4/15/11]
The amendment was rejected, 119-136. [H Con Res 34, Vote #275, 4/15/11]
… That Made Deeper Cuts than Ryan Budget
According to an analysis by UPI, the Republican Study Committee’s budget cut deeper than that
proposed by the Ryan Budget. [upi.com, 4/07/11]
Would Delay Eligibility for Social Security and Medicare
Among its provisions, the RSC budget would delay eligibility for Social Security and Medicare
for everyone born from 1957 on. The age of eligibility would increase by two months every year.
[upi.com, 4/07/11]
Voted to Shut Down Government
In 2011, Coffman voted against a federal funding measure that was designed to avert a government
shutdown.
The bill not only included nine outstanding appropriations bills, but extended unemployment insurance
and a payroll tax break for 160 million working Americans through February 2012.
At issue was how to fund the spending plan. Democrats were hoping to impose a surtax on people earning
$1 million or more per year, while Republicans mainly wanted to cover the $120 billion cost by reducing
unemployment benefits and freezing federal workers’ pay. With the two parties locked in a stalemate, the
bill was struck as a compromise and a means to prevent the government from shuttering. [ABC News,
12/13/11; LA Times, 12/15/11; ABC News, 12/16/11; Bloomberg, 12/20/11; CQ Bill Analysis, 2/02/12]
187
Ten Times Voted Against Reauthorizing The Export-Import Bank Despite It Supporting 494 Jobs,
Five Small Businesses, And $81 Million In Exports In CO-06; Said Ex-Im Bank Was A “Corporate
Welfare Program”; Denver-Area Businesses And Industry Groups Urged Reauthorization
Ten Times Voted Against Reauthorizing The Export-Import Bank. In 2015, Coffman failed to
reauthorize the Export-Import Bank ten times. Below is a list of each vote.
Vote #1: Voted To Block Consideration Of Bill To Re-Authorize Export-Import Bank. In March
2015, Coffman voted for blocking consideration of a bill to “force an immediate vote to re-authorize
the Export-Import Bank, a self-funded agency that provides certainty and support to American
businesses and creates American jobs.” The previous question passed 233 to 181. A vote against the
previous question would have allowed the bill to be considered. [H Res 152, Vote #126, 3/19/15; 114th
Congress Previous Questions, 3/19/15]
Vote #2: Voted To Block Vote On Immediate Reauthorization Of Export-Import Bank. In June
2015, Coffman voted for blocking a vote to re-authorize the Export-Import bank. Congressional
Republicans failed to take action and the bank’s charter expired. [H Res 319, Vote #371, 6/17/15;
USA Today, 7/01/15; House Democratic Leader – Previous Questions, accessed 7/08/15]
Vote #3: Voted For Consideration Of Bill To Reauthorize The Export-Import Bank. In June
2015, Coffman voted for consideration of a bill to re-authorize the Export-Import Bank. “The
Democratic Previous Question would force a vote to re-authorize the Ex-Im Bank, ending
Republicans’ needless crisis.” The previous question passed 243 to 181. A vote against the previous
question would have allowed the bill to be considered. [H.Res. 333, Vote #379, 6/24/15]
Vote #4: Voted To Block Consideration Of Amendment Renewing The Export-Import Bank. In
July 2015, Coffman voted to block consideration of an “amendment to reauthorize the Export-Import
Bank.” The previous question carried, 242-180. A vote against the previous question was to force the
vote on reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank. [H Res 388, Vote #483, 7/29/15; Democratic
Leader – Previous Questions, 7/29/15]
Vote #5: Voted To Block Consideration Of Export-Import Bank Reauthorization. In September
2015, Coffman voted for blocking consideration of a vote to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank. The
previous question carried, 238-179. A vote against the previous question was to force the vote on
Export Import Bank Reauthorization. [HR 420, Vote #497, 9/17/15; Congressional Record, 9/17/15]
Vote #6: Voted To Block Consideration To Re-Authorize The Ex-Im Bank. In September 2015,
Coffman voted to block consideration of a vote to “re-authorize the Export-Import Bank, a self-funded
agency that provides certainty and support to American businesses of all sizes that are eager to
compete in the global market.” The previous question carried, 243-183. A vote against the previous
question would call for an immediate vote to re-authorize the Ex-Im Bank. [H Res 421, Vote #502,
9/17/15; Democratic Leader – Previous Questions, 9/17/15]
Vote #7: Voted To Block Reauthorization Of The Ex-Im Bank. In September 2015, Coffman
voted fora motion to block consideration of a vote to “re-authorize the Export-Import Bank, a selffunded agency that provides certainty and support to American businesses of all sizes that are eager to
188
compete in the global market.” The previous question carried, 243-183. A vote against the previous
question would call for an immediate vote to re-authorize the Ex-Im Bank. [H Res 421, Vote #502,
Vote #8: Voted To Block Consideration Of Reauthorizing The Export-Import Bank. In October
2015, Coffman voted for to block consideration of a vote to reauthorization of the Export-Import
Bank. The previous question carried, 237-180. A vote against the previous question was to force the
vote on reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank. [H RES 449, Vote #529, 10/01/15; Democratic Leader,
Previous Questions, 10/01/15]
Vote #9: Voted Against Bipartisan Reauthorization Of The Export-Import Bank. In October
2015, Coffman voted against the bipartisan reauthorization of the job creating Export-Import Bank.
“A majority of House Republicans joined all but one Democrat Tuesday in voting to reauthorize the
Export-Import Bank, whose charter expired in June. After a rare procedural move brought ExportImport to the House floor against the wishes of GOP leaders, the bank saw surprising support in the
313-118 vote to renew, including from 127 Republicans.” [HR 597, Vote #576, 10/27/15; The Hill,
10/27/15]
Vote #10: Voted Against Highway Funding Bill That Would Have Reauthorized The ExportImport Bank. In December 2015, Coffman voted against adopting the conference report to
“accompany the Surface Transportation Reauthorization and Reform Act (HR 22) that would
reauthorize federal-aid highway and transit programs for five years, through FY 2020, at increased
funding levels. The bill would … renew the charter for the Export-Import Bank...” The conference
report was adopted, 359-65. [HR 22, Vote #673, 12/3/15; CQ Floor Votes, 12/3/15]
Coffman: The Export-Import Bank Is “A Corporate Welfare Program That Is Past Its Expiration
Date.” In December 2015, in describing why he voted against the FAST Act, Coffman said, “The bill also
includes reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank, a corporate welfare program that is past its expiration
date.” [Rep. Mike Coffman press release, 12/07/15]
Export-Import Bank Had Supported 494 Jobs, 5 Small Businesses, And $81 Million Of Exports In
Colorado’s 6th Congressional District. From 2007 to 2016, the Export-Import Bank had supported 494
jobs, five small businesses, and $81 million of exports in Coffman’s district. The following details the
support that the Ex-Im Bank has provided to Colorado’s 6th Congressional District:
Amount
$81 Million
Funding Category
Total Export Value
$65 million
$134 million
Total Insured Shipments,
Guaranteed Credit or Disbursed
Loan Amount
Total Authorizations
5
Small Business Exporters
Description
The total dollar value of exports related to ExIm Bank's authorized financing
The total dollar value of Total Insured
Shipments, Guaranteed Credit or Disbursed
Loan Amounts supported by Ex-Im Bank
The dollar amount that Ex-Im Bank has agreed
to insure or finance through an insurance
policy, a loan guarantee, or a direct loan
The number of small businesses that export
goods and are supported by the Ex-Im Bank
189
3
The number of minority-owned businesses that
export goods and are supported by the Ex-Im
Bank
th
Jobs in Colorado’s 6
Jobs supported calculated by taking estimate of
Congressional District
number of export jobs supported per $1 billion
in export financing
[Export-Import Bank of the U.S., accessed 2/29/16; Ex-Im Coalition, accessed 2/29/16]
494
Minority-Owned Exporters
Denver-Area Business Groups Urged Coffman To Support Ex-Im Bank, Cited $705 Million In
Sales Supported In Colorado. In May 2014, multiple Denver-area business groups urged Coffman to
support the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank. “[T]he Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce
including its affiliates, the Metro Denver Economic Corporation, Colorado Competitive Council, and the
Colorado Space Coalition, have joined a national coalition to support economic growth in Colorado by
reauthorizing the U.S. Export-Import Bank… Last year, the Ex-Im Bank supported … $705 million in
sales supported in Colorado from 2007 – 2013.” [Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce letter, 5/30/14]
Colorado Association Of Commerce And Industry Supports Ex-Im Bank, Argues That 78 Percent
Of Colorado Beneficiaries Are Small Businesses. “The future of a federal bank that has helped dozens
of Colorado exporters sell to foreign buyers is being threatened by conservative lawmakers on Capitol
Hill. … The Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry, or CACI, wrote to the state’s
congressional delegation last month urging them to keep the bank alive beyond Sept. 30. CACI Senior
Vice President Loren Furman wrote that the Ex-Im Bank has helped Colorado companies export $705
million worth of products globally over the past seven years. ‘Undoubtedly, you will hear some argue ExIm is ‘corporate welfare,’ but the vast majority of Ex-Im beneficiaries — roughly 90 percent nationwide
and 78 percent here in Colorado — are small businesses,’ Furman wrote.” [The Coloradoan, 7/12/14]
HEADLINE: “Federal Support Of Fort Collins Exporters Threatened” [The Coloradoan,
7/12/14]
Signed Americans for Tax Reforms Federal Taxpayer Protection Pledge
In 2012, Coffman was listed as a signer of Americans for Tax Reform’s federal Taxpayer Protection
Pledge. [atr.org, accessed 2/13/12]
… That Protected Tax Breaks for Companies that Ship Jobs Overseas
With over 200,000 looking for work in Colorado, Coffman signed a pledge that protected tax
breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas to places like India and China.
Over 200,000 in Colorado Were Unemployed as of November 2011
As of November 2011, 216,250 were unemployed in Colorado. [bls.gov, accessed 2/16/12]
President Obama Called for the Elimination of Tax Breaks for Companies that
Create Jobs Overseas
190
On May 4, 2009, President Obama stated that his budget would end tax breaks for
companies that ship jobs overseas. The President’s proposal would accomplish this goal by
stopping letting American companies that create jobs overseas to take deductions on their
expenses when they do not pay any American taxes on their profits. [Obama Remarks,
5/04/09]
India and China Remain Top Outsourcing Destinations
In July 2009, Bloomberg Businessweek reported that India remains the world’s top
outsourcing destination for IT and back-office functions, with China close behind.
[Bloomberg Businessweek, 7/10/09]
191
Theme – Bad for Colorado
 Voted to allow sales taxes on out-of-state retailers
 Failed to launch fake-address mail plan to aid domestic violence victims
 Repeatedly voted against protecting Coloradoans’ water
 Proposed 10 percent seat tax at Broncos stadium
 Co-sponsored Birthright Citizenship Act
 Protested Aurora’s attempt to make itself a county
 Proposed welfare reform that gave mothers 90 days to find a job
Coffman has taken positions contrary to Coloradoans’ interest. He voted to allow
sales taxes on out-of-state retailers. Coffman failed to launch a fake-address mail
plan to aid domestic violence victims. He repeatedly voted against protecting
Coloradoans’ water and proposed a 10 percent seat tax at the Broncos’ stadium.
He co-sponsored the Birthright Citizenship Act and protested Aurora’s attempt to
make itself a county. Coffman even proposed welfare reform that gave mothers 90
days to find a job.
Voted to Allow Sales Taxes on Out-of-State Retailers
In 1990, Coffman voted for a bill that would allow for sales taxes on tangible personal property purchased
by and delivered to a person in Colorado from an out-of-state retailer. [Legislative summary for HB 1003]
The bill passed the House, 51-12. [HB 1003, 1/22/90]
In 2008, Coffman failed to setup an address-confidentiality program intended to help domestic violence
victims.
Under the program, victims of rape, domestic abuse, or stalking could use a fake address with the actual
192
However, Coffman’s office had freely spent funding for the program even though revenues were
significantly less than what was expected. Consequently, Coffman said he would have to suspend the
program unless the legislature provided additional funding. [The Gazette (Colorado Springs), 1/23/08]
… While Program’s Director Spent $2,700 on Travel
As of January 2008, the program’s director spent approximately $2,700 on travel to visit similar
programs in other states and potential application sites in Colorado. [Denver Post, 1/23/08]
Coffman Asked for $20,000 in Extra Funding
Appearing before the state legislature, Coffman asked for an extra $20,000 in funding for the
program, arguing the program’s revenues from domestic violence fines were far less than the
original estimates. [Denver Post, 1/23/08]
Accused of Hiring Full-Time Employee in Massive Office Long Before Anyone Signed Up
State Senator: “You Have Violated My Trust”
In 2008, Coffman was criticized for failing to launch a fake-address mail plan to aid domesticviolence victims.
“You have violated my trust,” state Senator John Morse told Coffman, after Coffman asked for an
extra $20,000 to fund the program.
Morse went on to accuse Coffman of committing a “deliberate act of rebellion” because he never
wanted to run the fake-address program. [Denver Post, 1/23/08]
Repeatedly Voted Against Protecting Coloradoans’ Water
The following outlines Coffman’s votes against protecting Coloradoans’ water:
Voted to Undermine the Clean Water Act
In 2011, Coffman voted for a bill which undermined the Clean Water Act by removing the EPA’s
ability to enforce it.
The bill banned the EPA from issuing new or revising water-quality standards if a state standard
had already been approved by the agency without the state’s consent. The EPA would also be
banned from removing its approval of a state program or limiting federal funds to that program if
it disagreed with the way the regulation was implemented, or if the EPA disagreed with the state’s
water quality standard.
193
This effectively removed the EPA’s authority to supervise and regulate the states. [New York
Times Editorial, 7/15/11; CQ Floor Votes, 7/13/11]
Voted Against Regulating Pollutants in Drinking-Water Sources
In 2011, Coffman voted against a motion which continued the EPA’s authority to regulate
pollutants in drinking-water sources.
The motion stated that the legislation would not affect the EPA’s authority when it comes to
regulating pollutants, including arsenic or perchlorate, into public drinking-water sources.
Opposed Spending Up to $10 Billion on Colorado Water Projects
In 2002, Coffman opposed spending up to $10 billion on water projects in Colorado:
QUESTION: Would you support a bill to spend up to $10 billion on water projects
in Colorado?
COFFMAN: No. I would not support an appropriation out of the state’s general
fund to develop water projects. However, the state could borrow the money with
municipalities and local water districts making the debt service payments. [Rocky
Proposed 10 Percent Seat Tax At New Broncos Stadium
In 1998, Coffman proposed a 10 percent seat tax at the new Denver Bronco’s stadium, as a substitute for
part of an earlier 0.1 percent sales tax proposal.
“The seat tax shifts some of the burden onto the users” of the stadium, Coffman explained.
His proposal ultimately failed to pass the Senate. [Rocky Mountain News, 2/21/98]
Rocky Mountain News: Coffman’s Proposal Shifts Cost to Fans
In their 1998 endorsement of Coffman’s proposed tax, the Rocky Mountain News explained that
Coffman’s proposal would shift the cost of the new stadium to fans.
“It’s not only fair, it’s politically smart. It shifts more of the cost to the fans and reduces the length
of time the sales tax is necessary. That may be crucial in persuading the voters to pass the stadium
proposal in November,” the newspaper wrote. [Editorial, Rocky Mountain News, 2/15/98]
… After Fighting Plans to Build New Football Stadium for Denver Broncos
194
In 1997, Coffman fought plans to build a new taxpayer-funded stadium for the Denver Broncos.
“My position is definitely a political loser,” he explained, noting it was hard for him to raise
money from conservatives who were normally happy to donate to Republicans. [Denver Westword,
8/07/97]
Said He Wanted Team to Stay, But Wasn’t Convinced It Needed Taxpayer Funding
In 1997, Coffman said that he wanted the Denver Broncos to stay, but said, “But I’m not
yet convinced that the team needs this massive infusion of taxpayer money.” [Denver
Westword, 8/07/97]
Was Strong Critic of Public Funding for New Broncos Stadium
According to the Denver Post, Coffman was a strong critic of public funding for a new
Broncos stadium. [Denver Post, 4/23/98]
Took Callous Positions on Immigration
The following outlines Coffman’s positions on immigration:
Co-Sponsored Birthright Citizenship Act
In 2011, Coffman co-sponsored the Birthright Citizenship Act. [Denver Post, 2/13/11]
Suggested Immigrants Brought Elderly Relatives to US to Get Welfare
In 1997, Coffman suggested that immigrants brought elderly relatives to the United States “with
the understanding that they’re going to be covered” by welfare. [Denver Post, 1/13/97]
Signed Amicus Brief Supporting Arizona’s Immigration Enforcement Law
In 2010, Coffman signed an amicus brief supporting Arizona’s appeal of a federal district court’s
decision that sections of the state’s new immigration enforcement law were unconstitutional.
“The brief we are filing reasserts principles put forward in the first congressional brief and goes
into new detail on the errors of Judge Bolton’s findings. This brief asserts that on many different
occasions the District Court erred in holding that the executive branch’s enforcement authority
pre-empts key provisions of the law. It also asserts Congress has plenary power over immigration
law and has enacted laws that the executive branch has failed to enforce. We maintain that it is not
the right of any administration to decide which laws to enforce and which to ignore,” Coffman
said.
“This past weekend I met with Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce, author of the new Arizona
law, while in Phoenix. When meeting with Sen. Pearce he shared that during the drafting of S.B.
1070 constitutional scholars were consulted specifically in anticipation of federal litigation. He
195
firmly believes the law will stand up to legal challenges by the Obama administration.” [Coffman
Protested Aurora’s Attempt to Make Itself A County
Protested Aurora’s Attempt to Make Itself A County. In 1996, Coffman protested the City of Aurora’s
attempt to make itself a county. [Rocky Mountain News, 7/23/96]
Proposed Welfare Reform that Gave Mothers 90 Days to Find A Job
Proposed Welfare Reform that Gave Mothers 90 Days to Find A Job. In 1996, Coffman proposed a
bill that would reform the state welfare system, giving welfare mothers vouchers for child care instead of
money and giving them 90 days to find jobs. “We’re saying that working a minimum-wage job is OK
under this scenario and there is value to work,” he explained. Explaining what would happen when a
welfare mother takes a minimum wage job, Coffman said, “When you have generation after generation
after generation seeing a parent that stays home all day I think you create a culture around that. This seeks
to break the culture.” [Denver Post, 1/27/96]
Sponsored Bill Limiting Aid to Families with Dependent Children
In 1995, Coffman sponsored a bill that would set a two-year limit on Aid to Families with Dependent
Children. [Denver Post, 2/08/95]
Voted Against Preventing Gas Price Hikes
In 2011, Coffman voted against limiting the seizures of American farm and ranch land and to prevent gas
price hikes.
The motion would have directed “the president to ensure federal agencies take ‘any feasible step’ to
prevent an increase in gas prices and limit seizures of American farm and ranch land.” [CQ Floor Votes,
7/26/11]
Voted Against Protecting Seniors from Abusive, Deceptive, or Unfair Practices
In 2011, Coffman voted against ensuring the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau would retain its
ability to protect seniors from abusive, deceptive, or unfair practices.
The motion failed 183-232. [HR 1315, Vote #620, 7/21/11; CQ Floor Votes, 7/21/11]
Voted Against Protecting Consumers from Predatory Lending, Financial Fraud
In 2011, Coffman voted against banning individuals convicted of financial fraud from advertising or
soliciting non-publicly traded securities.
196
The motion would have continued to ban advertising or general solicitation for non-publicly traded
securities from individuals if they had been “convicted of fraud in connection with a financial transaction
including predatory lending to a veteran.” [CQ Floor Votes, 11/03/11; Congressional Record, 11/03/11]
In February 2011, Coffman voted against a measure that would have required Congressional committees
to place a high priority on tracking, reviewing and preserving the standards that ensure the safety of the
food and drinking water supply, and the safety of children’s toys.
“This is and should be an essential function of our nation’s government,” said motion sponsor Rep. Russ
Carnahan, D-Mo. [CQ Today, 2/11/11]
The motion failed, 178-242. [HR 72, Vote #32, 2/11/11]
Voted Six Times Against Considering Payroll Tax Cut Extension for Working Americans
In 2011, Coffman voted six times against the consideration of a payroll tax cut extension for working
Americans:
 Coffman voted to order the previous question, preventing Democrats from considering the Payroll
Tax Holiday Extension Act of 2011, which extended middle class tax relief for 2012. [Congressional
Record, H7955-1957, 11/30/11]
The previous question passed 239-184. [H Res 477, Vote #870, 11/30/11]
Tax Holiday Extension Act of 2011, which extended middle class tax relief for 2012, and the
benefits. [Congressional Record, H8151-8152, 12/06/11]
Tax Holiday Extension Act of 2011, which extended middle class tax relief for 2012, and the
benefits. [Congressional Record, H8269-8270, 12/08/11]
 Coffman voted to order the previous question, preventing Democrats from considering an
benefits, and the Medicare reimbursement doctor fix. [Congressional Record, H8756, 12/13/11]
197
 Coffman voted to order the previous question, preventing Democrats from considering the Middle
Class Fairness and Putting America Back to Work Act of 2011, which extended middle class tax
relief, unemployment benefits, and the Medicare reimbursement doctor fix. [Congressional Record,
H8919, 12/14/11]
 Coffman voted to order the previous question, preventing Democrats from considering a bill
passed by the Senate, which extended middle class tax relief, unemployment benefits, and the
Medicare reimbursement doctor fix for two months. [Congressional Record, H9956-9958, 12/20/11]
Hammered by Democratic Challengers on “No” Vote for Payroll Tax Cut Extension
In 2011, it was reported that Coffman’s Democratic challengers Miklosi and Haney both publicly
hammered the Republican for his vote against a two-month extension of the federal payroll-tax cut.
“I’m going to continue to focus on job growth and highlight Mr. Coffman’s do-nothing record in
Congress, and the payroll-tax cut is the latest example of that,” said Miklosi. [Denver Post, 12/23/11]
Leaned No on Two Month Extension For Payroll Tax Cut And Unemployment Benefits
In 2011, Coffman said he was leaning no on voting to approve the Senate bill that extended the payrolltax cut and unemployment insurance for two months because he said the deal was too short-term. “I think
it looks awful for the Senate to go home before this is really done,” Coffman said. “I’m really
disappointed there. The fact is, I think it creates uncertainty in the economy over the fact that it’s only a
two-month extension.” [Denver Post, 12/20/11]
Didn’t want to Tax High Income Earners to Extend Payroll Tax Cuts
In 2011, Coffman didn’t want to raise taxes on higher income earners to pay for the payroll tax cuts
because he was concerned about the solvency of Social Security. “I see the need in putting money in
pockets of the families who need it, but we need to plan for the solvency of Social Security down the
road,” Coffman said. [Denver Post, 12/2/11]
Didn’t want to Raise Taxes on Higher Incomes to Pay for Payroll Tax Cuts
In 2011, it was reported that Coffman didn’t want to raise taxes on higher incomes to pay for the payroll
tax cuts. [Denver Post, 12/2/11]
Voted to Repeal Health Care, Put Insurance Industry in Charge of Americans’ Health
In 2011, Coffman voted to repeal the historic health care reform bill passed the previous year.
198
“If we repeal health reform there will be no prohibition on discrimination against over 100 million
Americans with pre-existing conditions, no prohibition on insurance companies canceling your coverage
when you get sick, no prohibition on lifetime caps and annual limits, no required coverage for young
adults on their parents’ policy,” said Rep. Henry Waxman. [CQ Today, 1/19/11]
The American Medical Association and the AARP both opposed repealing the health care law. Out of
several industry groups, only the U.S. Chamber of Commerce supported the repeal bill. [The Hill,
1/19/11]
The bill passed, 245-189. [HR 2, Vote #14, 1/19/11]
… Despite the Effect Repeal Would Have on the 6th Congressional District
According to 2011 analysis by the minority staff of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the
Affordable Care Act provided significant benefits to Colorado’s 6th congressional district:

Allowing insurance companies to deny coverage to 147,000 to 374,000 individuals,
including 11,000 to 51,000 children, with pre-existing conditions.
 Rescinding consumer protections for 610,000 individuals who have health insurance
through their employer or the market for private insurance.
 Eliminating health care tax credits for up to 20,500 small businesses and 111,000 families.
 Increasing prescription drug costs for 9,100 seniors who hit the Part D drug “donut hole”
and denying new preventive care benefits to 76,000 seniors.
 Increasing the costs of early retiree coverage for up to 10,800 early retirees.
 Eliminating new health care coverage options for 2,300 uninsured young adults.
 Increasing the number of people without health insurance by 14,000 individuals.
 Increasing the costs to hospitals of providing uncompensated care by $9 million annually.
[“New District by District and Metro Area Analyses of the Impact of Repealing Health Reform”,
Minority Staff of Energy and Commerce Committee, 1/18/11]
The following outlines Coffman’s challenge to Coloradoans’ right to vote:
New York Times: Colorado Was Illegally Removing Voters Within 90 Days of Election
In 2008, the New York Times reported that Colorado seemed to be in violation of federal law.
“Michigan and Colorado are removing voters from the rolls within 90 days of a federal election,
which is not allowed except when voters die, notify the authorities that they have moved out of
state, or have been declared unfit to vote,” the newspaper reported. [New York Times, 10/08/08]
Number Purged Far Exceeded Number Who Died or Relocated
199
According to the New York Times analysis, the number of people purged from election
rolls since August 1st, 2008, “far exceeds the number who may have died or relocated
during that period.” [New York Times, 10/08/08]
37,000 People Were Removed From Rolls in Three Weeks After July 21
According to the New York Times analysis, “some 37,000 people were removed from the
rolls in the three weeks after July 21. During that time, about 5,100 people moved out of
the state and about 2,400 died, according to postal data and death records.” [New York Times,
10/08/08]
… But Coffman Said He Only Removed About 14,000
Responding to the New York Times analysis, Coffman claimed that only about
14,000 – not 37,000 – voters had been removed from the rolls, and that most of
them had died or moved out of the state.
He also said that he would review the way voters were removed from rolls. [New
York Times, 10/09/08]
Sued for Allegedly Illegally Purging Over 42,000 Voters from State Rolls
In 2008, Coffman was accused of illegal purging over 42,000 voters from state rolls too
close to a federal election, in violation of the National Voter Registration Act.
The accusations, brought by two state activist groups and a union, resulted in a lawsuit
against Coffman. That lawsuit was ultimately settled, with both sides disputing what the
terms of the settlement were. The plaintiffs interpreted the settlement to mean Coffman
would stop cancelling voters, but Coffman continued to cancel voters. [Rocky Mountain News,
10/31/08]
… Then Was Ordered Stop Purging Names and Restore 146 Names
In 2008, the Denver Post reported that a federal judge “angrily ordered” Coffman to
stop purging names on voter registration rolls.
The judge, United States District Judge John Kane, warned that if Coffman did not
stop purging voters, “he’ll be listening to me personally.”
State officials admitted that 146 more names had been purged since the settlement
in the case was reached, and Coffman was ordered to restore those 146 voters back
on the rolls. [Denver Post, 11/02/08]
Coffman: Judge’s Order Was “Absolutely Ridiculous”
In 2008, Coffman said the judge’s order to reinstate 146 voters was “absolutely
ridiculous” and could lead to people casting illegal votes.
200
“I think it’s absolutely ridiculous for me to be ordered to go back and reinstate
those registrations,” he said. “Fortunately I think it’s late enough in the process that
whatever damage that will be done is so marginal it won’t compromise the integrity
of the election. Had it happened earlier, it absolutely would have compromised the
integrity of the election.” [Denver Post, 11/02/08]
Under Coffman’s Watch, Over 35,000 Newly Registered Voters Risked Having Ballots
Tossed Out for Failing to Include Copy of ID
In 2008, over 35,000 newly registered Colorado voters risked having their ballots tossed out for
failing to include a copy of their ID with their votes.
Specifically, 35,620 first-time voters whose identity had not been verified requested mail ballots.
But under state law, voters needed to include a copy of their ID, though the Rocky Mountain
News described how voters were getting conflicting information from elections officials. [Rocky
Under Coffman’s Watch, Over 6,000 Voters Were Caught in Check Box Technicality
In 2008, at least 6,462 people failed to check a box on voter registration forms indicating that they
did not have a Colorado driver’s license or a state ID number, but still completed Social Security
information that implied they did not have such identification.
Under state law, the voter registration form was incomplete and must be sent back to the voter,
who could check the box and return the form. [Denver Post, 10/14/08]
… And Coffman’s Office Mistakenly Told Local Clerks Wrong Deadline to Fix It
In 2008, Coffman’s office original advised county clerks that voters had until October 6th
to correct their box problem, when in fact voters had until election day.
Coffman’s office later admitted their mistake. [Denver Post, 10/14/08]
Colorado Common Cause: Thousands Of Voters Could Be Denied Right to Vote
In 2008, Colorado Common Cause executive director Jenny Flanagan claimed that
thousands of voters could be denied the right to vote.
“We’re talking about thousands of voters who could be denied their right to vote on
Election Day because of this technicality,” she stated. [Coffman op-ed, Denver Post, 10/14/08]
Coffman: No Voters Will Be Disenfranchised
In a 2008 op-ed subtitled, “No voters disenfranchised,” Coffman argued that the state’s
voter registration program was “under attack by liberal voting rights groups” and stated,
201
“No one will be disenfranchised for incomplete voter registration forms.” [Denver Post,
10/19/08]
202
Theme – Partisanship
 2014: Voted with Tea Party 88% of the time
 2014: Voted with Republican Party 93 percent of the time
 No justification to be called a “moderate”
 Said he was proud to be a member of the Party Of No
 Said former Congressman Tom Tancredo was his “Hero”
 Considered legal action against the president over constitutional abuses that
included health care reform
Coffman has voted with the Tea Party 88% leading to no justification to be called
a moderate. Coffman has hasd history with siding partisanship from saying the
President was is his heart “not an American,” claiming he was proud to be from
the party of “no” and considered legal action action against the President over
constitutional absuses.
2014: Voted with Tea Party 88% of the Time
In 2014, Coffman voted with the Tea Party 88% of the time. “Coffman’s suburban Denver district leans
Democratic yet he voted with the Tea Party a whopping 88 percent of the time in 2013,” according to the
Americans United for Change. [American United for Change Press Release, 1/22/14]
2014: 93 Percent Party Unity Score
2014: 93 Percent Party Unity Score. According to CQ, Coffman voted with the Republican party 93
percent of the time in 2014. [CQ, accessed 4/08/16]
No Justification to be called a “Moderate”
In 2013, Bigmedia.org reported that there was no justification for reporters to call Coffman a “moderate,”
citing his views on abortion, Social Security and immigration.
“There’s no justification for journalists to label him as a ‘moderate,’” Bigmedia.org reported. [Bigmedia.org,
5/21/13]
203
Headline: No Justification for Reporters to Label Coffman a “Moderate” [Bigmedia.org, 5/21/13]
Said Obama Was in His Heart “Not an American” and Questioned the President’s Birthplace
During a May 2012 fundraiser in Elbert County, Congressman Coffman said, "I don't know whether
Barack Obama was born in the United States of America. I don't know that. But I do know this, that in his
heart, he's not an American. He's just not an American." [9News, 5/16/12; Denver Post, 5/16/12]
Said He Was Proud To Be A Member Of The Party Of No
In 2010, Coffman said he was a “proud member of the party of no.”
“Good afternoon Colorado. I am a proud member of the party of no. If voting against a unconstitutional
health care bill is being a member of the party no then I am proud to be a member of the party of no. If
voting against the reckless spending in Washington that is burying this country in debt and putting a
crushing burden on the children and grandchildren and generations yet burn in this country is called about
being a member of the party of no then I am proud to be a member of the party of no. If opposing this
country becoming a European style social welfare state means being a member of the party of no then I
am a proud to be a member of the party of no,” Coffman said. [Tea Party Express Event, YouTube
3/31/10]
Said former Congressman Tom Tancredo was his “Hero”
In 2010, Coffman said former Congressman Tom Tancredo was his hero.
“It is a great honor for me to introduce, somebody that is my hero. Somebody that has served this country
with honor and integrity and courage. Somebody when the republican establishment in Washington went
so and violated the principles that got them elected, who did not stand with them and that is former
congressman Tom Tancredo,” Coffman said. [Tea Party Express Event, YouTube 3/31/10]
Tom Tancredo Suggested that President Obama was Born in Kenya and Doesn’t Love
America
In an interview, Tom Tancredo refused to say President Obama was born in the United States.
ThinkProgress reported: “Anti-immigrant crusader Tom Tancredo told a Tea Party audience, ‘If
his wife says Kenya is his homeland, why don’t we just send him back?’ Fox News’ Alan Colmes
asked Tancredo about his statement on Colmes’ radio show yesterday. ‘Do you think he was born
there?’ Colmes asked. ‘I have no idea, believe me I have no idea,’ Tancredo said, adding that
whether or not he was born there, ‘I do not believe Barack Obama loves the same America that I
do.’” [ThinkProgress, 4/28/10]
Attended a Fundraiser Hosted by Alleged Tax Cheat
204
In 2013, R. Brian Watson announced a fundraiser at his home for Mike Coffman’s Congressional
campaign on May 30th. [Brian Watson Twitter Account, 5/14/13]
Watson Has Allegedly Failed to Pay $297,000 in Property Taxes
In 2012, Fox 31 reported that R. Brian Watson was accused of not paying $279,657 in property taxes on
various properties, citing “IRS records showing nine tax liens pending against Watson.” [Fox 31, 9/25/12]
Coffman Accepted More Than $1,000 From Watson and Benefited from a Fundraiser Co-Hosted
by Watson
In 2008, Coffman received $1,050 from R. Brian Watson. [Center for Responsive Politics, 10/31/08]
Special Guest at Coffman’s Fundraiser Was Tom Tancredo
In 2008, R. Brian Watson co-hosted a fundraiser for Mike Coffman’s Congressional campaign at the
Denver Country Club that was headlined by Tom Tancredo. [PoliticalPartyTime.org, 10/20/08]
Considered Legal Action Against the President over Constitutional Abuses that Included Health
Care Reform
In November 2013, when asked if the Republicans were planning on pushing back against the Presidents
constitutional abuses’ Coffman said, “My office is engaged in the legal research right now of how do we
take on the Administration. It appears right now that we may have to do it, that I may have to do it, or
somebody may have to do it, as an individual, outside of Congress, to litigate on one of these issues, the
constitutionality. And I think you can litigate on one of them and establish a precedent that impacts all of
them […] Obamacare which you’ve been discussing you had a great discussion so far this morning on
Obamacare. He has taken key parts of Obamacare and merely deferred them for political reasons after this
election. The employer mandate, a number of other issues in Obamacare where, I really don’t see where
he has the discretion to do that in the law and without through going back through Congress to amend the
law.” [KHOW, 11/26/13]
Congressman Coffman Criticized the President’s use of “Prosecutorial Discretion”
In November 2013 Congressman Coffman said, “I think this country is in a constitutional crisis,
because of this President’s ability or abuse of waving the so-called magic wand of this
prosecutorial discretion and basically creating law by not enforcing existing law.”
[KHOW, 11/26/13]
Headline: Coffman may take personal legal action against Obama [ColoradoPols, 11/27/13]
Headline: House GOPers’ New Plan to Take Down Obama: Sue Him [Mother Jones, 12/9/13]
Said Obama Was in His Heart “Not an American” and Questioned the President’s Birthplace
205
Said Obama Was in His Heart “Not an American” and Questioned the President’s Birthplace.
During a May 2012 fundraiser in Elbert County, Congressman Coffman said, “I don’t know whether
Barack Obama was born in the United States of America. I don’t know that. But I do know this, that in his
heart, he’s not an American. He’s just not an American.” [9News, 5/16/12; Denver Post, 5/16/12]
206
Abortion and Family Planning Issues
 Pro-life with no exceptions
 Supported Colorado Personhood initiative, which could have criminalized many
forms of birth control and outlaw abortion – possibly in all cases
 Cited edited undercover videos as justification for votes to defund Planned
Parenthood (PP) and create committee to investigate PP; grand jury later cleared PP
of wrongdoing and indicted video creators for editing videos
 Used Planned Parenthood (PP) logo in campaign ad, then voted to defund PP
 2016: Received a 4 percent rating from Planned Parenthood
 Consistently voted to defund Planned Parenthood, make it easier for states to do the
same
 Failed to denounce Colorado State Rep. JoAnn Windholz after she blamed Planned
Parenthood for a shooting at their Colorado Springs clinic
 Consistently voted to ban abortion after 20 weeks, force women to prove rape was
reported to authorities or undergo waiting period
 Unable to remember term “birth control” during debate
 Twice voted to permanently ban federal funds for abortion services
 Claimed to support life of the mother exceptions to 20-week abortion ban, but later
voted against adding such an exception to an anti-choice bill
 Co-sponsored bill to redefine rape; bill would require women to suffer from “forcible
rape” – not just rape – in order to qualify for federally funded abortions; PolitiFact
rated claim that Coffman co-sponsored bill to redefine rape as “mostly true”
 Supported 20-week abortion ban that would require rape victims “to prove that she
reported rape to authorities”
207
In 2008 and 2010, Coffman was pro-life with no exceptions, even going so far as to
support Colorado’s Personhood initiative, which would have criminalized most –if
not all – forms of birth control and outlawed abortion. However, he has since
changed his stance on the issue when in 2012 he refused to take a stand on
Personhood and in 2014 when he came out against it. Despite his apparent
newfound leniency towards abortion, Coffman has consistently supported efforts
to ban federal funding for abortion services and Planned Parenthood (PP), even
voting to establish a committee tasked with investigating the organization, citing
highly edited undercover videos of the organization as the reason. A grand jury
later cleared PP of any wrongdoing and indicted the video creators for editing
such videos. Yet he tried to play to both sides of the issue when, in 2014, Coffman
used PP’s logo in an ad – something he was later criticized for. In 2016, Planned
Parenthood issued a 4 percent score to Coffman, meaning he voted against the
group’s interests 96 percent of the time. While claiming to support life of the
mother exceptions, Coffman voted against such an exception to an anti-choice bill.
In a showcase of his profound knowledge of abortion and family planning issues,
Coffman couldn’t remember the term “birth control” during a debate. In 2015, he
refused to denounce Rep. JoAnn Windholz after she blamed PP for a shooting at
their Colorado Springs clinic. Coffman co-sponsored a bill that would redefine
rape, which would require a woman to suffer from “forcible rape” to be eligible
for abortion services and co-sponsored a 20-week abortion ban that would require
rape victims to “prove that she reported rape to authorities”.
Pro-Life With No Exceptions
In 2010, Colorado Right to Life stated that Coffman was pro-life with no exceptions:
“Incumbent Republican Mike Coffman is on record supporting Personhood and is on record as
Pro-Life with no exceptions. However, he does not appear to have co-sponsored the
Personhood legislation introduced in Congress. We hope that he would vote to support such
legislation if he had the opportunity, as he has pledged.” [Colorado Right to Life blog, 10/02/10]
NOTE: According to Colorado Right to Life, candidates “who support ‘rape or incest exceptions’ are
NOT pro-life because there is never an excuse to kill an innocent child.”
Supported Personhood Amendment. According to Colorado Right to Life, Coffman was “on record
supporting Personhood.” [Colorado Right to Life blog, 10/02/10]
In Colorado the Personhood Amendment would define the term “person” to mean every human
being from the beginning of biological development of that human being. [personhoodcolorado.com,
accessed 2/17/02]
NOTE: It is unclear whether Colorado Right to Life was referring to Colorado’s Personhood
Amendment. Notably, the blog uses “Colorado’s Personhood Amendment” and “Personhood”
interchangeably.
208
Flip-Flopped On Colorado Personhood Initiative After Supporting It In 2008, Refusing To Describe
His Position On It In 2012, And Opposing It In 2014
Colorado Personhood Amendment Would Ban Many Forms of Birth Control And Give Fertilized
Human Eggs The Same Constitutional Rights As A Living Person. According to a 2008 Denver Post
Editorial, the personhood amendment “goes far beyond banning abortion and many forms of birth
control.” In 2008, NPR reported, “Amendment 48 would define ‘personhood’ as beginning at the moment
of conception, giving fertilized human eggs the same constitutional rights as a person.” [Denver Post, 6/2/08;
National Public Radio, 10/31/08]
Personhood Would Require Rape Victims Keep the Pregnancy. “As far as the personhood crowd
is concerned, it doesn't matter whether a rape was forcible or not: if the rape made a pregnancy, the
rape victim must be legally required to gestate and give birth to a baby.” [Time, 10/20/11]
Personhood Could “Open the Door to Investigating Women Who Have Suffered Miscarriages.”
“By its own logic, the initiative would almost certainly ban common forms of birth control like the
IUD and the morning-after pill, call into question the legality of the common birth-control pill, and
even open the door to investigating women who have suffered miscarriages.” [Salon, 10/26/11]
Personhood “Could Have Criminalized Forms of Birth Control.” “Opponents of the amendment,
which would have given fetuses full rights as persons from the moment of fertilization and could have
criminalized forms of birth control that prevent implantation, said it reflected a growing effort by the
anti-abortion movement to target reproductive health services beyond abortion.” [Politico, 11/09/11]
2008: Supported Colorado Personhood Amendment. In 2008, Coffman responded to a Colorado Right
to Life Candidate Questionnaire stating “Yes” in response to the question: “Do you support the 2008
Colorado Personhood amendment effort to define ‘person’ to include any human being from the moment
of fertilization?” [Colorado Right to Life, Candidate Questionnaire, 2008]
Coffman: I Supported “The Right to Life In All Its Stages.” On his 2008 campaign website,
Coffman said that he supported “the right to life in all its stages.” “In America we have a long
tradition of promoting life as an unalienable right, and I will always be an unapologetic advocate for
the right to life in all its stages,” [Coffman campaign website, 4/20/08]
Colorado Right To Life: “Congressman Coffman Answered All Our Questions Correctly To
Reflect He Is A No Exceptions Pro-Life Elected Official Who Supports The Personhood Of The
Baby In The Womb.” In 2012, Colorado Right to Life Vice President Leslie Hanks stated that
Coffman’s pro-life positions, as reported on their blog, reflected the group’s candidate survey results.
“Our blog reports on our candidate survey results,” Hanks said. “Congressman Coffman answered all
our questions correctly to reflect he is a no exceptions pro-life elected official who supports the
personhood of the baby in the womb.” Hanks further elaborated on the meaning of “no exceptions” in
the survey’s context. “Babies are persons, not ‘exceptions,’” she explained. “No innocent baby should
be punished for the crime of his or her father. If mom’s life is in danger, the doctor has two patients,
and he should make every effort to save both. BTW, five of the Republican prez candidates have
signed the PH pledge, so Mike is in good company.” [Colorado Independent, 1/06/12]
209
2012: Refused To Take Position On Personhood. “In 2012, [Coffman] told the Denver Post he ‘will not
be endorsing nor opposing any state or local ballot questions’ because he’s running for federal office —
which he’s doing again in 2014.” [Fox 31, 3/25/14]
Attempted to Dodge Personhood Question. In 2012, the Denver Post reported that when asked
about Personhood, Coffman “attempted to move on from the question, instead turning the focus to
jobs and military defense cuts, grumbles from the audience could easily be heard inside a packed
synagogue at the Temple Sinai.” [Denver Post, 10/11/12]
2014: Opposed Personhood. “GOP Congressman Mike Coffman is no longer supporting personhood, his
campaign confirmed Tuesday, making him the second Republican in the last five days to disavow the
movement to ban abortion — even in cases of rape or incest — that he’d previously supported. Coffman,
R-Aurora, made his abrupt 180 on the issue public through his campaign just hours after his opponent,
Democrat Andrew Romanoff, challenged Coffman to do so.” [Fox 31, 3/25/14]
HEADLINE: “Coffman … Flips Fast On Personhood” [Fox 31, 3/25/14]
HEADLINE: “Colorado’s Coffman Flips On ‘Personhood,’ Too” [MSNBC Maddow Blog,
3/26/14]
HEADLINE: “Mike Coffman Adjusts Abortion Stance In Cases Of Rape And Incest”
Said, “Parts” Of The Personhood Amendment Were Unintended. In 2014, Congressman Coffman
said “There are parts of it that are simply unintended. ... I think it's too overbroad and that the voters
have spoken.” [Denver Post, 4/17/14]
Cited Edited Undercover Videos As Justification For Votes To Defund Planned Parenthood And
The Creation Of A Committee To Investigate The Organization; Grand Jury Later Cleared
Planned Parenthood Of Wrongdoing And Indicted Video Creators For Editing Videos
Voted Six Times Against Funding For Planned Parenthood. As of January 2016, Coffman has voted
six times in the past year to attempt to defund Planned Parenthood, in part or whole. [HR 3134, Vote
#504, 9/18/15; Democratic Leader – Motions To Recommit, 9/18/15; HR 3134, Vote #505, 9/18/15;
Washington Post, 9/18/15; HR 3495, Vote #524, 9/29/15; Duffy Press Release, 9/29/15; H Con Res
79, Vote #527, 9/30/15; CQ Floor Votes, 9/30/15; HR 3762, Vote #568, 10/23/15; Fox News, 10/23/15;
HR 3762, Vote #6, 1/06/16; The Hill, 1/06/16]
Defended Vote To Freeze Planned Parenthood Funding By Saying Videos “Shock The
Conscience.” “The Planned Parenthood videos released this summer shock the conscience. Imposing
a one-year moratorium on Planned Parenthood funding will give Congress and the American people
time to investigate and evaluate the serious allegations made. I am pleased to see that Colorado’s
federally qualified health clinics will receive funding to ensure women’s access to health care.”
[Coffman Press Release, 9/18/15]
210
Responded To Question About Allegations Against Planned Parenthood Saying, “It’s Just One
Thing After Another.” In July 2015 in an interview on the Dan Caplis radio show Coffman
responded to a video put out by an anti-choice group alleging Planned Parenthood engaged in the sale
of fetal organs. “I think it's very alarming. We will be doing some investigative work I think in a
couple of our House Committees to try to get down to the bottom of it. But, you know, what a
tragedy. You know it's just one thing after another with Planned Parenthood. I think they're coming
out of denial now and there's some admissions as to what they did. But we certainly want to get down
to the bottom of it,” Coffman said. [710 KNUS, 12:13, 7/16/15]
Said Planned Parenthood’s Practices “Fly In The Face Of Human Decency.” “Rep. Mike
Coffman of Aurora said Saturday he supports women’s healthcare but not abortion practices that ‘fly
in the face of human decency,’ and that’s why he joined other House Republicans to vote for a budget
bill Friday that defunds Planned Parenthood for one year.” [Denver Post, 10/24/15]
Said Planned Parenthood Should Lose Funding “Until They Clean Up Their Act.” “‘I strongly
support funding traditional women’s health services, like broad access to birth control and
contraception especially to poor and underserved communities, through community health centers and
other medical partnerships that act and operate in good faith every day,’ Coffman said in a statement
to the Denver Post Saturday. ‘Many longtime supporters of Planned Parenthood are not only shocked
by what’s been revealed, but also by Planned Parenthood’s arrogant response. Until they clean up
their act, we should fund critical women’s services through the many other community health partners
that operate across my district, the state and all across this country in a way that doesn’t fly in the face
of human decency.’” [Denver Post, 10/24/15]
Voted To Create Committee To Investigate Planned Parenthood After Edited Undercover Videos
Surfaced. In October 2015, Coffman voted “to create a special committee to investigate Planned
Parenthood and the handling of aborted fetal tissue, all but ensuring an already-fierce partisan battle will
continue into 2016. In a nearly party-line vote, lawmakers voted 242 to 184 to establish a 13-member
committee with broad power to investigate wrongdoing by Planned Parenthood amid allegations that it
has tried to profit from the sale of aborted tissue.” [H Res 461, Vote #538, 10/07/15; The Hill, 10/07/15]
Grand Jury Cleared Planned Parenthood Of Wrongdoing, Indicted Creators Of Undercover
Videos For Editing Videos. “A grand jury here that was investigating accusations of misconduct
against Planned Parenthood has instead indicted two abortion opponents who made undercover videos of
the organization. Prosecutors in Harris County said one of the leaders of the Center for Medical Progress
— an anti-abortion group that made secretly recorded videos purporting to show Planned
Parenthood officials trying to illegally profit from the sale of fetal tissue — had been indicted on a charge
of tampering with a governmental record, a felony, and on a misdemeanor charge related to purchasing
human organs. … On Monday, the Harris County district attorney, Devon Anderson, said in a statement
that grand jurors had cleared Planned Parenthood of any wrongdoing.”
HEADLINE: Planned Parenthood Investigations Find No Fetal Tissue Sales” [NPR, 1/28/16]
HEADLINE: “Creator Of Anti-Planned Parenthood Videos Faces Felony Charge” [Washington
Post, 1/25/16]
211
Voted To Defund Planned Parenthood After Using Their Logo In A Campaign Ad
Voted To Defund Planned Parenthood After Using Their Logo In A 2014 Campaign Ad. “Rep.
Mike Coffman (R-Colorado), who voted last week in favor of a bill to de-fund Planned Parenthood, is
defending his use of a Planned Parenthood logo in an ad for his 2014 re-election campaign … ‘Using
Planned Parenthood's expression of support is not the same thing as saying it's a good organization,’ said
Coffman's spokeswoman Cinamon Watson in an email to 9NEWS.” [9News, 9/21/15]
Local TV Anchor Took Coffman To Task For “Doublespeak.” In September 2015, 9 News anchor
Kyle Clark tweeted, “Is the @RepMikeCoffman & PP unique? I can't name another pol trumpeting
praise from an organization he/she finds abhorrent. #copolitics” He then tweeted, “How to turn typical
#copolitics doublespeak into a truly convoluted on-the-record quote in 3...2...1...” [@KyleClark,
9/21/15, 9/21/15]
Criticized In Denver Post Column For Flip-Flop on Planned Parenthood. “Coffman is already
taking heat for campaigning with Planned Parenthood's name in 2014 and voting to defund the
organization a year later. He claims the organization's services are easily replaced. But that's simply
not the case.” [Denver Post, 10/31/15]
HEADLINE: “Mike Coffman Votes For Budget Bill That Defunds Planned Parenthood”
HEADLINE: “Aurora Congressman Votes To Defund Planned Parenthood” [Durango
Herald, 10/25/15]
HEADLINE: “Rep. Mike Coffman At Once Champions Pregnant Workers Yet Votes To
Defund Planned Parenthood” [Colorado Independent, 9/29/15]
2016: Received A 4 Percent Rating From Planned Parenthood
2016: Received A 4 Percent Rating From Planned Parenthood. In 2016, Planned Parenthood issued a
4 percent rating for Coffman. The group rates candidates based on their positions on votes on key
legislation related to “women’s health care and rights.” [2016 Congressional Scorecard, Planned
Parenthood Action Fund, accessed 4/11/16]
Consistently Voted To Defund Planned Parenthood, Make It Easier For States To Do The Same
2015: HEADLINE: “Mike Coffman Votes For Budget Bill That Defunds Planned Parenthood.”
“U.S. Rep. Mike Coffman of Aurora joined most other House Republicans last week to support doomed
legislation that would unravel Obamacare and defund Planned Parenthood for a year. … Coffman said
Planned Parenthood’s abortion practices ‘fly in the face of human decency.’ … Democrats have
been taking Coffman to task for months over his Planned Parenthood positions, after he used an ad
touting the women's healthcare provider's support in a campaign last year, but has since voted repeatedly
to defund it this year.” [Denver Post, 10/25/15]
212
2015: Voted To Defund Planned Parenthood. In September 2015, Coffman voted for the Defund
Planned Parenthood Act 2015 that “prohibits, for a one-year period, the availability of federal funds for
any purpose to Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., or any of its affiliates or clinics, unless
they certify that the affiliates and clinics will not perform, and will not provide any funds to any other
entity that performs, an abortion during such period. The restriction will not apply in cases of rape or
incest or where a physical condition endangers a woman’s life unless an abortion is performed.” The bill
passed 241 to 187. [H.R. 3134, Vote #505, 9/18/15; CQ, 9/23/15]
2015: Voted Against Preventing Attempt To Defund Planned Parenthood. In September 2015,
Coffman voted against a motion that “shields American women’s access to lifesaving health care
services from Republicans’ attempt to defund Planned Parenthood by protecting any organization that
provides women’s health services, such as preventive care and cancer screenings, from being stripped
of vital federal resources to serve America’s families.” A yes vote was a vote against defunding
Planned Parenthood. The resolution failed, 183 to 245. [H.R. 3134, Vote #504, 9/18/15; Democratic
Leader – Motions To Recommit, 9/18/15]
Defunding Planned Parenthood Would Increase Public Spending By $130 Million Over 10
Years. “Days before lawmakers must pass new legislation to fund the government, Republicans
are vowing to reject any proposal that includes public money for Planned Parenthood. The move
could trigger not only a shutdown, but if it succeeds, more bills for taxpayers. The Congressional
Budget Office said in a new report on Thursday that cutting off the women’s health organization
from federal money would actually increase public spending by an estimated $130 million over 10
years. … The office’s math: Halting federal funds to Planned Parenthood would shrink spending
by $520 million in the short run -- but, over the first decade, it would cost taxpayers an additional
$650 million.” [The Washington Post, 9/24/15]
2011: Voted For Amendment That Would Bar All Federal Funding For Planned Parenthood. In
2011, Coffman voted for an amendment that would bar all funding for Planned Parenthood and its
affiliates. Conservatives had long targeted Planned Parenthood as a major abortion provider but the
amendment would bar all federal funding. Planned Parenthood received some $75 million received to
provide family planning assistance, contraception, HIV counseling, cancer screenings and other medical
services. The amendment passed, 240-185. [HR 1, Pence amendment #11, Vote #93, 2/18/11]
2011: Voted To Defund Planned Parenthood. In 2011, Coffman voted for a bill that would prohibit
Planned Parenthood and its affiliates from receiving federal funding. The resolution would order the
Clerk of the House to change H.R. 1473, the FY11 Continuing Resolution, to bar the use of the
federal funds to go to Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., or any affiliate. The bill passed
241-185. [H Con Res 36, Vote #271, 4/14/11; The Hill, 4/12/11]
Government Saves $4 For Every $1 Spent On Abortion For Low-Income Women. According
to Susan Cohen, director of governmental affairs at the Guttmacher Institute research organization,
for every dollar spent on contraception for low-income women, the government saves four dollars
in medical costs within the next year by averting unwanted pregnancies. [New York Times,
2/17/11]
213
EDITORIAL: Bill Would Deny Women Affordable Contraception, Cancer Screenings, And
Nutritional Support For Newborns. “Republicans in the House of Representatives are mounting
an assault on women’s health and freedom that would deny millions of women access to
affordable contraception and life-saving cancer screenings and cut nutritional support for millions
of newborn babies in struggling families. … The budget bill pushed through the House last
Saturday included the defunding of Planned Parenthood and myriad other cuts detrimental to
women.” [New York Times, Editorial, 2/25/11]
Voted To Block Consideration Of Bill Making It Easier For States To Defund Planned Parenthood.
In September 2015, Coffman voted for motion to order the previous question (thus ending debate and
possibility of amendment) on the rule (H Res 444) that would provide for floor consideration of the bill
(HR 3495) that would amend title XIX of the Social Security act to allow states to exclude medical
providers who perform abortions from the state's Medicaid contracts. The motion was agreed to 243-182.
A vote against the previous question would have allowed the bill to be considered. [H Res 444, Vote
#521, 9/29/15; CQ Floor Votes, 9/29/15]
Voted For Bill Making It Easier For States To Defund Planned Parenthood. In September 2015,
Coffman voted for a bill that would amend title XIX of the Social Security act to allow states to
exclude medical providers who perform abortions from the state's Medicaid contracts. The bill would
expand the exceptions for which a state is not required to provide Medicaid reimbursements, allowing
states to deny non-abortion health care reimbursements to medical providers such as Planned
Parenthood. The bill passed by a vote of 236-193. [HR 3495, Vote #524, 9/29/15; CQ Floor Votes,
9/29/15]
Failed To Denounce Rep. JoAnn Windholz After She Blamed Planned Parenthood For A Shooting
At Their Colorado Springs Clinic
Rep. JoAnn Windholz: Planned Parenthood Is The “Real Culprit” In Colorado Springs Clinic
Shooting. “Adams County state Rep. JoAnn Windholz blames Planned Parenthood for the Nov. 27
shooting, at its Colorado Springs clinic, that left three dead and nine injured. She is one of the few
Colorado Republicans to issue a statement in the wake of the attack. ‘Violence is never the answer, but we
must start pointing out who is the real culprit. The true instigator of this violence and all violence at any
Planned Parenthood facility is Planned Parenthood themselves. Violence begets violence. So Planned
Parenthood: YOU STOP THE VIOLENCE INSIDE YOUR WALLS.’” [Colorado Independent,
12/01/15]
Failed To Denounce Windholz In Statement. “While he has said nothing about Windholz, Coffman
did, however, express sympathy for the victims killed in the shooting – Jennifer Markovsky, Ke’Arre
Stewart and Officer Garrett Swasey of the CU-Colorado Springs Police Department – as well as for the
nine people injured. ‘This is an unspeakable tragedy for the Colorado Springs community,’ Coffman
added…” [Colorado Independent, 1/23/16]
State Sen. Morgan Carroll Called On Coffman To Denounce Windholz. “It’s deeply disturbing
and dangerous for Rep. JoAnn Windholz to blame Planned Parenthood and the victims of this attack
for this atrocity,” said State Senator Morgan Carroll. “She needs to retract her statement with a sincere
apology to the victims of this violence or else step down.” “As an elected leader in this community, if
214
Congressman Coffman meant what he said in his statement, he should join me in condemning the
statement of Rep. Windholz and ask for her to retract it with an apology or step down.”
[ColoradoPols, 12/03/15]
Failed To Denounce Windholz In Statement. “I’m deeply offended that anyone would try to exploit
this horrific incident purely for political gain. Both sides should knock-off the partisan games and
name-calling. It is beneath the dignity of our state and country, and a grave disservice to the victims.
A horrible tragedy has happened in our state. Our focus should be on the victims, and honoring their
lives and supporting their families. And we should focus on achieving justice – this shooting was a
premediated atrocity, and absolutely ripe for a death penalty prosecution.” [9 News, 12/01/15]
EMILY’s List Placed Mike Coffman “On Notice.” “Congressman Coffman has made it clear he’s
more interested in driving his extreme ideological agenda than enacting policies that benefit more
women and families. From opposing raising the minimum wage to repeatedly voting to restrict
women’s access to health care, Representative Coffman has done nothing to help the people of
Colorado’s Sixth Congressional District get a fair shot. That’s why EMILY’s List is putting Mike
Coffman ‘On Notice’—his refusal to stand up for women and families in Colorado will get him sent
packing in 2016.” [EMILY’s List, 6/01/15]
EDITORIAL: “Rep. Windholz Must Resign After Repulsive Rant About Planned
Parenthood Murders.” “The first-term state legislator does not speak for Aurora, and we feel
confident that such abhorrent and repulsive views and comments are not shared by the vast
majority of her constituents, even those who support her misguided push to end Colorado’s
longstanding pro-choice laws and traditions.” [Aurora Sentinel, Editorial, 12/02/15]
EDITORIAL: Windholz “Ought To Be Ashamed” For Her “Outrageous Rhetoric.” “Rep.
JoAnn Windholz, R Commerce City, ought to be ashamed. Her statement on Facebook regarding
Friday’s attack on the Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs is stunningly crude, callous
and incendiary … Anyone who can seemingly whitewash the actions of a murderer at an abortion
clinic by trying to blame the clinic itself needs to take stock of herself. And no, the pat phrase
‘violence is never the answer’ does not cover for Windholz’s shocking sentiments … Unless
activists advocate violence, it is reckless to blame them for it. Of course, that doesn’t mean we
have to tolerate outrageous rhetoric from elected officials. And Windholz is up for election in
2016.” [Denver Post, Editorial, 12/02/15]
HEADLINE: “Republicans Back Lawmaker Who Called Planned Parenthood The ‘Real
Culprit’ In The Clinic Shooting” [Colorado Independent, 12/21/15]
HEADLINE: “Colorado GOP Officials Won’t Ask Windholz To Resign As Recall Effort
Starts Because Of Planned Parenthood Comments” [Aurora Sentinel, 12/03/15]
Consistently Voted To Ban Abortion After 20 Weeks, Force Women To Prove Rape Was Reported
To Authorities Or Undergo Waiting Period; Critics Argued That Bill Would Be Unconstitutional
2013: Supported Bill That Would “Limit Late Term Abortion[s].” In 2013, Coffman voted for a
national abortion ban after 20 weeks of pregnancy, challenging the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court
215
decision on a woman’s right to abortion. Coffman said, “I voted today in favor of H.R. 1797 to limit late
term abortion. I strongly support the exceptions for rape, incest, and protecting the life of the mother that
have been included in this legislation.” The bill passed, 228-196. [HR 1797, Vote #251, 6/18/13; Office of
Rep. Coffman, 6/18/13]
Required Women Seeking Late Term Abortions “To Prove That She Reported The Rape To
Authorities” In 2013, Mother Jones reported: “In order to obtain an abortion after 20 weeks under
this law, a woman who was raped must be able to prove that she reported the rape to authorities—a
requirement not present in other rape exceptions to federal abortion laws.” [Mother Jones, 6/18/13]
HEADLINE: “The GOP Tries To Redefine Rape Exemptions—Again” [Mother Jones,
6/18/13]
Rep. Franks: “Incidence of Rape Resulting in Pregnancy Very Low.” While being considered in
the House Judiciary Committee, sponsor Trent Franks caused a firestorm by saying that cases of “rape
resulting in pregnancy are very low.” The remark referred to a Democratic amendment, defeated by
Republicans, that would have made exceptions to the ban in cases involving rape and incest. House
Republicans later modified the bill to include exceptions for rape and incest. [Associated Press,
6/14/13]
EDITORIAL: All-Male House Republican Subcommittee “Voted to Approve a Blatantly
Unconstitutional Bill That Would Ban All Abortions Performed After 20 Weeks of
Pregnancy” The New York Times reported: “On Tuesday [June 4, 2013], all six G.O.P. members of
the all-male Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice voted to approve a blatantly
unconstitutional bill that would ban all abortions performed after 20 weeks of pregnancy, with only a
narrow exception to save a pregnant woman’s life. It contains no exception for rape or incest victims,
to protect a woman whose health is endangered, or for cases of severe fetal anomalies.” [New York
Times, Editorial, 6/10/13]
Women’s Health Groups Argued That HR 1797 And Similar Laws Were Patently
Unconstitutional. Politico reported: “Women’s health groups argue that the laws are patently
unconstitutional, because they directly conflict with Supreme Court precedent that says states
can’t outlaw abortions prior to viability, which is now usually considered to be around 23 to 24
weeks into a pregnancy.” [Politico, 6/18/13]
Bill Would Defy Laws In Most States. The Associated Press reported that HR 1797 “would
restrict almost all abortions to the first 20 weeks after conception, defying laws in most states that
allow abortions up to when the fetus becomes viable, usually considered to be around 24 weeks.”
2015: Voted To Restrict A Woman’s Right To Choose After 20 Weeks And Require 48-Hour
Waiting Period For Rape Survivors. In May 2015, Coffman voted for “a bill banning abortions after 20
weeks of pregnancy in a party-line vote.” According to The Hill, “But the bill did not change a provision
that allows victims of incest to receive an abortion only if they are under 18 years old … The new version
of the House bill also includes a two-day waiting period for rape victims. Doctors must also ensure that
216
victims have received medical treatment or counseling during that time.” [HR 36, Vote #223, 5/13/15;
The Hill, 5/13/15; The Hill, 5/11/15]
Unable To Remember The Term “Birth Control” During Debate
Unable to Remember The Term “Birth Control” During Debate. In August 2014, Coffman was
unable to answer a question regarding women’s rights and abortion during a debate, going so far as to be
unable to remember the term birth control. Coffman was described as “affable and knowledgeable, but
also unsteady, some of his answer wandering and heavy with jargon” during the debate. “‘I’m pro-life,’
said Coffman, starting out strong. But he paused and then said it again. ‘I’m pro-life’ — and then came a
string of half thoughts. ‘I — But I don’t support personhood — I support women’s access — that Hobby
Lobby decision — to …’ He finished with something that may have been ‘birth control,’ but he was
already shaking his head.” [Colorado Independent, 8/14/14; Mike Coffman – Andrew Romanoff debate,
YouTube, 8/14/14]
HEADLINE: “GOP Congressman Forgets That He Supports Birth Control Access At
Candidate Debate” [Huffington Post, 8/14/14]
2012: Against All Abortions Unless Mother’s Life Was At Risk; 2013: Supported Abortion
Exceptions For Rape, Incest, And Protecting The Life Of The Mother; 2015: Voted Against Adding
Exception To Anti-Choice Bill To Protect The Health Of The Woman
2012: Against All Abortions Unless Mother’s Life Was At Risk. “In 2012, [Coffman] said, ‘I am
against all abortions, except when it is necessary to protect the life of the mother.’” [PolitiFact, 2/02/16]
2013: Supported Abortion Exceptions For Rape, Incest, And Protecting The Life Of The Mother. In
2013, “Coffman said that while he supported a House bill to limit late-term abortions, ‘I strongly support
the exceptions for rape, incest, and protecting the life of the mother that have been included in this
legislation.” [PolitiFact, 2/02/16]
2015: Voted Against Adding Exception To Anti-Choice Bill To Protect The Health Of The Woman.
In May 2015, Coffman voted against adding a woman’s health exception to a 20-week abortion bill. “U.S.
Rep. Julia Brownley’s attempt to amend a bill calling for a ban on abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy
was defeated Wednesday, and the House went on to pass the ban. The Westlake Village Democrat’s
motion and amendment would have added language to the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act that
would have permitted abortions after 20 weeks if a woman’s health were at risk. It was defeated on a
mostly party-line 181-246 vote.” [H.R. 36, Vote #222, 5/13/15; Ventura County Star, 5/13/15]
Not Focused On Social Issues”
Not Focused On Social Issues.” In 2012, when asked about his stance on abortions in the case of rape
and incest, Coffman dodged answering, saying, “I’m not focused on social issues.” [BigMedia.org,
12/31/12]
217
Co-Sponsored Bill To Redefine Rape; Bill Would Require Women To Suffer From “Forcible Rape”
– Not Just Rape – In Order To Qualify For Federally Funded Abortions; PolitiFact Rated Claim
That Coffman Co-Sponsored Bill To Redefine Rape As “Mostly True”
Co-Sponsored Bill To Redefine Rape; Bill Would Require Women To Suffer From “Forcible Rape”
– Not Just Rape – In Order To Qualify For Federally Funded Abortions. In 2011, Coffman cosponsored the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortions Act, which would redefine a ban on federal funding
for abortions to exempt only “forcible rape” and not “rape” generally. A Republican bill seeking to
permanently cut off federal funding for abortions has angered women's groups that say it alters the
definition of rape, permitting coverage for the procedure only in cases in which the rape is considered
‘forcible.’ … The most well-known provision that would become permanent under the bill is the
Hyde Amendment, which prevents some federally funded health-care programs from covering
abortions. For years, it has allowed exemptions in cases of rape and incest, and when the life of the
woman is threatened. Under the proposed language, however, rape becomes ‘forcible rape.’” [HR 3
Co-Sponsors, 112th Congress; Washington Post, 2/01/11]
National Women’s Law Center: “It Takes Us Back To A Time Where Just Saying No
Wasn’t Enough.” “Critics say the modifier could distinguish it from other kinds of sexual assault
that are typically recognized as rape, including statutory rape and attacks that occur because of
drugs or verbal threats. ‘It speaks to a distinction between rape where there must be some element
of force in order to rise to the standard, and rape where there is not,’ said Steph Sterling, director
of government relations for the National Women's Law Center. ‘The concern here is that it takes
us back to a time where just saying no was not enough.’” [Washington Post, 2/01/11]
PolitiFact: “Mostly True” That Coffman Co-Sponsored Bill To Redefine Rape; Critics Argued
That “Forcible Rape” Would Exclude Victims Of Statutory Rape And Date Rape. “Coffman did
co-sponsor the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortions Act, which attempted to redefine a ban on federal
funding for abortions to exempt ‘forcible rape’ -- and not rape in broader terms. Critics said the
‘forcible rape’ language could rule out other forms of sexual assault that are considered rape,
including statutory rape, attacks where women are drugged or threatened, and date rapes. … Emily’s
List said that Coffman ‘co-sponsored a bill to redefine rape.’ The record shows Coffman did cosponsor the bill to redefine a ban on federal funding for abortions to exempt ‘forcible rape.’ … Given
the totality of his actions on the legislation, we're rating this claim Mostly True.” [PolitiFact, 2/02/16]
HEADLINE: “Democrats Highlight Coffman’s Support For Measure That Could Have
Redefined Rape” [Denver Post, 8/20/12]
HEADLINE: “GOP Abortion Bill Redefines Rape” [The Daily Beast, 1/30/11]
HEADLINE: “‘Forcible Rape’ Cut From Antiabortion Bill After Backlash From Women’s
Groups” [Washington Post, 2/03/11]
Co-Sponsored Bill To Redefine Rape With Rep. Todd Akin, Who Was Criticized For “Legitimate
Rape” Comments. “In the wake of comments by Rep. Todd Akin, R-Mo., about ‘legitimate rape’– which
drew nationwide criticism — Democrats are now highlighting legislation he and Republican Rep. Mike
Coffman co-sponsored in the U.S. House that could have redefined rape. Coffman, who is running for re218
election in the Aurora-based 6th Congressional District, is among many House Republicans who in 2011
co-sponsored the ‘No Taxpayer Funding for Abortions Act.’ The measure examined redefining a ban on
federal funding for abortions to exempt only ‘forcible rape’ — and not rape in more broader terms.”
Supported 20-Week Abortion Ban That Would Require Rape Victims “To Prove That She
Reported Rape To Authorities”; Bill Sponsor: “Incidence Of Rape Resulting In Pregnancy Very
Low”
2013: Supported 20-Week Abortion Ban That Would Require Rape Victims “To Prove That She
Reported Rape To Authorities.” In 2013, Coffman voted for a national abortion ban after 20 weeks of
pregnancy. Coffman said, “I voted today in favor of H.R. 1797 to limit late term abortion. I strongly
support the exceptions for rape, incest, and protecting the life of the mother that have been included in this
legislation.” In 2013, Mother Jones reported: “In order to obtain an abortion after 20 weeks under this
law, a woman who was raped must be able to prove that she reported the rape to authorities—a
requirement not present in other rape exceptions to federal abortion laws.” The bill passed, 228-196. [HR
1797, Vote #251, 6/18/13; Office of Rep. Coffman, 6/18/13; Mother Jones, 6/18/13]
HEADLINE: “The GOP Tries To Redefine Rape Exemptions—Again” [Mother Jones, 6/18/13]
Bill Sponsor Rep. Franks: “Incidence of Rape Resulting in Pregnancy Very Low.” While being
considered in the House Judiciary Committee, sponsor Trent Franks caused a firestorm by saying that
cases of “rape resulting in pregnancy are very low.” The remark referred to a Democratic amendment,
defeated by Republicans, that would have made exceptions to the ban in cases involving rape and incest.
House Republicans later modified the bill to include exceptions for rape and incest. [Associated Press,
6/14/13]
Twice Voted To Permanently Ban Federal Funds For Abortion Services; Twice Voted Against
Initiatives To Protect Privacy Of Health Records For Victims Of Rape And Incest
Voted For Bill That Would Permanently Ban Federal Funds For Abortion Services. In 2011,
Coffman voted for a bill which undermined and harmed women’s health by limiting access and funding
for abortions. The legislation made the annually-passed Hyde Amendment (barring the use of federal
funds for abortion) permanent, prohibited federal medical facilities from providing abortion services, and
kept individuals from “deducting abortion as a medical expense unless it was the result of rape, incest, or
to save the life of the mother”. The section on deducting abortion expenses led many to worry about
“abortion audits” where the IRS would be charged with determining if a woman who became pregnant
and used tax-exempt funds (health savings accounts or deducted the costs) to terminate the pregnancy met
the specifications of the pregnancy being the result of rape or incest or if pregnancy risked the life of the
mother. The bill passed 251-175. [HR 3, Vote #292, 5/04/11; The American Independent, 5/04/11; The
Hill, 5/04/11; Mother Jones, 3/18/11]
Supported Stupak Amendment To Bar Federal Funds In Health Care Bill To Pay For Any
Abortion Services. In 2009, Coffman supported Congressman Bart Stupak’s (D-MI) amendment to
the Affordable Health Care for America Act that banned federal funds authorized in the bill from
being used to pay for an abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that included
219
abortion coverage. This excluded elective abortion coverage from the public option and an individual
using a subsidy to purchase a private plan cannot purchase one that covers elective abortion. Insurers
would be allowed to cover abortions that result from rape or incest or when a pregnancy threatens a
mother’s life. An individual with a subsidized policy from the bill would have to purchase coverage
for elective abortion separately with their own money. The amendment passed 240-194. [HR3962,
Vote #884, 11/07/09; CQToday, 11/07/09]
Voted Against Motion Which Specified That Nothing In The Bill Allowed The Federal Government
To Access Medical Records Of Rape And Incest Victims. Coffman even voted against a motion which
specified that nothing in the bill allowed the federal government to access medical records of rape and
incest victims. The motion failed 192-235. [HR 3, Vote #291, 5/04/11]
Voted Against Prohibiting Violation Of Medical Privacy Regarding Choice Of Health Insurance
Coverage, Including Coverage For Victims Of Rape Or Incest. In January 2015, Coffman voted
against a motion to recommit that would prohibit any violation of the medical privacy of a woman
regarding her choice of health insurance coverage, and in particular the very sensitive privacy needs of
those who are victims of rape and incest. In contrast, the underlying bill goes so far as to restrict a
woman’s own private funds under her health insurance coverage for abortion services. [HR 7, Vote
#44, 1/22/15; Democratic Leader – Motions to Recommit, 1/22/15]
Voted For Bill Requiring Doctors To Provide Medical Care To Aborted Fetuses That Show Signs
Of Life
Voted For Bill Requiring Doctors To Provide Medical Care To Aborted Fetuses That Show Signs
Of Life. In September 2015, Coffman voted for legislation that “amends the federal criminal code to
require any health care practitioner who is present when a child is born alive following an abortion or
attempted abortion to: (1) exercise the same degree of care as reasonably provided to any other child born
alive at the same gestational age, and (2) ensure that such child is immediately admitted to a hospital. The
term ‘born alive’ means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother, at any stage of
development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the
umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has
been cut.” The bill passed, 248 to 177. [HR 3504, Vote #506, 9/18/15]
Doctors Would Face Up To 5 Years In Prison If They Were Found To Not Follow The
Legislation. “Per the bill, ‘the term ‘born alive’ means the complete expulsion or extraction from his
or her mother, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a
beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless
of whether the umbilical cord has been cut.’ Physicians could face up to five years of prison time for
lack of adherence to this measure and may also face civil suits from women who wish to press
charges.” [Yahoo News, 9/18/15]
President Of The American Congress Of Obstetricians And Gynecologists Called The
Legislation “A Disservice To America’s Women And Gross Legislative Interference Into The
Practice Of Medicine.” “In a statement, Mark S. DeFrancesco, MD, president of the American
Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, called the passage of H.R. 3504 ‘a disservice to
America’s women and gross legislative interference into the practice of medicine, putting politicians
220
between women and their trusted doctors. This bill and others like it are part of a larger attempt to
deny women access to safe, legal, evidence-based abortion care,’ he said in the statement. ‘We urge
the United States Senate and the President to stand with women and stand up for safe medical care, by
preventing this and other legislation like it to become law.’” [Yahoo News, 9/18/15]
Voted To Allow Hospitals To Deny Lifesaving Health Care To Women And Restrict A Woman’s
Ability To Use Her Own Private Insurance For Health Care
Voted To Allow Hospitals To Deny Lifesaving Health Care To Women And Restrict A Woman’s
Ability To Use Her Own Private Insurance For Health Care. In 2011, Coffman voted to allow
hospitals to deny lifesaving health care to women and restrict a woman’s ability to use her own private
insurance for health care. The bill barred insurance plans that receive federal subsidies, or if any of its
customers receive federal subsidies under the new healthcare law, from covering abortion. The bill also
increased conscience protections for health care providers who are anti-abortion. According to the
Huffington Post, the bill “would allow federally-funded hospitals that oppose abortions to refuse to
perform the procedure, even in cases where a woman would die without it.” The bill passed 251-172. [HR
358, Vote #789, 10/13/11; The Virginian-Pilot, 10/14/11; Orlando Sentinel, 10/14/11; Huffington Post, 10/11/11]
Voted Against A Motion Specifying That Health Care Providers Were Still Required To Provide
Care To Prevent The Death Of Pregnant Women With Emergency Medical Conditions. Coffman
even voted against a motion specifying that, under the underlying bill, health care providers were still
required to provide care to prevent the death of pregnant women with emergency medical conditions. The
motion failed 173-249. [HR 358, Vote #788, 10/13/11; CQ Floor Votes, 10/13/11]
Voted to Kill Health Care Reform with Abortion Amendments
Voted to Kill Health Care Reform with Abortion Amendments. In 2010, Coffman voted to kill health
care reform by voting for a motion to recommit the bill with amendments that would bar the use of federal
funds to pay for an abortion, unless the pregnancy was the result of rape, incest or certain other
conditions. Individuals receiving subsidized health care policies would be forced to purchase abortion
coverage separately. The White House and many Democrats contended that the health care bill as written
explicitly barred federal funds from being used to pay for abortions. In addition, President Obama signed
an executive order ensuring the same limits on federal funding of abortions remained in place with the
new law. The motion to recommit failed, 199-232. [HR 4872, Vote # 166, 3/21/10; Roll Call, 3/11/10; US
News & World Report, 3/12/10; CNN, 3/24/10]
Voted to Restrict the District of Columbia from Using Funds to Pay for Abortions
Voted to Restrict the District of Columbia from Using Funds to Pay for Abortions. In 2011, Coffman
voted to restrict the District of Columbia from using their funds to pay for abortions. The bill also
contained a policy rider which would have restricted the District of Columbia from using funds
appropriated by the bill or its own tax dollars to pay for abortions with exceptions for the life of the
mother and if the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest. When the Senate amended the bill it struck
most of the language and made it a simple Continuing Resolution which funded all government agencies
through April 15th, 2011 with some reductions to FY10 funding levels. The bill underlying bill would
have provided funds for the Department of Defense through the end of Fiscal Year 2011 and all other
221
government agencies through April 15th, 2011, while cutting an additional $12 billion. The bill passed
247-181. [HR 1363, Vote #247, 4/07/11; CQ Weekly Report, 4/11/11]
Voted to Prohibit the District of Columbia from Using Funds for Abortions. In 2011, Coffman
voted for a bill containing a policy rider which barred the District of Columbia from using federal or
local fund to fund abortions. The policy rider barred the District of Columbia from using federal or
local funds to fun abortions with exclusions for the life of the mother, rape and incest. This is possible
because the federal government ultimately controls the DC budget. The underlying bill was the final
continuing resolution passed to fund the federal government for the rest of Fiscal Year 2011. The bill
passed 260-167. [HR 1473, Vote #268, 4/14/11; CQ BillAnalysis, 7/14/11; CQ Floor Votes, 4/14/11]
NOTE: This bill was passed as a compromise between the White House, Senate and House of
Representatives to avoid a government shutdown and provided funding for government agencies for
the remainder of FY11.
Voted To Limit Doctors’ Education On Providing Abortions
Voted To Limit Doctors’ Education On Providing Abortions. In 2011, Coffman voted for an
amendment which cut funding for educating doctors in how to provide abortions, which are sometimes
necessary to protect the life and health of the mother. The amendment banned the use of funds authorized
by the underlying bill to teach medical students how to provide abortions. The amendment also banned
the distribution of funds to educational health facilities which discriminate against entities that refuse to
provide or pay for abortions. “The proposal was presented as an amendment to the latest of several GOP
bills to restrict funding for the health care act that was enacted last year. This bill gives Congress control
over spending for a program to encourage health centers to provide training to medical residents. The
amendment applies to funding in that grant program.” The amendment passed 234-182. [HR 1216, Vote
#338, 5/25/11; Associated Press, 5/25/11; The Hill, 5/24/11]
Sponsored Bill To Require Doctors To Notify Parents And Wait Before Performing Abortion
Sponsored Bill To Require Doctors To Notify Parents And Wait Before Performing Abortion. In
1995, Coffman sponsored a bill that would require doctors who perform abortions on minors to provide
written notice to the parent and wait 48 hours before the operation. [Denver Post, 3/01/95]
2014: Endorsed By The Colorado Citizens For Life
2014: Endorsed by the Colorado Citizens for Life. In August 2014, Coffman was endorsed by the
Colorado Citizens for Life, the state affiliate of the National Right to Life. Coffman voted for 20 of the 20
votes on the scorecard. “By voting pro-life, these Congressional candidates are voting pro-woman
because women deserve better than abortion. No matter how you package abortion, women are realizing
that it’s a damaging choice, not just for the unborn child, but for their family as well. Thousands of
women have revealed to the world what choice brought them: physical and emotional pain, regret and
years of heartache,” said the Executive Director of the Colorado Citizens for Life. [Life News, 8/19/14]
222
223
Agriculture and Food Safety Issues
 Voted to repeal country of origin labeling requirements on meat
 Voted against requiring GMO labeling for companies requiring labels in
foreign countries
 Voted to reduce funding for nutritional programs, targeting WIC, food
safety programs, and SNAP
 Opposed the Farm Bill, which benefits 37,000 farmers and ranchers,
511,000 food stamp recipients in Colorado
 Voted to override state laws to establish a voluntary national genetically
engineered certification program
 Voted against an amendment to prohibit foods labeled “natural” to
contain genetically engineered plants
 Supported decreasing federal funding for agriculture programs
 Opposed using government subsidies for corn-based ethanol, said he
“didn’t see the benefits of ethanol over oil”
Coffman has consistently supported efforts aimed at depriving consumers of
information about the food they eat, which is evidenced by his votes against
country of origin labeling requirements, GMO labeling, and food safety programs.
He also fought against the Farm Bill, which – when it passed – benefitted 37,000
farmers and ranchers, 511,000 food stamp recipients in Colorado.
Voted To Repeal Country Of Origin Labeling Requirements On Meat
Voted For Repealing County Of Origin Labeling Requirements On Meat Sold In U.S. In June 2015,
Coffman voted for a bill to repeal U.S. country of origin labeling requirements for beef, pork and chicken
that is sold in the United States. The bill passed by a vote of 300-131. [HR 2393, Vote #333, 6/10/15; CQ
224
Voted Against Requiring GMO Labeling For Companies Requiring Labels In Foreign Countries
Voted Against Requiring GMO Labeling For Companies Requiring Labels In Foreign Countries. In
July 2015, Coffman voted against an amendment that “would require a U.S. company or subsidiary with
products labeled a containing GMOs (genetically modified organisms) in any foreign country to indicate
the presence of GMOs in the equivalent product sold in the U.S.” The amendment failed, 123-303. [HR
1599, Vote #459, 3/25/15; CQ Floor Votes, 7/23/15]
Voted To Reduce Funding For Nutritional Programs, Targeting WIC, Food Safety Programs, And
SNAP
Voted For Massive Cuts To The Department Of Agriculture That Would Reduce Funding For The
Women, Infants, And Child Nutrition Program And Food Safety Programs. In 2011, Coffman voted
to cut the budget of the Department of Agriculture and programs funded through the USDA, including
food safety and nutrition programs. The bill cut more than $2.7 billion out of the discretionary budget of
the Department of Agriculture, including $832 million from the Women, Infants & Children Nutrition
(WIC) Program. The FDA’s food safety program was cut by $87 million compared to what it was
receiving in Fiscal Year 2011 or $205 million less than the President’s request. In addition, another $35
million was cut from the USDA’s food safety and inspection service. The Commodity Futures Trading
Commission, which is supposed to stabilize commodity prices by regulating commodity speculation, was
also cut by $30 million. The bill passed 217-203. [HR 2112, Vote #459, 6/16/11; The Hill, 6/16/11;
Washington Post, 6/17/11]
Voted for $40 Billion in Cuts to Nutrition Program for Children, Seniors. In September 2013,
Coffman voted for $40 billion in cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
According to the New York Times, “The bill would cut $40 billion from the food stamp program over the
next 10 years. … According to the Congressional Budget Office, nearly four million people would be
removed from the food stamp program under the House bill. A Census Bureau report released on Tuesday
found that the food stamp program had kept about four million people above the poverty level and had
prevented millions more from sinking further into poverty.” The bill would kick about 3.8 million out of
the program in 2014, including 1.7 million unemployed, childless adults aged 18-50. The bill passed 217210. [HR 3102, Vote #476, 9/19/13; New York Times, 9/19/13; Washington Post, 9/19/13]
Voted To Cut $31 Billion from SNAP Program. In June 2013, Coffman voted for an amendment that
would cut $31 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and block grant
spending to the states. The bill would have rolled back the state exemption option and made it mandatory
for each state to adopt stiffer work requirements to receive food aid. The amendment failed 175-250. [HR
1947, Vote #283, 6/20/13; Kansas Health Institute, 7/08/13]
Opposed Restoring $20.5 Billion in Food Stamp Cuts. In 2013, Coffman voted against an amendment
to restore $20.5 billion in Supplemental Nutrition and Assistance Program (SNAP) funding to the House
Farm Bill by offsetting the Farm Risk Management Election Program and the Supplemental Coverage
Option. According to MSNBC, “The $20.5 billion in cuts within the House bill amount to roughly $2
billion per year. If those cuts went through, nearly two million people could lose food stamp eligibility,
and some 210,000 children could lose eligibility for free school meals.” The amendment, proposed by
Rep. Jim McGovern, failed 188-234. [HR 1947, Vote #256, 6/19/13; MSNBC, 6/20/13]
225
Opposed The Farm Bill; 37,000 Farmers And Ranchers, 511,000 Food Stamp Recipients In
Colorado Benefitted
Voted Against Saving $16 Billion and Providing Certainty to Farmers by Authorizing Farm Bill. In
2014, Coffman voted against final passage of a five-year farm bill. The bill had previously been stalled
for more than two years. The bill would save $16.6 billion over 10 years through savings in the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, income caps on farm subsidies, and eliminating direct
payments to farmers. The American Farm Bureau praised the bill, stating it “will enhance rural economies
with additional jobs, invest in research and education and include reform that works for farm and ranch
families.” The bill passed 251-166. [HR 2642, Vote #31, 1/29/14; New York Times, 1/29/14; American
Farm Bureau, 2/07/14]
Voted for “Poison Pill” that Killed Farm Bill. In June 2013, Coffman voted for an amendment to the
Farm Bill that would let states launch pilot programs requiring that food stamp recipients work or show
they are looking for work. The amendment was largely blamed for the failure of the underlying bill. Time
Magazine described the amendment as “a partisan poison pill, the last amendment of the day. And it was
enough to kill the measure.” The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities called the provision “harsh” and
unprecedented.” CBPP reported that the amendment “could deny benefits to large numbers of low-income
people who want to work but cannot find a job, and it would incentivize states to cut such people off by
giving them large amounts of new federal funding - to spend on whatever they choose - if they use the
Southerland provision to cut their SNAP caseloads.” The amendment passed, 227-198. [HR 1947, Vote
#248, 6/20/13; Time Magazine, 6/21/13; Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 7/09/13]
Opposed Extreme Farm Bill with Poison Pills. In 2013, Coffman voted against the final version of
the Farm Bill, which would authorize $939 billion in funding for federal farm and food assistance
programs through FY 2018. The bill, as amended, would allow states to drug test applicants for food
stamps and would require recipients to meet work requirements, mandating employment or job
training. In addition, the bill would eliminate subsidies for farmers and would direct the funds instead
to crop insurance programs. According to the New York Times, “The House bill would have cut
projected spending in farm and nutrition programs by nearly $40 billion over the next 10 years. Just
over half, $20.5 billion, would come from cuts to the food stamp program, known as the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program.” The bill failed 195-234. [H.R. 1947, Vote #286, 6/20/13; CQ Floor
Votes, 6/20/13; New York Times, 6/21/13]
37,000 Farmers And Ranchers, 511,000 Food Stamp Recipients In Colorado Benefitted. “Capping
three years of dramatic partisan negotiations and delays, the Senate on Tuesday handily passed the farm
bill, restoring some certainty to 37,000 Colorado farmers and ranchers and the 511,000 Coloradans who
collect food stamps. … The farm bill saves up to $16 billion in spending over the next 10 years through
agricultural policy reforms and efficiencies found in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or
SNAP, according to the Congressional Budget Office.” [Denver Post, 2/05/14]
HEADLINE: “Farm Bill Passes, Will Benefit Colorado Farmers, Counties” [Denver Post,
2/05/14]
226
Voted Against An Amendment To Prohibit Foods Labeled “Natural” To Contain Genetically
Engineered Plants
Voted Against An Amendment To Prohibit Foods Labeled “Natural” To Contain Genetically
Engineered Plants. In July 2015, Coffman voted against an amendment to the Safe and Accurate Food
Labeling Act of 2015 that would “prohibit foods labeled with the term ‘natural’ to contain genetically
engineered plants.” The amendment was rejected 163-262. [HR 1599, Vote #461, 7/23/15; CQ Floor
Votes, 7/23/15]
Voted To Override State Laws And Establish A Voluntary National Genetically Engineered
Certification Program
Voted To Override State Laws And Establish A Voluntary National Genetically Engineered
Certification Program. In July 2015, Coffman voted for the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of
2015, which would “require the Agriculture Department to establish a voluntary national genetically
engineered (GE) food certification program under which food producers could label their product as
including or not including genetically modified ingredients. The program created under the bill would
pre-empt related state and local laws and prohibits mandatory labeling of GE or non-GE food.” The bill
passed 275-150. [HR 1599, Vote #462, 7/23/15; CQ Floor Votes, 7/23/15]
HEADLINE: “House Passes Bill Blocking States From Requiring GMO Labels On Food.” “The
House on Thursday passed hotly contested legislation that would keep states from issuing mandatory
labeling laws for foods that contain genetically modified organisms, often called GMOs. The Safe and
Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015, which passed 275-150, would instead create a federal standard
for the voluntary labeling of foods with GMO ingredients… Opponents have pushed back against the
legislation, saying it will keep consumers from knowing what’s in their food and stop FDA from
crafting a national GMO-labeling solution.” [The Hill, 7/23/15]
Voted Against Changing The Title Of The Bill From “Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act” To
“Deny Americans the Right to Know Act”
Voted Against Changing Title Of The Bill From “Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act” To “Deny
Americans the Right to Know Act.” In July 2015, Coffman voted against an amendment to the Safe and
Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015 that would change the title of the bill to the “Deny Americans the
Right to Know Act.” The amendment was rejected 87-337. [HR 1599, Vote #463, 7/23/15; CQ Floor
Votes, 7/23/15]
Opposed Using Government Subsidies For Corn-Based Ethanol, Said He “Didn’t See The Benefits
Of Ethanol Over Oil”
Opposed Using Government Subsidies For Corn-Based Ethanol. In 2008, Coffman opposed using
government subsidies for corn-based ethanol. [Rocky Mountain News, 5/22/08]
Coffman: “I Don’t See The Environmental Benefits Of Ethanol Over Oil.” In 2011, during a House
Natural Resources Committee hearing, Coffman said, “I don’t see the environmental benefit of ethanol
over oil…” [House Natural Resources Committee hearing, YouTube, 1:49 – 1:54, 5/25/11]
227
Voted Against An Amendment To Ensure Tribal Sovereignty Under The Safe And Accurate Food
Labeling Act
Voted Against An Amendment To Ensure Tribal Sovereignty Under The Safe And Accurate Food
Labeling Act. In July 2015, Coffman voted against an amendment to the Safe and Accurate Food
Labeling Act of 2015 that would “ensure tribal sovereignty and would guarantee that the bill does not
prohibit or limit the right to cultivate genetically engineered plants on or near tribal lands.” The
amendment was rejected 196-227. [HR 1599, Vote #460, 7/23/15; CQ Floor Votes, 7/23/15]
Voted To Reduce Requirements On Restaurant Calorie Disclosures
Voted To Reduce Requirements On Restaurant Calorie Disclosures. In February 2016, Coffman
voted for a bill “that would change the requirement for how restaurants and similar retail establishments
with more than 20 locations must disclose calorie information on their menus. Instead of the current
requirement for businesses to disclose the number of calories in a "standard menu item," businesses could
opt to disclose the number of calories per serving along with the number of servings or disclose the
number of calories per common unit division of the standard menu item. The bill would allow for
disclosures to have variations from actual nutrient content, including inadvertent human error, variations
in ingredients and serving size, and other reasonable variations.” The bill passed 266-144. [HR 2017,
Vote #81, 02/24/16; CQ, 2/12/16]
White House: Legislation “Would Reduce Consumers’ Access To Nutrition Information.”
On February 10, 2016, the White House sent out a statement opposing ‘The Common Sense
Nutrition Disclosure Act of 2015.’ “The Administration opposes H.R. 2017, the Common Sense
Nutrition Disclosure Act of 2015. … H.R. 2017 would undercut the objective of providing clear,
consistent calorie information to consumers. If enacted, it would reduce consumers’ access to
nutrition information and likely create consumer confusion by introducing a great deal of
variability into how calories are declared. The legislation also would create unnecessary delays in
the implementation of menu labeling.” [White House Statement, 2/10/16]
Voted Against Amendment That Would Not Have Allowed Restaurants To Only Post Nutritional
Information Online
Voted Against Amendment That Would Not Have Allowed Restaurants To Only Post Nutritional
Information Online. In February 2016, Coffman voted against an amendment to the Common Sense
Nutrition Disclosure Act which would “remove the provision in the bill that would allow restaurants or
similar retail food establishments to disclose calorie information solely online if the majority of their
orders are placed by customers who are offsite.” The amendment was rejected 148 to 258. [HR 2017, H
Amdt. 943, Vote #80, 2/12/16; CQ, 2/12/16]
Voted For Amendment That Would Not Punish Restaurants For Human Error In Food
Preparation
Voted For Amendment That Would Have Not Punished Restaurants For Human Error In Food
Preparation. In February 2016, Coffman voted for an amendment to the Common Sense Nutrition
228
Disclosure Act which would “ensures that businesses will not be penalized for inadvertent human error in
preparation or variation of ingredients.” The amendment was accepted 309 to 100. [HR 2017, H Amdt.
942, Vote #79, 2/12/16]
Voted to Strike Dairy Protections from the Farm Bill
Voted to Strike Dairy Protections from the Farm Bill. In 2013, Coffman voted for an amendment that
would strike the dairy market stabilization program and the dairy producer margin protections program in
the Farm Bill. With the amendment, farmers would have the option to enroll annually in a new insurance
program at margin levels between $4 and $8 at increments of 50 cents. Support payments would be
triggered when margins fell below the selected price, and coverage would be available for between 25
percent and 80 percent of a farmer’s historic dairy production. The dairy proposal, which was amended in
Boehner’s favor, was one of the most controversial of the bill. The bill passed, 291-135. [HR 1947, Vote
#278, 6/20/13; CQ Votes, 6/20/13; Grand Forks Herald, 6/20/13]
Voted To End Safety Net for Dairy Farmers
Voted To End Safety Net for Dairy Farmers. In June 2013, Coffman voted for an amendment that
would repeal the permanent price support authority for dairy farmers, called the “permanent law.” The
amendment would prevent the suspended 1949 law from becoming reactivated for dairy farmers should
Congress not pass a Farm Bill. The amendment failed 112-309. [HR 1947, Vote #258, 6/19/13; CQ Floor
Votes, 6/19/13; Congress.gov, accessed 7/11/13]
National Farmers Union: Safety Net For Farmers Would Be Ended. The National Farmers Union
opposed the amendment. “Repealing permanent law would remove the element in the bill which
would force Congress to act on a piece of legislation that provides a safety net for farmers,” said the
NFU. “Maintaining the existing permanent law provision provides an incentive for Congress to be
engaged in agricultural policy.” [National Farmers Union, 6/20/13; 7/11/13; 7/09/12]
Heritage Action Described Laws As “Soviet-Era.” Conservative group Heritage Action supported
ending the permanent law completely in the farm bill, calling the provisions, “Depression-era, Sovietstyle laws so often used as a means of coercing lawmakers into authorizing bad legislation.” [Heritage
Action, 5/23/13]
Opposed Rural Business Opportunity Grants
In 2013, Coffman voted against funding for rural business opportunity grants, forest fire suppression, and
water assistance programs. The motion would have added an amendment to the Farm Bill to authorize
$20 million per year for rural business opportunity grants from FY 2014 to 2018. The amendment also
provided funding for fire suppression equipment and personnel to prevent forest fires, increased funding
for water, waste disposal and wastewater facility grants by $10 million per year, and extended funding for
an emergency and imminent community water assistance program. The motion failed 188-232. [HR 1947,
Voted to Remove SNAP Funding from Farm Bill for First Time in 30 Years
229
In July 2013, Coffman voted for a farm bill that would authorize $196 billion for federal farm programs
through FY 2018. House Republicans removed funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program from the farm bill for the first time since 1973, a split that “effectively ended the decades-old
political marriage between urban interests concerned about nutrition and rural areas who depend on farm
subsidies.” The bill would repeal direct payments to farmers and replace them with new risk management
programs. The bill would also repeal portions of the “permanent law,” laws from 1938 and 1949 that set
agricultural support levels in the case of a farm bill expiration, and replace them with a provision making
the bill’s commodity title the new permanent law. The bill would reduce agricultural spending by $12.9
billion over ten years. The bill passed, 216-208. [HR 2642, Vote #353, 7/11/13; CQ House Action
Reports, HR 2642, 7/10/13; New York Times, 7/11/13]
HEADLINE: “Farm Bill Dysfunction: Colo. Interest Groups, Farmers Groan As Congress
Fiddles” [Colorado Independent, 7/17/13]
More than 500 Agricultural Organizations Said Removing Food Stamps Could Jeopardize
Farm Bill. In July 2013, 532 farm organizations urged House Republican leaders against splitting the
nutrition title, or food stamp funding, from the farm bill and warned that a split could jeopardize the
farm bill as a whole. “Farm bills represent a delicate balance between America’s farm, nutrition,
conservation, and other priorities, and accordingly require strong bipartisan support,” wrote the
groups. “We believe that splitting the nutrition title from the rest of the bill could result in neither farm
nor nutrition programs passing, and urge you to move a unified farm bill forward.” [Farm Groups
Letter to Speaker Boehner, 7/02/13]
Farm Groups Warned Repeal of Permanent Law Removed Incentive for Congress to Pass Farm
Bill. Farm groups warned that without permanent law, “there would be no incentive for Congress to
pass a farm bill on time.” The National Farmers Union wrote that the repeal of permanent law
“eliminated much of the incentive for farm bill reauthorization since there would be no consequences
for failing to pass a new farm bill or extend existing legislation.” [New York Times, 7/11/13; National
Farmers Union blog, 7/11/13]
Nutrition Assistance Program Lifted 4.7 Million Americans Out of Poverty in 2011. According to
the Center for American Progress, “Similarly, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program lifted
4.7 million people out of poverty in 2011. Without it, the child poverty rate would have been 2.9
percentage points higher.” [Center for American Progress, 11/14/12]
Nutrition Assistance Covers More Than 47 Million People, Half Are Children. According to
CNN, “Republicans pledged a vote at a later time on legislation focused on nutrition and the food
stamp program, which is the largest domestic safety net against hunger. Food stamps cover more than
47 million people, nearly half children, according to the Agriculture Department.” [CNN, 7/12/13]
Supported Greatly Decreasing Federal Funding For Agriculture Programs
According to a 2008 survey, Coffman supported greatly decreasing federal funding for agriculture
programs. [VoteSmart Survey, 2008]
230
Opposed On-Site Food Safety Audits
In 2013, Coffman voted against directing the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct annual on-site audits of
the food regulatory system of countries eligible to export meat, poultry and egg products to the United
States. It also would allow the Agriculture secretary to transfer department funds to the Food Safety and
Inspection Service to respond to a food safety emergency. The amendment failed 198-226. [HR 2642, Vote
#352, 7/11/13]
Voted to Cap Farm Program Commodity Payments at $250,000 Per Year Per Farm
In 2013, Coffman voted for an amendment that would reduce farm program payment limits, capping
commodity payments at $250,000 per year for any one farm. It also would clarify who can receive such
payments. The amendment was adopted by a vote of 230-194. [HR 1947, Vote #282, 6/20/13]
Voted to Lower Loan Rates For Sugar Subsidy Program
In 2013, Coffman voted for an amendment that would direct the Agriculture secretary to lower loan rates
for domestic sugar cane producers to 18 cents per pound for raw cane sugar for each crop year 2014
through 2018. It would require the Agriculture secretary to revise trade tariffs to lower the sugar stocksto-use ratio to 15.5 percent. The department would be required to administer marketing allotments to
ensure sugar supplies, be authorized to suspend or modify any marketing allotment provision and exercise
discretion in administering the import quota to provide for adequate sugar supplies at “reasonable prices.”
It also would repeal the sugar-to-ethanol program. The amendment was rejected by a vote of 206-221. [HR
1947, Vote #281, 6/20/13]
Voted Against $3.65 Million for Increased Funding to Fight Invasive Specifies
In July 2013, Coffman voted against increased funding for the Corps of Engineers Investigations and
Construction by a total of $3.65 million, intended to fight invasive species. Rep. Brad Schneider (IL) said
the motion was to ensure the “Great Lakes and the Mississippi River are protected from the continued
threat of invasive species, including and particularly taking practical steps to address the threat of Asian
carp to our fishing, tourism, and navigation on our Nation’s inland waterways.” [Congressional Record,
H4365, 7/10/13]
The motion would increase by $7 million funding for flood and natural disaster preparation; and increase
by $2 million funding for energy efficiency and renewable-energy activities. It also would reduce by
$12.7 million funding for Energy Department administration activities. [CQ Floor Votes, 7/10/13]
The measure failed 195-230. [HR 2609, Vote #344, 7/10/13]
Supported Initiative to Provide Healthy Food for Low-Income Communities
Supported Initiative to Provide Healthy Food for Low-Income Communities. In 2013, Coffman
voted against an amendment that would eliminate the Health Food Financing Initiative that provided
access to healthy food in low-income communities. The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition said
the amendment “attacked” healthy food access. The amendment failed to pass 194-232. [HR 1947, Vote
#267, 6/20/13; CQ Quarterly, 6/20/13, National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, 6/20/13]
231
Voted To End Wasteful Crop Insurance Subsidies for Wealthy Farmers
Voted To End Wasteful Crop Insurance Subsidies for Wealthy Farmers. In 2013, Coffman voted to
end crop insurance subsidies for wealthy farmers. The amendment, introduced by Wisconsin
Representative Ron Kind, would limit federal crop insurance premium subsidies to producers with profits
of less than $250,000 and limit per-person subsidies to $50,000 per year. The amendment would save $11
billion over 10 years, and had the backing of a mix of organizations, including the R Street Institute, the
National Taxpayer Union, and the Environmental Working Group. The amendment “was almost adopted
before a handful of Republicans changed their vote.” The amendment was ultimately rejected by a vote of
208-217, with 74 Republicans voting in favor of it. [Associated Press, 6/20/13; HR 1947, Vote #276,
6/20/13; Congressional Quarterly News, 6/20/13; Property Casualty 360, 6/21/13; Congressional Record,
H3908, 6/19/13; Environmental Working Group press release, 6/20/13]
Voted to Limit Designation of National Monuments
In March 2014, Coffman voted for a bill that would “severely curtail the presidents’ ability to designate
national monuments.” The bill would amend the 1906 Antiquities Act by limiting a president to
designating one national monument per state during a four-year term. It would allow presidents to make a
three-year emergency designation of 5,000 acres or less as national monument, but would require
Congress to approve it following the three-year period. The bill passed, 222-201. [HR 1459, Vote #147,
3/26/14; Post-Intelligencer, 3/26/14]
232
Budget Issues
 Said “everything should be on the table” when it comes to deficit
reduction
 Voted for FY14 Ryan budget that would increase taxes on middle class
families, cut taxes for millionaires, radically alter Medicare, and add to
the national debt
 Voted for FY16 budget resolution that slashed Pell Grants and altered
Medicare
 Thrice voted to raise the debt limit, eight times voted against raising the
debt limit
 Said the sequester cuts he voted for were “just way too deep”; … But
repeatedly voted to keep sequester cuts and not replace them
 Voted to go on paid recess without fixing sequester first
 Did not think going over the fiscal cliff was “a huge deal”
 Voted to shut down the government
 Voted to pay China ahead of veterans and troops
 Voted for extreme Tea Party budget
 Voted against cutting oil and gas subsidies instead of education to
balance budget
 Voted for state budget strongly criticized by Colorado Union of
Taxpayers
233
Throughout his career in Congress, Coffman has voted for multiple budgets that
would increase taxes on the middle class, cut taxes for millionaires, radically alter
Medicare, and slash funding for Pell Grants. He voted to shut down the
government and implement across-the-board board cuts through the sequester
and even voted to go on paid recess instead of fixing the sequester. Despite later
admitting that the sequester cuts were “just way too deep,” Coffman repeatedly
voted to keep such cuts and not replace them. He also voted to pay foreign
bondholders – such as China – before service members and criticized President
Obama for debt spike even though he had been in office for same period of time.
Said “Everything Should Be On The Table” When It Comes To Deficit Reduction
Said “Everything Should Be On The Table” When It Comes To Deficit Reduction. In August 2011,
when asked about reducing the nation’s deficit, Coffman said, “The question raised about defense. I
believe that everything has to be on the table, to include defense. And I think, quite frankly, I’ll tell you
this – the military is top heavy today.” [Rep. Coffman Town Hall, 1:12 – 1:30; 8/27/11]
Voted For FY14 Ryan Budget That Would Increase Taxes On Middle Class Families, Cut Taxes
For Millionaires, Radically Alter Medicare, And Add To The National Debt
In 2013, Coffman voted for the Republican budget for fiscal year 2014 with all the wrong priorities – such
as cutting taxes for millionaires, raising taxes on the middle class, and eliminating the Medicare
guarantee. [H Con Res 25, Vote #88, 3/21/13]
CBPP: Families Making Less Than $200,000 Would Face Average Tax Hike of $3,000. “Families
with children that have incomes below $200,000 would have to face tax increases averaging more than
$3,000 a year, if policymakers were to avoid increasing the deficit while reaching Chairman Ryan’s
25-percent top-tax-rate goal… If policymakers enacted the same extremely ambitious reductions in
tax expenditures for filers with incomes above $200,000…, filers with incomes of $1 million or more
would lose tax breaks totaling about $90,000 on average – still leaving them with an average net tax
cut of about $245,000…” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/17/13]
CBPP: Millionaires Would Likely Experience A $245,000 Net Tax Cut. According to an analysis
of the Ryan Budget conducted by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “If policymakers
enacted the same extremely ambitious reductions in tax expenditures for filers with incomes above
$200,000 that TPC assumed when it analyzed Romney’s tax plan, filers with incomes of $1 million or
more would lose tax breaks totaling about $90,000 on average – still leaving them with an average net
tax cut of about $245,000. Households with incomes above $200,000 would get a net cut of about
$16,000.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/17/13]
National Journal: “For Those Younger Than Age 55, Medicare Could Look Unrecognizable” If
Ryan Budget Were Implemented. According to the National Journal: “And, for those younger than
age 55, Medicare could look unrecognizable: People receive a fixed sum of money from the federal
government to buy health insurance in their old age, regardless of the way inflation has caused health
care costs to increase.” [National Journal, 3/10/13]
234
CBPP: “Ryan Budget Would Cut Medicare Spending by a Total of $356 Billion.” According to
an analysis of the Ryan budget conducted by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: “Over the
2013 to 2023 period, the Ryan budget would cut Medicare spending by a total of $356 billion.
His budget would save $129 billion compared to current law from limiting medical malpractice
awards, increasing income-tested premiums, and repealing the Medicare benefit improvements in
health reform, including closure of the prescription drug ‘donut hole.’ Ryan’s baseline includes $138
billion in scheduled cuts from Medicare’s sustainable growth rate formula for physicians and $89
billion in Medicare cuts from sequestration, bringing his total Medicare reductions to the
aforementioned $356 billion.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/12/13]
EPI: “Ryan Budget Would Increase the Unemployment Rate by Between .6 [and] .8 Percentage
Points.” According to an analysis of the Ryan budget conducted by the Economic Policy Institute,
“We estimate that the Ryan budget would increase the unemployment rate by between 0.6 percentage
points and 0.8 percentage points.” [Economic Policy Institute, 3/12/13]
CBPP: Ryan Budget “Would Likely Add to Deficits, Undercutting […] Claim to Balance the
Budget Within a Decade.” The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities dismissed Ryan’s claim that
his budget would balance within a decade, by writing: “Nor is his vow to raise $6 trillion by scaling
back tax expenditures plausible, given that the most costly of them, such as the mortgage interest
deduction and deduction for charitable giving, tend to be the most politically popular. As a result, if
policymakers were to cut taxes enough to meet Chairman Ryan’s goal, they would likely add to
deficits, undercutting Chairman Ryan’s claim to balance the budget within a decade.” [Center on
Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/17/13]
Ryan Budget Slashes Pell Grant Eligibility and Freezes Pell Grant Funding to Not Keep Pace
With Inflation. According to an analysis of the Ryan budget conducted by Inside Higher Ed: “The
budget also calls for reversing changes to the grant’s needs analysis formula put into place in 2007,
which expanded the number of students eligible for Pell Grants, in essence making fewer students
eligible to receive them. It also revisits proposals put forward last year: using ‘fair value’ accounting
for student loans, which makes the program seem much less profitable for the federal government than
it does under current accounting rules.” In addition, Campus Progress found: “Under the House
Republican Budget, Pell Grants would be capped at the current level of $5,645 for 10 years, and
eliminate all mandatory funding. In other words, under Ryan’s plan, Pell Grants would not keep up
with the pace of inflation and rising tuition costs, and would be worth less each successive year.”
[Inside Higher Ed, 3/13/13; Campus Progress, 3/12/13]
Ryan Budget Would Slash The Corporate Tax Rate From 35 Percent to 25 Percent. According to
the New York Times, “Under the Ryan plan, the corporate tax rate would also fall, from 35 percent to
25 percent – although all those tax changes are supposed to be crafted to bring in the same amount of
revenue as the current tax code, a tall order.” [New York Times, 3/12/13]
Ryan’s “Budget Would Add About $1.2 Trillion to the National Debt.” According to the
Washington Post: “With $41.5 trillion in spending over the next decade and $40.2 trillion in revenues,
Ryan’s budget would add about $1.2 trillion to the national debt. But shrinking deficits would reduce
borrowing and cause the debt to shrink as a percentage of the economy. By the time a $7 billion
surplus emerges in 2023, Ryan predicts that the Treasury would owe $14.2 trillion to outside creditors
235
(compared with $11.8 trillion today), or about 55 percent of the gross domestic product (compared
with about 76 percent today).” [Washington Post, 3/12/13]
Voted Against Overwhelmingly Bipartisan Budget Agreement
Coffman Voted Against Overwhelmingly Bipartisan Budget Agreement. In October 2015, Coffman
voted against a bipartisan budget deal that would raise federal spending levels and expand the
government's borrowing authority, avoiding a default. “House lawmakers in both parties joined forces
Wednesday to pass a sweeping budget deal … The final vote was 266 to 167, with 79 Republicans joining
every Democrat in sealing passage.” [HR 1314, Vote #579, 10/28/15; The Hill, 10/28/15]
Voted For FY16 Budget Amendment Repealing The Affordable Care Act, Slashing Pell Grants,
And Altering Medicare While Requiring No Offsets For Increased OCO Defense Spending
Voted For FY16 Budget Amendment To Repeal The Affordable Care Act, Slash Pell Grants And
Alter Medicare While Requiring No Offsets For Increased OCO Defense Spending. In March 2015,
Coffman voted for a budget alternative known as Price amendment #2 offered as an amendment on the
floor that would repeal the Affordable Care Act, slash Pell grants and alter Medicare while requiring no
offsets for increased OCO defense spending. “Tom Price, R-Ga., also submitted an amended version that
included increased defense funding without requiring cuts in other areas to offset the spending. Price’s
plan increased funding to the Overseas Contingency Operations Fund by $2 billion over the committee
plan, to $96 billion, and requires no offsets. The version that passed out of committee would have
required offsets over $73.5 billion in the OCO fund, which pays for wars and other overseas activities and
is not subject to sequester caps.” The resolution passed 219 to 208. [H. Con Res. 27, Vote #141, 3/25/15;
US News and World Report, 3/25/15]
Voted For FY16 Budget Resolution Repealing The Affordable Care Act, Slashing Pell Grants And
Altering Medicare
Voted For FY16 Republican Budget To Repeal The Affordable Care Act, Slash Pell Grants And
Alter Medicare. In March 2015, Coffman voted for the FY16 Republican House budget that would
repeal the Affordable Care Act, slash Pell grants and alter Medicare. “It also includes parliamentary
language, called reconciliation that orders House committees to draft legislation repealing the Affordable
Care Act. Under budget rules, that reconciliation repeal bill cannot be filibustered in the Senate and would
need only a majority vote to pass. The budget would turn Medicaid into block grants to the states, cutting
health care spending for the poor by $900 billion. The food stamp program would also be turned into
block grants and cut by hundreds of billions of dollars. Special education, Pell Grants, job training and
housing assistance would all be cut. Medicare would transition to a system where future seniors would be
encouraged to use government-funded vouchers to purchase insurance in the private market.” The
resolution passed 228 to 199. [H. Con Res. 27, Vote #142, 3/25/15; New York Times, 3/25/15]
Voted For FY16 GOP Budget Conference Report
Voted For Republican Conference Report On Budget For Fiscal Year 2016. In April 2015, Coffman
voted for a conference report outlining the Republican Congressional budget for fiscal year 2016 and
budget levels for 2017 through 2025. “House and Senate Republicans agreed on a unified budget plan
236
Wednesday that would allow them to bypass Democrats and send President Barack Obama legislation to
repeal or revise his landmark health-care law. The budget proposal spells out the Republican Party’s
priorities by calling for $5.3 trillion in spending cuts to reach balance in nine years.” An agreement to
pass the Conference Report passed 226 to 197. [S CON RES 11, Vote #183; On Agreeing to the
Conference Report, 4/30/15; Bloomberg, 4/29/15]
Called For $4.1 Trillion In Reductions To Entitlement Programs While War Funding Totaled
$96 Billion. “Of this, $4.1 trillion in reductions would come from programs including entitlements
like Medicare. Discretionary spending in 2016 would be limited to $1.016 trillion, while war funding
would total $96 billion, far above Obama’s request.” [Bloomberg, 4/29/15]
Conference Report Reduced Funding For Pell Grants, Low-Income Housing Assistance
Programs, And Food Stamp Program. “The budget slashes domestic discretionary spending by
trimming away at several major priorities for Democrats. The final bill includes a reduction in funding
for federal Pell Grants and housing programs for low-income earners, and cuts to the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as food stamps.” [Washington Post, 4/29/15]
Voted For Amendment Allowing Republican Leaders To Fast-Track Stopgap Spending Bill
Voted For Amendment Allowing Republican Leaders To Fast-Track Stopgap Spending Bill. In
September 2015, Coffman voted for consideration of an amendment to H.Res.420. “CR Could be FastTracked Under Rule Passed by House …. The House Thursday quietly granted itself a method for
speeding consideration of legislation after the papal visit next week, presumably for a must-pass stopgap
spending bill. The chamber approved an amendment to a rule (H Res 420) that waives the requirement
that two-thirds of lawmakers vote to allow the House Rules Committee to bring a report to the floor the
same day it is advanced out of the panel.” The amendment passed 237 to 187. [H.Res. 420, Vote #498,
9/17/15; CQ News, 9/17/15]
Voted to Pay China Ahead of Veterans and Troops
In 2013, Coffman voted for a bill that would prioritize paying bondholders – including in China, Iran and
the Cayman Islands – if the nation were to default on its debt payments, instead of American troops,
veterans, doctors and hospitals, and American small businesses. House Speaker John Boehner even
admitted that a “debt prioritization bill makes it clear to our bondholders that we’re going to meet our
obligations…Listen. Those who have loaned us money, like in any other proceeding, if you will, court
proceeding, the bondholders usually get paid first. Same thing here,” Boehner said.
“This bill would threaten the full faith and credit of the United States, cost American jobs, hurt businesses
of all sizes, and do damage to the economy,” the Obama administration wrote in a statement of policy.
The bill would also bar official compensation for members of Congress until the debt limit is increased.
[Roll Call, 6/13/13]
237
Voted for FY 2015 House Republican Budget
In April 2014, Coffman voted for the FY 2015 House Republican budget. The budget would turn
Medicare into a voucher program and give tax breaks to the wealthy and corporations while raising taxes
on the middle class. The budget passed, 219-205. [H Con Res 96, Vote #177, 4/10/14]
NOTE: State specific data regarding the impact of the House Republican budget is available here from
the White House and here from the DPCC.
Republican Budget Would Turn Medicare into a Voucher Program, Making Seniors Pay More.
The Washington Post reported that the budget “calls to privatize Medicare by changing it from an
entitlement program into a voucher-style program.” [Washington Post, 4/01/14]
Unlike previous Republican budget proposals, the FY 2015 budget would make changes to Medicare
to anyone under 56. [Los Angeles Times, 4/01/14]
The AARP criticized the budget for raising costs for seniors, stating, “Chairman Ryan’s proposed
budget fails to address the high costs of health care and instead shifts costs onto seniors and future
retirees […] Removing the Medicare guarantee of affordable health coverage for older Americans by
implementing a premium support system and asking seniors and future retirees to pay more is not the
right direction.” [AARP Press Release, 4/01/14]
Republican Budget Would Cost 3 Million Jobs. The Economic Policy Institute estimated that the
budget would cost 1.1 million jobs in FY 2015 and 3 million jobs in FY 2016. The budget would also
decrease GDP by 2.5 percent in FY 2016. [Economic Policy Institute, 4/01/14]
Republican Budget Would Give Millionaires and Corporations a Tax Cut While Raising Taxes
for the Middle Class. Citizens for Tax Justice estimated that the budget would cut taxes for
millionaires by an average of $200,000. The budget would also cut the corporate tax rate by 10
percent. The New York Times wrote that the budget would increase taxes for middle-class families
with children by an average of $2,000. [Citizens for Tax Justice, 4/02/14; The Hill, 4/01/14; New
York Times Editorial, 4/01/14]
Republican Budget Would Cut Pell Grants and Charge Students More for Loans. The budget
would cut Pell Grants by $125 billion over 10 years while reducing Pell Grant eligibility. The budget
would also charge students interest on their loans while they were still in school, generating $40
billion. [CBPP, 4/01/14; Politico, 4/01/14; New York Times, 4/01/14]
Voted Against FY16 Republican Study Committee Budget That Balanced In Six Years, Cut
Retirement Programs, And Called For A Balanced Budget Amendment
Voted Against FY2016 Republican Study Committee Budget. In March 2015, Coffman voted against
the Republican Study Committee budget that would cut spending by $7.1 trillion over 10 years. “A
conservative budget released by the House Republican Study Committee (RSC) on Monday would
balance in five years by cutting $7.1 trillion in spending over the next decade. The cuts are much more
than the $5.5 trillion in proposed cuts included in the main House GOP blueprint unveiled last week by
238
Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-Ga.). The RSC budget, prepared by RSC and Budget
Committee member Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind.), would increase spending for the Pentagon.” The
amendment failed 132 to 294. [H Con Res 27, Vote #138, 3/25/15; The Hill, 3/23/15]
RSC Budget Would Cut FY16 Nondefense Discretionary Spending By $88 Billion Below
Sequestration Levels. “The RSC blueprint would lower nondefense discretionary spending for
domestic programs next year to $405 billion, $88 billion below the baseline set by the 2011 deal.
Altogether, discretionary spending next year would total $975 billion under the RSC’s budget, much
lower than the $1.018 trillion top-line number established by the 2011 law. Over the 10-year window,
the RSC budget would cut nondefense spending by $1.3 trillion and increase defense spending by
$435 billion.” [The Hill, 3/23/15]
RSC Proposed “Aggressive” Budget That Would Balance In Six Years. “Conservative members
of the House Republican caucus outbid their party's official budget Monday, offering a plan to cut
planned government spending by more than $7.1 trillion and balance the budget in just six years. The
aggressive plan to cut spending from all areas of government and erase deficits was introduced by the
Republican Study Committee, a group of congressmen organized to push policy to the right.”
[Washington Examiner, 3/23/15]
RSC Budget Balanced By “Cutting More Deeply Into Federal Healthcare And Retirement
Programs.” “The Republican Study Committee on Monday unveiled its plan to cut spending by $7.1
trillion over 10 years, reaching a surplus in six years by cutting more deeply into federal healthcare
and retirement programs as well as domestic agency budgets.” [Reuters, 3/23/15]
RSC Budget Called For Balanced Budget Amendment To The Constitution. “It is the policy of
this resolution that Congress should pass a joint resolution incorporating the provisions set forth in
subsection (b), and send such joint resolution to the States for their approval, to amend the
Constitution of the United States to require an annual balanced budget.” [RSC Budget Proposal,
3/22/15]
Voted For Short-Term Continuing Resolution To Prevent Government Shutdown.
Voted For Short-Term Continuing Resolution To Prevent Government Shutdown. In September
2015, Coffman voted for a motion to concur in the Senate amendment to the bill that would continue
funding the government through Dec. 11, 2015 at an annualized rate of $1,017 trillion, the top-line postsequester discretionary spending level for FY 2016 set by the Budget Control Act. It also would fund for
Overseas Contingency Operations at a rate of $74.8 billion, roughly equal to the FY 2015 level. Under the
bill, most programs would be funded at a rate that is 0.21 percent less than their FY 2015 funding level,
although the measure would include increases for certain activities including $700 million in emergency
funding for fighting fire in western states; it would give the VA budget flexibility in constructing a facility
in Denver, and would not defund Planned Parenthood. Further, the measure would extend through Dec.
11 the ban on state taxation of Internet access and the E-Verify employment verification system. The
motion was agreed to by a vote of 277-151. [HR 719, Vote #528, 9/30/15; CQ Floor Votes, 9/30/15]
239
Voted Against FY16 Democratic Alternative Budget That Invested In Education, Made Healthcare
More Affordable, And Made Medicare More Efficient
Voted Against FY2016 Democratic Alternative Budget Plan. In March 2015, Coffman voted against
the Democratic alternative budget that “proposed more investment in education and infrastructure, new
taxes on the wealthiest Americans, and several pet ideas including a higher minimum wage, paid sick
leave, expanded early childhood education and a ban on tax breaks for executives unless they increase
their employees’ wages.” The amendment failed 160 to 264. [H Con Res 27, Vote #139, 3/25/15;
RealClearPolitics, 3/23/15]
Increased Investments In Head Start, Universal Preschool, And College Affordability. “On
education, the Democratic budget would increase investments in Head Start, which provides early
childhood education to low-income children, as well as fund President Obama’s proposal for universal
preschool for children. It would also increase funding aimed at making college more affordable.”
[RealClearPolitics, 3/23/15]
Promoted Obamacare And Made Medicare More Efficient. “While Republicans’ budget fully
repeals Obamacare, turns Medicare into a voucher program and cuts funding to Medicaid, the
Democratic budget promotes Obamacare and maintains Medicare while promoting more efficiency,
Van Hollen said.” [RealClearPolitics, 3/23/15]
Voted Against the Democratic Alternative Budget for Fiscal Year 2014
In 2013, Coffman voted against the Democratic alternative budget for fiscal year 2014. The budget
prioritized protecting Medicare and keeping the tax burden low on the middle class, while replacing
across-the-board sequestration cuts with targeted cuts and savings. The amendment failed 165-253. [H
Con Res 25, Vote #87, 3/20/13]
Voted to Protect Member Perks, Including First Class Airfare, House Barber Shop, Salon, and
Dining Room. “It is the policy of this resolution that the House should lead by example and identify
any savings that can be achieved through greater productivity and efficiency gains in the operation
and maintenance of House services and resources like printing, conferences, utilities,
telecommunications, furniture, grounds maintenance, postage, and rent. This should include a review
of policies and procedures for acquisition of goods and services to eliminate any unnecessary
spending. The Committee on House Administration shall review the policies pertaining to the services
provided to Members of Congress and House Committees, and shall identify ways to reduce any
subsidies paid for the operation of the House gym, Barber shop, Salon, and the House dining room.
Further, it is the policy of this resolution that no taxpayer funds may be used to purchase first class
airfare or to lease corporate jets for Members of Congress.” [H Con Res 25, Vote #87, 3/20/13; H Con
Res 25, 3/18/13]
Opposed Statement Criticizing Privatizing Social Security. The Democratic alternative budget for
fiscal year 2014 included a policy statement declaring that “diverting workers’ payroll contributions
toward private accounts undermines retirement security and the social safety net by subjecting the
workers’ retirement decisions and income to the whims of the stock market.” [H Con Res 25, Vote
#87, 3/20/13; H Con Res 25, 3/18/13]
240
Voted Against Budget That Would Create 560,000 New Jobs. According to the Economic Policy
Institute, the FY14 Democratic alternative budget would create 560,000 new jobs by 2015. “The Van
Hollen budget would boost GDP growth by 0.4 percent and increase employment by roughly 450,000
jobs in 2013, relative to current policy. A smaller economic boost of 0.1 percent of GDP and roughly
110,000 jobs would be expected in 2014.” [H Con Res 25, Vote #87, 3/20/13; Economic Policy
Institute, 3/18/13]
Voted Against Budget That Established Buy it in America Requirements. The FY14 Democratic
alternative budget for included a policy statement declaring “that Congress should pursue a ‘Make it
in America’ agenda with a priority to consider and enact legislation to help create jobs, remove
incentives to out-source jobs overseas and instead support incentives that bring jobs back to the U.S.,
and help middle class families by increasing the minimum wage.” [H Con Res 25, Vote #87; H Amdt
36, 3/18/13]
Voted Against Budget That Replaced Sequester. The FY14 Democratic alternative budget included
a policy statement declaring that Congress should vote on HR 699, the Stop the Sequester Job Loss
Now Act. “That measure would eliminate subsidies to the farm industry, scrap tax preferences used by
oil-and-gas companies and implement a new minimum tax rate on people making seven figures
annually – the proposal commonly known as the ‘Buffett Rule.’” [H Con Res 25, Vote #87; H Amdt
36, 3/18/13; The Hill, 2/11/13]
Voted Against Budget That Provided $1 Billion for Veterans Job Corps. The FY14 Democratic
alternative budget included $1 billion for the Veterans Job Corps. “The jobs bill would have hired
veterans who served in the military since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, to work on federal
public lands projects and would have established a network of job training centers.” [H Con Res 25,
Vote #87; H Amdt 36, 3/18/13; Los Angeles Times, 9/19/12]
Voted Against Budget That Provided $80 Billion for Education, Including $30 Billion for
Rebuilding 35,000 Public Schools. The FY14 Democratic alternative budget assumes $80 billion in
education jobs funding for the President’s initiatives to promote jobs now while also creating an
infrastructure that will help students learn and create a better future workforce, including $30 billion
for rebuilding at least 35,000 public schools, $25 billion to prevent hundreds of thousands of educator
layoffs, and $8 billion to help community colleges train 2 million workers in high growth industries
with skills that will lead directly to jobs. [H Con Res 25, Vote #87; H Amdt 36, 3/18/13]
Voted Against Extreme Republican Study Committee Budget
In 2013, Coffman voted against the Republican Study Committee budget for fiscal year 2014 with all the
wrong priorities – such as cutting taxes for millionaires, raising taxes on the middle class, and eliminating
the Medicare guarantee. The amendment failed 104-132. [H Con Res 25, Vote #86, 3/20/13]
Voted Against the Senate Democratic Version of the 2014 Budget
In 2013, Coffman voted against a version of the 2014 budget, introduced by Republican Mick Mulvaney
of South Carolina, which was a virtual copy of the Senate Democratic budget. The Senate budget would
241
provide $2.963 trillion in new budget authority for fiscal year 2014. The budget would provide $100
billion in infrastructure investments, while assuming a $240 billion reduction in defense spending, a $142
billion reduction in non-defense spending, a $275 billion decrease in health care spending and a $76
billion reduction in spending for other mandatory programs. The amendment failed 154-261. [H Con Res
25, Vote #83, 3/20/13; Senate Budget Committee Democrats, March 2013]
Republicans Introduced the Budget as a “Stunt”. In 2013, the introduction of an alternative budget
by Republican Congressman Mick Mulvaney that was identical to the budget supported by Senate
Democrats was received no votes from any Republicans, including the sponsor Mulvaney himself.
“Mulvaney voted against the budget he introduced. It was a stunt.” [National Public Radio, 3/21/13]
Budget Would’ve Cut the Federal Deficit by $1.85 Trillion, Amounting to $4.25 Trillion in
Deficit Reduction Since the Bowles-Simpson Report. According to Reuters, “Democrats on
Wednesday will unveil a budget blueprint that attempts to slice federal deficits by $1.85 trillion over
10 years through an equal mix of spending cuts and tax increases on the rich, according to a
Democratic source.” The Center for American Progress found that “Since the start of fiscal year 2011,
President Barack Obama has signed into law approximately $2.4 trillion of deficit reduction for the
years 2013 through 2022.” [Reuters, 3/12/13; Center for American Progress, 1/08/13]
Budget Included Nearly $1 Trillion in Tax Hikes. According to Politico, “$975 billion would be
raised through an overhaul of the Tax Code by eliminating certain tax deductions, including ones
typically claimed by high earners and corporations” in the Senate budget. [Politico, 3/12/13]
Voted to Fund Government Operations through 2013
In 2013, Coffman voted for a continuing resolution to provide funding for government operations through
fiscal year 2013. The bill would provide $1.043 trillion in discretionary funds before sequestration. The
bill would provide $517.7 billion in base discretionary funding for the Department of Defense, $39.6
billion for the Department of Homeland Security and $71.9 billion for veterans programs and military
construction. The continuing resolution would provide $20.5 billion for agriculture programs and $50.2
billion for commerce, law enforcement and science programs. The bill passed with bipartisan support,
318-109. [HR 933, Vote #89, 3/21/13]
Republican Congressman: CR Sets “Responsible Spending Levels”. “This continuing resolution is
a good step forward in ensuring continuity of government operations at responsible spending levels,”
Republican Representative Richard Hanna said. [Richard Hanna press release, accessed 4/02/13]
Voted to Apply Sequester Cuts to House Committees
In 2013, Coffman voted for a bill to provide $241 million in the 113th Congress for the 19 standing
committees of the House and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The appropriations bill
specifically authorized the Committee on House Administration to make House Committee budgets
compliant with the Budget Control Act (sequestration), which would impose an average 11 percent cut
from amounts authorized for committees in the 112th Congress. The Budget, Ways and Means, and
Intelligence Committees would be cut by roughly 9 percent. The Financial Services, Foreign Affairs,
Science, Space and Technology, Small Business, Transportation and Infrastructure, and Veterans Affairs
242
Committees would be cut nearly 12 percent. The bill passed the House 272-136. [HR 115, Vote #82,
3/19/13]
Republican: Cuts Would Hinder House Ability to Conduct Oversight
Republican Representative Buck McKeon said the cuts “would cripple committee functions at an
important time.” [Statement of Howard P. “Buck” McKeon before the Committee on House
Administration, 3/05/13]
Representative Juan C. Vargas called the cuts the “next step in a slow march” in making the House
incapable of conducting its oversight function. [CQ News, 3/19/13]
“The passage of H. Res. 115 jeopardizes Congress’ ability to serve the American people and conduct
meaningful oversight,” said Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter. [Rep. Carol Shea-Porter press
release, 3/20/13]
Voted Against Restoring Cuts to Head Start, Research and Job Training
In January 2014, Coffman voted against a $1.1 trillion budget agreement that would fully or partially
restore sequestration cuts for Head Start, medical research and job training. The budget agreement would
appropriate $1 billion more to the National Institutes of Health than the agency received under
sequestration. Sequestration cuts to Head Start would be fully reversed and Head Start partnerships
benefiting toddlers and infants would be expanded. The bill passed, 359-67. [HR 3547, Vote #21,
1/15/14; Washington Post, 1/14/14]
Voted Against FY 2015 Extreme Tea Party Budget
In April 2014, Coffman voted against the Republican Study Committee Budget, billed as the “more
austere alternative” to the House Republican budget. [Reuters, 4/07/14]
The RSC budget would turn Medicare into a voucher program starting for people who turn 65 in 2019,
earlier than the House Republican budget. The budget would also raise the Medicare eligibility age to 67
and the Social Security retirement age to 70. [CBS News, 4/08/14; RSC “Back to Basics” Budget, FY
2015]
Supported Military Sponsorship of Wrestling Sports and NASCAR
In June 2013, Coffman voted against an amendment to a defense authorization bill that would have saved
the military $53 million by prohibiting military sponsorships of NASCAR and professional wrestling
events. “The fact that $53 million in taxpayers’ funds is going to sponsor some of the most violent and
sexist entertainment on television and NASCAR racing teams that results in zero recruits is a waste of
money,” Rep. Betty McCollum, the amendment’s sponsor, said. The amendment failed 134-290. [HR
1960, Vote #231, 6/14/13; Minnesota Public Radio, 6/14/13]
243
Questioned Whether Super Committee Could Find Better Solution than Across-the-Board Cuts
In 2011, Coffman said he was disappointed that the super committee failed to reach an agreement. He
said, “I’m deeply disappointed by the failure of the super committee to find an agreement for at least $1.2
trillion in cuts, but the question now is can we still find a better solution than the across-the-board cuts
that have already been agreed to and I think we can. What the Congress cannot do is to ignore the August
agreement for cutting the deficit no matter how difficult that might be. That would be fundamentally
dishonest.” [Rep. Coffman, press release, 11/21/11]
In 2011, Coffman voted for the 2011 budget resolution proposed by Congressman Paul Ryan. [Associated
Press, 4/15/11]
The resolution passed, 235-193. [H Con Res 34, Vote #277, 4/15/11]
The 2011 Ryan Budget Would End Medicare. According to the Wall Street Journal, “The plan
would essentially end Medicare, which now pays most of the health-care bills for 48 million elderly
and disabled Americans, as a program that directly pays those bills.” [Wall Street Journal, 4/4/11]
Plan Will Lead to “Rationing”. According to NPR, “The CBO warned that higher payments
could affect care as beneficiaries might be less likely to use ‘new, costly, but possibly beneficial,
technologies and techniques.’ According to NPR, that is ‘exactly the sort of rationing that so
frightened Republicans when they were fighting the health law – the health law that Ryan’s
proposal would repeal, by the way.’” [NPR, 4/06/11]
Joe Baker, president of the Medicare Rights Center, said that “to ask people with Medicare and
Medicaid to foot the entire bill is not only unfair, but it will eventually lead to much less care and
a type of rationing […] There’s no doubt that putting more costs on consumers, particularly
upfront, leads them to access less care.” [National Journal, 4/04/11]
NCPSSM: Plan “Destroys Medicare and Cuts Social Security Benefits”
In April 2011, Max Richtman, executive vice-president of the National Committee to Preserve
Social Security and Medicare, told an audience that Ryan’s 2012 budget plan “forces millions of
American seniors to help foot the bill for a budget plan that puts the needs of middle-class
Americans far below preserving tax cuts for corporations and wealthy Americans.”
“The Ryan plan would replace the current Medicare program with vouchers and leave seniors and
the disabled - some of our most vulnerable Americans - hostage to the whims of the private
marketplace,” Richtman said. [NCPSSM press release, 4/05/11]
Ryan Plan Brings Back “Donut Hole” Coverage Gap for Prescription Drugs
According to the Associated Press, Ryan’s plan brings back the coverage “gap in the Medicare
prescription drug” benefit. [Associated Press, 4/06/11]
244
National Debt Increases $8 Trillion Under Ryan Budget
Under Ryan’s budget, the national debt would still increase $8 trillion over the coming decade to $23
trillion. [Roll Call, 4/06/11]
CBO: Debt Rises During First 10 Years of Ryan’s Budget
According to an initial analysis by the CBO, they found that by the end of the 10 year budget
window, public debt would actually be higher. CBO projected under current law the debt would
balloon to 67 percent of GDP by 2022; under Ryan’s plan, the CBO expects it to rise to 70
percent. [Congressional Budget Office, 4/05/11; The Atlantic, 4/06/11]
In 2011, Coffman voted for the 2012 budget resolution proposed by Congressman Paul Ryan. The
resolution passed, 235-193. [H Con Res 112, Vote #151, 3/29/12]
The 2012 Ryan Budget Would End Medicare. According to analysis by the Congressional Budget
Office, the 2012 Ryan budget “would convert some of the program’s funding into subsidies for
private insurance,” The Hill reported.
“Seniors could choose between the traditional single-payer program or a private plan,” the newspaper
went on. [The Hill, 3/20/12]
In a related editorial, the New York Times stated that the Ryan budget would mean “older Americans
no longer have a guarantee that Medicare will pay for their health needs.” The New York Times also
stated that the 2012 budget would convert Medicare to a “premium support” system. [New York
Times, 3/20/12]
Voted for Extreme Tea Party Budget
In 2011, Coffman voted for an amendment to the 2011 budget resolution that would replace it with the
Republican Study Committee’s “Honest Solutions” budget resolution. [RSC press release, 4/15/11]
The amendment was rejected, 119-136. [H Con Res 34, Vote #275, 4/15/11]
… That Made Deeper Cuts than Ryan Budget
According to an analysis by UPI, the Republican Study Committee’s budget cut deeper than that
proposed by the Ryan Budget. [upi.com, 4/07/11]
Would Delay Eligibility for Social Security and Medicare
245
Among its provisions, the RSC budget would delay eligibility for Social Security and Medicare
for everyone born from 1957 on. The age of eligibility would increase by two months every year.
[upi.com, 4/07/11]
Budget Would Cut Federal Workforce by 15 Percent
Among its provisions, the RSC budget would cut the federal workforce by 15 percent.
“This budget calls for a reduction in the federal workforce through attrition,” the budget’s authors
explained. [jordan.house.gov, RSC FY 2012 budget]
Included Huge Spending Cuts to Many “Mandatory” Spending Programs
According to an analysis by Politico, the Republican Study Committee’s budget “makes huge
spending cuts by cutting many ‘mandatory’ spending programs to their 2007 ‘pre-stimulus’ level,
which also happens to be the final budget before Democrats took control of Congress in the 2006
election.”
“Among those programs are food stamps, supplemental security income and family support
programs that were created by welfare reform. The RSC plan also would make big cuts in farm
spending and student assistance and would increase fees for mortgage loans,” it went on. [Politico,
4/07/11]
Voted For Blocking Consideration Of Holding A Hearing For The President’s FY16 Budget; Voted
To Block Hearing On President’s Budget With Director Of The Office Of Management And
Budget; Voted For Blocking Consideration Of Bill To Call On Hearings For President’s Budget
Voted For Blocking Consideration Of Holding A Hearing For The President’s FY16 Budget. In
March 2016, Coffman voted for blocking consideration of holding a hearing for the Obama
Administration’s fiscal year 2017 budget proposal. “The Democratic Previous Question gives
Republicans a third chance to call for an immediate vote on Budget Committee Ranking Member Chris
Van Hollen’s H.R. 624 to demand a fair hearing on the President’s Budget by demanding that House
Republicans hold a Budget hearing with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.” [H Res
635, Vote #106, 3/03/16; Democratic Leader – Previous Questions, 3/03/16]
OP-ED HEADLINE: “Republicans Shouldn’t Ignore The President’s Budget” [Ed Rogers OpEd, Washington Post, 2/09/16]
HEADLINE: “White House Accuses GOP Lawmakers Of Pulling A Trump” [Politico, 2/05/16]
Voted To Block Hearing On President’s Budget With Director Of The Office Of Management And
Budget. In February 2016, Coffman voted for a motion to block consideration of a vote on Budget
Committee Ranking Member Chris Van Hollen’s H.R. 6234, which would “demand a fair hearing on the
President’s Budget by demanding that House Republicans hold a budget hearing with the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget.” The previous question carried, 237-180. A vote against the previous
246
question would call for an immediate vote on Budget Committee Ranking Member Chris Van Hollen’s
H.R. 624. [H Res 618, Vote #85, 02/24/16; Democratic Leader – Previous Questions, 2/24/16]
{Voted For/Voted Against/Voted Present/Did Not Vote On}} Blocking Consideration Of Bill To Call
On Hearings For President’s Budget. In February 2016, Coffmanvoted for blocking consideration of H.
Res. 619, an ordering of the previous question on HR 2406. “The Democratic Previous Question gives
Republicans a second chance to call for an immediate vote on Budget Committee Ranking Member Chris
Van Hollen’s H.R. 624 to demand a fair hearing on the President’s Budget by demanding that House
Republicans hold a Budget hearing with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.” The
previous question passed, 240 to 178. [H.Res.619, Vote #90, 2/25/16; Democratic Leader-Ordering of
Previous Question, 2/25/16]
Voted Against Requiring Report On Treasury’s Plans To Address Federal Deficit To Include
Impact Of Threat Of Default On Economy
Voted Against Requiring Report On Treasury’s Plans To Address Federal Deficit To Include
Impact Of Threat Of Default On Economy. In February 2016, Coffman voted against an amendment
to require the report on treasury’s plans to address federal deficit to include the impact of the threat of
default on the economy. The amendment would have required “the report to include the impact the threat
of default would have on the economy, including, but not limited to, the impact on the Gross Domestic
Product (GDP), interest rates, employment, household wealth, and retirement assets.” The amendment
failed 190 to 227. [HR 3442, Vote #74, 2/11/16; On Agreeing to the Amendment, 2/11/16]
Bill Required Treasury Secretary To Prepare A Report For Congress About Plans To
Address The Federal Deficit Before Congress Agrees To Raise The Debt Limit. “House
lawmakers Thursday 267-151 passed legislation that would require the Treasury secretary to
appear before Congress prior to raising the debt limit. The Obama administration has threatened a
veto of the bill, which now goes to the Senate. But it picked up support from all 239 Republicans
who voted and 28 Democrats … The legislation (HR 3442), sponsored by Rep. Kenny Marchant,
R-Texas, would require the secretary to come before the Ways and Means Committee when the
nation approaches the debt limit and present a report to Congress on the state of the public debt …
The proposal also would require the secretary to outline the president's plans to reduce the debt
and prepare a subsequent progress report. All the information would be posted publicly on the
Treasury's website.” [Congressional Quarterly News, 2/11/16]
Voted Against Requiring Treasury Secretary’s Report To Include Information On Salary, Wages,
And Impact Of Spending Cuts On Gross Domestic Product
Voted Against Requiring Treasury Secretary’s Report To Include Information On Salary, Wages,
And Impact Of Spending Cuts On Gross Domestic Product. In February 2016, Coffman voted against
an amendment to require the treasury secretary’s report to include information on salary, wages, and
impact of spending cuts on gross domestic product. The amendment sought to “require the Treasury
Secretary's report to also include individual salary and wage information, as well as projections of
consumer spending and the impact of spending cuts on gross domestic product.” The amendment failed
171 to 245. [HR 3442, Vote #73, 2/11/16; On Agreeing to the Amendment, 2/11/16]
247
Voted For Requiring Treasury Secretary To Notify Congress Whether Treasury Is Able To Pay
Principal And Interest On National Debt If Debt Limit Is Reached
Voted For Requiring Treasury Secretary To Notify Congress If Treasury Is Able To Pay Principal
And Interest On National Debt If Debt Limit Is Reached. In February 2016, Coffman voted for an
amendment to require the Treasury Secretary to notify Congress whether Treasury is able to pay principal
and interest on the national debt if the debt limit is reached. The amendment requires “the Secretary of the
Treasury to notify Congress whether it is able to pay only principal and interest on the national debt, as
opposed to other obligations, in the event that the debt limit is reached.” The amendment passed 240 to
176. [HR 3442, Vote #72, 2/11/16; On Agreeing to the Amendment, 2/11/16]
Voted Against Requiring Treasury Secretary’s Report To Include Potential Public Health And
Safety Costs Of Failing To Raise Debt Limit
Voted Against Requiring Treasury Secretary’s Report To Include Potential Public Health And
Safety Costs Of Failing To Raise Debt Limit. In February 2016, Coffman voted against an amendment
to require the Treasury Secretary’s report to include the potential public health and safety costs of failing
to raise the debt limit. The amendment “sought to require the Treasury Secretary's report to also include
an economic forecast of the negative consequences of failing to raise the debt limit, including costs
associated with public health and safety.” The amendment failed 184 to 234. [HR 3442, Vote #71,
2/11/16; On Agreeing to the Amendment, 2/11/16]
Voted For The Debt Management and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2015 Which Required Treasury
Department To Report To Congress
Voted For The Debt Management and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2015 Which Required Treasury
Department To Report To Congress. In February 2016, Coffman voted for the bill that “requires the
Secretary of the Treasury to provide a report to Congress prior to any date on which the Secretary
anticipates the public debt will reach the statutory limit. The Secretary must appear before the House
Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee to submit a report including: the historic,
current, and projected levels of the debt; the drivers and composition of future debt; and how the United
States will meet debt obligations if the debt limit is raised.” The legislation “the Debt Management and
Fiscal Responsibility Act, sponsored by Rep. Kenny Marchant, R-Texas. The bill would require the
Treasury Department to provide reports to Congress and the public detailing the federal government’s
historic, current and projected future debt levels, as well as information about when the debt will reach its
statutory limit.” The bill passed 267 to 151. [HR 3442, Vote #76, 2/11/16; Targeted News Service,
2/12/16]
Voted for Cut, Cap and Balance Plan to Hold Debt Limit Hostage
In 2011, Coffman voted for a bill which only raised the debt limit if there were cuts to the federal budget,
caps on federal spending and Congress passed a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.
The bill would have cut $111 billion from the federal budget, except for Medicare, Social Security and
defense programs, in Fiscal Year 2012. The bill would have also capped federal spending at “21.7 percent
of GDP for 2013, 20.8 for 2014, 20.2 for 2015, 20.1 for 2016, 19.9 for 2017, 19.7 for 2018, and 19.9
248
percent for 2019 through 2021”. Lastly the bill would have required the passage of a balanced budget
amendment before the debt limit would be raised. [Washington Post, 7/19/11; New York Times, 7/19/11;
The Hill, 7/15/11]
Voted Against Cutting Oil and Gas Subsidies Instead of Education to Balance the Budget
In 2011, Coffman voted against prioritizing subsidies for major oil and gas companies and corporate jets
as spending cuts before cutting education spending to help balance the budget.
The motion would have amended the underlying bill “to make sure it raised taxes on corporate jets and oil
companies before cutting funding for education.” [Buffalo News, 7/30/11; CQ Floor Votes, 7/29/11]
The motion failed 183-244. [S. 627, Vote #676, 7/29/11]
Voted for State Budget Strongly Criticized by Colorado Union of Taxpayers
In 1992, Coffman voted for a state budget that was strongly criticized by the Colorado Union of
Taxpayers.
“This is the first for CUT to rate the Long Bill. We’ve threatened to do it, unless legislators got real about
our fiscal mess. Well, guys, you didn’t get real, so here it is,” the group explained. [Colorado Union of
Taxpayers, 1992 scorecard]
The bill passed, 38-23. [HB 1345, 4/10/92]
Co-Chaired Caucus to Support Bipartisan Budget Amendment
In 2010, Coffman joined Democratic Congressman Jim Marshall to create a caucus that would support the
Balanced Budget Amendment.
“The idea of a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced federal budget is not new, but it is
important. In 1995 and then again in 1997 a balanced budget amendment passed the House but failed to
meet the two-thirds requirement in the Senate by a single vote. It won’t be easy, but it’s not impossible.
It’s not overly complicated. It’s not the concept that is hard; it’s finding the will to do so. Millions of
American families do it. Millions of American small businesses do it. Forty nine states do it. It’s time for
the federal government to do it too. The only solution is to hold Congress’ feet to the fire and require that
they, like every family and nearly every state in the country, have a balanced budget,” Coffman said.
[Coffman official press release, 3/11/10]
Voted for a Balanced Budget Amendment
In 2011, Coffman voted for a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution.
The resolution would have amended the Constitution to require the balancing of the federal budget
by, whichever happens second, fiscal year 2018 or the second fiscal year after ratification by the
249
states. The amendment would require three-fifths of the house to approve debt ceiling increases
and deficit spending and a majority to waive the requirement during times of war or serious
military threat. [CQ Floor Votes, 11/18/11]
Critics of the amendment noted that it would require severe cuts that Congress had previously
refused to pass and would limit the government’s ability to respond to economic turmoil. [Atlanta
Journal-Constitution, 11/18/11]
The resolution failed to reach the required two-thirds majority, 261-165. [H J Res 2, Vote #858,
11/18/11]
Touted Himself as Chairman of the Congressional Balanced Budget Amendment Caucus
In 2011, Coffman touted himself as the chairman of the Congressional Balanced Budget
Amendment Caucus. He said debt was bringing America down. “Hard-working American families
make tough choices everyday to balance their budgets and pay their bills. It is sad and unfortunate
that many of my colleagues in the House feel that neither they nor the president should be held to
the same standard.” [Rep. Coffman, press release, 11/18/11]
Voted to Circumvent the Constitution to Dramatically Cut Federal Funding
In 2011, Coffman voted for a bill which deemed HR 1 (2011), the Republican FY2011 Continuing
Resolution, as law and would have prevented lawmakers and the president from receiving pay if the
government was shut down for more than 24 hours.
The legislation would have enacted HR 1 into law if the Senate had not passed a bill to fund the
government through the rest of Fiscal Year 2011 by April 6th, 2011.
According to the Los Angeles Times, “Another section tried to revive a House spending plan that was
killed by the Senate last month. Under the resolution passed Friday, the dead bill would come back to life
and become law, without the president’s signature, if the Senate does not pass a bill funding the
government for the rest of the 2011. The Senate would need to act by Wednesday.” [Los Angeles Times,
4/01/11]
According to Republican Congressman Louie Gohmert from Texas during a floor speech on this bill,
“[…] for a bill to say provisions that pass the House are hereby enacted into law violates my conscience
and the Constitution.” [Congressional Record, p. H2245, 4/01/11]
Supported Massive Cuts to Federal Programs that Cost Jobs
In 2011, Coffman supported massive cuts to federal programs that cost jobs.
Coffman Was a Member of the Republican Study Committee
250
As of January 2011, Coffman was listed as a member of the Republican Study Committee.
[Republican Study Committee member list]
While Coffman Was a Member of the Republican Study Committee, It Proposed the
Spending Reduction Act of 2011
In January 2011, while Coffman was a member of the Republican Study Committee, it proposed
the Spending Reduction Act of 2011. [Rep. Jim Jordan press release, 1/20/11]
The Act was introduced to the Congress and referred to several House committees. [112th Congress,
HR 408]
Spending Reduction Act of 2011 Called for Cuts of More than 40 Percent to Non-Defense
Discretionary Spending
According to 2011 analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the Spending Reduction
Act of 2011 would cut non-defense discretionary spending by more than 40 percent.
“By 2021, it would reduce non-defense appropriations by 42 percent below what the
Congressional Budget Office says is needed to maintain last year’s funding level, adjusted only for
inflation,” the CBPP blog read. [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities blog, 1/21/11]
Cuts to Non-Defense Discretionary Spending Cost Jobs
According to 2011 analysis by the Economic Policy Institute, cuts to non-defense discretionary
spending would cost jobs.
“Focusing on deficits now is not only a distraction, but actually undermines the goal of generating
more jobs. In fact, making these cuts to the discretionary budget would reduce the number of
jobs available significantly. Okun’s rule of thumb states that when gross domestic product (GDP)
declines, there is a correlating increase in unemployment. A $60 billion cut, when assigned a fiscal
multiplier of 1.5, would impact GDP by roughly $90 billion for the rest of this fiscal year alone.
This would result in a decline in output by a little more than one-half of a percentage point of
GDP, resulting in a loss of around 590,000 jobs,” the Economic Policy Institute reported. [Emphasis
added; “Discretionary Spending Cuts Would Reduce Jobs, Hurt Social Programs”, epi.org, 1/25/11]
Urged NASA Not to Stop Spending on Constellation/Orion Program
In 2010, Coffman joined several members of Congress in urging NASA not to halt spending on programs
including the Constellation/Orion Program.
“This program supports many high-paying jobs in the 6th District and throughout the country. Shutting it
down directly jeopardizes those jobs and the families they support,” Coffman wrote in a letter to NASA.
[Denver Business Journal, 2/17/10]
251
Proposed Constitutional Amendment Banning Local Governments from Preferring Minority
Contractors
In 1995, Coffman introduced a proposed constitutional amendment that would bar state or local
governments from giving preference to minority contractors.
“Two out of every three Americans meet one or more of those standards today. It’s getting hard to say
who is disadvantaged,” Coffman explained. [Denver Post, 4/11/95]
The proposal later died in the Senate. [Denver Post, 5/03/95]
Wanted Voters to Set Aside Up to Six Percent of State Tax Surplus for Rainy Day Fund
In 2002, Coffman said that he wanted voters to set aside up to six percent of their state tax surplus for a
rainy day fund. [Associated Press, 12/30/02]
Called for Adjusting TABOR to Create Rainy Day Fund
In 2003, Coffman called for adjusting TABOR to create a state rainy day fund.
“Under our plan, the rainy-day fund will become an integral part of the existing revenue and spending
limits placed in the state’s constitution by the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights. TABOR currently limits
increases in state revenue to the sum of inflation and population growth, requires voter approval of tax
increases, and provides that any surpluses the state collects are returned to the taxpayers,” he explained.
[Coffman and Barry Poulson op-ed, Denver Post, 1/05/03]
Columnist: Coffman’s Plan Was “Greeted With Horror”
In 2003, Rocky Mountain News columnist Mike Littwin stated that Coffman’s plan to adjust
TABOR was “greeted with horror”.
“His proposal was greeted with such horror that Coffman is currently rewriting it. He forgot one of
the first rules of politics: Despite the clouds you see overhead, there are no rainy days in
Colorado,” Littwin wrote. [Rocky Mountain News, 1/18/03]
Voted for Budget Reductions in the FY11 Continuing Resolution
In 2011, Coffman voted for a Continuing Resolution for Fiscal Year 2011. This bill was passed as a
compromise between the White House, Senate and House of Representatives to avoid a government
shutdown and provided funding for government agencies for the remainder of FY11.
Coffman voted for a compromise bill which funded the federal government through the end of FY11
(September 30th, 2011). This bill is based on FY10 funding levels with a number of program reductions,
eliminations and reclamation of already appropriated funds. The bill sets discretionary spending levels for
FY11 at $1.055 trillion. [CQ BillAnalysis, 7/14/11; CQ Floor Votes, 4/14/11]
252
According to Politico: “As it is, six months into the fiscal year, the 451-page bill puts Cabinet
departments and agencies on permanent footing, but at a spending level nearly $38 billion below what it
was when the new Congress began in January. Nondefense spending is hardest hit, with a reduction closer
to $42 billion, and the new appropriations target — just shy of $1.0498 trillion — is $78.5 billion less
than President Barack Obama’s initial 2011 budget requests from a year ago.” [Politico, 4/14/11]
Voted for $61 Billion in Draconian Cuts for Rest of 2011 Fiscal Year
In 2011, Coffman voted for $61 billion in draconian cuts for a continuing resolution to finish fiscal year
2011.
The cuts slashed the maximum Pell Grant by $845; would drop 218,000 children from the Head Start
program; would cut 55,000 teachers and teacher assistants from schools; could result in 5,500 fewer
researchers compared to FY 2010 funding and 20,000 fewer researchers compared to the FY 2011
request; cut $1.6 billion from the National Institutes of Health; cut $250 million border security
technology funding; and would result in a total loss of 700,000 jobs. [Democratic Leader press release]
An analysis by the investment bank Goldman Sachs predicted that the Republican spending cuts would
cause great damage to the economy, slowing growth by as much as two percentage points in the second
and third quarters of 2011. [Washington Post, 3/13/11]
The measure passed, 235-189. [HR 1, Vote #147, 2/19/11]
Voted for Additional $22 Billion in Cuts
In 2011, Coffman voted for an additional $22 billion in cuts, pushed by conservative freshmen and the
Republican Study Committee. The amendment would have reduced funding for the legislative branch by
11 percent and all other continuing resolution funding by 5.5 percent, with exemptions for the Department
of Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs and for aid to Israel.
Out of 87 freshmen Republicans, 58 – or about two-thirds – voted in favor of the amendment.
The cuts were so extreme that Republican Study Committee member Jo Bonner said he worried that the
amendment “would take a more indiscriminate, hatchet approach” to the budget. Dan Lungren, a former
RSC chairman, said, “Across-the-board cuts are lazy members’ way to achieve something.” Lungren also
warned colleagues that the amendment would “paralyze” the U.S. Capitol Police [CQ Today, 2/18/11;
The amendment was rejected, 147-281. [HR 1, Blackburn amendment #104, Vote #103, 2/18/11]
Voted Against $8.1 Billion in Emergency Disaster Relief Funding for Fiscal Year 2012
In 2011, Coffman voted against providing $8.1 billion in emergency disaster relief funding for fiscal year
2012.
253
The bill provided $8.1 billion in emergency funding for FY2012 disaster relief, of which $6.4 billion
would go to the Federal Emergency management Agency Disaster Relief Fund and $1.7 billion to the
Army Civil Corps of Engineers. [CQ Floor Vote, 12/16/11]
Voted to Set Spending Caps Without Disclosing Dollars Amounts
In 2011, Coffman voted to adopt a resolution setting a spending cap reducing non-security discretionary
spending to fiscal 2008 levels.
The resolution did not provide specifics, such as a dollar amount or definition of non-security spending.
Democrats criticized the resolution as a “public relations exercise” timed by Republicans in advance of
that evening’s State of the Union address by President Obama. [CQ Today, 1/25/11]
“You have no idea what you are voting on,” Minority Whip Steny Hoyer said of the resolution without
numbers. Rep. Jim McGovern challenged each Republican speaker, “What’s the number, what’s the cut?”
[Politico, 1/25/11]
Opposed $1.2 Trillion Budget Plan for 2011
In 2010, Coffman voted against a one-year, $1.12 trillion budget plan for discretionary spending that also
added funds for negotiated settlements of two long-running lawsuits involving American Indian trust
funds and black farmers.
The rule for floor consideration set parameters for consideration of House amendments to the Senatepassed $58.8 billion version of the fiscal 2010 war supplemental bill. The rule would allow the House to
strike funds for military operations in Afghanistan or impose restrictions on the spending. [CQ Today,
7/01/10]
The rule was adopted, 215-210. [H Res 1500, Vote #428, 7/01/10]
Opposed FY2010 Budget That Provided Framework for Middle Class Taxes
In 2009, Coffman opposed a budget that provided a framework for extending middle-income tax cuts. The
measure provided for $1.086 trillion in fiscal 2010 discretionary spending, not counting emergency funds
for Iraq and Afghanistan operations. The bill provided the framework to permanently extend the middleincome tax cuts, the 10 percent individual income bracket, marriage penalty relief, and the $1,000 child
tax credit. In total, the resolution supported the extension of $1.75 trillion in tax relief. [CQ Bill Analysis]
The bill passed 233-193. [S CON RES 13, Vote #216, 4/29/09]
254
Opposed Fiscal Responsibility through “PAYGO”
In 2009, Coffman voted against PAYGO legislation that was designed to ensure fiscal responsibility by
reestablishing “Pay-as-you-Go” (PAYGO) policy as federal law. [CQ Today Online News, 7/22/09]
The measure passed 265-166. [H.R. 2920, #612, 7/22/09]
In 2010, Coffman opposed PAY-GO legislation, saying, “This is just cover for Democrats to feed their
spending addiction through new tax increases, and it does nothing to meaningfully increase fiscal
accountability or reduce the deficit and debt.” [Fort Collins Coloradoan, 2/05/10]
Voted for an Increase in Defense Spending
In 2011, Coffman voted for a bill increasing defense spending by $17 billion dollars.
The legislation funded the Department of Defense at $17 billion dollars more than Fiscal Year 2010
levels, the only department that “will see a double-digit increase in its budget beginning Oct. 1.” [Fox
News, 7/08/11]
Voted to Allow the Reopening of the Second Engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
In 2011, Coffman voted to ban funds for the improvement of F-35 Joint Strike Fighter engines unless the
Department of Defense makes money available for purchasing the F-35 alternative engine.
The FY2012 Defense Authorization bill contained a number of policy riders including one which states
that no government money would go to the alternative engine but that the group could continue to work
on the engine at their own cost. Also, the rider “would require the Pentagon to create competition for the
F-35 engine contract should certain enhancements be made to the main engine.” [The Hill, 5/25/11;
Marine Corps Times, 5/23/11; CQ BillAnalysis HR 1540, 7/04/11]
Voted to Require Agencies to Choose the Least Costly Option
In 2011, Coffman voted to require agencies to choose the least costly regulation when writing new
regulations.
The bill required agencies to choose the least costly regulations when writing new regulations for
businesses unless they could explain the reason for choosing a more expensive rule was “in the interest of
public health and welfare.” [CQ Today, 12/02/11]
255
Before passage of the final bill, Coffman voted against a motion which would have kept the bill from
interfering with rules created by the Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services and Veterans
Affairs to negotiate lower prescription drug prices. [CQ Floor Votes, 12/02/11]
Criticized President Bush for Going Back on His Pledge of Fiscal Conservatism
In 2008, Coffman criticized President Bush for going back on his pledge of fiscal conservatism. [Associated
Press, 11/06/08]
Debt Limit, Fiscal Cliff, and Sequester
2011: Voted to Shut Down Government
Voted to Shut Down Government. In 2011, Coffman voted against a federal funding measure that was
designed to avert a government shutdown. The bill not only included nine outstanding appropriations
bills, but extended unemployment insurance and a payroll tax break for 160 million working Americans
through February 2012. At issue was how to fund the spending plan. Democrats were hoping to impose a
surtax on people earning $1 million or more per year, while Republicans mainly wanted to cover the $120
billion cost by reducing unemployment benefits and freezing federal workers’ pay. With the two parties
locked in a stalemate, the bill was struck as a compromise and a means to prevent the government from
shuttering. The bill passed 296-121. [HR 2055, Vote #941, 12/16/11; ABC News, 12/13/11; LA Times, 12/15/11; ABC
News, 12/16/11; Bloomberg, 12/20/11; CQ Bill Analysis, 2/02/12]
Did Not Think Going over the Fiscal Cliff Would Be A “Huge Deal”
Did Not Think Going over the Fiscal Cliff Would Be A “Huge Deal.” In 2013, Coffman said he did
not think going over the fiscal cliff was “a huge deal.” “I don't think going over the fiscal cliff would have
been a huge deal… Temporarily, the markets would have been aggravated until the next Congress could
have passed new tax cuts and ironed things out,” Coffman said. [FOX 31, 1/02/13]
Voted to Go on Paid Recess Without Fixing Sequester First
In February 2013, two weeks before the sequester would begin cutting indiscriminately from government,
Coffman voted to adjourn for over a week before reaching a solution. The resolution passed with 222
Republicans and no Democrats voting for adjournment, 222-190. [H Con Res 15, Vote #43, 2/15/13]
CBO: Sequester Will Slash 2013 Economic Growth In Half. According to the Wall Street Journal’s
MarketWatch: “Fiscal tightening including the automatic budget cuts known as the sequester would
cut U.S. growth in half in 2013 if allowed to go into effect, the Congressional Budget Office said
Tuesday in a new budget and economic outlook. … CBO said Tuesday that growth would be about
1.5 percentage points faster in 2013 if not for fiscal tightening including the sequester.”
[MarketWatch, 2/05/13]
Said The Sequester “Ha[d] To Happen”
256
Said The Sequester “Ha[d] To Happen.” In 2013, Coffman said he thought the sequester had to happen.
“I think the greatest threat to the United States is our debt. And I don't think Congress can kick the can
down the road any more. So I think that if there's not an alternative, I think the sequester has to happen.
My goal is to move a bipartisan proposal forward,” Coffman said. [FOX 31, 2/25/13]
HEADLINE: “Coffman: ‘Sequester Gives Me Leverage' To Push Defense Cuts” [FOX 31,
2/25/13]
deficit by up to $2.4 trillion through a process of sequestration. [S 365, Vote #690, 8/1/11; CQ Floor
Votes, 8/1/11]
sequester cuts:
Republican Budget: Voted for Republican Budget, Which Contained Cuts From Sequestration.
[H Con Res 25, Vote #88, 3/21/13]
Con Res 25, Vote #86, 3/21/13]
… And Repeatedly Voted Against Replacing the Sequester. In 2013, Coffman repeatedly voted against
replacing the sequester cuts with a balanced approach:
House Democratic Budget: Voted Against the House Budget That Replaced the Sequester with a
Balanced Approach. [H Con Res 25, Vote #87, 3/21/13]
House Progressive Caucus Budget: Voted Against CPC Budget that Replaced Sequester. [H Con
Res 25, Vote #85, 3/20/13; Economic Policy Institute, 3/13/13]
Vote #51, 2/27/13; The Hill, 2/11/13]
257
Vote #33, 2/27/13]
Vote #41, 2/27/13]
Vote #59, 2/27/13]
Continuing Appropriations Measure: Voted Against Striking Sequester Cuts. [HR 933, Vote
#61, 3/06/13]
Thrice Voted To Raise The Debt Ceiling, Eight Times Voted Against Raising the Debt Limit
2009: Voted Against Increasing the Debt Limit by $789 Billion. In February 2009, Coffman voted
against adopting the conference report of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which
increased the debt limit by $789 billion to $12.104 trillion. This bill eventually became Public Law 111-5.
[HR 1, Vote #70, 2/13/09; CRS Report, 4/05/11]
2009: Voted Against Increasing the Debt Limit by $290 Billion. In December 2009, Coffman voted
against increasing the debt limit by $290 billion to $12.394 trillion in a bill aimed to permit continued
financing of Government operations. This bill eventually became Public Law 111-123. [HR 4314, Vote
#988, 12/16/09; CRS Report, 4/05/11]
2010: Voted Against Increasing the Debt Limit by $1.9 Trillion. In February 2010, Coffman voted
against increasing the debt limit by $1.9 trillion to $14.294 trillion in the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act.
Eventually this bill became Public Law 111-139. [HJ Res 45, Vote #48, 2/04/10; CRS Report, 4/05/11]
2011: Voted Against a Clean Debt Limit Raise. In 2011, Coffman voted against raising the statutory
debt limit, sometimes referred to the debt ceiling to $16.7 trillion dollars. The bill was brought under
suspension of the rules, requiring a two-thirds vote, to ensure its failure. The debt limit had to be raised
prior to August 2nd, 2011, when the United States would default according to Treasury Secretary Timothy
F. Geithner. According to the Republican House Ways and Means Chairman, Dave Camp, said the vote
was to prove that “the American people” want Congress to tackle the debt crisis before they raise the debt
limit. Additional debt ceiling increases were proposed, and eventually passed later, but as part of a larger
bill including budget cuts instead of just a bill which deals solely with the debt ceiling. The bill failed 97318. [HR 1954, Vote #379, 5/31/11; Boston Globe, 5/31/11; USA Today, 6/01/11; Washington Post,
6/01/11]
Proudly Opposed Clean Debt Limit Increase. In 2011, Coffman proudly cast a vote against a clean
debt limit increase. “I’m a proud ‘no’ vote on raising the debt ceiling without having a clear path out
of this mess,” he said. “I can only hope that by decisively defeating the President’s call for adding to
our nation’s debt burden that he can be forced to accept deep reductions in spending that must also
include reforming our exploding entitlement programs.” [Coffman press release, 5/31/11]
258
2011: Voted to Increase the Debt Limit. In 2011, Coffman voted to increase the debt limit as part of
passing the Budget Control Act. The bill allowed for a debt ceiling increase of $900 billion ($400 billion
would be automatic and $500 billion would be subject to a vote of disapproval) in exchange for a cap that
would reduce government spending by $917 billion from FY 2012 through 2021. The bill would also
create a bipartisan, bicameral committee to find an additional $1.8 trillion in cuts. There would be an
additional $1.6 trillion debt ceiling increase if Congress agreed to the cuts from the committee and passed
a balanced-budget constitutional amendment. According to the Buffalo News: “[The bill] would
immediately increase the nation’s debt limit by $900 billion in tandem with $917 billion in budget cuts
over 10 years. The second step of the debt ceiling increase would come in six months -- but only in the
unlikely event that two-thirds of the House and Senate approve a balanced-budget amendment to the
Constitution.” The bill passed 218-210. [S. 627, Vote #677, 7/29/11; Buffalo News, 7/30/11; CQ Floor Votes, 7/29/11;
New York Times, 7/29/11; CRS, 10/5/11]
2011: Voted Against Raising the Debt Limit. In 2011, Coffman voted against raising the debt limit. The
bill, which was brought up under suspension of the rules and would have required a two-thirds vote to
pass, would have raised the debt ceiling by $1.2 trillion, $784 billion of which could be stopped by a
resolution of disapproval. An additional $1.2 trillion would be available for the debt ceiling increase but
would be subject to a resolution of disapproval. The bill would also set spending caps for FY2012-2021 to
reduce spending by about $840 billion. A bipartisan, bicameral committee would also be created to
suggest ways to reduce the deficit to 3 percent of GDP. The bill failed 173-246. [HR 2693, Vote #682, 7/30/11;
CQ Floor Votes, 7/30/11]
2011: Voted to Increase the Debt Limit by $2.4 Trillion. In 2011, Coffman voted to allow the debt
limit to be increased by $2.4 trillion. The bill allowed the President to immediately raise the debt ceiling
by $400 billion as a way to avoid a looming default that experts predicted would have a catastrophic
effect on the nation’s economy. It would also later raise the debt ceiling by $500 billion after members of
Congress were allowed to cast a largely symbolic resolution disapproving of the increase. As a way to
reduce the deficit by at least $2.1 trillion over the next decade, the bill established a bipartisan bicameral
“super committee” that was instructed to find at least $1.2 trillion in savings. In order to provide an
incentive for the “super committee” to reach an agreement that had previously eluded other attempts to
find consensus on spending cuts, the bill contained a “trigger” (referred to as “sequestration”) that would
automatically cut $1.2 trillion in spending over nine years—spread equally between defense spending and
domestic programs—should Congress fail to act. While the Budget Control Act passed 269-161, the
“super committee” later failed to reach an agreement. [HR 690, Vote #690, 8/01/11; CNN, 11/21/11; CRS, 8/19/11;
New York Times, 8/1/11; CBS News, 6/28/11; Third Way, The Dominoes of Default, 5/11; Wall Street Journal, 1/19/12]
2011: Voted Against $500 Billion Increase in the Debt Limit. In 2011, Coffman voted against a $500
billion increase in the debt limit. The bill was a disapproval of the $500 billion increase in the debt ceiling
which was authorized under the debt ceiling agreement which passed on August 1st, 2011. In order for the
increase to not go into effect the disapproval bill would have to pass both the House and the Senate and be
signed into law. According to Congressional Quarterly Weekly “164 House Republicans – plus two
Democrats – voted to disapprove a debt ceiling increase after having vote Aug. 1 to permit it. […] this
was just a paramount example of the political game that lawmakers play when they want things both
ways.” The bill passed 232-186-2. [HJ Res 77, Vote #706, 9/14/11; CQ Floor Votes, 9/14/11; Congressional Quarterly
Weekly, 9/17/11]
259
2013: Voted to Suspend the Debt Limit for Nearly Four Months. In January 2013, Coffman voted for
a suspension of the debt limit through May 18, 2013, and then automatically to increase the debt limit to
accommodate the additional debt accumulated through that date. The bill also directed both chambers of
Congress to adopt a budget resolution for FY 2014 by April 15, 2013. If either body failed to pass a
budget, members of that body would have their paychecks put into an escrow account starting on April
16, until that body adopted a budget. The government added $306 billion in new debt during the fourmonth suspension of the debt limit, making the limit $16.7 trillion. The bill passed, 285-44. [HR 325,
Vote # 30, 1/23/13; CQ Votes, 1/23/13; Reuters, 5/20/13]
2014: Voted Against Suspending Debt Limit For One Month. In February 2014, Coffman voted
against suspending the debt limit until March 15, 2015 without any concessions on spending. Voting
against the compromise would have led to a “high-stakes fight” requiring lifting the cap or defaulting on
the nation’s debt. The vote did not raise the debt limit by a set amount but would let the Treasury borrow
normally until March 2015. The bill passed, 221-201. [S 540, Vote #61, 2/11/14; Associated Press,
2/11/14]
2015: Voted Against Debt Ceiling Increase. “Congressman Mike Coffman released the following
statement following his 'NO' vote on the two-year budget agreement and debt ceiling increase. ‘This
agreement sets a bad precedent for Social Security - the deal diverts payroll taxes from the Social Security
trust fund for seniors to prop up the Social Security Disability fund, a fund that has become abused to the
point of insolvency.’” [Rep. Mike Coffman press release, 10/30/15]
Voted Against Considering the Replacement of Sequester with a Balanced Approach
In 2013, Coffman voted against considering the Stop the Sequester Job Loss Now Act, which would
replace the entire sequester for the remainder of fiscal year 2013. “That measure would eliminate
subsidies to the farm industry, scrap tax preferences used by oil-and-gas companies and implement a new
minimum tax rate on people making seven figures annually – the proposal commonly known as the
‘Buffett Rule.’” The previous question was approved 229-196. A vote against the motion would have
allowed for consideration of the sequester replacement bill. [H Res 99, Vote #59, 3/06/13; The Hill,
2/11/13]
Voted to Ease Flight Delays Due to Sequestration Cuts
In 2013, Coffman voted for legislation that would give the secretary of transportation the flexibility to end
flight delays due to cuts to the Federal Aviation Administration. The bill would allow as much $253
million to be moved from other parts of the Transportation Department to the FAA to “stop further
furloughs and keep the air traffic control system operating at a normal pace” through the fiscal year. [New
Over the course of a week, the furloughs delayed “more than 3,000 flights” according to FAA tallies.
[CNN, 4/26/13]
However, the Obama administration and Democrats argued that the bill was not a full fix and that
Congress “had effectively come to the rescue of an affluent and elite slice of the public affected by the
260
cuts, including lawmakers themselves, while leaving the poor to continue to fend for themselves.” [New
Said “Grand Bargain” was the Only Way to Resolve the Sequester and Debt Crisis
In 2013, Coffman said the only to solve the sequester and debt crisis was through “a grand bargain.” “I
believe that the only way to resolve the problem is through a grand bargain whereby Democrats yield on
entitlement reform to slow the growth of spending and so protect the future of these programs, and
Republicans put revenue on the table through closing credits and deductions for corporations and
individuals,” Coffman wrote. [Coffman Column, Brighton Standard Blade, 3/20/13]
Said Defenders of Sequester were Open to Attacks
In 2012, Coffman said any member of Congress who didn’t offer alternatives, while defending sequester
cuts would be open to attacks. “Any member of Congress that would defend the sequester and not come
up with an alternative or [insist on revenues], I think that in a competitive district, that they would be open
to attack to cutting defense too deeply,” Coffman said. [Hotline, 6/4/12]
Voted Against Preventing Another Government Shutdown While Reducing the Deficit
In December 2013, Coffman voted against a bipartisan two-year budget agreement that would reduce the
deficit while providing relief from sequestration and averting another government shutdown. “The
framework amounts to a modest deal that averts another government shutdown, replaces the sequester and
provides a level of certainty on spending that hasn’t been seen in Washington for several years […] The
bipartisan package includes $63 billion of ‘sequester relief,’ $85 billion of total savings, and $23 billion in
net deficit reduction.” The bill passed, 332-94. [HJ Res 59, Vote #640, 12/12/13; Politico, 12/10/13]
261
Campaign Finance and Election Law Issues
 When asked to reject campaign contributions from special interests, Coffman
refused, saying, “Well, I think everybody in here is a special interest of some
kind”
 August 2014: Said “transparency is the answer” to campaign finance issues;
… But in February 2014: Voted against allowing Treasury to require
disclosure of secret political donors
 Voted against increased transparency and disclosures in campaign finance
reform
 Advocated for voter ID requirement at the polls
 Voted to block constitutional amendment that would overturn Citizens United
During a campaign debate in 2014, Coffman – who had claimed to be opposed to
spending by outside groups – refused to refuse campaign contributions from
special interests, saying, “Well, I think everyone in here is a special interest.”
When he was asked about his stance on campaign finance reform, Coffman said,
“transparency is the key,” which contradicts his earlier votes against efforts to
increase transparency of campaign donations. He has also advocated for voter ID
requirements at the polls.
contributions from special interests, telling the audience that “I think everybody in here is a special
interest of some kind.” The dialogue between the two candidates is as follows:
Romanoff: “If you want to demonstrate leadership on this issue, join me right now, on this stage, in
turning down contributions from special interest groups and refunding the money that you’ve taken. In
fact, I’ll see your point and raise you. We’ll turn down, together, all the money that’s come in from
any special interest group, any lobbyist, any outside organizations to the best of our ability. We could
lead; we could make national news right now. Will you join me in that effort?”
262
Coffman: “Well I think everybody in here is a special interest person of some kind.”
August 2014: Said, “Transparency Is The Answer” To Campaign Finance Issues; … But In
February 2014: Voted Against Allowing Treasury to Require Disclosure of Secret Political Donors
August 2014: Said, “Transparency Is The Answer” To Campaign Finance Issues. In August 2014,
when asked about campaign finance reform, Coffman said, “I think transparency is the answer, and every
time, it seems, we try and fix the system, somebody comes up with an idea to fix the system it becomes
less transparent, and unfortunately more money will be spent on this race by outside groups than by the
candidates themselves.” [Aurora Chamber of Commerce Debate, YouTube, 2:07 – 2:28, 8/15/14]
September 2014: Said, “The Voters Have To Know Where Your Money Is Coming From” And
The PAC Money He Received Was “Transparent.” In September 2014, when asked why he
accepted PAC money, Coffman said, “Well I think anything that is transparent; I think that the voters
have to know where your money is coming from. I think that’s very important. … The problem, when
you say you’re not taking PAC money, but then you take money from members – who are taking PAC
money – and you have lobbyists on your campaign, helping you on your campaign, and so, uh, I just
that that doing fundraisers for you, calling on corporations every day, I just think it’s disingenuous. I
think it’s hypocritical to point fingers.” [Denver Post Debate, 49:58 – 50:59, 9/23/14]
… But In February 2014: Voted Against Allowing Treasury To Require Disclosure Of Secret
Political Donors. In February 2014, Coffman voted against a motion that would allow the Treasury
Secretary to issue regulations requiring the disclosure of secret political donors. The motion failed, 191230. [HR 3865, Vote #68, 2/26/14; CQ Floor Votes, 2/26/14]
2010: Voted Against Increased Transparency And Disclosures In Campaign Finance Reform. In
2010, Coffman voted against campaign finance reforms that required transparency and disclosure in
campaign spending. The bill would tighten disclosure rules on campaign advertising by corporations,
unions, and other independent groups and would prohibit corporations that are foreign-controlled or
have received government assistance from making expenditures in political campaigns. Democrats
argued that the bill would dull the effect of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. Federal
Election Commission, which determined that corporations have the same free-speech rights as
individuals and can spend corporate funds to sway elections. The legislation would free organizations
with 500,000 or more members, have existed for at least 10 years, and meet other criteria from having
to identify their top donors. Those groups would still be required to abide by most of the bill’s new
regulations, but not the disclaimer requirement that requires a “stand by your ad” provision. The bill
passed, 219-206. [HR 5175, Vote #391, 6/24/10; CQ Today, 6/24/10]
Advocated For Voter ID Requirement At The Polls
Advocated For Voter ID Requirement At The Polls. In June 2008, Coffman supported voter ID
requirements, saying, “I think that there really ought to be a photo ID card requirement when people vote
at the polls.” [KBDI Congressional Debate, YouTube, 4:24 – 4:31, 6/01/08]
263
Voted To Block Constitutional Amendment That Would Overturn Citizens United
Voted To Block Constitutional Amendment That Would Overturn Citizens United. In January 2015,
Coffman voted to block a motion to require Congress to vote on a constitutional amendment to overturn
the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision and promote transparency in our political system. The
previous question carried, 238-182. A vote against the previous question would have allowed the bill to
be considered. [H Res 38, Vote #38, 1/21/15; Democratic Leader – Previous Questions, 1/21/15]
Voted to Terminate Public Funding of Presidential Campaigns, “Pander” to Corporate Money
In 2011, Coffman voted to terminate the Presidential Election Campaign Fund, which provided public
funding during presidential elections. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the move would
reduce mandatory spending by $617 million over 10 years.
The fund was established in the wake of the Watergate scandal and provided matching funds for
presidential primary candidates and grants for general election candidates who comply with spending and
contribution limits. The fund was financed through check-offs on income tax returns. An amendment,
offered by Rep. Gary Peters, added language specifying that funds returned to the Treasury could only be
used for reducing the benefits. [CQ Today, 1/26/11]
In an editorial in the New York Times, the paper noted that House Republicans were “pandering to the
new corporate money trough legitimized by the Supreme Court” by cutting off the funding. “The public
subsidy remains popular in the public polls. Opponents may invoke budget savings – an estimated $52
million a year – but there is no mistaking their aim is to destroy what has been a bulwark against the
buying and selling of the presidency.” [New York Times, Editorial, 2/26/11]
Voted to End Public Financing of Presidential Campaigns
In 2011, Coffman voted to end public financing to eligible presidential campaigns and to eliminate
the Election Assistance Commission.
The bill terminated the public financing of presidential campaigns, which was funded by taxpayers
voluntarily donating $3 to the presidential primaries and general elections fund on their tax forms.
The bill also terminated the Election Assistance Commission which was developed to help states
modernize their voting equipment. [CQ Floor Votes 12/01/11; Boston Globe, 12/02/11]
Voted Against Requiring Disclosure of Foreign Countries, Companies Donating to Presidential
Campaigns
In 2011, Coffman voted against requiring the disclosure of certain foreign entities donating to presidential
campaigns, as well as donors spending over $100,000 on those contests.
264
The motion to recommit would have required, more specifically, the disclosure of foreign countries,
companies or individuals donating to presidential campaigns. [CQ Weekly, 1/31/11]
The motion failed, 173-229. [H. Res. 359, Vote #24, 1/26/11]
Criticized Campaign Spending by Outside Groups
In 2006, Coffman criticized campaign spending made by outside groups.
“Now, more money is spent by independent groups than candidates. Races are defined by outside groups,
not candidates. If that’s not a broken system, I don’t know what is,” he said. [Rocky Mountain News, 10/23/06]
Defended Law Limiting Large Anonymous Campaign Contributions
In 2007, Coffman defended a law that limited large, anonymous campaign contributions that risked
corrupting the political process.
In an op-ed titled “Campaign rule is good policy,” Coffman wrote, “In 2002, Coloradans sent a clear
message that they wanted big money out of politics. Amendment 27, the campaign finance law, passed
with 66 percent voter approval, expressing the concern that large, anonymous campaign contributions
may corrupt our political process.” [Coffman op-ed, Denver Post, 4/13/07]
… And Criticized Wealthy Individuals for Finding Ways Around Law
In his op-ed, Coffman criticized wealthy individuals, corporations, and special-interest groups for
finding ways around the state’s campaign finance law.
“The law attempted to reduce the influence of wealthy individuals, corporations and specialinterest groups by reducing the amount they could contribute - and by prohibiting contributions
from corporations and labor unions - to candidate committees and political parties. But since
Amendment 27 was passed, special interests have continued to look for ways around the law, and
they have found a useful vehicle in ‘small donor committees,’” he wrote. [Coffman op-ed, Denver Post,
4/13/07]
Took Issue with Using Membership Dues for Political Purposes
In his op-ed, Coffman took issue with using small donor committees using membership dues for
political purposes.
“In practice, membership organizations can simply take a portion of a member’s dues and transfer
the money to a small donor committee without asking for, or receiving, permission from the
member,” he wrote.
“Contributing members’ dues for political purposes without their express knowledge or
authorization defies the spirit of our campaign finance laws.” [Coffman op-ed, Denver Post, 4/13/07]
265
Said He Was “Not Averse” To Eliminating PACs
In 1994, Coffman said he was “not averse to eliminating political action committees.” [Rocky Mountain
News, 2/27/94]
… Yet Said “I Don’t Think That Special Interest Groups By Themselves Are Bad”
In 1994, Coffman said, “I don’t think that special interest groups by themselves are bad.”
“Sometimes they represent environmental interests; sometimes they represent small business
interests. There are a myriad of interests in our society that special interest groups represent. I
think where it becomes a problem is if one special interest group has a disproportionate amount of
power by virtue of its ability to contribute in unlimited levels to political campaigns,” he went on.
[Coffman Interview, Rocky Mountain News, 2/27/94]
Said Iraqi Voting Went Smoother Than Denver’s
In 2006, Coffman said that elections in Iraq went smoother than those in Denver and Douglas Counties.
“Let me just say this, the elections in Iraq went an awful lot better than in Denver and Douglas Counties,”
he said. [Associated Press, 11/15/06]
Voted to Restrict Ballot Measures to Single Subjects
In 1994, Coffman voted for a proposal requiring that every ballot issue be a single subject. [Denver Post,
10/28/94]
… Then Recanted His Vote
In 1994, Coffman admitted he voted the wrong way approving the ballot issue proposal.
“It is sometimes difficult to step forward when you feel you have voted wrong,” he said. “We
don’t know what ‘single subject’ really means. It could be defined narrowly, restricting the rights
of the citizens of Colorado.” [Denver Post, 10/28/94]
Sponsored Campaign Reform Law
In 1993, Coffman sponsored a campaign reform law. [Brown column, Denver Post, 2/16/94]
266
Crime and Public Safety Issues
 Drafted bill to make it harder to sue perpetrators of sexual abuse
 Voted to allow violent or sexual criminals to be state employees with federal
funding
 Called for Colorado’s Attorney General to investigate Denver-area Fraternal
Order of Police
 Voted against funding AMBER Alerts in public broadcasting
 Opposed legalization of marijuana
 Voted for an amendment that prevented the ATF from banning some forms of
armor-piercing ammunition and military-style handguns
 Voted against motion that provided additional funding to programs for sexual
assault, violence against women, and missing and exploited children
 Voted to relax gun restrictions
In 1995, Coffman authored a bill that would have made it harder for victims of
sexual abuse to sue perpetrators and – after joining Congress – opposed an effort
to provide additional funding to programs for sexual assault and violence against
women. He further failed to protect people by voting to allow violent or sexual
criminals to be employed by state entities receiving federal fundingeven going so
far as to vote against funding for AMBER Alerts. He has also voted to relax gun
restrictions and opposed the ATF being able to ban some forms of armor-piercing
ammunition and military-style handguns. In 1996, Coffman called for Colorado’s
Attorney General to investigate the Denver area Fraternal Order of Police, saying
they talk about making streets safe when they actually just lobby.
Drafted Bill to Make It Harder to Sue Perpetrators of Sexual Abuse
Drafted Bill to Make It Harder to Sue Perpetrators of Sexual Abuse. In 1995, Coffman drafted a bill
that would discourage “repressed-memory therapy” in cases of alleged sexual abuse and more strictly
limit when the accused could be held liable. According to Coffman, the bill would require mental health
267
workers to document that they advised their patients of the nature and possible consequences of
repressed-memory therapy, and would prevent perpetrators from being held liable for civil damages more
than six years after the abuse supposedly occurred – or more than six years after the alleged child victim
reaches the age of 18. [Denver Post, 12/19/95]
Denver Post Suggested Coffman Was Acting “Arrogant.” In 1996, the Denver Post criticized
Coffman’s legislation, writing, “Lawmakers must not be so arrogant as to assume they can legislate in
an area that is as little understood as the phenomenon of human memory.” “Trust is the most
important element in any counseling relationship, but lawmakers in effect would make counselors tell
their clients: Don’t trust me,” the newspaper went on. “The legislature should not dictate what kinds
of therapy mental health counselors can offer patients - particularly when the profession itself is
grappling with the very problem the bill purports to remedy,” it concluded. [Editorial, Denver Post,
1/19/96]
Coffman Criticized Denver Post’s Critique. In a letter to the Denver Post, Coffman criticized their
critique, explaining his legislation was meant to “protect the family.” “The legislation is not perfect
and will be improved through amendments. Its sole purpose is to protect the family. If government
ever needed to put a warning label on anything, it is the use of repressed memories in psychotherapy,”
he wrote. [Denver Post, 1/30/96]
Voted to Allow Violent or Sexual Criminals to be State Employees with Federal Funding
In 2011, Coffman voted against keeping individuals convicted of violent crimes, sexual crimes or murder
against children from being employed by state entities that receive federal grants.
The motion would have required that state entities receiving federal grants perform criminal background
checks for school employees and refuse employment to people convicted of certain crimes such as violent
or sexual crimes against children. [CQ Floor Votes, 9/13/11]
Voted Against Funding AMBER Alerts in Public Broadcasting
In March 2011, Coffman voted against a measure to ensure that National Public Radio would still be able
to receive federal funding to broadcast or disseminate emergency AMBER Alerts regarding abducted
children.
According to the DOJ’s AMBER Alert website, there have been 532 successful recoveries with 120 total
Amber Alert plans nationwide. In calendar year 2009, 207 AMBER Alerts were issued in the U.S., Puerto
Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands involving 263 children. Of those 207 cases, 166 resulted in a recovery,
45 of which were successfully recovered as a direct result of those respective AMBER Alerts being
issued. [Department of Justice, AMBER Alert statistics; 2009 AMBER Alert report]
Rep. Button Sutton, who introduced the motion, said in her floor remarks that National Public Radio,
which the Republicans sought to defund, was a disseminator of the alerts via an arrangement with the
Department of Justice. [Rep. Sutton Floor Remarks, 3/17/11]
268
Coffman then voted for prohibiting federal money from being used to fund or purchase content from
National Public Radio. [HR 1076, Vote #192, 3/17/11]
Opposed Legalization of Marijuana; Voted Against Federal Oversight Or Enforcement Of
Marijuana Laws
Opposed Recreational Marijuana In Colorado. In October 2014, when asked if he thought the
legalization of recreational marijuana in Colorado was a good thing, Coffman said, “No, I don’t think it’s
been good for the state.” [7News Interview with Rep. Coffman, YouTube, 0:00 – 0:26, 10/14/14]
Felt Obligated To Support Legislation That Exempts States That Pass Marijuana Legalization
From Federal Enforcement. In 2012 Coffman said he opposed legalization of marijuana, but felt
obligated to support legislation that carves out an exception to federal law for states that approve adult
use. “I voted against Amendment 64 and I strongly oppose the legalization of marijuana […] but I
also have an obligation to respect the will of the voters given the passage of this initiative, and so I
feel obligated to support this legislation.” [Washington Times, 11/28/12]
Voted For Amendment That Prohibits The Use Of Funds To Prevent States From Creating Laws
That Authorize Use And Distribution Of Hemp Laws. In June 2015, Coffman voted for an amendment
to the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, that “prohibits the use of
funds to prevent a State from implementing its own State laws that authorize the use, distribution,
possession, or cultivation of industrial hemp.” The amendment passed 282-146. [HR 2578, Vote #280,
6/03/15]
Voted For An Amendment That Prohibited The DOJ And DEA From Enforcement Actions Against
Commercial Hemp Growers. In June 2015, Coffman voted for an amendment that prohibited the DOJ
and DEA from taking enforcement actions against commercial hemp growers. The amendment passed
289 to 132. [HR 2578, Vote #288, 6/03/15; On Agreeing to the Amendment, 6/03/15]
Voted For An Amendment That Would Have Prohibited The Department Of Justice From
Preventing States From Establishing Their Own Rules Governing The Use, Distribution,
Cultivation Or Possession Of Marijuana. In June 2015, Coffman voted for an amendment that that
would have prohibited the Department of Justice from preventing states from establishing their own rules
governing the use, distribution, cultivation or possession of marijuana. “Marijuana advocates have their
sights set on legalization after lawmakers approved a number of pot-friendly measures Wednesday in a
government spending bill. The marijuana vote-a-rama was capped off by a provision that would prohibit
the Department of Justice (DOJ) from interfering with state medical marijuana laws. But it’s a marijuana
amendment that was rejected that has pot advocates even more excited. A provision that would have
blocked the Justice Department from interfering with state laws permitting the use of recreational
marijuana came just a few votes shy of passing. The measure would have essentially ended the federal
prohibition on pot, advocates say … An amendment from Reps. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) and Jared
Polis (D-Colo.) would have blocked the DOJ from interfering with any state marijuana law, including
laws that permit the recreational use of pot. The provision failed, but not before garnering 206 votes, just
269
a handful shy of the number needed to be approved.” The amendment failed 206 to 222. [HR 2578, Vote
#285; On Agreeing to the Amendment, 6/03/15; The Hill, 6/03/15]
Voted For An Amendment That Stopped Use Of Federal Funds To Prevent States From
Establishing Laws Related To Cannibidiol Oil. In June 2015, Coffman voted for an amendment that
stopped use of federal funds to prevent states from establishing laws related to cannibidiol oil. “An
amendment by Rep. Suzanne Bonamici, D-Oregon, that would block federal money from being used to
prevent states from allowing the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of industrial hemp also
passed. So did an amendment from Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pennsylvania, would prevent federal funds from
stopping states from implementing laws relating to cannabidiol oil.” The amendment passed 297 to 130.
[HR 2578, Vote #286; On Agreeing to the Amendment, 6/03/15; NBC News, 6/03/15]
Called on Colorado’s Attorney General to Investigate Denver Area Fraternal Order of Police
In 1996, Coffman called on the state’s Attorney General to investigate potentially misleading pitches
made by the Denver area Fraternal Order of Police during their fundraising drive.
The group’s pitch stated that donations would go to help keep rapists and murderers in prison, when most
of the money would pay for legal fees for cops in trouble.
“The emotional appeal is really strong,” Coffman explained. “They talk about making our streets safe and
putting away murderers and rapists . . . But what they actually do is lobby (the legislature) for benefits for
their members. It’s very similar to a union.” [Rocky Mountain News, 6/09/96]
Voted For An Amendment That Prevented The ATF From Banning Some Forms Of ArmorPiercing Ammunition And Military Style Handguns
Voted For An Amendment That Prevented The ATF From Banning Some Forms Of ArmorPiercing Ammunition And Military Style Handguns. In June 2015, Coffman voted for an amendment
that prevented the ATF from banning some forms of armor-piercing ammunition and military style
handguns. “The Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill, which cruised through the House this
week, contains several provisions directed squarely at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives’ (ATF) rule-making authority. Under the measure, the ATF would be prohibited from banning
certain forms of armor-piercing ammunition or blocking the importation of military-style shotguns.
Another provision would block federal agents from creating what critics say is a gun registry … Among
them is the ATF’s proposed — and later withdrawn — ban on certain forms of armor-piercing
ammunition used in AR-15 rifles … Eventually, the ATF relented and pulled back the bullet ban, but the
agency left the door open to reconsider the rule in the future. To make sure this doesn’t happen again,
Republicans included multiple provisions, authored by Reps. Richard Hudson (R-N.C.) and Thomas
Massie (R-Ky.), in the bill barring future action.” The amendment passed 250 to 171. [HR 2578, Vote
#289, 6/03/15; On Agreeing to the Amendment, 6/03/15; The Hill; 6/05/15]
Voted Against Motion That Provided Additional Funding For Programs For Sexual Assault,
Violence Against Women, And Missing And Exploited Children
270
Voted Against Motion That Provided Additional Funding For Programs Including Sexual Assault,
Violence Against Women, And Missing And Exploited Children. In June 2015, Coffman voted against
a motion that would provide an additional $3 million for sexual assault victims assistance within the
Violence Against Women Prevention and Prosecution Programs account and an additional $3 million for
missing and exploited children programs in the Juvenile Justice Programs account. It would decrease
funding for the Justice Information Technology Account by $6 million. The amendment failed, 190 to
232. [HR 2578, Vote #296, 6/03/15; CQ, 6/03/15]
Voted For Restricting Law Enforcement’s Ability To Gather License Plate Information
Voted For Amendment Restricting Law Enforcement’s Ability To Gather License Plate
Information. In June 2015, Coffman voted for an amendment to the FY16 Transportation-HUD
Appropriations bill that would bar funds from being used to acquire a camera for the purpose of collecting
or storing vehicle license plate numbers. The amendment was adopted by a vote of 297-129. [HR 2577,
Vote #327, 6/09/15; CQ Floor Votes, 6/09/15; Congressional Record, 6/09/15]
Voted Against Amendment To Ban Federal Money Going To Discriminatory Profiling By Law
Enforcement
Voted Against Amendment To Ban Federal Money Going To Discriminating Profiling By Law
Enforcement. In June 2015, Coffman voted against an amendment to the Commerce, Justice, Science,
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, that “prohibits use of funds for law enforcement agencies that
engage in discriminatory profiling based on gender, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or
national origin and also prohibits the use of funds to repeal the December 14 revised profiling guidance
issued by the Department of Justice.” The amendment failed 184-244. [HR 2578, Vote #281, 6/03/15]
Voted For Consideration Of Bill Providing For $51.4 Billion In Funding For The Departments Of
Justice And Commerce, Resulting In Relaxed Gun Restrictions
Voted For Consideration Of Bill Providing For $51.4 Billion In Funding For The Departments Of
Justice And Commerce. In June 2015, Coffman voted for a resolution providing for the consideration of
H.R. 2557 and H.R. 2578. According to CQ Bill Track, “A resolution providing for consideration of HR
2577, a bill making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban
Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2015, and for other purposes, and
providing for consideration of HR 2578, bill making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce
and Justice, Science and related agencies for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2015, and for other
purposes.” According to the Hill, “The House on Wednesday passed the fourth of a dozen spending bills
for fiscal 2016, funding the Justice and Commerce departments as well as science agencies. Lawmakers
approved the $51.4 billion measure in a 242-183 vote, after adopting amendments regarding gun control,
immigration, U.S.-Cuba relations, Guantánamo Bay and marijuana. Passage of the bill came after the
White House threatened to veto the legislation because of insufficient funding levels, capped by
sequestration, and controversial policy riders that would undermine President Obama’s policy to
normalize relations with Cuba, relax gun restrictions and block funds for the transfer of any detainees at
Guantánamo Bay prison to the United States.” The resolution passed 242 to 180. [H. Res. 287, Vote #268,
6/02/15; CQ Bill Track, 6/01/15; The Hill, 6/03/15]
271
Appropriations Bill Would Have Relaxed Gun Restrictions. “The House on Wednesday passed the
fourth of a dozen spending bills for fiscal 2016, funding the Justice and Commerce departments as
well as science agencies. Lawmakers approved the $51.4 billion measure in a 242-183 vote, after
adopting amendments regarding gun control, immigration, U.S.-Cuba relations, Guantánamo Bay and
marijuana…. Passage of the bill came after the White House threatened to veto the legislation because
of insufficient funding levels, capped by sequestration, and controversial policy riders that would
undermine President Obama’s policy to normalize relations with Cuba, relax gun restrictions and
block funds for the transfer of any detainees at Guantánamo Bay prison to the United States.” [The
Hill, 6/03/15]
Voted To Underfund Agencies And Relax Gun Restrictions
Voted To Underfund Agencies And Relax Gun Restrictions. In June 2015, Coffman voted for Justice
and Commerce spending bill that underfunded agencies. “The House on Wednesday passed the fourth of a
dozen spending bills for fiscal 2016, funding the Justice and Commerce departments as well as science
agencies. Lawmakers approved the $51.4 billion measure in a 242-183 vote, after adopting amendments
regarding gun control, immigration, U.S.-Cuba relations, Guantánamo Bay and marijuana. Passage of the
bill came after the White House threatened to veto the legislation because of insufficient funding levels,
capped by sequestration, and controversial policy riders that would undermine President Obama’s policy
to normalize relations with Cuba, relax gun restrictions and block funds for the transfer of any detainees
at Guantánamo Bay prison to the United States.” The amendment failed, 208 to 215. [HR 2578, Vote
#297, 6/03/15; The Hill, 6/03/15]
Voted For Amendment That Proposed Cutting Funding In The Commerce-Justice-Science
Appropriations Bill By 2.48 Percent
Voted For Amendment That Proposed Cutting Funding In The Commerce-Justice-Science
Appropriations Bill By 2.48 Percent. In June 2015, Coffman voted for an amendment that proposed
cutting funding in the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill by 2.48%. The amendment failed
134 to 290. [HR 2578, Vote #292; On Agreeing to the Amendment, 6/03/15]
Voted For Amendment To Increase Funding For Mental Health Courts By $2 Million
Voted For Amendment To Increase Funding For Mental Health Courts By $2 Million. In June 2015,
Coffman voted for an amendment increasing funding for mental health courts and adult and juvenile
collaborations programs by $2 million in FY 2016. “House Vote 272 Fiscal 2016 Commerce-JusticeScience Appropriations — Mental Health Courts and Adult and Juvenile Collaboration Program Grants.
Lujan Grisham, D-N.M., amendment that would increase funding for mental health courts and adult and
juvenile collaboration program grants by $2 million, which would be offset by a $2 million reduction in
funding for the Justice Department's general administration salaries and expenses account.” The
amendment was adopted 417 to 10. [HR 2578, Grisham Amendment, Vote #272, 6/02/15; CQ Bill
Tracker, 6/02/15]
Voted For An Amendment Cutting $1 Million From Justice Department
272
Voted For An Amendment Cutting $1 Million From Justice Department. In June 2015, Coffman
voted for an amendment cutting $1 million from the Justice Department’ general legal activities. “House
Vote 273 Fiscal 2016 Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations — Justice Department General Legal
Activities. Gosar, R-Ariz., amendment that would reduce funding for Justice Department general legal
activities by $1 million, and increase the spending reduction account by $1 million.” The amendment
passed 228 to 198. [H.R. 2578, Gosar Amendment, Vote #273, 6/02/15; CQ Bill Tracker, 6/02/15]
Voted For Amendment To Prohibit Use Of Funds To Compel Journalists To Testify About
Information Obtained From Confidential Sources
Voted For Amendment To Prohibit Use Of Funds To Compel Journalists To Testify About
Information Obtained From Confidential Sources. In June 2015, Coffman voted for an amendment to
the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act that “prohibit[s] the use of
funds to compel a person to testify about information or sources that the person states in a motion to
quash the subpoena that he has obtained as a journalist or reporter and that he regards as confidential.”
[HR 2578, Vote #284, 6/03/15]
Voted Against Prohibiting Reduction In Federal Law Enforcement Grant Funding If It Would
Result In Increase In Crime Or Decrease In Law Enforcement Officers
Voted Against Prohibiting Reduction In Federal Law Enforcement Grant Funding If It Would
Result In Increase In Crime Or Decrease In Law Enforcement Officers. In July 2015, Coffman voted
against a motion that would “prohibit the Attorney General from reducing federal law enforcement grants
to states or local governments if the Attorney General determines that such reductions would result in an
increase in the overall crime rate of the state or a decrease in the number of law enforcement officers in
that area.” The motion failed 181-239. [HR 3009, Vote #465, 7/23/15; CQ Floor Votes, 7/23/15]
Voted For An Amendment That Prevented The National Institute Of Standards And Technology
From Consulting With The NSA Or CIA To Change Cryptographic Or Computer Standards
Voted For An Amendment That Prevented The National Institute Of Standards And Technology
From Consulting With The NSA Or CIA To Change Cryptographic Or Computer Standards. In
June 2015, Coffman voted for an amendment that prevented the National Institute of Standards and
Technology from consulting with the NSA or CIA to change cryptographic or computer standards. The
amendment passed 383 to 43. [HR 2578, Vote #290; On Agreeing to the Amendment, 6/03/15]
Voted For Amendment Increasing Funding For FBI Salaries And Expenses By $25 Million
Voted For Amendment Increasing Funding For FBI Salaries And Expenses By $25 Million. In June
2015, Coffman voted for an amendment increasing funding intended for FBI salaries and expenses by $25
million in the FY 2016. “House Vote 275 Fiscal 2016 Commerce- Justice-Science Appropriations — FBI.
Pittenger, R-N.C., amendment that would increase by $25 million the amount that would be provided for
FBI salaries and expenses, and would be offset by an equal reduction to the Legal Services Corporation.”
The amendment failed 163 to 263. [HR 275, Pittenger Amendment, Vote #275, 6/03/15; CQ Bill Tracker,
6/03/15]
273
Voted Against Ensuring Enforcement Of Laws Protecting Human Health, Environment, Or Public
Safety
Voted Against A Motion To Ensure Enforcement Of Laws And Regulations Necessary To Protect
Human Health, Environment, Or Public Safety. In October 2015, Coffman voted against a motion to
ensure nothing in HR 702, a bill that would allow for the export of crude oil, would prevent the
“enforcement of federal laws that protect human health, the environment, and public safety.” The motion
failed 179 to 242. [HR 702, Vote #548, 10/09/15; Motion to Recommit, 10/09/15]
Voted Against Exempting Public Health And Safety Regulations From Congressional Approval On
Major Rule Changes
Voted Against Exempting Public Health And Safety Regulations From Congressional Approval On
Major Rule Changes. In July 2015, Coffman voted against an amendment that “would exempt rules
pertaining to public health and safety from the Congressional approval process outlined in the bill.” The
amendment failed, 166-242. [HR 427, Vote #477; CQ Floor Votes, 7/28/15]
Amendment Was To REINS Act Which Would Give “Congress The Final Say Over All Major
Regulations.” “The controversial regulatory reform bill, which the House will vote on later this week,
would give Congress the final say over all major regulations. […]The regulatory reform measure
would give Congress final say over any rule with an annual economic impact of $100 million or more.
Federal agencies would be required to submit major rules to Congress for approval before they could
take effect. This would all but guarantee Republicans the ability to block dozens of controversial rules
from the Obama administration and drastically slow the pace of regulations.” [The Hill, 7/27/15]
Voted Against Barring Funding for Individuals Disciplined for Viewing Pornography
In 2010, Coffman voted to bar federal funds to pay the salaries of individuals disciplined for viewing,
downloading or exchanging pornography on a federal government computer or while performing their
duties. [CQ Floor Votes, 5/13/10]
The motion to recommit passed, 292-126. [HR 5116, Vote #270, 5/13/10]
Opposed Law Enforcement Funding, Including COPS Funding
In 2009, Coffman voted against an appropriations bill that contained $802 million for the
Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS). This included $298 million for COPS Hiring
Grants. The bill also contained $510 million for the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (JAG)
program. [CQ Bill Analysis, HR 2847; CQ House Action Reports, 6/12/09]
The Bill Passed 259-157. [HR 2847, #408, 6/18/09]
Voted to Cut COPS Funding by $300 Million
274
In 2011, Coffman voted against restoring funding for the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS)
program at the Justice Department by $298 million. The funds came from decreasing the same amount
from cross-agency support at NASA.
Cuts under the Republicans’ original continuing resolution plan totaled some $600 million.
Amendment sponsor Rep. Anthony Weiner acknowledged he was “taking from one place to give to
another. But I do believe it’s in the interest of all of us to try to set these priorities straight.” [Politico,
2/16/11]
The amendment passed, 228-203. [HR 1, Weiner amendment #125 as modified, Vote #53, 2/16/11]
Voted to Cut Drug Intelligence Money, Fire Hundreds
In 2011, Coffman voted to zero-out funding for the National Drug Intelligence Center by striking $34
million in funding.
The NDIC, which employed hundreds in Johnstown, PA, was established by the late Rep. John Murtha,
but criticized for being a “pet project.”
Rep. Mark Critz countered that there was a “misperception” that the NDIC duplicated work by other
agencies. He said there was a “basic misunderstanding regarding the types of drug intelligence.” The
Center’s document and media exploitation service supported federal prosecutors in drug cases. [TribuneDemocrat, 2/16/11]
The amendment passed, 262-169. [HR 1, Flake amendment #368, Vote #51, 2/16/11]
Voted Against Prioritizing Drug-Trafficking Crime Prevention
In 2011, Coffman voted against directing the heads of each intelligence agency to prioritize countering
transnational drug-trafficking and drug-related crime and violence. [CQ Floor Votes, 9/09/11]
Voted to Defund the National Drug Intelligence Center
In 2011, Coffman voted for an amendment which defunded the National Drug Intelligence Center.
The amendment defunded the National Drug Intelligence Center in Johnstown, PA. The National Drug
Intelligence Center is run and funded by the Department of Justice. [The Tribune-Democrat, 3/26/11]
The amendment passed 246-172. [HR 1540, Vote #355, 5/26/11]
Pushed Legislation that would Deny Plea Bargains for Youth Offenders
In 1996, Coffman pushed legislation that would deny plea bargains for youth offenders.
275
The attempt failed. [Denver Post, 5/04/96]
Opposed State-Sponsored Gambling
In 2000, Coffman opposed-state sponsored gambling.
“While in the Legislature, I opposed the state-sponsored lottery and I now oppose this attempt to expand
state-sponsored gambling,” he said.
“The issue is not whether the state will use the proceeds for a worthy purpose. It is whether or not the
state should en-courage its citizens to gamble.” [Pueblo Chieftain, 10/13/00]
Opposed Bill that Expanded Gambling
In 1996, Coffman opposed a bill that would ban children from Colorado gaming areas and let the state
gaming commission add new types of poker games.
Coffman explained that he liked the ban on children, but opposed the bill because it expanded gambling.
Opposed Ballot Issue That Would Allow Video Lottery Terminals at Horse and Dog Tracks
In 2003, Coffman said he would oppose a potential November ballot issue that would allow hundreds of
video lottery terminals in horse and dog tracks.
“Video lottery terminals are nothing but slot machines that will flood into Colorado under this ballot
initiative,” he said. “Colorado has enough gambling already.” [Rocky Mountain News, 6/24/03]
Proposed that State Lottery Only Extend to 2006
In 1998, Coffman proposed an amendment that would extend the state’s lottery only to 2006.
The amendment was defeated. [Denver Post, 1/24/98]
Called Lottery “Sleazy” and That Ads Encouraged “Get-Rich Quick Scheme”
In 1998, Coffman said that the lottery was “sleazy” and that ads “encourage us to gamble in the
mentality of a get-rich-quick scheme.” [Denver Post, 1/24/98]
Accused of Putting Youth Offender Boot Camp in Neighborhood
In 1997, Coffman was accused of putting a youth offender boot camp in a neighborhood. From a letter to
the editor:
When Sen. Coffman came up with the idea to make a boot camp at the Colorado Mental
Health Institute, he just thought about the good of the first-time youth offenders.
276
Lately, he even wants to mix them with second- and third-time offenders. But he never
thought about the residential neighborhood!
How dare he ruin all of us, who had to listen to all the yelling, from 5:45 a.m. till dark, day
after day! How dare he give suggestions to make a penal colony in our backyard. They are
500 yards from us.
We, the taxpayer citizens, resent that an outsider changes our life and degrades our
property values. Maybe the people in Aurora love a dictator, but we in Pueblo do not care
for it. [Halaszi LTE, Denver Post, 2/26/97]
Voted In Favor of Funding Firefighter, First Responder Assistance
In 2011, Coffman voted in favor of increased funding for FEMA firefighter assistance grants by $510
million. The amendment specified that $390 million be available for firefighter assistance grants and $420
million be available for Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) grants.
The amendment passed, 318-113. [HR 1, Pascrell amendment #223, Vote #60, 2/16/11]
277
Defense And Military Issues
 Despite using GI Bill to attend college, Coffman voted to eliminate the
program’s 100 percent education reimbursement so service members had “skin
in the game”
 Suggested Muslims in military should be vetted for ties to radical Islam
 Believed we did not need “an Army and Air National Guard and an Army and
Air Force Reserve”
 Voted against repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”
 Proposed an additional half billion dollars in cuts on top of Secretary Gates’
proposed $178.3 billion in defense savings
 Voted to protect his own pay while voting against ensuring service members get
paid in the event of a government shutdown; later introduced bill to ensure
service members were paid during government shutdown
 Voted to shut down emergency mortgage relief program that would have
benefitted veterans who were homeowners; voted against protecting such
homeowners from foreclosures
 Voted three times against pay raises for the troops
 Supported fee increase for military retirees in TRICARE
 Called for closing military bases in Europe and South Korea
Despite being a veteran himself, Coffman has consistently fought against
protecting veterans’ benefits – with the most obvious example being his proposal to
eliminate the GI Bill’s 100 percent education reimbursement even though he took
advantage of that benefit to attend college. He has also voted to protect his own
pay but not that of service members in the event of a government shutdown and
opposed multiple efforts to provide them with pay raises. In addition to these
attacks, Coffman has said that the U.S. did not need Army and Air Force National
278
Guards or Reserves, supported efforts to cut over $178 billion from the Defense
budget, and voted against protecting service members and veterans from
foreclosures.
When it comes to issues related to people serving in the military, Coffman
advocated for increased vetting on Muslims in the military for ties to radical Islam
and voted to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
2011: Proposed Eliminating 100 Percent Education Reimbursement From GI Bill, Force Service
Members To Pay 25 Percent More So They Had “Skin In The Game”; … But In 1974: Coffman
Took Advantage Of GI Bill To Attend College
2011: Proposed Eliminating 100 Percent Education Reimbursement From GI Bill. In 2011, Coffman
proposed eliminating the 100 percent education reimbursement from the GI Bill. “[Coffman] is proposing
… half a billion dollars in cuts to beloved programs such as education reimbursements… Coffman's cuts
add shifting the 100 percent education reimbursement in the GI Bill to having the military pay 75 percent
and service members pay 25 percent so they ‘have skin in the game’ when picking a school, he said. This
would save $150 million a year.” [Denver Post, 4/21/11]
HEADLINE: “Coffman’s Proposed Military Cuts Face Strong Opposition” [Denver Post,
4/21/11]
… But In 1974: Coffman Took Advantage Of GI Bill To Attend College. According to Coffman’s
biography on his official U.S. House of Representatives website, “In 1974, he left active duty to attend the
University of Colorado under the G.I. Bill where he continued his military career by serving in the U.S.
Army Reserve. Coffman took a leave of absence from the U.S. Army Reserve and the University of
Colorado to attend D.G. Vaishnav College in Chennai, India in 1976 and the University of Veracruz in
Xalapa, Mexico in 1977. Coffman graduated from the University of Colorado in 1979 and immediately
transferred from the U.S. Army Reserve to the U.S. Marine Corps where he served as an infantry officer.”
[Rep. Mike Coffman official website, accessed 3/02/16]
Suggested Muslims in Military Should Be Vetted for Ties to Radical Islam
Suggested Muslims in Military Should Be Vetted for Ties to Radical Islam. In a 2012 interview,
Coffman suggested that Muslims in the military should be vetted for ties to radical Islam. During the
interview, Coffman said, “We need that same mentality today, to have that active counter-intelligence
effort, to make sure that our ranks are not infiltrated by those sympathetic to radical Islam, like Major
Hasan [Fort Hood], like Private First Class Abdo. And I think that is very important. And I think that also
it would help Muslim Americans who are serving in the military, because then those soldiers, Marines,
and airmen, serving alongside of them would understand that they have been vetted and that they can be
trusted.” [Michael Brown interview, 12/16/11]
Claimed That, Without A “Vigorous Vetting Process” For Military Personnel, Muslim
Americans Would Be Radicalized. “I strongly believe that it would be in the best interest of not only
our military but to Muslim Americans, in particular, to have a vigorous vetting process whereby
members of our Armed Forces would have full confidence that all our service men and women could,
279
at all times, be counted on. The unintended consequences of the overly politically correct approach
currently advocated by the U.S. Army will ultimately have the negative effect of only increasing the
suspicions of Muslim American military personnel and thereby potentially causing increased
alienation, segregation, and finally the radicalization of Muslim American personnel.” [Rep. Mike
Coffman Op-Ed, 12/17/10]
Believed We Did Not Need “An Army And Air National Guard And An Army And Air Force
Reserve”;
In 2012, Coffman wrote that the U.S. did not need an Army and Air National Guard and an Air Force
Reserve. “Why do we need an Army and Air National Guard and an Army and Air Force Reserve? In
short -- we don’t,” Coffman wrote. [Coffman Op-ed, Washington Examiner, 2/2/12]
Voted Against Repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Policy
Voted Against Repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Policy. In 2010, Coffman voted against repealing the
military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, prohibiting military service by openly gay men and women. The
measure would require a submission signed by the president, secretary of Defense, and the chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff that repeal is consistent with military readiness and effectiveness. Defense
Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that repeal
would not hurt military readiness and had urged lawmakers to repeal. They cited a Pentagon survey taken
in 2010 that found 70 percent of military personnel surveyed believed a change in the law would have
either a positive, mixed or no effect. [CQ Today, 12/15/10]
The New York Times opined that “repealing the policy would not harm military readiness. Indeed, there
is a wealth of evidence that the policy is actually harming military readiness by forcing out of the service
people who have critical skills in interpretation, battlefield medicine, counterterrorism and other vital
subjects.” [New York Times, Editorial, 11/18/10]
Concerned With “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” Repeal’s Effect on Combat Troops. In 2010, Coffman
express concern with “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” repeal’s effect on combat troops. “I’m concerned about
the impact of reversing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell on our combat forces at the tip of the spear. According
to the Defense Department Study, the opposition to repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell greatly increases
when you move from the Air Force and the Navy to the Army and the Marine Corps and it increases
again as you separate ground combat troops from combat support units,” he wrote. [Coffman press
release, 12/15/10]
Supported Defense Secretary Gates’ Proposed $178.3 Billion in Defense Savings; Thought The
Army Should Be At Pre-9/11 Levels
In 2011, Coffman supported Defense Secretary Gates’ proposed $178.3 billion in defense savings over
the next five years.
280
“I think they (the programs) have been neglected for a long time,” Coffman said. “Every dollar wasted is
a dollar not going to our war fighters. What they do is important to this country, and we should focus on
them.” [Denver Post, 4/21/11]
… And Proposed An Additional Half Billion in Cuts. In 2011, Coffman proposed an additional half
billion in cuts “to beloved programs such as education reimbursements, the Selective Service and the
military’s health plan, TRICARE,” the Denver Post reported. [Denver Post, 4/21/11]
Criticized “Top-Heavy” Nature of Military. In 2011, Coffman criticized the “top-heavy” nature of
the military. [Denver Post, 2/15/11]
Saw Himself As A “Fiscal Hawk” on Defense. In 2011, Coffman said he saw himself as a “fiscal
hawk” on defense. “I really see my role as a fiscal hawk on defense,” he said. “I’m not doing it
because I want leverage for something else in the budget. I think it’s good for our military and for the
national security of the United States.” [Denver Post, 2/17/11]
Thought the Army and Marines should be at Pre-9/11 Levels. In 2013, Coffman said ground forces in
the Army and Marine Corps ought to be brought down to pre-9/11 levels. “I think our ground forces in the
Army and Marine Corps ought to be brought down to their pre-9/11 levels now that we are out of Iraq and
pulling down from Afghanistan. And what I want is to put in the Guard and Reserve, so we retain the
capability, but at a much smaller cost,” Coffman said. [FOX 31, 2/25/13]
Said He Favored Cuts to Military As Long As They Did Not Compromise National Security. In
2012, Coffman said he favored cuts to the military as long as they didn’t compromise national security.
He said he wanted to be able to keep a two-war posture. “I’m all for making cuts so long as they don’t
compromise our national security. I’m afraid from what I’ve seen so far of the direction that the Obama
administration wants to go, it does just that by signaling to our adversaries that we are incapable of
simultaneously fighting two conflicts at the same time.” “The Navy has more admirals than ships and the
other services are just as top-heavy,” he said. “I’ll be looking for specifics to see whether this effort to
streamline the military to reduce cost goes far enough.” [Greeley Gazette, 1/10/12; Editorial, Pueblo
Chieftain, 1/10/12]
Voted To Protect His Own Pay But Thrice Voted Against Ensuring Members Of Military Get Paid
In The Event Of A Government Shutdown; Later Introduced Bill To Ensure Members Of Military
Were Paid During Government Shutdown
Voted Protect His Own Pay In The Event Of A Government Shutdown. In 2011, Coffman voted
against a measure that would have struck all of the provisions in the bill and would have prohibited
Members of Congress and the President from receiving basic pay for any period in which there is more
than a 24-hour lapse in appropriations. The measure would have also have prohibited the Members and
President from receiving retroactive pay. The measure failed 188-237. [HR 1255, Vote #223, 4/01/11]
… But Voted Three Times Against Ensuring Members Of Military Get Paid During Shutdown. In
2011, 2012, and 2015, Coffman voted against ensuring members of the military get paid in the event of a
government shutdown. Below are the three votes.
281
2012: Voted Against Ensuring Members Of Military Get Paid During Shutdown. In 2012,
Coffman voted against a motion to protect soldiers’ pay in the case of a government shutdown. The
motion would add a provision to the continuing resolution that extended funding for Military, Reserve
and National Guard personnel for a full fiscal year. The motion failed, 189-232. [HJRes 117, Vote
#578, 9/13/12; Rep. Ron Barber press release, 9/13/12]
2011: Voted Against A Motion To Recommit That Would Have Provided Pay To Service
Members During A Government Shutdown. In 2011, Coffman voted against a motion to recommit
which would have ensured that Service Members would have gotten paid in the event of a government
shutdown. The motion would have added a new section to the bill providing that the salaries of the
members of the armed forces would not be interrupted in the event of a government shutdown. The
motion failed 191-236. [HR 1363, Vote #246, 4/07/11]
2015: Voted Against Ensuring A Pay Raise For Service Members And Ensure They Were Paid
In The Event Of A Government Shutdown. In May 2015, Coffman voted against a motion to
recommit that would ensure a 2.3% pay increase for fiscal year 2016 for service members and would
ensure that service members are paid in the event of a government shutdown. [HR 1735, Vote #238,
5/15/15]
Introduced Bill That Would Ensure Military Members Get Paid During A Shutdown. “U.S.
Representative Mike Coffman introduced the Pay Our Military Act in response to a potential shutdown of
the Federal government. A shutdown could occur on Thursday, October 1 if Congress does not pass a
continuing resolution to fund the government. Coffman’s legislation would ensure that men and women
serving in the armed services continue to receive pay even in the case of a shutdown. The bill would also
protect the pay of Department of Defense civilians and contractors necessary to support service members,
as well as National Guard troops activated in the event of a presidential emergency declaration.” [Rep.
Mike Coffman press release, 9/29/15]
Voted to Shut Down Emergency Mortgage Relief Program That Would Have Benefitted Veterans
Who Were Homeowners, Voted Against Protecting Such Homeowners From Foreclosures
Voted to Shut Down Emergency Mortgage Relief Program That Would Have Benefitted Veterans
Who Were Homeowners. In 2011, Coffman voted to shut down a program that provided emergency
loans to unemployed homeowners facing foreclosure. The legislation would end the Emergency
Homeowner Loan Program and rescind the unobligated funds. The White House said it would veto the
bill, saying that the program was needed to spur a housing recovery. The White House argued that that the
loan assistance could help as many as 30,000 distressed homeowners. The CBO estimated that the
program would cost $840 million over 10 years. The bill passed, 242-177. [HR 836, Vote #174, 3/11/11;
CQ Today, 3/11/11]
Voted Against Protecting Veterans and Active Service Members From Foreclosures. Before
considering terminating the emergency relief program, Coffman voted against a measure that would have
protected veterans and active service members from foreclosures. The measure required the Secretary of
HUD in consultation with the Secretaries of Defense and Veterans Affairs, to determine the amount
necessary to provide assistance under the Emergency Housing Act of 1975 to homeowners who are
veterans or members of the Armed Forces on active duty. It would also authorize Congress to appropriate
282
this amount of assistance to veterans and members of the Armed Forces on active duty under the
Emergency Mortgage Relief Program. The motion failed, 182-238. [HR 836, Vote #173, 3/11/11]
Three Times Voted Against Pay Raises for the Troops
Three Times Voted Against Pay Raises for the Troops. Since 2010, Coffman voted three times again
pay raises for the troops:
May 2010: Opposed Troop Pay Raises, Quality of Life Improvements. In 2010, Coffman voted
against the nearly $760 billion defense authorization bill, providing pay raises and quality of life
improvements to the troops and their families. The bill authorized $725.9 billion for defense programs
in fiscal 2011 and $33.7 billion in fiscal 2010 funding for the “surge” of additional forces in
Afghanistan. It included $159.3 billion in fiscal 2011 contingent funds specifically authorized to
support operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and the war on terrorism. Additional funds were allocated
for equipment depleted by the war in Iraq, including combat vehicles; new battle gear for the Army
National Guard and reserves; military pay raises; Special Operations forces; and quality of life
improvements for troops and their families. [CQ Today, 5/28/10]
May 2011: Voted Against Increasing Combat Pay for Troops. In 2011, Coffman voted against a
motion which would increase combat pay for troops. The motion increased the maximum amount of
bonus pay troops receive while in combat to $325 per month effective October 1, 2011. [CQ Floor
Votes, 5/26/11]
December 2011: Voted Against a Pay Raise for Military Personnel. In 2011, Coffman voted
against a 1.6 percent pay raise for military personnel, contained in the fiscal year 2012 defense
authorization bill. The bill passed 283-136. [HR 1540, Vote #932, 12/14/11]
Supported Fee Increase for Military Retirees in TRICARE; Voted Against Protecting TRICARE
Subcontractor Employees Under Labor Protection Laws
Supported Fee Increase for Military Retirees in TRICARE. In 2011, Coffman supported a proposal
offered by Defense Secretary Gates that would levy a modest fee increase on TRICARE health insurance
for military retirees. However, Coffman proposed that such an increase be tied to military retiree cost of
living adjustments. “Although I agree with the modest fee increase for fiscal year 2012, I believe the
index he proposed for future fee increases is unfair to military retirees who have paid a high up-front cost
for their health care through years of dedicated military service, typically including long periods of
separation from their families. Accordingly, I have submitted a legislative proposal that includes a modest
fee increase for 2012 but ties future fee increases to military retiree cost of living adjustments in order to
avoid imposing unfair fee hikes on military veterans,” Coffman explained. [Denver Post, 5/01/11]
Voted Against Protecting TRICARE Subcontractor Employees Under Labor Protection Laws. In
2011, Coffman voted against protecting TRICARE subcontractors and defense contractor employees
283
under labor protection laws. The motion would have struck a provision in the conference report that
exempted TRICARE network providers from labor protection laws. According to a press release from the
author of the motion, “By striking this section, the motion would guarantee that employees of TRICARE
subcontractors and other defense contractors are afforded labor protections for civil rights, disabilities,
and veterans.” The motion failed 183-234. [HR 1540, Vote #931, 12/14/11; CQ Floor Votes, 12/14/11; Rep. Sanford
Bishop Press Release, 12/14/11]
Called for Closing Military Bases in Europe and South Korea
Called for Closing Military Bases in Europe and South Korea. In 2011, Coffman called for the closing
of military bases in Europe and South Korea. “We need to remain a member of NATO but should close
our military bases in Europe,” he stated.“As we close our bases in South Korea, we could pre-position
heavy weapons and equipment that will enable our forces to quickly mobilize in the event of escalating
tensions with North Korea,” he also stated. [Denver Post, 9/04/11]
Supported Closing American Bases in Europe. In April 2012, Coffman said he believed it was
appropriate to pull all four of the Army brigade combat troops from Europe— including the tactical
supporting units such as helicopters and aircraft. There are 79,000 U.S. military personnel stationed in
Europe, mostly in Germany but also in Italy and the United Kingdom. He said, “The reality of this
proposal is that I feel like I have the wind at my back. I think their time has come. I think if there
weren't budget pressures, it would be dismissed. Hey, the military likes it over there. We're not getting
complaints from our soldiers in Germany. They like being there.” Coffman said he expected his
proposal to be included in the Defense Authorization Bill for 2013. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta
said in January he would like to withdraw two of the four brigade combat teams in Western Europe —
half of what Coffman wants. [Denver Post, 4/18/12]
Introduced Bill That Would Abolish The Draft
Introduced Bill That Would Abolish The Draft. “Coffman Bill Would Abolish The Draft: Rep. Mike
Coffman is drumming up support in the House for legislation that would formally repeal the military
draft. In a ‘Dear Colleague’ letter seeking support and cosponsors for the bill, the Colorado Republican
called the Selective Service process ‘coercive and unconstitutional’ and noted the military hasn't fought
with draftees since the Vietnam War, despite requiring men aged 18 to 25 to register for the draft.”
[Politico, 2/12/16]
Did Not Vote On FY16 Defense Appropriations Bill
Did Not Vote On The Fiscal Year 2016 $578.6 Billion Defense Appropriations Bill. In June 2015,
Coffman did not vote on legislation to “provide $578.6 billion in discretionary funding for the Defense
department in fiscal 2016. The total would include $490.2 billion in base Defense department funds and
$88.4 billion for the Overseas Contingency Operations account, and would provide that $37.5 billion in
OCO funding be used in support of base budget requirements. The bill would provide roughly $218.8
billion for operations and maintenance, approximately $116.7 billion for procurement, approximately
$67.9 billion for research and development and $133.2 billion for military personnel, including a 2.3
percent pay raise. It also would provide roughly $31.7 billion for the Defense Health Program. The
measure would provide $715 million for security assistance to Iraqi forces fighting the Islamic State and
at least $600 million to aid Jordan in its fight against that group. It also would provide $600 million to
284
continue training and equipping moderate Syrian opposition forces and would appropriate $200 million
for lethal weapons for Ukraine. As amended, the bill would bar use of funds by the National Security
Agency or the Central Intelligence Agency to mandate that a company alter products or services to permit
electronic surveillance of users, except for mandates or requests authorized under the Communications
Assistance for Law Enforcement Act.” The bill passed 278-149. [HR 2685, Vote #358; CQ Floor Votes,
6/11/15]
Voted Against Exempting Federal Regulations Aimed At Halting Nuclear Proliferation From New
Rulemaking Requirement
Voted Against A Motion Exempting Federal Regulations Aimed At Halting Nuclear Proliferation
From New Rulemaking Requirement. In February 2015, Coffman voted against a motion that would
“would provide exemptions for rules and regulations that stop the proliferation, spread or development of
nuclear weapons” from the new rulemaking requirements in HR 527, under which “the SBA would have
new authority to ensure agencies comply with the law's regulatory review requirements, including by
getting more directly involved with agency reviews of proposed rules. It would expand the ability of small
businesses and other small entities affected by an agency's regulations to legally challenge those rules.”
The motion failed, 182-240. [HR 527, Vote #67, 2/05/15; CQ News, 2/05/15, 2/05/15]
Voted For Budget Plan That Prohibited Increased OCO Defense Spending Without Offsetting Cuts
Voted For Budget Plan That Prohibited Increased OCO Defense Spending Without Offsetting Cuts.
In March 2015, Coffman voted for a budget that would set funding for the Overseas Contingency
Operations war funding account at $94 billion in FY2016. This budget plan “would have required offsets
over $73.5 billion in the OCO fund, which pays for wars and other overseas activities and is not subject to
sequester caps.” The amendment failed 105 to 319. [H Con Res 27, Vote #140, 3/25/15; US News,
3/25/15]
Voted Against Cutting OCO Funding For Military Construction Projects
Voted Against Amendment That Prevented Use Of OCO Funds For Defense Military Construction
Projects. In April 2015, Coffman voted against the second Mulvaney amendment that prevented the use
of funds under the Pentagon’s Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) account for Defense military
construction projects. “Reps. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), the top Democrat on the House Budget
Committee, and Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.), a member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus,
offered an amendment to strike provisions of the bill for military construction projects that use funds from
the Pentagon's war fund, known as the Overseas Contingency Operations account.” The amendment failed
to pass 190 to 231. [HR 2029, Vote #186; On Agreeing to the Amendment, 4/29/15; The Hill, 4/30/15]
Voted Against Amendment That Prevented Use Of OCO Funds For Air Force Construction
Projects. In April 2015, Coffman voted against the first Mulvaney amendment that prevented the use of
OCO funds for Air Force construction projects. “Mick Mulvaney, a South Carolina Republican, and Chris
Van Hollen, a Maryland Democrat running for Senate, are joining forces to block a series of Pentagon
spending increases that underpin the GOP’s spending strategy this year … they could jeopardize a $38
billion Pentagon boost that GOP leaders used to woo support from defense hawks … Mulvaney and Van
Hollen plan to propose amendments to strike every penny of OCO money not used for war from here on
285
out, including in Defense and State department bills … The Mulvaney-Van Hollen duo’s test vote
Thursday night showed they still have some support work to do. The three Mulvaney-Van Hollen
amendments would have eliminate $530 million of OCO money that’s supposed to be used for
construction projects on military bases and installations.” The amendment failed to pass 192 to 229. [HR
2029, Vote #185; On Agreeing to the Amendment, 4/29/15; Politico, 4/30/15]
Mulvaney Amendments Cut $530 Million In Funds Under Pentagon’s Overseas Contingency
Operations (OCO) Account For Military Construction Projects. “Mick Mulvaney, a South Carolina
Republican, and Chris Van Hollen, a Maryland Democrat running for Senate, are joining forces to block a
series of Pentagon spending increases that underpin the GOP’s spending strategy this year … they could
jeopardize a $38 billion Pentagon boost that GOP leaders used to woo support from defense hawks …
Defense funds were supposed to be frozen below caps laid out in a 2011 deficit-reduction law. But GOP
leadership planned to dole out an extra $38 billion for the Pentagon using OCO, which isn’t subject to the
caps … The three Mulvaney-Van Hollen amendments would have eliminate $530 million of OCO money
that’s supposed to be used for construction projects on military bases and installations.” [Politico,
4/30/15]
Voted Against Amendment That Prevented Use Of OCO Funds For Navy And Marine Corps
Construction Projects. In April 2015, Coffman voted against the Van Hollen amendment that prevented
the use of OCO funds for Navy and Marine Corps construction projects. “Mick Mulvaney, a South
Carolina Republican, and Chris Van Hollen, a Maryland Democrat running for Senate, are joining forces
to block a series of Pentagon spending increases that underpin the GOP’s spending strategy this year …
they could jeopardize a $38 billion Pentagon boost that GOP leaders used to woo support from defense
hawks … Mulvaney and Van Hollen plan to propose amendments to strike every penny of OCO money
not used for war from here on out, including in Defense and State department bills … The Mulvaney-Van
Hollen duo’s test vote Thursday night showed they still have some support work to do. The three
Mulvaney-Van Hollen amendments would have eliminate $530 million of OCO money that’s supposed to
be used for construction projects on military bases and installations.” The amendment failed to pass 191
to 229. [HR 2029, Vote #184; On Agreeing to the Amendment, 4/29/15; Politico, 4/30/15]
Voted Against Reducing The National Nuclear Security Weapons Activity By $25 Million
Voted Against Reducing Atomic Energy Defense By $25 Million And Apply Savings To Deficit
Reduction. In April 2015, Coffman voted against an amendment to the energy and water development
funding bill that reduce the Atomic Energy Defense Activities National Nuclear Security Administration,
Weapons Activities Account by $25 million and to apply the savings to the spending reduction account.
“The first amendment the National Nuclear Security Administration's Weapons Activities Account for the
W80-4 Life Extension Program by $25,000,000, applying this savings to deficit reduction. This
technology is used in our Long Range Stand Off (LRSO) weapon.” The amendment was rejected 149 to
272. [H.AMDT.181, Vote #204, 4/30/15; Congressional Documents, 5/01/15]
Voted Against Reducing National Nuclear Security Administration Funding By $167 Million
Voted Against Reducing National Nuclear Security Administration Funding By $167 Million. In
April 2015, Coffman voted against an amendment to the energy and water development funding bill that
would apply $167,050,000 to the savings reduction account for the new nuclear arm cruise missile.
286
“Quigley, D-Ill., amendment that would reduce the National Nuclear Security Administration weapons
activities by $167 million and transfer the same amount to the spending reduction account.” The
amendment was rejected 164 to 257. [H.AMDT.181, Vote #203, 4/30/15; CQ 4/30/15]
Voted Against Reduction In Naval Operations
Voted Against Reducing The Number Of Naval Operation Carriers From 11 To 10. In May 2015,
Coffman voted against an amendment reducing from 11 to 10 the statutory requirement for the number of
operational carriers that the U.S. Navy must have. The amendment failed, 60- 363. [HR 1735, Vote #228;
Voted Against Requiring Funding For Replacement Submarines To Come From Navy Accounts
Rather Than Sea-Based Deterrent Fund
Voted Against Amendment Requiring Funding For Replacement Submarines To Come From Navy
Accounts Instead Of Sea-Based Deterrent Fund. In May 2015, Coffman voted against an amendment
that would “require funding for the Navy's new Ohio-class replacement submarines to come from their
traditional Navy accounts, instead of the Sea-Based Deterrent Fund…” The amendment failed, 43 to 375.
[H.R. 1735, Vote #235, 5/15/15; Congress.gov, accessed 5/26/15]
Amendment Would Transfer Funds From Sea-Based Deterrent Fund To Navy’s Budget. The
amendment would also “[transfer] funds from the Sea-Based Deterrent Fund back into their historic
Navy budget lines.” [Congress.gov, accessed 5/26/15]
Voted Against Striking Provision Placing Limits On Funding Used To Dismantle Nuclear Weapons
Voted Against Striking Provision Placing Limits On Funding Used To Dismantle Nuclear Weapons.
In May 2015, Coffman voted against an amendment that would “strike a section of the bill that would
place limits on the use of funding authorized for the National Nuclear Security Administration in fiscals
2016 through 2020 for dismantlement of nuclear weapons.” The amendment failed, 178-242. [H.R 1735,
Voted For FY16 NDAA; Bill Allowed Concealed Carry On Military Bases
Voted For FY16 National Defense Authorization Act. In May 2015, Coffman voted for the FY16
National Defense Authorization Act “that authorizes $612 billion in government funding for programs at
the Department of Defense.” The bill passed, 269-151. [NBC News, 5/15/15; H.R 1735, Vote #239,
5/15/15]
Bill Allowed Concealed Carry Of Firearms On Military Installations. “The U.S. House passed the
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for the 2016 fiscal year on Friday, including an
amendment that would allow military base commanders to authorize the concealed carry of firearms
on military installations.” [KVUE, 5/15/15]
Bill Placed Restrictions On President To Transfer Prisoners From Guantanamo Bay. “The
measure would place new restrictions on the ability of the president to transfer prisoners from the
287
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention center to third-party countries and would continue existing
prohibitions against transferring such detainees to the United States or its territories.” [CQ Floor
Votes, 5/15/15]
Voted Against Increasing Funding For Defense Wide Operations
Voted Against Increasing Funding For Defense Wide Operations. In June 2015, Coffman voted
against an amendment “that would reduce the Army's operation and maintenance funding by $3 million
and increase Defense-wide operations and maintenance by a net $2 million.” The amendment was
rejected, 195-237. [CQ Floor Votes, 6/10/15; HR 2685, Vote #334, 6/10/15]
Voted Against Reducing Funding For Defense Wide Operations
Voted Against Reducing Funding For Defense Operation And Maintenance Account By $430
Million. In June 2015, Coffman voted against an amendment “that would reduce the Defense-wide
operation and maintenance account by $430 million.” The amendment failed, 117-315. [CQ Floor Votes,
6/10/15; HR 2685, Vote #340, 6/10/15]
Voted For Striking Measure To Require Including U.S. Coal For Heating At U.S. Defense
Installations Overseas. In June 2015, Coffman voted for an amendment “that would strike section 8053
of the bill, which would require the secretary of the Air Force to implement cost-effective facility heating
agreements in the Kasierlautern Military Community in Germany provided that such agreements include
U.S. coal as the base load energy for municipal district heat at U.S. defense installations.” The
amendment passed, 252-179. [HR 2685, Vote #335, 6/10/15]
Voted For Ending Prohibition On Funds For Sea Based Deterrence Fund
Voted For Ending Prohibition On Transferring Funds To Sea Based Deterrence Fund. In June 2015,
Coffman voted for an “amendment that would strike section 8122 of the bill, which bars funds from being
transferred to the National Sea Based Deterrence Fund.” The amendment passed, 321-111. [CQ Floor
Votes, 6/10/15; HR 2685, Vote #339, 6/10/15]
Voted Against Prohibiting Navy From Divesting Or Transferring Search And Rescue Units From
Marine Corps
Voted Against Amendment To Prohibit Navy From Divesting Or Transferring Search And Rescue
Units From Marine Corps. In June 2015, Coffman voted against an amendment that would “prohibit use
of funds by the Navy to divest or transfer any search and rescue units from the Marine Corps.” The
amendment failed, 81-347. [H.R. 2685, Vote #350, 6/11/15; CQ Floor Votes, 6/11/15]
Voted Against Prohibiting Transfer Of Flash-Bang Grenades To Local Law Enforcement
Voted Against Amendment To Prohibit Transferring Flash-Bang Grenades To Local Law
Enforcement. In June 2015, Coffman voted against an amendment that would “prohibit use of funds to
transfer flash-bang grenades from the Defense Department to local law enforcement agencies.” The
amendment failed, 165-265. [H.R. 2685, Vote #351, 6/11/15; CQ Floor Votes, 6/11/15]
288
Voted Against Prohibiting Funding For Army Aircraft Combat Uniforms
Voted Against Prohibiting Funds For Army Aircrew Combat Uniforms. In June 2015, Coffman
voted against an amendment that would have prohibited the “use of funds to procure any Army aircrew
combat uniforms.” The amendment failed, 51- 378. [HR 2685, Vote #352; CQ Floor Votes, 6/11/15]
Voted Against Transfer Mine-Resistant Ambush Vehicles From The Department Of Defense To
Local Law Enforcement Agencies
Voted Against Prohibiting Department Of Defense From Transferring Mine-Resistant AmbushProtected Vehicles To Local Law Enforcement Agencies. In June 2015, Coffman voted against the
prohibition of “funds to transfer mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles from the Defense Department
to local law enforcement agencies.” The amendment failed, 166-262. [HR 2685, Vote #353; CQ Floor
Votes, 6/11/15]
The Pentagon Has Transferred Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles To Law
Enforcement Agencies In Recent Years. “Here at The Watch, we’re looking for the smallest town in
America to acquire an MRAP, or Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected armored personnel vehicle. For
the past few years, the Pentagon has been giving these vehicles to police departments across the
country. The unwieldy behemoths have little real application in domestic police work. They’re
designed for use on a battlefield. (The Pentagon offers no training to police departments when it gives
the vehicles away. And they’ve been known to tip over.)” [Washington Post, 4/18/14]
Voted Against $5 Million For Army Medical Research
Voted Against An Additional $5 Million For Funding Army Medical Research. In June 2015,
Coffman voted against “an additional $5 million for the U.S. Army Medical Research and Material
Command to implement congressionally-directed medical research programs and an additional $2 million
for the Operation and Maintenance Army account. It also would provide an additional $2 million for the
Operation and Maintenance Defense-Wide account and reduce funding for that account by $9 million.”
The motion to recommit failed 186-240. [HR 2685, Vote #357; CQ Floor Votes, 6/11/15]
Voted Against Shifting $38 Billion From OCO Account To Defense Base Budget
Voted Against Shifting $38 Billion From OCO Account To Defense Base Budget. In October 2015,
Coffman voted against a motion that “would transfer $38.3 billion from the Overseas Contingency
Operations (OCO) account to the Department of the Defense based budget by striking the requirement
that the administration treat these funds as emergency war funding.” The motion failed, 186-241. [CQ
Floor Votes, 10/01/15; HR 1735, Vote #531, 10/01/15]
Voted For Defense Authorization Bill
Voted For Defense Authorization Bill. In October 2015, Coffman voted for “a conference report to
accompany the National Defense Authorization Act (HR 1735) that would authorize $604.2 billion for
discretionary defense spending, including $515 billion for discretionary spending subject to sequester289
reduced spending caps for FY 2016 for the base defense budget and $89.2 billion for the Overseas
Contingency Operations (OCO).” The bill passed, 270-156. [CQ Floor Votes, 10/01/15; HR 1735, Vote
#532, 10/01/15]
Bill Included 1.3 Percent Military Pay Raise. “The bill includes a host of military pay and benefits
authorizations, and would allow Obama to set the 2016 military pay raise at 1.3 percent.” [Military
Times, 10/01/15]
Voted For Eliminating New Maritime Security Program Funding
Voted For Eliminating $500 Million In New Funding For The Maritime Security Program. In
October 2015, Coffman voted for an amendment to strip $500 million in new funding for the Maritime
Security Program. According to Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer, “This amendment would harm America's
national security. Under the program that it seeks to eliminate, the Pentagon reserves capacity on roughly
60 U.S.-flagged commercial ships to ensure the supply and transport of American troops. It is a program
that supports our private sector as well, requiring the Defense Department to contract private commercial
ships rather than building their own. So there was not redundancy, but complementary ability. It is a
program that enhances America's national security by ensuring that our military can depend on U.S.flagged and crewed vessels instead of foreign ones. It is a program that supports important domestic
maritime jobs.” The amendment failed 109 to 306. [HR 702, Vote #545, 10/09/15; Amash Amendment,
10/09/15]
Called For Closing The Military Sex Offender Loophole
Called For Closing The Military Sex Offender Loophole. In an op-ed written by Coffman and
Democratic Rep. Jackie Speier, the two called for an end to the military sex offender loophole. “That's
why we are introducing the Military Track, Register and Alert Communities Act, which would establish a
publicly available Defense Department sex-offender registry for military personnel convicted of rape,
sexual assault or other sex-based offenses. It would require sex offenders to register before being released
from military prisons, and it would ensure the information on these offenders is available to states,
civilian law enforcement agencies and concerned families.” [Reps. Coffman and Speier Op-Ed, 2/25/15]
Voted to Allow Military Contracting with Convicted Felons
In 2011, Coffman voted against prohibiting Coast Guard and Army Corps of Engineers contracting with
convicted felons charged with contract fraud, waste or abuse violations.
The motion prohibited Coast Guard and Army Corps of Engineer contracts from being awarded to
persons convicted of fraud, embezzlement, theft, tax evasion or bribery for 10 years, with the availability
of waivers in cases of national security. [CQ Floor Votes, 11/15/11; Congressional Record, 11/15/11; Whidbey NewsTimes, 11/15/11]
The bill failed 189-235. [HR 2838, Vote #841, 11/15/11]
Named Legislator Of The Year by Paralyzed Veterans Association
290
In 2011, Coffman was chosen by the Mountain States Chapter of the Paralyzed Veterans of America as its
2011 Legislator of the Year. [Coffman press release, 10/14/11]
Called for Shifting 100,000 Troops from Active Duty to National Guard and Reserve
In 2011, Coffman called for shifting 100,000 troops from active duty to the National Guard and Reserve.
[Coffman press release, 9/23/11]
Said Invasion of Iraq “Was Not Right”
Said Invasion of Iraq “Was Not Right.” In August 2014, Coffman said that “it was not right for Bush
admin to invade Iraq.” Coffman served in both the Gulf and Iraq wars. [Twitter, NickRiccardi, 8/14/14]
Called on Obama to Deliver Military Equipment to Ukraine
Called on Obama to Deliver Military Equipment to Ukraine. In August 2014, Coffman called upon
President Obama to provide defensive weapons to the Ukrainian military, citing Russian assistance to the
rebels in Donetsk as prerogative. [Denver Post, 8/29/14]
Called for End to Selective Service System
In 2011, Coffman called for an end to the Selective Service System.
“The time has come to end the registration requirement and dismantle the Selective Service System,” he
said. “It’s an outdated program that has cost us well over $700 million in the last 31 years and it is time
for it to go.” [Coffman press release, 2/11/11]
Supported Eliminating Marine Corps Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle
In 2011, Coffman supported eliminating the Marine Corps Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle.
The program would cost $275 million in 2012. [Denver Post, 4/21/11]
Supported Eliminating Funding for Second Engine to Joint Strike Fighter
In 2011, Coffman supported eliminating funding for the second engine to the Joint Strike Fighter, calling
it a “total waste of taxpayer dollars.”
“As I argued on the House floor, the second engine to the Joint Strike Fighter is a mistake. Its $2.9 billion
cost is a total waste of taxpayer dollars,” he said. “The Department of Defense is clear: they don’t need it
and they don’t want it.” [Coffman press release, 2/16/11]
Backed Job Protection Bill for National Guard Members
In 2011, it was reported that Coffman supported a measure that would expand protections and benefits for
Guard members that other soldiers already receive. The bill gave members of the military a five-year
window to return to their civilian jobs if they have to leave for military service. [Times Union, 11/8/11]
291
Wanted Governor Ritter to Veto Bill Blocking Army from Expanding Into Pinon Canyon
In 2009, Coffman wrote a letter to Governor Ritter, requesting that the Governor veto a bill that would
block the Army from moving forward with its proposal to expand its training areas into Pinon Canyon.
“Governor Ritter, my request is that you veto this legislation and give me to the end of the year to see if I
can work with your office, members of our congressional delegation, state legislators, the Army, and the
impacted communities to see if a solution can be worked out that best resolves the differences for all of
the concerned parties,” Coffman’s letter read. [Coffman press release, 5/11/09]
Said Preventing Expansion Would Devastate Southern Colorado’s Economy
In 2009, Coffman claimed that a bill being prepared by Colorado Democrats to permanently
prevent expansion of the Army’s Pinon Canyon training area would devastate southern Colorado’s
economy.
Coffman explained that the bill, like one suggested by Congressmen Salazar and Markey, would
have a “powerful psychological effect,” giving the state an anti-Army reputation.
“If Congressman Salazar is successful, then it’s a deal-killer. Then the Army does have to move,”
Coffman stated. [Denver Post, 5/25/09]
Said Governor’s Opposition Meant Armed Forces Were Not Welcome in Colorado
In 2009, upon Governor Ritter’s signing a bill that would prevent Pinon Canyon expansion,
Coffman said, ““the Governor has sent a very clear message that the men and women who serve
our nation in uniform are not welcome here.” [Coffman official press release, 6/02/09]
… And Suggested Governor Would Care More for Terrorists
In his 2009 press release, Coffman suggested that Governor Ritter would care more for the
Army if they were terrorists.
“I think he would be more sympathetic if the U.S. Army were to declare itself a terrorist
organization - since he is going out of his way to block the Army while at the same time
laying out a welcome mat to house terrorists from Guantanamo Bay,” he stated. [Coffman
official press release, 6/02/09]
Suggested Other States Were Less Hostile to Military
In a 2009 op-ed, Coffman suggested that there were other states less hostile to the military than
Colorado was.
“If Colorado is unwilling to provide the Army access to the training areas it needs to achieve
readiness standards, there are alternatives offered by other states less hostile to the military. A top292
ranking senator has already suggested sending Fort Carson’s units to Texas instead of dealing with
expansion controversies,” he wrote. [Coffman op-ed, Denver Post, 6/04/09]
Introduced Bill to Encourage Pinon Expansion
In 2010, Coffman introduced a bill that would prohibit acquiring land through condemnation to
expand the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site.
The bill would make official the Army’s pledge that it would not seize land to expand the site.
“This would be a permanent fix,” Coffman spokesman Nat Sillin said. [Associated Press, 4/21/10]
Voted Against Prohibiting Airlines from Charging Baggage Fees to Military Personnel on Orders
In 2011, Coffman voted against a motion to recommit which prohibited airlines from charging baggage
fees to military personnel who are on orders.
The motion prohibited airlines from charging baggage fees for four or fewer bags for members of the
military travelling on orders or being deployed or returning from overseas operations.
Voted Against Increased Funding for the Yellow Ribbon Program by $200 million
In 2011, Coffman voted against a motion which increased funding for the Yellow Ribbon Program by
$200 million.
The motion increased funding for the Yellow Ribbon Program by $200 million dollars. “The Yellow
Ribbon Program is a Department of Defense-wide effort to support National Guard and Reserve service
member families with information on benefits and referrals before, during, and after deployments.”
[Yellow Ribbon Program, Accessed 9/29/11]
Called for Federal Investigation into Possible Defense Cover-up of Gulf War Illnesses
In 1996, Coffman called for a federal investigation into the Department of Defense for a potential coverup of illnesses afflicting Gulf War veterans.
Coffman accused Secretary of Defense William Perry of giving false testimony before Congress
regarding chemical weapons in the Persian Gulf. [Denver Post, 11/08/96]
293
Earmark Issues
 Had not requested any earmarks
 Accused local officials of becoming Washington’s pawns if they accept federal
funds
 Voted to maintain funding for the “Bridge to Nowhere”
Coffman has not requested any earmarks and once accused local officials of
becoming Washington’s pawns if they accepted federal funds. Yet Coffman voted to
maintain funding for the “Bridge to Nowhere.”
Had Not Requested Any Earmarks
As of June 2011, Coffman had not requested any earmarks.
“Decisions are made not on the basis of merit, but on the basis of the political leverage of an individual
member of Congress,” he explained. [The Gazette (Colorado Springs), 6/18/11]
Praised Republican Moratorium on Earmarks
In 2010, Coffman praised the House Republican moratorium on all earmarks.
“The earmarking process in Congress is deeply flawed and must be reformed. I’m proud of my
Republican colleagues’ decision to unilaterally stop all earmark requests. Eliminating earmarks
entirely shows Republicans are serious about the need to curb federal spending. Congress needs to
regain the trust of the American people and eliminating all ear-marks is an important step in that
process. If Democrats are unwilling to meaningfully reform the process by banning all earmarks,
my Republican colleagues and I will set the example by abstaining on our own,” he said. [Coffman
official press release, 3/11/10]
Accused Local Officials of Becoming Washington’s Pawns if They Accept Federal Funds
In 1998, Coffman accused local officials of becoming Washington’s pawns if they accept federal funds.
“In all new federal programs, the strings attached are never great to begin with. They only grow after state
and local governments develop a constituency around the money and become dependent on it. Ultimately,
state and local officials become nothing but pawns of Washington,” he explained. [Coffman LTE, Denver
Post, 8/16/98]
294
Voted to Maintain Funding for the “Bridge to Nowhere”
In March 2011, Coffman voted against a measure that would have prevented funding for the notorious
Alaskan “Bridge to Nowhere.” The motion to recommit would have rescinded $183 million in funding for
planning, design and construction of the Gravina Island and Knik Arm bridges in Alaska.
The motion specifically rescinded all unobligated balances provided for the planning or construction of
the both bridges. Rep. Jared Polis, who introduced the measure, noted that a CBO study estimated that the
motion would reduce the deficit by $160 million. [CQ Today, 3/02/11]
Voted Against Allowing Defense Department to Spend Millions on NASCAR Sponsorships
In 2011, Coffman voted in favor an amendment that would bar the Department of Defense to sponsor
NASCAR race cars.
The Army spent approximately $7 million on NASCAR endorsements, down from $11.6 million in 2009,
and another $5 million on drag racing. The Marine Corps, Navy, and Coast Guard had all dropped their
sponsorships of NASCAR in 2006. [National Journal, 2/15/11]
The amendment was rejected, 148-281. [HR 1, McCollum amendment #50, Vote #90, 2/18/11]
Voted In Favor of Saving $35 Billion and Cutting Alternate Engine for Strike Fighter
In 2011, Coffman voted in favor of an amendment that would cancel funding for an alternate engine for
the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, cutting an additional $450 million and saving up to $3 billion over several
years. The Joint Strike Fighter was the nation’s most expensive weapons program.
The Bush and Obama administrations had tried to kill the alternate engineer for over five years and many
Tea Party-affiliated Republicans broke ranks with Speaker John Boehner who supported the program.
Work on the engine provided more than 1,000 jobs near his district. [New York Times, 2/16/11]
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said the F136 cost about $28 million a month to continued and had
urged its termination. [CQ Today, 2/16/11]
The amendment was adopted, 233-198. [HR 1, Rooney amendment #2, Vote #46, 2/16/11]
Opposed Funds for Lobster Institute
In 2009, Coffman voted in favor an amendment to the Fiscal 2010 Commerce Justice Science
Appropriations to block an earmark for the Maine Department of Marine Resources in Augusta for the
Maine Lobster Research and the Inshore Trawling Survey. [CQ Floor Votes, 6/18/09]
The amendment was rejected in committee of the whole by a vote of 115-311. [HR 2847, Vote #374,
6/18/09]
295
Opposed Funds for Institute for Seafood Studies
In 2009, Coffman voted in favor of an amendment to the Fiscal 2010 Commerce Justice Science
Appropriations to block the use of funds appropriated in the bill for the Institute of Seafood studies at
Nicholls State University in Thibodaux, Louisiana. It also reduced funding in the bill for the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s operations, research and facilities by $325,000. [CQ Floor
Votes, 6/18/09]
The amendment was rejected in committee of the whole by a vote of 124-303. [HR 2847, Vote #382,
6/18/09]
296
Economic Stimulus and Financial Bailout
 Voted against taxing bonuses of employees at companies that received TARP
money
 Voted against capping executive compensation for bailout companies
 Voted against TARP reform
Coffman voted against taxing bonuses of employees at companies that received
TARP money, voted against capping executive compensation for bailout
companies, and voted against TARP reform.
Voted Against Considering Build America Bonds Program
In 2013, Coffman voted against considering a bill to permanently extend the Build America Bonds
program. The program, part of the Put America Back to Work Act, would help states and local
governments leverage private capital to create jobs today and build the infrastructure that is the backbone
of economic growth.
The previous question was ordered, 228-192, meaning the bill was not brought up for consideration. [H
Res 175, Vote #121, 4/23/13]
Threatened Critical Safety Regulations in Burdensome Congressional Approval Process
In 2013, Coffman voted against exempting a broad range of regulations enforced by federal agencies from
requiring explicit Congressional approval to keep families safe and protect economic growth.
The amendment would protect regulations that would create jobs or economic growth, reduce the deficit
and long-term debt, prevent outsourcing, protect Medicare guaranteed benefits and Medicaid, protect the
health and safety of women, children, seniors, and veterans, guarantee equal pay for women, restrict
exposure to toxic substances, protect safe drinking water, or promote the safe disposal of hazardous waste,
prevent financial or health care fraud, prevent child sex trafficking and child pornography, protect the
American people from terrorist attacks, or prevent discrimination based on race, religion, national origin,
or any other legally protected characteristic. [CQ Votes, 8/02/13]
The amendment failed 185-229. [HR 367, Vote # 444, 8/02/13]
Supported Congressional Approval of Executive Agency Regulations
297
In August 2013, Coffman voted for the REINS Act that would require Congress to approve executive
agency regulatory proposals that are deemed to be “major rules.”
As amended, the bill would include in the definition of “major rules” those likely to cost more than $50
million; rules that would have adverse economic effects; any regulations crafted to implement or provide
for the collection of a carbon tax; and rules made under the 2010 health care overhaul law.
It also would require that federal agencies list, in reports submitted to Congress, any related regulatory
actions or pending actions by another federal agency with authority to implement the same statutory
provision or regulatory objective. [CQ Floor Votes, 8/02/13]
The bill was part of a series before leaving “Washington for a five-week summer break… aimed mostly at
embarrassing the Obama administration and scoring political points.” [Washington Post, 7/31/13]
According to the Office of Budget and Management, the bill would reflect an unprecedented and
unjustified power shift in Washington. In a policy statement, OMB wrote, “This radical departure from
the longstanding separation of powers between the Executive and Legislative branches would delay and,
in many cases, thwart implementation of statutory mandates and execution of duly-enacted laws.” [The
Hill, 7/31/13]
The White House threatened to veto the measure, noting that federal agencies were already required to
adhere to federal law and that Congress had the ability to review them. The White House wrote that the
REINS Act would “throw all major regulations into a months-long limbo, fostering uncertainty and
impeding business investment that is vital to economic growth.” [CQ News, 8/02/13]
Voted Against Taxing Bonuses of Employees at Companies That Received TARP Money at 90
Percent
In 2009, Coffman voted against imposing a 90 percent tax on employee bonuses paid in 2009 by
companies that received more than $5 billion in federal aid. The bill did not affect bonus recipients with
household’s adjusted gross income below $250,000, $125,000 for individuals or married people who file
separately. Executives could avoid the tax by waiving any rights to the bonuses or returning the money by
the end of the year. The bill was in response to the outrage over the reported bonuses to executives at
AIG. [CQ Today, 3/19/09]
The bill passed 328-93. [HR1586, Vote #143, 3/19/09]
Voted Against Bill to Cap Executive Compensation for Bailout Companies
In 2009, Coffman voted against a bill to bar any recipient of federal money from the $700 billion financial
industry bailout from paying any compensation that is “unreasonable or excessive,” as defined by
standards to be set by federal banking regulators. The restrictions would be lifted once a company had
repaid the government. This was one of the bills that came from the outrage over AIG bonuses. [CQ
Today, 4/01/09]
298
… Also Voted to Allow Gas Companies to Continue to Hide Executive Bonuses
In 2011, Coffman voted against an amendment which would force oil and gas companies to
disclose how much they spend on executive bonuses when applying for oil and gas leases.
The amendment would require companies seeking off-shore oil and gas leases under the programs
listed in H.R. 1231, the Reversing President Obama’s Offshore Moratorium Act, to disclose the
amount of money their executives received in bonuses in the previous quarter. [The Hill, 5/11/11]
Voted Against TARP Reform and Accountability Act
In 2009, Coffman voted against placing new strict requirements on banks and other financial institutions
that accept government assistance under the Treasury Department’s $700 billion financial rescue
program. The House measure included requiring recipients of government money to prove they are using
the money to increase lending to consumers and small businesses, limit the ability to use the money to
finance mergers, and bar them from paying bonuses to top executives until the money is repaid.
The measure also would require the President to dedicate at least $40 billion to help distressed
homeowners avoid foreclosure. Homeowners in part would be helped by the creation of a “safe harbor”
that would protect loan servicers that modify troubled mortgages from lawsuits by investors in the
mortgages. The reform also allowed for funds to be used to assist the domestic auto industry. [The
The Senate did not have plans to take up the reform bill. The bill passed 260-166. [HR 384, Vote #26,
1/21/09]
Opposed Say on Executive Pay Bill
In 2009, Coffman voted against the Corporate and Financial Institution Compensation Fairness Act that
gave shareholders a say on the pay of corporate executives. It did this by giving them a nonbinding vote
on executive compensation plans and allowing federal regulators to restrict incentive-based compensation
practices deemed to threaten the health of larger financial institutions.
The measure also required a separate non-binding shareholder vote on any “golden parachute” packages
for executives who leave a company in the event of a merger or acquisition. It also required the Securities
and Exchange Commission to issue independence standards for compensating consultants which advise a
company’s board of directors on executive pay. [CQ Today, 7/31/09]
The bill passed 237-185. [HR 3269, #686, 7/31/09]
299
Voted to Protect Wall Street Agenda
In 2010, Coffman voted against overhauling the regulation of the financial services industry, to protect
consumers from practices that could threaten the economy.
The bill aimed to strengthen the government’s ability to prevent future bailouts by giving the government
strong new powers to restrain or dissolve large firms who failure could threaten the economy.
The overhaul measure would create new regulatory mechanisms to deal with the risks posed by very large
financial firms, create a new federal agency to oversee consumer financial products, and force banks and
other financial institutions to hold more capital to protect against future financial upheaval.
The bill would bring the $600 trillion derivatives market under federal regulation for the first time and
give company shareholders and regulators greater say on executive pay packages. [CQ Today, 6/30/10]
Opposed Responsible Way to Stabilize or Dissolve Failing Institutions
In 2010, Coffman voted to oppose language in a financial regulatory overhaul bill giving the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation the authority to act as a receiver for failing financial companies. The bill
would also have instructed the House conferees not to vote on a conference agreement unless it was made
electronically available and searchable for 72 hours.
Republicans had argued in debate over the financial regulatory bill that allowing bankruptcy for
corporations was the only way to ensure that taxpayer money would not be used in a future bailout.
House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank called allowing bankruptcy as the only option for
failing institutions “reckless.” Frank argued that the bill would not allow institutions to get too far into
debt and require a bailout. [CQ Today, 6/09/10]
The motion to instruct failed, 198-217. [HR 4173, Vote #343, 6/09/10]
Supported Creating Commission to Try and Prevent Another Financial Meltdown
In 2009, Coffman voted in favor of creating a bipartisan commission to try and prevent another financial
meltdown. The independent commission would examine the causes that led to the financial crisis and
provide the resources necessary to help prevent it from happening again. [CQ Floor Votes, 5/18/09]
The bill passed 338-52. [S. 386, #268, 5/18/09]
Opposed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
In 2009, Coffman opposed the conference report of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The
bill was a $787 billion spending package to provide aid to states and cities, funding for transportation and
infrastructure projects and expansion of the Medicaid program to cover more unemployed workers. It
300
included $301.1 billion in personal and business tax breaks. [CQ Bill Analysis HR1; HR1, Vote #70,
3/31/09]
Note: The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 included funding for a variety of other
measures beyond these highlights.
Opposed $400 “Making Work Pay” Tax Credit
The conference report of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 included a
refundable income tax credit for two years, beginning in 2009 and 2010. The credit was to be the
lesser of 6.2 percent on an individual’s earned income or $400, $800 in the case of a joint return.
[CQ Bill Analysis HR1; CQ House Action Reports, 2/13/09]
Opposed $2,500 Tax Credit for College Students
The conference report of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 created the
American Opportunity Tax Credit, an expansion of an existing tax break called the Hope
Scholarship Credit.
The new credit allowed for 100 percent of the first $2,000 in tuition and related fees and 25
percent of the second $2,000 (for a total of $2,500). That increased from a maximum of $1,800
previously. [Chicago Tribune, 3/01/09]
Lower Taxes for 95% of Taxpayers
Together the conference report of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
individual tax provisions would lower taxes for 95% of all taxpayers. [CQ House Action Reports,
2/13/09]
“Largest Tax Cuts in American History.”
According to an editorial which ran in the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, “The new stimulus
law contains the largest tax cuts in the nation’s history.” [Rochester Democrat and Chronicle,
Editorial, 2/26/09]
Opposed Funding for Renewable Energy
The conference report of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 included $16.8
billion to the Energy Department for energy efficiency and renewable energy. Of which, $3.2
billion was for energy efficiency and conservation block grants. $5 billion for weatherization
projects, $3.1 billion for the State Energy Program, and $2 billion for grants for the manufacturing
of advanced batteries. [CQ Bill Analysis HR1]
Opposed Funding for Highway Infrastructure Investment
301
billion for highway infrastructure investment projects and activities administered by the Federal
Highway Administration. [CQ Bill Analysis HR1]
Opposed Funding for Healthcare and Medicaid
billion to help states with Medicaid costs based on increases in the state’s unemployment rate.
Provided a 65 percent subsidy for COBRA continuation premiums for up to nine months for
workers and their families that had been involuntarily terminated. [CQ Bill Analysis HR1]
Opposed Education Funding to Help Avoid Teacher Layoffs
billion for a state fiscal stabilization fund of which, $39.5 billion would be used to enhance local
school budgets. Governors were to channel money to avoid teacher layoffs and modernization of
school buildings. Also included $1 billion for Head Start programs. The measure also included
$15.84 billion for student financial assistance and to carry out the Higher Education Act of 1965.
[CQ Bill Analysis HR1, New York Times, 2/14/09]
Opposed Alternative Minimum Tax Patch
The conference report of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 included an
Alternative Minimum Tax patch for 2009 to keep the number of individual AMT payers the same
as in 2008 It protected an estimated 26 million middle-class families from being hit by the AMT.
[CQ Bill Analysis HR1]
Opposed Original American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
In 2009, Coffman opposed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 a $825 billion
spending package that would provide aid to states and cities, funding for transportation and infrastructure
projects and expansion of the Medicaid program to cover more unemployed workers. It included $275
billion in personal and business tax breaks. [CQ House Action Reports, 1/26/09]
302
Education Issues
 Voted to increase interest rates on certain student loans
 Voted against keeping student loan interest rates at 3.4 percent
 Repeatedly voted against protecting Pell grants from cuts
 Voted to cut public education funding by $1 billion
 Supported school vouchers
 Voted against awarding grants to states to establish programs to recognize
bilingual students
 Voted against decreasing length of No Child Left Behind Reauthorization from
six to three years
 Voted against ensuring textbooks meet education standards
Coffman voted to increase interest rates on certain student loans, opposed
reforming student loan programs, and supported cuts to Pell grants. He has voted
to cut up to $1 billion from public education funding while supporting school
vouchers. Coffman also fought against awarding grants to states to establish
programs to recognize bilingual students and ensure textbooks meet education
standards.
Voted for ‘Students Pay More Act’; Bill Would Increase Interest Rates On Certain Government
Loans
In 2013, Coffman voted for a bill that would ultimately lead to higher interest rates on certain government
student loans, based on projections from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
On July 1, interested rates for new subsidized Stafford loans would have doubled from 3.4 percent to 6.8
percent. Under the Republican proposal, student loans would be reset ever year based on 10-year Treasury
notes, plus an added percentage.
“Using Congressional Budget Office projections, that would translate to a 5 percent interest rate on
Stafford loans in 2014, but the rate would climb to 7.7 percent for loans in 2023. Stafford loan rates
303
would be capped at 8.5 percent, while loans for parents and graduate students would have a 10.5 percent
ceiling under the GOP proposal,” reported the Associated Press. [Associated Press, 5/16/13]
AP: House Republican Plan Would Raise Student Loan Interest Rates Up to 8.5 Percent.
According to the Associated Press: “Under the GOP proposal, student loans would be reset every
year and based on 10-year Treasury notes, plus an added percentage. For instance, students who
receive subsidized or unsubsidized Stafford student loans would pay the Treasury rate, plus 2.5
percentage points. Using Congressional Budget Office projections, that would translate to a 5
percent interest rate on Stafford loans in 2014, but the rate would climb to 7.7 percent for loans in
2023. Stafford loan rates would be capped at 8.5 percent, while loans for parents and graduate
students would have a 10.5 percent ceiling under the GOP proposal.” [Associated Press, 5/16/13]

Headline: Republicans move forward with student loan plan that could mean higher rates
later [Associated Press, 5/16/13]
Under the “Students Pay More” Act, Graduates Would Pay Almost $5,000 More in Student
Loan Interest. The Associated Press reported: “In real dollars, the GOP plan would cost students
and families heavily, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. The office
used the CBO projections for Treasury notes’ interest rates each year. Students who max out their
subsidized Stafford loans over four years would pay $8,331 in interest payments under the
Republican bill, and $3,450 if rates were kept at 3.4 percent. If rates were allowed to double in
July, that amount would be $7,284 over the typical 10-year window to repay the maximum
$19,000.” If the Republican plan were implemented, college graduates would pay $4,881 more in
interest, compared to the current rate. [Associated Press, 5/16/13]
The Average College Graduate Has $26,600 in Student Loan Debt; Total National Student
Loan Debt Exceeds $1.1 Trillion. According to the Washington Post, “A recent report from the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau estimates that there 38 million student loan borrowers in
the United States and the total debt load has passed $1.1 trillion. The Project on Student Debt has
estimated that 66 percent of graduating college seniors in 2011 had some student loan debt, with
an average balance of $26,600.” [Washington Post, 5/20/13]
CBO: Federal Government Turns $51 Billion Profit on Student Loans. According to the
Huffington Post: “The Obama administration is forecast to turn a record $51 billion profit this year
from student loan borrowers, a sum greater than the earnings of the nation’s most profitable
companies and roughly equal to the combined net income of the four largest U.S. banks by assets.
Figures made public Tuesday by the Congressional Budget Office show that the nonpartisan
agency increased its 2013 fiscal year profit forecast for the Department of Education by 43 percent
to $50.6 billion from its February estimate of $35.5 billion.” [Huffington Post, 5/14/13]
Voted Against Considering the Student Loan Relief Act
In 2013, Coffman voted against considering the Student Loan Relief Act, to extend student loan interest
rates at 3.4 percent. The bill would have prohibited the automatic doubling of student loan rates on July 1,
304
2013. The previous question was approved 223-194. A vote against the motion would have allowed for
consideration of the student loan bill. [H Res 202, Vote #138, 5/08/13; Congressional Record, H2501,
5/08/13]
Voted for the Extreme House Republican Budget. In April 2014, Coffman voted for the FY 2015
House Republican budget. The budget resolution was adopted, 229-205. [H Con Res 96, Vote #177,
4/10/14]

Republican Budget “Would Cut Funding to Pell Grants” and Cap Grant Awards. It would
cut funding to Pell Grants by imposing a maximum income eligibility cap, ending funding for less
than half-time students and capping the maximum award to $5,730. [Time Magazine, 4/01/14]

Republican Budget Would Cut Pell Grants by More than $125 Billion. “Ryan proposes to cut
Pell Grants by more than $125 billion over the next decade. He would freeze the maximum grant
for ten years, even as college tuition costs continue to rise. The maximum Pell Grant already
covers less than a third of college costs, compared to more than half in earlier decades. Yet under
the Ryan budget, the grant would fall another 24 percent by 2024 in inflation-adjusted
dollars. (Some of that reduction is in the budget baseline, but Ryan would substantially enlarge
it.) He also would make some moderate-income students who get modest help from Pell Grants
today entirely ineligible.” [CBPP, 4/01/14]
Voted Against Protecting Pell Grants from $39 Million Cut
In February 2011, Coffman voted against an amendment that would have increased funds for Federal Pell
Grants by $39 million, offset by a reduction in funds available for Department of Education Program
Administration.
The amendment was not adopted 186-238. [HR 1, Vote #146, 2/19/11]
Opposed Reforming Student Loan Programs
In 2010, Coffman voted against substantial student loan program reforms, forcing commercial banks out
of the federal student loan market. The reforms were included in the final health care reconciliation bill.
Previously, commercial banks received guaranteed federal subsidies to lend money to students, with the
government assuming risk. Democrats long denounced the program, criticizing it for letting banks profit
at the expense of students and taxpayers.
The Congressional Budget Office said that the direct-lending approach to student loans would save
taxpayers about $61 billion over 10 years, roughly $40 billion of which would be redirected to higher
education. The bill also increased the maximum Pell grant award and tied the increases to inflation. [New
305
Voted for Student Loan Rate Increase, then Against It
In 2012, Coffman voted for the Ryan Budget which would have doubled the interest rates on student
loans.
Then, in April 2012, he voted for a measure that would keep interest rates on federal student loans from
doubling attached to a policy that would eliminate a portion of the health care law. [Denver Post, 4/27/12]
Voted for Student Loan Compromise, Lowering Rates
On July 31, 2013, Coffman voted for a bill that that would tie student loan interest rates to market rates,
reversing a rate hike that took effect for some new loans on July 1.
The bill set rates at 3.86 percent for undergraduate Stafford loans, 5.4 percent for graduate Stafford loans
and 6.4 percent for PLUS loans. Rates were capped at 8.25 percent for undergraduate loans, 9.5 percent
for graduate loans and 10.25 percent for PLUS loans. [Politico, 7/31/13]
Voted for Partisan Education Bill That Would Gut Public Education Funding by $1 Billion
In July 2013, Coffman voted for a Republican education bill that would gut public education and remove
accountability measures.
“The bill would freeze education spending at sequester rates instead of restoring federal dollars to presequester levels, which means public schools would receive $1 billion less next year. […] Public
education has largely been a bipartisan issue in Congress; Friday’s vote was the first time that major
legislation was moved on a party line vote. […] The bill would delete a provision known as “maintenance
of effort,” which currently ensures that states use federal dollars in addition to, and not as a replacement
for, state and local dollars to help low-income, minority, disabled students and English learners. […] The
bill eliminates the current accountability system, called adequate yearly progress, which requires all
students to be proficient in reading and math by 2014.” [Washington Post, 7/19/13]
Was Pro-School Vouchers
In 2003, Coffman was pro-school vouchers. [Rocky Mountain News, 1/01/03]
Voted Against Awarding Grants To States To Establish Programs To Recognize Bilingual Students
Voted Against Awarding Grants To States To Establish Programs To Recognize Bilingual Students.
In July 2015, Coffman voted against an amendment to the Student Success Act that would have, “The
Secretary of Education shall award grants to States to establish or improve a Seal of Biliteracy program to
recognize student proficiency in speaking, reading, and writing in both English and a second language.”
The amendment failed 191 to 239. [HR 5, Amendment 39, Vote #415, 7/08/15]
306
Voted Against Decreasing Length Of No Child Left Behind Reauthorization From Six To Three
Years
Voted Against Decreasing Length Of No Child Left Behind Reauthorization From Six To Three
Years. In February 2015, Coffman voted against an amendment to decrease the length of the bill's
reauthorization of existing elementary and secondary education law from Fiscal Year 2021 to Fiscal Year
2018. According to Rep. Jared Polis, “Having the Federal education policy in place for long enough for
all of its systems around public education to catch up and create rules, create policies to see the new law
succeed to the extent that it can are absolutely critical for any Federal education law. The worst possible
outcome would be every single 2 or 3 years, this body goes in a radically different direction with regard to
Federal education policy, causing every State, every district, every educator, every principal--instead of
spending time teaching kids and helping educate children in the classroom--studying up on Federal
education policy, trying to fill out new forms, trying to figure out new testing regimes; and, just as they
figure them out, we are going to move the ball again. Whatever the Federal education policy is, it is very
important to have some consistency.” [HR 5, Vote #96, 2/26/15; House Congressional Record, Page
H1255, 2/26/15]
Voted Against Ensuring Textbooks Meet Education Standards
Voted Against An Amendment To Create A Federal Ombudsman For School Textbooks. In
February 2015, Coffman voted against an amendment to establish an ombudsman within the Department
of Education to act as a neutral reviewer to ensure that textbooks meet academic standards. “Under
Castro's proposal, students, teachers and administrators could submit complaints to the Department of
Education ombudsman. The ombudsman would not be able to undo state decisions over textbooks, but
could help resolve disagreements over textbook content.” The amendment failed, 182 to 243. [HR 5, Vote
#97, 2/26/15; The Hill, 2/26/15]
Voted For Blocking Consideration Of Career Education In Manufacturing
Voted For Blocking Consideration Of Career Education In Manufacturing. In February 2015,
Coffman voted for to block consideration of a vote to provide career education in manufacturing to help
students prepare for 21st century manufacturing jobs. The previous question carried, 242-176. A vote
against the previous question was to force the vote on career education in manufacturing. [H Res 70, Vote
#54, 2/03/15; Democratic Leader – Previous Questions, 2/03/15]
Voted Against Authorizing STEM Gateway Grants For Women, Minorities, And Low-Income
Students
Voted Against An Amendment To Authorize STEM Education Grants For Women, Minorities,
And Low-Income Students. In February 2015, Coffman voted against an amendment that “would have
established a STEM Gateways program for state education agencies to issue grants for educating girls,
underrepresented minorities and low-income students in the science, technology, engineering and math
fields at elementary schools and secondary schools.” The amendment failed, 204 to 217. [HR 5, Vote #95,
2/26/15; Bangor Daily News, 2/27/15]
307
Voted Against Providing Students With Qualified Teaching Aides, Assistants
Voted Against An Amendment To Restore Qualification Requirements For Paraprofessional
Educators Like Teachers’ Aides & Assistants. In February 2015, Coffman voted against an amendment
to restore paraprofessional qualification requirements in the Student Success Act, “requirements that
existed in the original [No Child Left Behind] NCLB but had been removed from this legislation. Under
NCLB, this provision stopped school districts from hiring paras with little experience in education and
mandated that they provide training … ‘We must ensure that paraprofessionals are qualified to provide
much-needed instructional support, support that is often targeted to students who are struggling
academically or who need additional help, such as English learners, or students with disabilities. That
support is crucial to students, parents, and teachers, particularly in communities where resources are
scarce and children are already at a disadvantage,’ said [Illinois Federation of Teachers SecretaryTreasurer Marcia] Campbell.” The amendment passed, 218 to 201. [HR 5, Vote #98, 2/26/15; IFT,
2/27/15]
Voted Against Protecting Teacher Development Funding For High Poverty Areas
Voted Against An Amendment To Protect Title II Funding For High Poverty Schools. In February
2015, Coffman voted against an amendment that would delay implementation of the new formula for Title
II funding until the Education secretary determines that the implementation will not reduce funding for
schools serving high percentages of students in poverty. According to the amendment’s sponsor, Rep.
Gwen Moore, “Specifically, the No Child Left Behind title II formula for school districts focuses 65
percent of funds on students in poverty and 35 percent on the number of students, which is students in
poverty versus just the number of students. The State formula focuses 80 percent of its funding on poverty
and 20 percent on student population. H.R. 5 completely upends this … As written, we have strong
reasons to fear that H.R. 5 would result in Federal dollars being siphoned away from States and school
districts with the poorest students and being awarded to States and schools with higher affluence.” The
amendment failed, 185 to 239. [HR 5, Vote #99, 2/26/15; House Congressional Record, Page H1265,
2/26/15]
Voted Against Amendment Providing School Dropout Prevention And Grants For Raising
Academic Achievement Levels
Voted Against Amendment Providing School Dropout Prevention And Grants For Raising
Academic Achievement Levels. In July 2015, Coffman voted against providing dropout protection and
grants to raise academic achievement. “The U.S. House of Representative reconsidered and ultimately
passed Wednesday a Republican-backed reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act—though it's far from the measure that President Barack Obama may eventually sign into law when
it's all said and done …Rep. Wilson: Would provide for school dropout prevention and reentry and
provide grants to raise academic achievement levels for all students.” The amendment failed, 192 to 237.
[HR 5, Vote #413, 7/07/15; Education Week, 7/08/15]
Voted Against Developing A National Research Strategy That Evaluates Student Learning And
Effective Teacher Preparation
308
Voted Against Developing A National Research Strategy That Evaluates Student Learning And
Effective Teacher Preparation. In July 2015, Coffman voted against an amendment to the Student
Success Act that would, “develop a national research strategy with respect to elementary and secondary
education that includes advancing—an annual measure of student learning, including a system of
assessments; effective teacher preparation and continuing professional development; education
administration; and international comparisons of education.” The amendment failed 186 to 245. [HR 5,
Amendment 35, Vote #414, 7/08/15]
Voted Against An Amendment Awarding Grants For Digital Learning Technologies In Rural
Schools
Voted Against An Amendment Awarding Grants For Digital Learning Technologies In Rural
Schools. In July 2015, Coffman voted against an amendment to the Student Success Act that would,
“authorize the issuance of Education Department grants to rural schools for the deployment of digital
learning technologies. Loebsack said educational software and other technology held the promise of
‘vastly expanding the educational options and opportunities available to students in rural areas,’ providing
them with an advanced education similar to that available for urban students.” The amendment passed 218
to 213. [HR 5, Vote #416, 7/08/15; Albany Herald, 7/12/15]
Voted Against Authorizing Funds For Early Childhood Education Scholarships
Voted Against Authorizing Funds For Early Childhood Education Scholarships. In July 2015,
Coffman voted against an amendment to the Student Success Act that would, “authorize funds for the
Secretary of Education to provide grants for early-childhood education scholarships, professional
development and licensing credentials, or increased compensation for educators who have attained
specific qualifications.” The amendment failed 205 to 224. [HR 5, Vote #417, 7/08/15]
Voted Against Ensuring That Minority And Low-Income Students Are College-Ready
Voted Against Ensuring That Minority And Low-Income Students Are College-Ready. In July 2015,
Coffman voted against an amendment to the Student Success Act that would determine, “that the
enactment of this Act, and the amendments made by this Act, will not decrease the college and career
readiness of students who are racial or ethnic minority, students with disabilities, English learners, and
low-income student.” The amendment failed 189 to 241. [HR 5, Vote #418, 7/08/15]
Voted For Allowing States To Opt Out Of Federal Education Requirements Without Losing
Federal Funds
Voted For Allowing States To Opt Out Of Federal Education Requirements Without Losing
Federal Funds. In July 2015, Coffman voted for an amendment to the Student Success Act that, “would
have allowed states to opt out of federal requirements entirely without losing federal funds.” The
amendment failed 195 to 235. [HR 5, Vote #419, 7/08/15; Daily Caller, 7/09/15]
Voted For Allowing Parents To Have Their Children Opt Out Of Federally-Required Standardized
Tests
309
Voted For Allowing Parents To Have Their Children Opt Out Of Federally-Required Standardized
Tests. In July 2015, Coffman voted for an amendment to the Student Success Act that, “grants parents the
right to opt their children out of federally-required standardized tests.” The amendment passed 251 to 178.
[HR 5, Vote #420, 7/08/15; Daily Caller, 7/09/15]
Voted Against A Substitute Amendment To Overhaul Elementary And Secondary Education
Standards And Funding
Voted Against A Substitute Amendment To Overhaul Elementary And Secondary Education
Standards And Funding. In July 2015, Coffman voted against a substitute amendment to the Student
Success Act that would “require states to establish college-and career-ready standards in English, math
and science for grades K-12 and high-quality assessments aligned to those standards. The amendment
would also require state education plans for youth in juvenile institutions, require districts to include
teacher salaries in their calculations for Title I funds and require states and districts to publicly report
progress in making funding equitable. Furthermore, the amendment would reauthorize and modify the
Charter School Program similar to those in HR 5 and create programs for STEM education and literacy
from preschool through grade 12, as well as grants for technology infrastructure and for nongovernmental
entities to develop curricula in various subject matters. Finally, it would authorize grants to states for
high-quality preschool programs and increase authorizations for Native Indian, Hawaiian and Alaska
Native education programs, as well as for the education of homeless children and youth.” The amendment
failed, 187 to 244. [HR 5, Vote #421, 7/08/15; CQ Floor Votes, 7/08/15]
Voted Against A Motion To Guarantee Continued Funding For The Individuals With Disabilities
Education Act
Voted Against A Motion To Guarantee Continued Funding For The Individuals With Disabilities
Education Act. In July 2015, Coffman voted against a Democratic motion to recommit that “guarantees
continued funding for IDEA [Individuals with Disabilities Education Act], including for students with
autism and cognitive disabilities; and protects children with disabilities from abusive seclusion and
restraint practices, which, according to the GAO, have resulted in severe injury and even death.” The
motion failed, 185 to 244. [HR 5, Vote #422, 7/08/15; Democratic Leader – Motion To Recommit,
7/08/15]
Voted For Student Success Act To Renew And Overhaul No Child Left Behind, Allowing Funding
To Follow Lower-Income Students To Other Schools And Distribute Block Grants To States
Voted For Student Success Act To Renew And Overhaul No Child Left Behind. In July 2015,
Coffman voted for the Student Success Act, a bill to “renew and overhaul the 2001 landmark elementary
and secondary education law (PL 107-110) known as ‘No Child Left Behind.’” The bill passed, 218 to
213. [H R 5, Vote #423, 7/08/15; CQ Synopsis, 7/08/15]
Student Success Act Would Allow Funding To Follow Students From Lower Income Families
To Other Schools, Eliminate And Merge The Funding Of 65 Programs. “Passage of the bill, as
amended, that would reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) and
would make fundamental changes to many of its programs through Fiscal 2019. The bill would allow
310
Title I funding to follow individual students to other schools, and eliminates more than 65 elementary
and secondary education programs and merges their funding.” [CQ Floor Votes, 7/08/15]
Student Success Act Would Distribute New Title 1 Block Grants To States, Allow Them To
Establish Their Own Teach Evaluation Systems Tied To Student Achievement. “The new Title I
block grant would give states greater flexibility in how funds are used. It would also allow states to
establish their own teacher evaluation systems tied to student achievement.” [CQ Floor Votes,
7/08/15]
Student Success Act Would Reauthorize And Expand Charter School Programs, Increase
Parental Choice. “The bill would also reauthorize and expand the charter school program and
includes other provisions to increase parental choice.” [CQ Floor Votes, 7/08/15]
Voted For Amendment Allowing States To Withdraw From Common Core Without Jeopardizing
Federal Funding
Voted For Amendment Allowing States To Withdraw From Common Core Without Jeopardizing
Federal Funding. In July 2015, Coffman voted for an amendment allowing states to withdraw from
common core without losing their funding. “The first piece of legislation Rep. Lee Zeldin introduced
since his election to Congress was an amendment to an education law that would allow states to withdraw
from the Common Core standards without jeopardizing federal. States are not required under federal law
to adopt the Common Core. Rather, some states that have been recipients of federal grants through
President Obama’s Race To The Top program were required to implement curriculum guidelines that
boost college and career readiness.” The amendment passed, 373 to 206. [HR 5, Vote #410, 7/07/15;
Politico, 3/03/15]
Voted Against Amendment Requiring The Secretary Of Education To Study The Impacts Of
School Start Times On Student Health
Voted Against Amendment Requiring The Secretary Of Education To Study The Impacts Of
School Start Times On Student Health. In July 2015, Coffman voted against requiring the Secretary of
Education to study the impacts of school start times on student health. “The U.S. House of Representative
reconsidered and ultimately passed Wednesday a Republican-backed reauthorization of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act—though it's far from the measure that President Barack Obama may
eventually sign into law when it's all said and done … Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla.: Would require the
Secretary of Education to conduct an assessment of the impact of school start times on student health,
well-being, and performance. Failed 198-228.” The amendment failed, 199 to 228. [HR 5, Vote #412,
7/07/15; Education Week, 7/08/15]
Voted Against Protecting School Children from Sexual Predators, Ensuring a Quality Education
for Children with Autism
In 2013, Coffman voted against providing protections for children against sexual predators and guaranteed
educational opportunities for children with autism.
311
The amendment would have required that state education plans, as stipulated by the underlying bill, “must
not lower academic standards for children with disabilities, including autistic children. It would require
the Education secretary, within six months of the bill’s enactment, to issue rules prohibiting the use of
mechanical, chemical and physical restraints. It would establish standards for protecting student athletes
from concussions. It also would direct state educational agencies funded by the bill to require criminal
background checks of school and contractor employees who have contact with children.” [CQ Floor
Votes, 7/19/13]
The measure was rejected, 196-231. [HR 5, Vote #373, 7/19/13]
Voted to Cut Medicaid Assistance and Education Funding to States
In 2010, Coffman voted against extending increased Medicaid assistance and education funding to states.
The bill extended the increased federal matching payments of the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage
program provided for under the economic stimulus law for an additional six months. It also provided $10
billion in supplemental appropriations for education to assist in hiring and retaining teachers and other
public school employees.
The $26.1 billion cost of the bill was offset in part by terminating increased food stamp benefits, provided
by the stimulus law, and by closing use of the foreign tax credit by multinational corporations. Closing
those loopholes would raise approximately $10 billion in revenue. [CQ Bill Analysis, 8/11/10]
The bill passed, 247-161, and the President signed the bill into law on August 10, 2010. [HR 1586, Vote
#518, 8/10/10]
Violated Republican Spending Rules to Support School Vouchers
In 2011, Coffman voted to reauthorize and modify the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship program which
grants school vouchers to low-income D.C. students without offsetting the cost of the program through
spending cuts.
The legislation would authorize, from Fiscal Year 2012 through 2016, $20 million annually to reinstitute
a school voucher program in the District and would also authorize an additional $40 million annually to
assist District public and charter schools from fiscal 2012 to 2016. This funding was not offset by cutting
spending elsewhere in the budget and would have violated the CutGo rule put in place by Republicans;
they waved the rule for this bill. [CQ Today Online News, 3/30/11; Associated Press, 3/31/1]
Voted Against Providing Funding for DC Public and Charter Schools, Special Education Services
In 2011, Coffman voted against cutting the DC School Vouchers Program and directing the funding
instead to DC Public Schools, DC Public Charter Schools and DC Special Education Services.
312
The motion would have struck the underlying bill which provided for the D.C. School Voucher Program
and instead authorize $30 million per fiscal year from fiscal year 2012-2016 for conditional funding for
DC Public Schools, DC Public Charter Schools and DC Special Education Services. [CQ Floor Votes,
3/30/11]
Voted to Reauthorize the District of Columbia School Voucher Program
In 2011, Coffman voted for a bill containing a policy rider which reauthorized the District of Columbia
School Voucher program.
The policy rider reauthorized the District of Columbia School Voucher program and provided $16 million
for the scholarships. This is possible because the federal government ultimately controls the DC budget.
The underlying bill was the final continuing resolution passed to fund the federal government for the rest
of Fiscal Year 2011. [CQ BillAnalysis, 7/14/11; CQ Floor Votes, 4/14/11]
NOTE: This bill was passed as a compromise between the White House, Senate and House of
Representatives to avoid a government shutdown and provided funding for government agencies for the
remainder of FY11.
313
Energy Issues
 Voted against requiring oil companies give up tax credits
 Called “Stooge” for the oil and gas industry after voting to outlaw the public
from being able to review oil and gas lease sales
 Accepted $686,361 from the oil and gas industry while voting to protect $45
billion in subsidies for the industry
 Voted against multiple efforts to protect consumers from gasoline pricegouging
 Voted to allow gas companies to continue to hide executive bonuses
 Voted against requiring that gas and oil from new U.S. leases be sold in U.S.
 Voted to approve the Keystone XL pipeline; opposed initiatives to require
Keystone oil be sold in the U.S., hold pipeline owners accountable for spills
 Voted against holding pipeline owners liable for explosions
 Voted against amendment increasing fees on oil companies to bolster the
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Coffman was labeled a “stooge” for the oil and gas industry after voting to outlaw
the public from being able to review oil and gas lease sales, voting against
requiring the industry to give up tax credits, and voting to protect $45 million in
subsidies for the industry. He did all this while accepting $686,381 from the
industry in campaign contributions. He had also voted to allow the gas and oil
industry to continue to hide executive bonuses and opposed an effort to protect
consumers from gasoline price-gouging. Coffman fought against multiple
initiatives to hold pipeline owners accountable for explosions and spills while not
requiring the oil and gas industry to pay fees that would bolster the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
314
Voted Against Requiring Oil Companies Give Up Tax Credits
In 2013, Coffman voted against a motion requiring that oil companies benefitting from the streamlined
permit process in the underlying bill would first agree not to claim the domestic production activities tax
credit. [CQ Floor Votes, 11/20/13]
The underlying bill, the Federal Lands Jobs and Energy Security Act, would roll back federal regulations
regarding oil and gas leasing. [Statement of Administrative Policy, 11/19/13]
Introduced Bill To Outlaw The Public From Reviewing Oil And Gas Lease Sales, Voted To
Undermine States’ Rights To Restrict Offshore Development And Use; Called A “Stooge” For The
Oil And Gas Industry
Introduced Bill To Outlaw The Public From Reviewing Oil And Gas Lease Sales; Called A
“Stooge” For The Oil And Gas Industry. In 2012, the Denver-based “Checks and Balances Project”
called Coffman a “stooge” for the oil and gas industry after he and two of his fellow Colorado Republican
colleagues introduced a trio of legislation to allow increased drilling on public lands. In April 2012,
Coffman introduced the Providing Leasing Certainty Act, or H.R. 4382, to outlaw the public, local
governments and stakeholders from reviewing lease sales. The co-Director of the Checks and Balances
Project said of Coffman and his Republican colleagues, “Taking away the public’s right to participate in
decisions about land we own is criminal. It’s clear that these representatives are working on behalf of
industry groups like Western Energy Alliance [WEA] and not the public. Why else would they invite
WEA Vice President Kathleen Sgamma to testify about why they should shut their own constituents out
of decisions about what happens to their public lands?” [Colorado Independent, 4/30/12]
Voted to Undermine States’ Rights to Restrict Off-Shore Development and Use. In 2013, Coffman
voted against an amendment preventing the underlying oil leasing measure from affecting states’
authority to restrict leasing and natural-resource development beneath states’ navigable waters. The vote
failed 209-210. [HR 2231, Vote #301, 6/28/13]
Accepted $686,361 From The Oil And Gas Industry
Accepted $686,361 From The Oil And Gas Industry. As of February 2016, the Center for Responsive
Politics reported that Coffman has accepted $632,750 from the oil and gas industry. [Center for
Responsive Politics, accessed 2/08/16]
Voted For The House Republican Budget That Would Protect $45 Billion In Subsidies For Big Oil
Voted For The House Republican Budget That Would Protect $45 Billion In Subsidies For Big Oil.
In April 2014, Coffman voted for the FY 2015 House Republican budget. “[The] budget would also
protect $45 billion in tax subsidies over 10 years to oil companies, the top five of which are already
reaping $93 billion in profits from 2013 alone.” The budget resolution was adopted, 219-205. [H Con Res
96, Vote #177, 4/10/14; Center for American Progress, 4/01/14]
315
Voted Against Multiple Efforts To Protect Consumers From Gasoline Price-Gouging
Voted Against Considering the Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act. In 2013, Coffman voted
against considering the Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act, which would protect consumers from
price-gouging of gasoline and other fuels. The previous question was approved 223-194. A vote against
the motion would have allowed for consideration of price gouging bill. [H Res 228, Vote #167, 5/22/13;
Congressional Record, H2860, 5/22/13]
Voted Against Considering Bill to Protect Consumers from Price-Gouging on Gasoline. In 2013,
Coffman voted against considering the Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act of 2013, a bill to protect
consumers from price-gouging of gasoline and other fuels. The bill would make it unlawful in a time of
international crisis affecting the oil market to sell gasoline at a price that was unconscionably excessive or
indicated the seller was taking advantage of the circumstances. Rep. Tim Bishop, who offered the motion,
said on the House floor that he urged “my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that the House can
consider pro-consumer, job-protecting legislation, the Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act, which
would deter the sale of gasoline at excessive prices.” The previous question was approved 224-191. A
vote against the motion would have allowed for consideration of the price gouging bill. [H Res 315, Vote
#399, 7/24/13; Congressional Record, H4998, 7/24/13]
Voted to Allow Gas Companies to Continue to Hide Executive Bonuses
Voted to Allow Gas Companies to Continue to Hide Executive Bonuses. In 2011, Coffman voted
against an amendment which would force oil and gas companies to disclose how much they spend on
executive bonuses when applying for oil and gas leases. The amendment would require companies
seeking off-shore oil and gas leases under the programs listed in H.R. 1231, the Reversing President
Obama’s Offshore Moratorium Act, to disclose the amount of money their executives received in bonuses
in the previous quarter. The amendment failed 186-240. [HR 1231, Vote #314, 5/11/11; The Hill,
5/11/11]
Voted Against Requiring That Gas and Oil from New U.S. Leases Be Sold In U.S.
Voted Against Requiring That Gas and Oil from New U.S. Leases Be Sold In U.S. In 2011, Coffman
voted against a motion to recommit which would have required that oil and gas developed from leases
made in the underlying bill would have to be sold in the United States. The motion required that all the oil
and natural gas generated from the new leases be sold in the United States. The motion would have also
required that the number of non-producing leases be cutting in half by 2017. The motion failed 180-243.
[HR 1231, Vote #319, 5/12/11; CQ Floor Votes, 5/12/11]
Supported Outsourcing American Jobs in Energy Development
Supported Outsourcing American Jobs in Energy Development. In 2013, Coffman voted for a
measure that would ensure the prohibition of new offshore oil and gas drilling permits under any of the
Great Lakes. The motion, offered by Rep. Brad Schneider of Illinois, also would require future drilling
permit holders to encourage oil companies operating the leases to use American-made equipment and to
avoid outsourcing American jobs. The motion failed 195-225. [HR 2231, Vote #303, 6/28/13; CQ Floor
Votes, 6/28/13]
316
Voted To Approve The Keystone XL Pipeline; Opposed Initiatives To Require Keystone Oil Be
Sold In The U.S., Hold Pipeline Owners Accountable For Spills
Voted To Approve The Keystone XL Pipeline. In January 2015, Coffman voted to approve the
Keystone XL pipeline. “The House voted Friday to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, seizing on the
momentum from a Nebraska Supreme Court ruling hours earlier that removed the last major legal
obstacle to building the politically charged oil project.” The bill passed 266 to 153. [HR 3, Vote #16,
1/09/15; Politico, 1/09/15]
Voted to Require the President to Approve the Keystone XL Pipeline Permit. In 2011, Coffman
voted to require the President to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline within 60 days of the bill
becoming a law. The bill required President Obama to approve the Keystone XL pipeline within 60
days of the bill becoming law unless “it is determined that the pipeline is not in the national interest.”
The bill passed 234-193. [HR 3630, Vote #923, 12/13/11; CQ Floor Vote, 12/13/11]
Announced He was Backing a Bill to Expedite Permitting of Keystone XL Pipeline Project. In
2011, Coffman announced he was backing a measure that would expedite the permitting process of
the Keystone XL pipeline project. “I was disappointed that President Obama was persuaded in his
decision not by the economic benefits of the project, but rather by far-left environmentalist interest
groups,” Coffman said. “Millions of Americans are looking for work now while the president waits on
this project until after the elections in November 2012, seemingly for purely political reasons.” [Rep.
Coffman, press release, 12/7/11]
Voted to Place an Artificial Deadline on Keystone XL Oil Pipeline Permit. In 2011, Coffman
voted to implement a deadline on the Obama Administration to make a ruling on the Keystone XL oil
pipeline permit. The bill forced the Obama Administration to make a ruling to approve or disapprove
of the Keystone XL oil pipeline permit either by November 1, 2011, or within 30 days after the final
environmental impact statement. Critics of the pipeline argued that the bill would block federal
agencies and the public from fully weighing in on an environmental impact statement that was to be
issued by the State Department. Rep. Gerry Connolly called the pipeline’s promise of more domestic
petroleum products a “charade.” The bill passed 279-147. [HR 1938, Vote #650, 7/26/11; The Houston
Chronicle, 7/27/11; CQ Floor Votes, 7/26/11]
Voted to Allow Keystone XL Construction. In 2013, Coffman voted for a bill that would allow
construction of the northern portion of the Keystone XL oil sands pipeline. The bill stated that no
presidential permit was needed to begin construction of the northern route, as the White House has
delayed full approval of the project. The bill passed, 241-175. [HR 3, Vote #179, 5/22/13]
Voted Against Requiring Keystone Oil Be Used in the USA. In 2013, Coffman voted against an
amendment that would prohibit approval and construction of the Keystone XL pipeline until the president
determined that the oil and refined fuels transported through it is used in the United States and not
exported. An exception would exist if the president found that approval or construction was in the
national interest or required by law. The amendment failed 162-255. [HR 3, Vote #177, 5/22/13]
Voted Against Requiring Keystone Developer to Pay for Spills. In 2013, Coffman voted against a
measure to require TransCanada, the developer of the Keystone XL pipeline, to pay for oil spills. The
317
motion would certify that the oil through the pipeline would be treated similarly to conventional crude for
the purposes of determining contributions that fund the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. The motion failed
194-223. [HR 3, Vote #178, 5/22/13]
Voted Against Holding Pipeline Owners Liable For Explosions
Voted Against Motion To Require Pipeline Owners, Not Taxpayers, Are Liable For Any Cleanup
Costs Associated With Pipeline Explosion. In January 2015, Coffman voted against a motion to
recommit that would require that natural gas pipeline owners, not taxpayers, are liable for any damages,
repair, and clean-up in the wake of a natural gas pipeline explosion. [HR 161, Vote #40, 1/21/15;
Voted Against Amendment Increasing Fees On Oil Companies To Bolster The Pipeline And
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Voted Against Amendment Increasing Fees On Oil Companies To Bolster The Pipeline And
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. In June 2015, Coffman voted against an amendment to
the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016
that would have “raised fees on oil companies to increase funding for the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration, which regulates oil pipelines.” The amendment failed 202 to 222. [HR
2577, Vote #305, 6/04/15; Scripps Howard Foundation, 6/16/15]
Voted For Expedited Permitting For Natural Gas Pipeline Projects
Voted For Bill To Expedite FERC Permitting For Natural Gas Pipeline Projects. In January 2015,
Coffman voted for a bill that “would require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to approve or
deny a natural gas pipeline project within one year after receiving a completed application. Federal
agencies responsible for issuing permits would have to issue a ruling within 90 days of when FERC issues
its final environmental statement for the project. Under the bill, FERC could extend that period for
another 30 days. The bill would provide that if a federal agency does not rule within the required time
period, the permit will be deemed approved 30 days later.” The bill passed, 253 to 169. [HR 161, Vote
#41, 1/21/15; CQ]
Voted Against Prohibiting LNG Exports To State Sponsors Of Terrorism
Voted Against A Motion To Prohibit LNG Exports To State Sponsors Of Terrorism & Ensure LNG
Exports Are On US-Built Ships. In January 2015, Coffman voted against a motion that would prohibit
LNG exports to any nation that is a state sponsor of terrorism, or to any nation or corporation that engages
in cyber-attacks against the United States, and would ensure that U.S. flagged and built ships are used to
export LNG. The motion to recommit failed, 175-237. [HR 351, Vote #49, 1/28/15; Democratic Leader –
Motions to Recommit, 1/22/15]
Voted For Requiring Expedited Consideration Of LNG Export Permit Applications
Voted For Legislation To Require Expedited Consideration Of LNG Export Permit Applications. In
January 2015, Coffman voted for legislation that “would require the Energy Department to make a
318
decision on pending applications to export liquefied natural gas within 30 days of the bill's enactment or
at the end of the public comment period, whichever is later. Under the bill, applications would have to
publicly disclose the countries that would receive the proposed exports. It also would authorize the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the circuit where the proposed export facility will be located to exercise original and
exclusive jurisdiction over any civil action pertaining to such applications. The court would be required to
order the Energy Department to approve any applications within 30 days if it finds the agency did not
issue a decision by the bill's deadline.” [HR 351, Vote #50, 1/28/15; CQ]
Voted For FY16 Energy-Water Appropriations Bill Appropriating $35.4 Billion Towards Army
Corps Of Engineers, Department Of Energy And Nuclear Weapons Programs
Voted For FY16 Energy-Water Appropriations Bill Appropriating $35.4 Billion For Army Corps
Of Engineers, Department Of Energy And Nuclear Weapons Programs. In May 2015, Coffman
voted for the Energy and Water Development bill, which increased funding to weapons programs, Army
Corps of Engineers projects and nuclear weapons programs. “The House passed its second 2016
appropriations bill on Friday, this time to fund the Department of Energy and water infrastructure
projects. Passed 240-177 along party lines, the measure would provide $35.4 billion for the Army Corps
of Engineers, Department of Energy and nuclear weapons programs. The measure provides $1.2 billion
more than the current enacted spending level, but $633 million less than what the Obama administration
requested.” The bill passed, 240 to 177. [H.R. 2028, Vote #215, 5/01/15; The Hill, 5/01/15]
Bill Kept Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Site From Being Completely Closed. In May 2015,
Coffman voted for the Energy and Water Development bill, which contained funding to ensure that
Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Site remained open. “House Republicans Friday passed the second of
12 spending bills for the upcoming budget year, a $35 billion measure funding the Energy Department
and popular water projects constructed by the Army Corps of Engineers. …The measure includes a
big boost to modernize the U.S. nuclear arsenal and also contains money that would keep the Yucca
Mountain nuclear waste site in Nevada from being completely shuttered, a challenge to Senate
powerhouse Harry Reid, D-Nev., who has been largely responsible for blocking the project in the
past.” The bill passed, 240 to 177. [H.R. 2028, Vote #215, 5/01/15; Associated Press, 5/01/15]
Bill Provided $150 Million Towards Nuclear Waste Disposal Fund. “The House passed its second
2016 appropriations bill on Friday, this time to fund the Department of Energy and water
infrastructure projects. … In total, the measure provides $150 million for the Nuclear Waste Disposal
Program.” [The Hill, 5/01/15]
Bill Cut $279 Million From Renewable Energy Programs. “Fearing an escalation of nuclear
weapons, Rep. John Garamendi, D-Walnut Grove, on Friday voted against HR 2028, a $35.4 billion
appropriations bill that also includes energy and water development projects. The bill passed, 240177. …Meanwhile, renewable energy programs are funded at only $1.7 billion, a cut of $279 million
compared to FY 2015, Garamendi said. The bill also includes language that would weaken the Clean
Water Act in some circumstances.” [Davis Enterprise, 5/03/15]
Bill “Locks In Sequestration.” “The House on Friday passed a spending bill that would boost
funding for the nation’s weapons programs, Army Corps of Engineers projects and nuclear research,
after beating back amendments that would drastically slash funding for various Department of Energy
319
research programs. …Democrats criticized spending levels and individual policy riders in the bill,
including one that would bar the Obama administration from implementing its National Oceans Policy
and another that would permanently block the White House from moving forward on the so-called
clean water rule. But their main point of contention was the bill's adherence to an overall spending
framework that locks in sequestration.” [CQ Roll Call, 5/01/15]
Bill Contained Rider Allowing Guns To Be Carried On All Corps Of Engineers’ Lands. In May
2015, Coffman voted for the Energy and Water Development bill, which contained a rider allowing
guns to be carried on all Corps of Engineers’ Lands. “Some provisions in the House energy and water
bill approved Friday range far afield, such as a so-called legislative ‘rider’ allowing guns to be carried
on all Corps of Engineers' lands. Citing the politically divisive firearms policy, among other reasons,
the White House issued a veto threat against the legislation.” The bill passed, 240 to 177. [H.R. 2028,
Vote #215, 5/01/15; San Jose Mercury News, 5/01/15]
FY16 Water-Energy Appropriations Bill Increasing Funding For Weapons Programs, Army
Corps Of Engineer Projects And Nuclear Research. “The House on Friday passed a spending bill
that would boost funding for the nation’s weapons programs, Army Corps of Engineers projects and
nuclear research, after beating back amendments that would drastically slash funding for various
Department of Energy research programs. . . . Nearly all Democrats united to vote against the $35.4
billion spending measure (HR 2028), which advanced by a vote of 240-177 after lawmakers debated
amendments late into the night Thursday and early Friday.” The bill passed, 240 to 177. [H.R. 2028,
Vote #215, 5/01/15; The Hill, 5/01/15]
Voted For Amendment Reducing Appropriations In FY16 Energy And Water Bill By 11%
Voted For Amendment Reducing Appropriations In Energy And Water Bill By 11%; National
Nuclear Security Administration And Defense Activities Exempted. In April 2015, Coffman voted for
an amendment reducing appropriations in energy and water bill by 11%, with the National Nuclear
Security Administration, Environmental, defense activities and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety
Board. “Hudson, R-La., amendment that would reduce funds in the bill by 11 percent across the board,
except for those designated for the National Nuclear Security Administration, Environmental and Other
Defense Activities or Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.” The amendment failed, 143 to 278. [H.R.
Amendment Would Have “Slashed Spending By 11.2% Across The Board.” “The House on
Friday passed a spending bill that would boost funding for the nation’s weapons programs, Army
Corps of Engineers projects and nuclear research, after beating back amendments that would
drastically slash funding for various Department of Energy research programs. … Simpson and his
allies were able to hold off a bevy of amendments seeking to drastically shift or cut funding in the bill,
including one from North Carolina Republican Richard Hudson that would have slashed spending by
11.2 percent across the board.” [CQ Roll Call, 5/01/15]
Voted For Amendment Eliminating Funding For Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing
Program
320
Voted For Amendment Eliminating Funding For Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing
Program. In April 2015, Coffman voted for an amendment eliminating funding for advanced technology
vehicles program. “The House also rejected 171-250 an amendment by South Carolina Republican Mark
Sanford to eliminate funding for the Energy Department's loan guarantee program for advanced
technology vehicle manufacturing. Sanford argued that the program is dated and has outlived its purpose,
but Energy-Water cardinal Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, said zeroing out its funding would hamper oversight
of the $8 billion in loans already doled out.” The amendment failed, 171 to 250. [H.R. 2028, Vote #206,
4/30/15; CQ Roll Call, 4/30/15]
Republican Rep. Mike Simpson Opposed Eliminating Funding, Believing It Would “Hamper
Oversight Of The $8 Billion In Loans Already Doled Out.” “Sanford argued that the program is
dated and has outlived its purpose, but Energy-Water cardinal Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, said zeroing
out its funding would hamper oversight of the $8 billion in loans already doled out.” [CQ Roll Call,
4/30/15]
Voted Against Appropriating $30 Million In Drought Relief, State Electricity Energy Reliability
And Assurance
Voted Against Appropriating $30 Million Towards Drought Relief, State Electricity Energy
Reliability And Assurance. In May 2015, Coffman voted against a motion that would increase funding
for drought relief and state electricity energy reliability and assurance by $30 million. The motion failed,
180 to 235. [H.R. 2028, Vote #214, 5/01/15; CQ Floor Votes, 5/01/14]
Voted For Amendment Prohibiting Use Of Funds To Consider Report Analyzing Life Cycle Of
Green House Gas Emissions And Interactions With LNG
Voted For Amendment Prohibiting Use Of Funds To Study Report Analyzing Life Cycle Of Green
House Gas Emissions And Interactions With Liquefied Natural Gas. In May 2015, Coffman voted for
an amendment prohibiting funding for the Department of Energy to consider report analyzing the life
cycle of greenhouse gas emissions when making determinations on liquefied natural gas exports. “The
chamber approved 232-172 a provision from Pennsylvania Republican Keith Rothfus that would bar
funding for the Department of Energy to consider a report that analyzed the life cycle of greenhouse gas
emissions when making determinations on liquefied natural gas exports.” The measure passed, 232 to
172. [H.R. 2028, Vote #208, 5/01/15; CQ Roll Call, 5/01/15]
Voted For Efforts To Limit Efficiency Standards For Light Bulbs
Voted For Amendment Prohibiting Use Of Funds To Enforce Energy Efficiency Standards For
Incandescent Light Bulbs. In April 2015, Coffman voted for an amendment prohibiting the use of funds
regulate energy efficiency standards for incandescent bulbs. “The House adopted an amendment from
Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas) late Thursday night that would prohibit the use of funds to enforce
energy efficiency standards for incandescent light bulbs. The Texan likened the energy conservation
measure to an issue of individual liberty. ‘We should not be forcing these light bulbs on the American
public,’ Burgess said. ‘The bottom line is the federal government has no business taking away the
freedom of Americans to choose what bulbs to put in their homes.’” The amendment passed, 232 to 189.
[H.R. 2028, Vote #207, 4/30/15; The Hill, 5/01/15]
321
Voted to Repeal Increased Efficiency Standards for Light Bulbs. In 2011, Coffman voted to repeal
bipartisan regulations that increased energy efficiency standards for light bulbs. The bipartisan regulations
passed in 2007 increased energy efficiency standards for light bulbs. The regulation requires bulbs to be
25-30 percent more efficient by 2014 and 60 percent more efficient by 2020. The bill would have also
removed $30 million in funding for education and research that was to go along with the new energy
standards. The bill failed (it was considered under suspension of the rules which requires a two-thirds
majority to pass) 233-193. [HR 2417, Vote #563, 7/12/11; New York Times, 7/13/11; CQ Floor Votes,
7/12/11]
Voted For Amendment Reducing Appropriations In FY16 Energy And Water Bill By 1%
Voted For Amendment Reducing Appropriations In FY16 Energy And Water Bill By 1%. In May
2015, Coffman voted for an amendment reducing appropriations in energy and water bill by 1%.
“Blackburn, R-Tenn., amendment that would reduce each amount made available under the act by 1
percent.” The amendment was rejected, 159-248. [H.R. 2028, Vote #210, 5/01/15; CQ Floor Votes,
5/01/15]
Voted Against Increasing Funding For Energy Projects By $20 Million
Voted Against Amendment To Add $20 Million To Keep Funding For Energy Technology Research
At Current Levels. In April 2015, Coffman voted against an amendment to the energy and water
development funding bill that would increase funding for Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy
(ARPA-E) by $20 million and to reduce funding for Departmental Administration by a similar amount.
“Earlier in the evening, California Democrat Eric Swalwell proposed an amendment bumping funding for
the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy up $20 million from the $280 million level in the
underlying bill, using funds directed toward departmental administrative functions. The measure would
keep funding for the agency, which supports breakthrough energy technology research, at the current
level.” The amendment was rejected 202 to 219. [H.AMDT.178, Vote #202, 4/30/15; Congressional
Quarterly News, 4/30/15]
Voted Against Reducing Funding By $45 Million For Fossil Fuel Research
Voted Against Amendment To Decrease Funding For Fossil Energy Research And Development By
$45 Million. In April 2015, Coffman voted against an amendment to the energy and water development
funding bill that would reduce funding for Fossil Energy Research and Development by $45 million and
to apply the savings to the spending reduction account. “Page 22, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert
“(reduced by $45,000,000)” The amendment was rejected 175 to 246. [H.AMDT.174, Vote #201,
4/30/15; Congressional Quarterly, 4/30/15]
Voted Against Ending Funding For Renewable Energy
Voted Against Amendment To Cut $3.2 Billion By Eliminating Funding For Renewable Energy
And Decreasing Funding For Nuclear Energy. In April 2015, Coffman voted against an amendment to
the energy and water development funding bill that would zero out funding for Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, reduce Nuclear Energy by $691,886,000, and zero out funding for Fossil Energy and
322
to apply the aggregate savings of $2,954,660,000 to the spending reduction account. “REP. TOM
McCLINTOCK, R-Calif, that would eliminate funding for the energy efficiency and renewable energy
program, nuclear energy and fossil fuel research and apply the $3.2 billion savings to the spending
reduction account.” The amendment was rejected 110 to 311. [H.AMDT.172, Vote #200, 4/30/15;
Congressional Quarterly House Action Report, 4/30/15]
Voted Against Ending Funding For Renewable Energy Projects
Voted Against Amendment That Would Have Eliminated Funding For Renewable Energy And
Decreased Funding For Nuclear Energy. In April 2015, Coffman voted against an amendment to the
energy and water development funding bill that would zero out funding for Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy and apply the savings of $1,657,774,000 to the spending reduction account. The
amendment was rejected 139 to 282. [H.AMDT.172, Vote #199, 4/30/15]
Voted Against Increased Funding For Renewable Energy Projects And Reduced Funding For
Fossil Fuels
Voted Against Amendment That Would Have Increased Funding For Renewable Energy And
Decreased Funding For Fossil Fuel Energy. In April 2015, Coffman voted against an amendment to
increase funding for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy by $25,500,000 and to reduce funding for
Fossil Energy by $34,000,000. The amendment was rejected 173 to 248. [H.AMDT.167, Vote #198,
4/29/15]
Voted For Increased Funding For Fossil Fuels Research While Cutting Renewable Energy
Voted For Increasing Fossil Energy Research Funding By $50 Million While Cutting Renewable
Energy Funding. In April 2015, Coffman voted for an amendment to the energy and water development
funding bill that would have increased funding for funding for Fossil Energy Research and Development
by $50 million and to reduce funding for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy by a similar amount.
The amendment was rejected 177 to 244. [H.AMDT.164, Vote #197, 4/29/15]
Voted Against Increased Funding For Drought Research And Reducing Funding For Fossil Fuels
Voted Against Amendment That Would Have Increased Funding For Water And Drought Work
While Cutting Fossil Fuel Funding. In April 2015, Coffman voted against an amendment to the energy
and water development funding bill that would have increased funding for Water and Related Resources
by $5 million and reduced funding for Fossil Energy Research and Development by $20 million. “The
same goes for the second amendment Ruiz introduced last week, which moves $5 million away from the
study of fossil fuels and towards the study of drought mitigation in the West via the Bureau of
Reclamation.” The amendment was rejected 172 to 249. [H.AMDT.162, Vote #196, 4/29/15; Desert Sun,
5/02/15]
Voted For Cutting Funding For Sundry Accounts
Voted For Cutting Funding For Sundry Accounts. In April 2015, Coffman voted for an amendment to
the energy and water development funding bill that would have reduced funding for sundry accounts and
323
to apply the aggregate savings of $128,920,000 to the spending reduction account. The amendment was
rejected 126 to 295. [H.AMDT.159, Vote #195, 4/29/15]
Voted Against Continuing ARPA Goal Of Reducing Imports Of Foreign Energy, Through The
Development Of Energy Efficiency Technology
Voted Against Amendment Continuing ARPA Goal Of Reducing Imports Of Foreign Energy,
Through The Development Of Energy Efficiency Technology. In May 2015, Coffman voted against an
amendment to the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2015 maintaining greenhouse gas
emission goals for ARPA-E projects. The amendment would strike a provision in the bill that removed
Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) goals for pursuing the development of energy
technologies to reduce foreign energy imports, the reduction of energy-related emissions, including
greenhouse gases, and improvement in the energy efficiency of all economic sectors. The amendment
failed, 190 to 232. [HR 1806, Amendment #11, Vote #256, 5/20/15; CQ, 5/20/15]
Voted Against Amendment To Allow Commercial Biofuels Production For Defense Purposes
Voted Against Amendment To Allow Commercial Biofuels Production For Defense Purposes. In
May 2015, Coffman voted against an amendment allowing DOE research funds to be used for commercial
biofuels production for defense purposes. “Bonamici, D-Ore., amendment that would remove a provision
in the bill that would bar funds authorized for an Energy Department bioenergy research program from
being used to fund commercial biofuels production for defense purposes.” The amendment failed, 208 to
215. [HR 1806, Amendment #10, Vote #255, 5/20/15; Science Magazine, 5/20/15; CQ]
Voted Against Requiring A Governor Opting Out Of Clean Power Plan To Include Certification
That Electric Generating Units Contribute To Human-Caused Climate Change
Voted Against Requiring A Governor Opting Out Of Clean Power Plan To Include Certification
That Electric Generating Units Contribute To Human-Caused Climate Change. In June 2015,
Coffman voted against an amendment to the Ratepayer Protection Act of 2015. “Amendment sought to
require a Governor wishing to opt out of the Clean Power Plan to include a certification that electric
generating units are sources of carbon pollution that contribute to human-induced climate change; and that
the state or federal plan to reduce carbon emissions from electric generating units would promote national
security, economic growth and public health by addressing human induced climate change through the
increased use of clean energy, energy efficiency and reductions in carbon pollution.” The amendment
failed 181 to 245. [HR 2042, H.AMDT.526, Vote #381, 6/24/15]
Voted Against Requiring Governors To Certify That Any Electricity Rate Increases Associated
With Implementing Clean Power Plan To Be Greater Than Any Cost Associated With Weather
Events Associated With Human-Induced Climate Change
Voted Against Requiring Governors To Certify That Any Electricity Rate Increases Associated
With Implementing Clean Power Plan To Be Greater Than Any Cost Associated With Weather
Events Associated With Human-Induced Climate Change. In June 2015, Coffman voted against an
amendment to the Ratepayer Protection Act of 2015. “EPA Carbon Emission Rules — Governor
Certification On Weather Events Rush, D-Ill., amendment that would require a governor's certification
324
that any ratepayer increase associated with implementing a state or federal plan would be greater than any
cost associated with responding to extreme weather events associated with human-caused climate change,
including sea level rise, flooding, frequent and intense storms, frequent and intense wildfires or drought.”
The amendment failed 182 to 243. [HR 2042, H.AMDT.527, Vote #382, 6/24/15; CQ Billtrack, 6/24/15]
Voted Against Replacing Ability Of Governor To Opt Out Of Clean Power Plan With Requirement
That Public Utility Commissions Issue Reliability Analysis On State Or Federal Carbon Emission
Plans
Voted Against Replacing Ability Of Governor To Opt Out Of Clean Power Plan With Requirement
That Public Utility Commissions Issue Reliability Analysis On State Or Federal Carbon Emission
Plans. In June 2015, Coffman voted against an amendment to Ratepayer Protection Act of 2015. “EPA
Carbon Emission Rules — Judicial Review of EPA Carbon Rules McNerney, D-Calif., amendment that
would remove the bill's requirements that EPA's rules are to be delayed pending to resolution of all
judicial reviews and instead require a state's public utility commission to conduct an analysis of any state
or federal plan.” The amendment failed 177 to 250. [HR 2042, Vote #383, 6/24/15; CQ Billtrack, 6/24/15]
Voted For Postponing Enforcement Of EPA Carbon Emission Reduction Rules Until Completion
Of All Judicial Challenges
Voted For Postponing Enforcement Of EPA Carbon Emission Reduction Rules Until Completion
Of All Judicial Challenges. In June 2015, Coffman voted for “passage of a bill that would postpone the
dates by when states and existing fossil-fuel power plants must comply with current or future EPA rules
to reduce carbon emissions until all judicial challenges are completed, and it allows state governors to opt
out of developing an emissions reduction plan or complying with a federal plan for existing plants if he or
she determines that the requirement would have an adverse effect on electricity ratepayers.” The bill
passed 247 to 180. A “nay” was a vote in support of the president’s position. [HR 2042, Vote #384,
6/24/15; CQ Floor Votes, 6/24/15]
Voted Against Ending Prohibition On Using Funds For The Social Cost Of Carbon To Be
Incorporated Into Rulemaking Until A New Working Group Revised Estimates
Voted Against Ending Prohibition On Using Funds For The Social Cost Of Carbon To Be
Incorporated Into Rulemaking Until A New Working Group Revised Estimates. In July 2015,
Coffman voted against “an amendment to strike section 437, which prohibits the use of funds for the
social cost of carbon to be incorporated into any rulemaking or guidance document until a new
Interagency Working Group revises the estimates using the discount rates and domestic-only limitation on
benefits estimates in accordance with Executive Order 12866.” The amendment failed 186 to 243. [HR
2822, Vote #400, 7/08/15; H AMDT 571, 7/08/15]
Voted Against An Amendment That Would Have Removed A Limitation In FY 2016 EPA Funding
Bill Updating Ozone Standards So That 85 Percent Of Counties That Do Not Meet Current
Standards Comply
Voted Against An Amendment That Would Have Removed A Limitation In FY 2016 EPA Funding
Bill Updating Ozone Standards So That 85 Percent Of Counties That Do Not Meet Current
325
Standards Comply. In July 2015, Coffman voted against an amendment that struck section 438 from HR
2822, which provided for a limitation on the use of funds regarding ozone standards. Specially, the
amendment would have removed “the bill’s limitation on EPA from updating its ozone standards until
85% of counties that do not meet the current standard come into compliance.” The amendment failed 249
to 180. [HR 2822, H.AMDT.573, Vote #401, 7/08/15; Congressional Quarterly’s House Action Reports,
7/08/15]
Voted Against An Amendment That Would Allow Rules To Consider The Social Cost Of Carbon
Voted Against An Amendment That Would Allow Rules To Consider The Social Cost Of Carbon.
In July 2015, Coffman voted against an amendment to “allow rules to consider the social cost of carbon.”
Specifically, the amendment “prohibits the use of funds for the social cost of carbon to be incorporated
into any rulemaking or guidance document until a new Interagency Working Group revises the
estimates.” The amendment failed 237 to 192. [HR 2822, H.AMDT.580, Vote #403, 7/08/15;
Congressional Quarterly’s House Action Reports, 7/08/15]
Voted Against An Amendment That Would Have Prioritized Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Voted Against An Amendment That Would Have Prioritized Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
In July 2015, Coffman voted against an amendment that would have prioritized reducing greenhouse gas
emissions. Specifically, the amendment would “prohibit funds from being used in contravention of an
executive order establishing an integrated strategy towards sustainability in the federal government and
making reduction of greenhouse gas emissions a priority.” The amendment failed 237 to 189. [HR 2822,
H.AMDT.588, Vote #406, 7/08/15; Congressional Quarterly’s House Action Reports, 7/08/15]
Voted Against Prohibiting Coal Rules To Go Into Effect If It Harmed Infants, Children, And The
Elderly
Voted Against Prohibiting Coal Rules To Go Into Effect If It Harmed Infants, Children, And The
Elderly. In July 2015, Coffman voted against an amendment that “would prohibit the measure from going
into effect if the Environmental Protection Agency determines it will have a negative impact on
vulnerable populations, such as infants, children, the elderly, and other subsections of the population
identified as vulnerable.” The amendment failed, 180-240. [HR 1734, Vote #456, 3/25/15; CQ Floor
Votes, 7/22/15]
Voted For Allowing States To Create Their Own Coal Ash Disposal And Storage Programs
Voted For Allowing States To Create Their Own Coal Ash Disposal And Storage Programs. In July
2015, Coffman voted for a bill that “would establish minimum federal standards regarding the disposal
and storage of coal combustion residuals (CCR) that would codify parts of the Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) rule regarding coal ash, while superseding other elements of the rule. Additionally, the
bill would permit states to create their own coal ash permit programs, but would provide for EPA
oversight of the bill's standards in cases when a state lacks its own program or fails to meet the standards
set in the bill. It also would provide that coal ash received by manufacturers who intend to use it for other
beneficial uses would not to be considered as a receipt of CCR for state permitting purposes.” The
amendment passed, 258-166. [HR 1734, Vote #458, 3/25/15; CQ Floor Votes, 7/22/15]
326
Bill Would Allow Coal Ash Into Groundwater. “The Republican-led House of Representatives
struck another blow to environmental regulation Wednesday night, passing a bill that will
undercut the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) coal ash regulations, opponents said . . . .
Among the differences, she said, is the fact that the EPA rule prohibits disposing coal ash waste
directly into the water supply, while the House bill does not. In a survey the EPA did of state laws
on coal ash, only five of the 25 states surveyed specifically prohibited disposing of coal ash into
groundwater, Evans said.” [Think Progress, 7/23/15]
Voted For Amendment Prohibiting Use Of Funds To Increase Royalties Paid To The United States
For Oil And Gas Produced On Federal Land
Voted For Amendment Prohibiting Use Of Funds To Increase Royalties Paid To The United States
For Oil And Gas Produced On Federal Land. In July 2015, Coffman voted for amendment to prohibit
the use of funds to increase the rate of any royalty required to be paid to the United States for oil and gas
produced on Federal land, or to prepare or publish a proposed rule relating to such an increase. “Finally,
two amendments aimed to allow dirty energy companies to continue paying below-market rates for fossil
fuels extracted from public lands. An amendment from Rep. Steve Pearce would prohibit any increase in
the royalty rates paid for oil and gas.” The amendment passed, 231 to 198. [HR 2822, Vote #408, 7/07/15;
Huffington Post, 8/11/15]
Voted To Lift 40-Year Crude Oil Export Ban
Voted To Lift A 40-Year Ban On The Export Of Crude Oil Produced In The U.S. In October 2015,
Coffman voted for a bill that would allow the export of crude oil produced in the United States by
removing the export ban imposed by the 1975 Energy Policy and Conservation Act. “Most [Democrats],
though, opposed Barton's bill, arguing that its economic impact is overblown and that it will endanger
jobs in the refining sector. They also cite environmental risks in pumping more oil for exports. ‘This
legislation eagerly embraces short-term profits and benefits without understanding — or even considering
— the cost of such a major action,’ Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.) said.” According to the Wall Street
Journal, “The White House has threatened to veto the bill, saying it ‘is not needed at this time.’” The bill
passed 261 to 159. [HR 702, Vote #549, 10/09/15; The Hill, 10/09/15; Wall Street Journal, 10/09/15]
Supported Offshore Drilling
In 2013, Coffman voted for a bill that would direct the Secretary of the Interior to develop a five-year
offshore leasing plan that would make at least 50 percent of the unleased coastal areas with the most
potential for energy production available for oil and gas exploration and development.
Under the bill, drilling would be allowed off the coasts of California, South Carolina and Virginia. It also
would require the Interior secretary to prepare a multi-sale environmental impact statement in accordance
with the National Environmental Policy Act for all lease sales authorized by the bill. As amended it would
require that claims arising from projects covered by the bill be filed within 60 days and resolved within
six months. [CQ Votes, 6/28/13]
327
Offshore Energy and Jobs Act would Put Local Coastal Communities at Risk
The Offshore Energy and Jobs Act would expand drilling in US waters and would “put the local
coastal communities at risk from ecological and economic harm. The US coasts provide billions of
dollars in economic revenue through recreation, tourism, and healthy seafood,” according to
Surfer Today. [Surfer Today, 6/26/13]
Introduced Legislation to Ease American Reliance on Chinese Rare Earth Metals
In 2009, Coffman introduced a bill that would ease American reliance on rare earth metals from China.
He later introduced a similar bill in 2011, which would create a strategic stockpile of rare earth metals
within the Department of Defense.
“China is neither an ally of the United States nor is it a reliable trade partner when it comes to rare earth
metals,” Coffman argued. “Our nation must act to protect our security interests with regard to these
strategic metals.” [Coffman press release, 12/29/10]
… And Created Rare Earths Caucus
In 2011, Coffman created a new Congressional caucus “aimed at reestablishing a domestic supply
chain of rare earths elements.”
“With the establishment of this caucus, I am confident we will be able to build awareness on
Capitol Hill about the critical threat China’s trade policies of restricting rare earth exports pose to
both the economic and national security of the United States,” he said. “We cannot afford inaction
on this issue any longer.” [Coffman press release, 11/09/11; The Association for Rare Earth, press release,
11/9/11]
Urged Trade Ambassador to File Complaint Against China
In 2011, Coffman urged United States Trade Ambassador Ron Kirk to file a complaint with the
World Trade Organization against China over its “unfair trade practices regarding export
restrictions on rare earth oxides and metals.” [Coffman press release, 2/24/11]
Washington Times: Bill Would “Undoubtedly Benefit” Colorado-Based Molycorp Minerals
In 2011, the Washington Times reported that “The Coffman bill undoubtedly would benefit
Colorado-based Molycorp Minerals, which is the largest U.S. supplier of rare earth elements.”
[Washington Times, 4/12/11]
Molycorp Spokesman: There Will Be Shortages From 2011 to 2013
At a 2011 American Enterprise Institute meeting, Molycorp spokesman Andy Davis warned of a
shortage of rare earth minerals between 2011 and 2013.
328
“The reality we are facing is that there will be shortages [of rare earth elements] in 2011 to 2013,”
Davis said. “Time is of the essence. The funding is definitely a challenge, [but] this is one of the
few issues where you are not finding a blatantly partisan fight.” [Washington Times, 4/12/11]
Demanded Pentagon Release Report Regarding Rare Earths
In August 2011, Coffman demanded that the Pentagon release its report on rare earth metals,
which the Pentagon had been late to make public.
“While I am concerned that you failed to meet the deadline for this important report, I am even
more disturbed that Department of Defense officials are providing conflicting reasons for this
report’s tardiness, offering no insight into the report’s substantive content, and setting no firm
alternative date for delivery,” Coffman wrote in a letter to the Pentagon. [Coffman press release,
8/08/11]
Voted for Cuts to the Department of Energy Budget
In 2011, Coffman voted to cut funding for the Department of Energy in Fiscal Year 2012, including to
high speed rail and renewable energy programs and to repeal regulations on light-bulbs.
The bill, which provides funding for the Department of Energy in Fiscal Year 2012 cut $1 billion from
similar Fiscal Year 2011 funding. This funding goes to the Department of Energy and the Army Corps of
Engineers programs. The bill moved $1 billion from high speed rail funding to flood relief along the
Mississippi and Missouri rivers. It also cut $491 million from the renewable energy programs from FY11
leaving it at $1.3 billion for FY12. The bill blocks the administration from closing the Yucca Mountain
nuclear waste project and, because of an amendment, repeals the 2007 bipartisan regulation on light bulbs
which would make them more energy efficient. [Associated Press, 7/15/11]
Editorial: Thousands of Jobs Could Be Lost in Colorado and Other States if Congress Does Not Act
Soon to Extend the Wind Production Tax Credit Beyond 2012
In 2012, the editorial board with the Denver Post advocated for Colorado representatives to extend a wind
production tax credit, which could save thousands of jobs. Vestas Wind Systems’ chief executive Ditlev
Engle said failure to extend the tax credit could affect 1,600 jobs in the U.S. The impact would be
significant in Colorado, where the company and its suppliers employ about 1,700 people.
The paper wrote, “The credit, which is set to expire at the end of 2012, keeps wind energy competitive
with other types of power and helps companies draw financing.
We hope that Sen. Mark Udall and Reps. Diana DeGette and Cory Gardner will use their positions on
their respective chambers’ energy committees to advocate for an extension sooner rather than later.”
Wrote a Letter with Colorado Delegation in Favor of Wind Energy Tax Credit
329
In 2012, Coffman wrote a letter with seven of the eight other members of the Colorado delegation
in support of the federal wind production tax credit. [Americanindependent.com, 2/08/12]
Berthoud Recorder: Coffman Is “Ill Informed” about Production in CO
In a February 2012 editorial, the Berthoud Recorder wrote,
We invite Representative Coffman to try sticking to the facts. He is obviously ill informed about
production in the United States and even more so about production in his own state. If we were
Politifact, we would award Coffman a “pants on fire” for these comments… Representative
Coffman has also shown a tremendous ignorance of how the oil industry works…. will attribute
his comments to political rhetoric and the $164,800 that Open Secrets.org says was contributed to
his campaign fund by oil and gas interests. [Berthoud Recorder, 2/24/12]
Pulled Sponsorship from Natural Gas Bill
In 2011, Coffman withdrew his sponsorship from a natural gas bill after initially supporting it.
“I absolutely support using natural gas as a transportation fuel, but having the taxpayers spend up to
$64,000 per truck and up to $100,000 to install a single natural gas pump is a lot more than I thought it
would cost when I initially cosponsored the bill,” he said. “However, I’ll continue to work on finding
ways to promote natural gas as a transportation fuel because it’s the right thing to do.” [Fort Collins
Bill Came Under Criticism from Conservative Interests
In 2011, the natural gas bill came under criticism from the Heritage Foundation and Americans for
Prosperity for being a subsidy aimed at picking winners and losers in energy circles. [Fort Collins
Voted Against Research and Development Tax Credits, Incentives for Biodiesel Production
In 2010, Coffman voted against a package of tax breaks, including popular research and development tax
credits, incentives for biodiesel production and education deductions. The bill was partially paid for by
closing tax loopholes for companies that ship jobs overseas.
The measure provided $1 billion for a summer jobs program as well as funding for states that would lose
money due to changes in the transportation funding formula. The bill increased the Oil Spill Liability
Trust Fund financing rate to 34 cents per barrel from 8 cents per barrel.
The bill also included a summer jobs initiative and Build America Bonds aid for state and local
governments. [CQ Weekly, 5/31/10]
Opposed $6 Billion Rebate Program for Energy-Efficient Renovations
330
In 2010, Coffman voted against passing a $6.6 billion rebate program for energy-efficient home
improvements.
“The result of this will be that we will see a reduction in energy bills,” said Democrat Edward J. Markey.
In addition, the White House backed the measure, saying it would “create ‘green’ jobs in construction and
manufacturing, help consumers lower their energy bills, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”
The bill also authorized $600 million over two years for a separate program providing grants to states for
assisting low-income households in replacing manufactured homes built prior to 1976. [CQ Today,
5/06/10]
According to the Home Star Coalition, most of the jobs created by the program would go to small
businesses for work that could not be outsourced. By further scaling back America’s dependence on fossil
fuels, the bill reduced vulnerability to an energy marketplace with extreme price swings and volatility.
[McKinsey’s 2009 Report, Unlocking Energy Efficiency in the U.S. Economy]
Opposed Clean Energy and Security Act
In 2009, Coffman voted against the American Clean Energy and Security Act. The measure set
comprehensive goals to reduce climate change, including greenhouse gas emissions limits, alternativeenergy requirements, better energy efficiency and regular analyses from federal agencies. It reduces
carbon emissions from major U.S. sources by 17% by 2020 and over 80% by 2050. The bill required that
20 percent of energy produced come from combined renewables and savings by 2020. The bill included
funding for job training and assistance. [CQ Today Online, 6/26/09; CQ Weekly 6/29/09]
Included Cap and Trade System
Required EPA to set annual greenhouse gas emissions limits or “caps” beginning in 2012, the
limits were to be based on metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions. The bill allowed companies to
buy and sell pollution allowances and get credit for funding special projects to reduce emissions
on farms and in forests. [CQ Today Online, 6/26/09; CQ Weekly 6/29/09]
The measure passed 219-212. [H.R. 2454, #477, 6/26/09]
Voted In Favor Of Increasing Home Heating Assistance by $50 Million
In 2011, Coffman voted in favor of an amendment that would increase funding for Low Income Home
Energy Assistance Programs (LIHEAP) by $50 million. The amendment would reduce funding for
substance abuse and mental health services at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration by $98 million.
The amendment was rejected, 104-322. [HR 1, Bass amendment #565, Vote #71, 2/17/11]
331
Voted Against Cutting Defense Department Research on Alternative Energies
In 2011, Coffman voted against an amendment that would reduce funding for Defense Department
procurement, research and innovation programs by $115.5 million. The aim of reduced funding was for
alternative energy research.
The amendment failed, 109-320. [HR 1, Pompeo amendment #86, Vote #44, 2/15/11]
332
Environmental and Wildlife Issues
 Did not believe humans significantly contributed to climate change, said climate
change could not be reversed
 Claimed the science was not settled on climate change
 Said climate change was “naturally occurring”
 Said “radical environmentalists” control a lot of research grants dealing with
climate change
 Voted against efforts to ban fracking on federal land, require federal oversight
and disclosure of chemicals used to frack
 Consistently voted to undermine the Clean Water Act
 Voted against seven initiatives to ensure clean and safe drinking water
 Twice voted against designating two million acres – including the Rocky Mountain
National Park – as protected wilderness
 Voted against requiring companies to have disaster plan for oil spills
 Opposed CAFE standards; CAFE standards reduce consumption of oil, save
money at the pump, and reduce global warming
Coffman doesn’t believe that humans significantly contributed to climate change,
claimed that climate change couldn’t be reversed, said the science was not settled
on it, and thought that the phenomenon was naturally occurring – with the
“radical environmentalists” controlling research grants dealing with climate
change. Coffman had voted consistently to undermine the Clean Water Act and
opposed many initiatives to ensure drinking water was safe and clean.
Coffman supported the fracking industry through his votes to open federal land
for drilling, not require federal oversight, and keep drilling chemicals secret. He
was one of two deciding votes against designating two million acres – including the
333
Rocky Mountain National Park – as protected wilderness, which he was later
criticized for by Coloradoans. Coffman also voted against requiring companies to
have disaster plans for oil spills and opposed CAFE standards, despite these
standards contributing to less fuel consumption and lower gas prices.
Did Not Believe Humans Significantly Contributed To Climate Change, Said Climate Change
Could Not Be Reversed, And Claimed The Science Was Not Settled On Climate Change
Did Not Believe Humans Significantly Contributed To Climate Change. In September 2014, when
asked if he believed whether or not humans have been “significantly contributing to climate change,”
Coffman answered, “No.” [Denver Post, 6th Congressional Debate, 28:39 – 28:50, 9/23/14]
Questioned The Role That Carbon Emissions From Human Activity Had On Climate Change.
In 2013, questioned the role that carbon emissions, from human activity, have on climate change.
“There is no question that climate change is real since it has existed since the beginning of time and
will always be a factor that can negatively impact our environment. The role that carbon emissions,
from human activity, have on climate change is still a subject of debate but, in my view, there is no
question that it also has a negative impact,” Coffman said. [Coffman Guest Column, Carbon Valley
Farmer & Miner, 9/10/13]
Said Climate Change was “Naturally Occurring.” In 2012, Coffman said climate change was
“naturally occurring.” Climate change is naturally occurring. What influence do we have over that, we
certainly need to look into, but that's subject to debate,” Coffman said. [National Journal, 6/14/12]
believed climate change could be reversed, Coffman said, “No.” [Denver Post, 6th Congressional Debate,
28:52 – 29:06, 9/23/14]
Said Science was Not Settled on Climate Change. In 2014, Congressman Coffman said: “On the
climate change issue, I just think the science is not quite settled. Does it have an impact? Yes. […] Do I
know how much of an impact it has, man-made climate change? I don't know. But I think we need to do
everything responsible to bring down carbon emissions. Sometimes, my worry is we go too far.” [Denver
Post, 9/23/14]
HEADLINE: “Climate Change Issue Makes Rep. Mike Coffman’s Head Spin” [Think Progress,
9/24/14]
Claimed “Radical Environmentalists” Control a Lot of Research Grants Dealing with Climate
Change. In 2013, Coffman said “radical environmentalists” control a lot of research grants on climate
change. “And one thing that I certainly read from viable sources is that a lot of the research that’s being
done—when you put your application in to get a grant, if you don’t submit to the, you know, orthodoxy of
climate change by the radical environmentalists, you’re not going to get a grant,” Coffman said.
HEADLINE: “On Radio, Coffman Says 'Radical Environmentalists' Control A Lot Of Climate
Change Research Grants” [Colorado Pols, 8/22/13]
334
Voted Against Efforts To Ban Fracking On Federal Land, Require Federal Oversight And
Disclosure Of Chemicals Used To Frack
Voted Against An Amendment That Would Have Prevented Hydraulic Fracturing On Federal
Land. In July 2015, Coffman voted against an amendment “that would remove the bill’s prohibition on
BLM from implementing its final rule governing fracking on federal lands.” Specifically, the amendment
struck “section 439 from the bill which provides for prohibitions regarding hydraulic fracturing.” The
amendment failed 250 to 179. [HR 2822, H.AMDT.576, Vote #402, 7/08/15; Congressional Quarterly’s
House Action Reports, 7/08/15]
Voted to Block Federal Oversight of Fracking; Voted Against Requiring Public Disclosure Of
Chemicals Used In Fracking. In November 2013, Coffman voted for a bill that would block the federal
government’s ability to impose new rules on fracking. ThinkProgress reported that under the law, “Unless
a state has not passed any laws regarding fracking, the U.S. Department of Interior…would have no say in
whether companies disclose chemicals in fracking fluid; whether water that comes back up from fracked
wells is polluted; or whether people can request public hearings on fracking permit applications.” The bill
passed, 235-187. [HR 2728, Vote #604, 11/20/13; The Hill, 9/06/13; ThinkProgress, 11/19/13]
Voted Against Requiring Public Disclosure of Chemicals Used in Fracking. In November 2013,
Coffman voted against a motion that would grant the Secretary of the Interior and state governments the
authority to require public disclosure of chemicals, processes and the location of fracking. The motion
failed, 188-232. [HR 2728, Vote #603, 11/20/13; CQ Floor Votes, 11/20/13]
Voted to Ensure Communities Have a Say in Natural Gas Pipeline Locations. In November 2013,
Coffman voted for a motion that would ensure the ability of communities to engage in the permitting and
construction processes of local natural-gas pipelines. The motion failed, 180-233. [HR 1900, Vote #610,
11/21/13; CQ Floor Votes, 11/21/13]
Repeatedly Voted To Undermine The Clean Water Act
2011: Voted To Remove EPA’s Ability To Enforce Clean Water Act. In 2011, Coffman voted for a
bill which undermined the Clean Water Act by removing the EPA’s ability to enforce it. The bill banned
the EPA from issuing new or revising water-quality standards if a state standard had already been
approved by the agency without the state’s consent. The EPA would also be banned from removing its
approval of a state program or limiting federal funds to that program if it disagreed with the way the
regulation was implemented, or if the EPA disagreed with the state’s water quality standard. This
effectively removed the EPA’s authority to supervise and regulate the states. The bill passed 239-184.
[HR 2018, Vote #573, 7/13/11; New York Times Editorial, 7/15/11; CQ Floor Votes, 7/13/11]
2015: Voted For Amendment Prohibiting Funds Used To Regulate “Agricultural Activities”
Identified As Exemptions Under Clean Water Act. In May 2015, Coffman voted for an amendment
prohibiting the use of funds to regulate certain agricultural activities under the Clean Water Act.
“LaMalfa, R-Calif., amendment that would prohibit funds made available under the act from being used
to regulate agricultural activities identified as exemptions under certain sections of the Clean Water Act.”
The amendment passed, 239 to174. [ H.R. 2028, Vote #212, 5/01/15; CQ Floor Votes, 5/01/15]
335
2015: Voted For Halting EPA’s Waters Of The United States Rulemaking Relating To Smaller
Waterways That Feed Into Larger Ones. In May 2015, Coffman voted for the Regulatory Integrity
Protection Act which “would require the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to withdraw its Waters of
the United States rule. The rule would define the EPA’s oversight authority over streams, ponds and small
waterways that feed into larger ones...” According to Rep. Donna Edwards, “H.R. 1732 would halt the
current Clean Water rulemaking, and require the agencies to withdraw the proposed rule and restart the
rulemaking process. This is after one million public comments, a 208 day comment period, and over 400
public hearings.” The bill passed 261 to 155. [HR 1732, Vote # 219, 5/12/15; The Hill, 4/29/15; Edwards
Press Release, 4/29/15]
2015: Voted Against Amendment To Prohibit Issuing Final Clean Water Rules If They Violated
Previous Court Decisions. In May 2015, Coffman voted against an amendment to the Regulatory
Integrity Protection Act proposed by Rep. Donna Edwards. According to Edwards, “Under my
amendment, the administration cannot expand the scope beyond those water bodies covered prior to the
decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court in those two cases, and it cannot be inconsistent with Justices
Scalia’s and Kennedy’s judicial opinions in Rapanos. In addition to that, they can’t increase the
regulation of ditches.” The amendment failed 167 to 248. [HR 1732, Vote #217, 5/12/15; Edwards Press
Release, 4/29/15]
Voted Against Seven Initiatives To Ensure Clean And Safe Drinking Water
2011: Voted Against Regulating Pollutants in Drinking-Water Sources. In 2011, Coffman voted
against a motion which continued the EPA’s authority to regulate pollutants in drinking-water sources.
The motion stated that the legislation would not affect the EPA’s authority when it comes to regulating
pollutants, including arsenic or perchlorate, into public drinking-water sources. The motion failed 188238. [HR 2018, Vote #572, 7/13/11]
2013: Voted Against Preventing Contamination of Groundwater and the Great Lakes. In July 2013,
Coffman voted against preventing contamination of groundwater and sources of drinking water, including
the Great Lakes, from coal ash waste disposal sites. The amendment failed 192-225. [HR 2218, Vote
#417, 7/25/13]
2014: Voted Against Requiring Companies to Disclose Toxic Chemicals in Drinking Water. In
February 2014, Coffman voted against a motion that would require chemical manufacturers to report to
regulatory agencies on the potential risks of chemicals that could contaminate water supplies prior to
using them. The motion failed 187-231. [HR 3590, Vote #40, 2/05/14; CQ Floor Votes, 2/05/14]
2015: Voted Against Requiring Increased Disclosure On Groundwater Monitoring. In July 2015,
Coffman voted against an amendment that “would require all inactive surface impoundments follow postclosure groundwater monitoring standards to meet current public disclosure requirements.” The
amendment failed, 177-244. [HR 1734, Vote #453, 3/25/15; CQ Floor Votes, 7/22/15]
2015: Voted Against An Amendment To Require Criteria To Prevent Toxic Contamination Of
Groundwater And To Protect Water Sources, Including Great Lakes. In July 2015, Coffman voted
against an amendment that “would require implementing agencies to require that all surface impoundment
structures meet criteria sufficient to prevent toxic contamination of ground water and to protect drinking
336
water sources, including the Great Lakes.” The amendment failed, 184-240. [HR 1734, Vote #457,
3/25/15; CQ Floor Votes, 7/22/15]
2015: Voted Against Requiring Alternate Safe Drinking Water Within 24 Hours If Drinking Water
Had Unsafe Coal Pollution Levels. In July 2015, Coffman voted against an amendment that “would
require the owner or operator of a coal combustion residuals surface impoundment to survey all nearby
drinking water supply wells and to supply an alternative source of safe drinking water within 24 hours if
well water sampling exceeds groundwater quality standards for constituents associated with the presence
of coal combustion residuals.” The amendment failed, 192-231. [HR 1734, Vote #455, 3/25/15; CQ Floor
Votes, 7/22/15]
2015: Voted Against Requiring Inactive Hazardous Waste Sites To Follow Groundwater
Monitoring Standards. In July 2015, Coffman voted against an amendment that “would require all
inactive surface impoundments to follow post-closure groundwater monitoring standards in the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) rule.” The amendment failed, 177-245. [HR 1734, Vote #454,
3/25/15; CQ Floor Votes, 7/22/15]
Twice Voted Against Designating Two Million Acres – Including The Rocky Mountain National
Park – As Protected Wilderness
2009: Voted Against Designating Two Million Acres as Protected Wilderness. In 2009. Coffman
voted against a bill that would designate two million acres across nine states, including Colorado, as
protected wilderness. “This is a massive public lands bill that was irresponsibly moved directly to the
House floor for a vote without the benefit of a single public hearing,” Coffman stated. The bill failed to
pass the House, 282-144, with two votes shy of the two-thirds majority needed to pass the bill. [Associated
Press, 3/12/09]
… Again In 2009: Voted Against Protected Wilderness Bill. In 2009, Coffman voted again against the
protected wilderness bill. “When there is a $9 billion maintenance backlog on the Park Service land that
we already have, why are we spending $10 billion that we will have to borrow to acquire even more
land?” he stated. The bill passed, 285-140. [Denver Post, 3/26/09]
One Of Two Votes That Prohibited Passage Of Bill. “Environmentalists are accusing Republican
… Mike Coffman … of ignoring Colorado's interests in favor of partisanship by voting against a
federal wilderness bill. The bill failed by two votes in the House Wednesday. … Republicans who
voted against the bill objected to its scope and the possibility that oil and gas development would be
blocked on large swaths of federal land. … The vote on the bill was 282-144 in favor, two votes shy
of the two-thirds majority needed under a special rule that limits amendments.” [AP, 3/11/09]
HEADLINE: “Coffman… Blasted For Vote On Wilderness” [AP, 3/11/09]
Sites Included Rocky Mountain National Park and Dominguez Canyon. Among the cites the bill
intended to protect were the Rocky Mountain National Park and the Dominguez Canyon. [Associated
Press, 3/12/09]
337
Environment Colorado: “There Was Broad Bipartisan Support.” Commenting on the bill’s
failure, Matt Garrington of Environment Colorado said, “You can’t even say this was partisan
politics.” “There was broad bipartisan support.” [Associated Press, 3/12/09]
Voted Against Requiring Companies to Have a Disaster Plan for Oil Spills
In 2011, Coffman voted against an amendment that required oil and gas companies to have contingency
plans for worst-case scenarios, including plans for oil containment and cleanup, when applying for 5-year
oil and gas off-shore permits. The amendment would require companies seeking off-shore oil and gas
leases under the 5-year oil and gas leasing programs listed in H.R. 1231, the Reversing President Obama’s
Offshore Moratorium Act, to submit plans for a worst-case scenario oil spill including oil containment
and cleanup. Due to a lack of planning for oil containment and cleanup the Deepwater Horizon oil spill
leaked about 185 million gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico in 2010. [The Hill, 5/11/11; Congressional
Record, 5/11/11; New York Times, 10/17/11]
Opposed CAFE Standards; CAFE Standards Reduce Consumption Of Oil, Save Money At The
Pump, And Reduce Global Warming
Opposed CAFE Standards. In 2008, when asked if he supported CAFE Standards, Coffman said,
“Absolutely not.” [KBDI Congressional Debate, YouTube, 7:29 – 8:11, 6/01/08]
Union Of Concerned Scientists: CAFE Standards Reduce Consumption Of Oil, Save Money At
The Pump, And Reduce Global Warming. “[CAFE] standards will reduce America’s consumption
of oil, save consumers money at the gas pump, and protect public health and the environment by
curbing global warming pollution. They will also help spur investments in new automotive
technology, creating jobs and helping sustain the recovery of the American auto industry.
Voted For Blocking Clean Air Act Rules Governing The Emissions Of Air Pollutants From Brick
And Clay Manufacturers
Voted For Blocking Clean Air Act Rules Governing The Emissions Of Air Pollutants From Brick
And Clay Manufacturers. In March 2016, Coffman voted for a bill that would prohibit the EPA from
regulating emissions of air pollutants caused by the manufacturing of brick and clay products. “The bill
would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from implementing two 2015 final Clean Air
Act rules governing the emissions of air pollutants: the Brick and Structural Clay Products rule and the
final Clay Ceramics Manufacturing… H.R. 4557 would delay implementation of these rules until ligation
related to the rules is completed, ‘judgment becomes final, and (is) no longer subject to further appeal or
review.’” [HR 4557, Vote #109, 3/03/16; Office of the Democratic Whip, 3/03/16]
Bill Supported By The U.S. Chamber Of Commerce. “The U.S. Chamber of Commerce… strongly
supports H.R. 4557… The bill would ensure that the U.S. brick industry will not be forced to comply
with the Brick Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) air quality issued by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) until after judicial challenges to the rule are resolved. … The
Chamber released a report last month examining how the new Brick MACT rule could devastate the
338
U.S. brick manufacturing industry… It is important that American industries are not unfairly
penalized when they are compelled to comply with costly rules that are later overturned by the courts.
This wasteful and unreasonable outcome must be avoided.” [U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 3/03/16]
Environmental Groups And LWV Opposed Bill, Cited Harmful Toxins Emitted From Facilities.
“[B]rick manufacturing facilities … emit mercury, a dangerous neurotoxin that harms children’s
developing brains, and other dangerous toxins including arsenic and chromium, that are known to
cause cancer. … The BRICK Act aims to help the polluters avoid regulation, since it seeks to further
delay implementation of toxic air pollution standards for brick facilities until every polluter’s lawsuit
has been fully litigated and appealed, including to the Supreme Court. … Not only would the BRICK
Act delay needed health protections, exposing Americans to more deadly toxic air pollution, but the
BRICK Act would also insert the legislative branch into ongoing litigation and interfere with the
authority of our judicial branch of government.” [League of Women Voters, 3/02/16]
Voted For Delisting Gray Wolves
Voted For An Amendment To Remove Gray Wolves From The Endangered Species List. In
February 2016, Coffman voted for an amendment which “would reinstate the 2011 U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service decisions to remove the gray wolf in the Western Great Lakes and Wyoming from protection
under the Endangered Species Act.” The amendment was adopted 232-171. [HR 2406, Vote #97, CQ,
2/26/16]
2014: Federal Judge “Threw Out An Obama Administration Decision To Remove The Gray
Wolf … From The Endangered Species List – A Decision That Will Ban Further Wolf
Hunting.” “A federal judge on Friday threw out an Obama administration decision to remove the
gray wolf population in the western Great Lakes region from the endangered species list -- a
decision that will ban further wolf hunting and trapping in three states.” [CBS News/AP,
12/19/14]
Voted Against Designating The Coastal Plain Of ANWR As Wilderness, Hindering The Efforts To
Drill For Oil There
Voted Against Designate The Coastal Plain Of The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge As Wilderness.
In February 2016, Coffman voted against an amendment which “would designate the coastal plain of the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as wilderness, and therefore a part of the National Wilderness
Preservation System.” The amendment failed 176-227. [HR 2406, Vote #99, 2/26/16; CQ, 2/26/16]
Designating The Coastal Area Of ANWR A Wilderness “Would Put Oil Development In The
Coastal Plain Further Out Of Reach.” “Alaska’s congressional delegation has long sought oil
exploration and production in ANWR, but there has been a stalemate over that idea for decades,
with environmental groups strongly opposed and clashing with pro-development forces. Over 7
million acres of the refuge are currently managed as wilderness. Obama is asking Congress to
approve another 12 million acres as wilderness, including the coastal plain. … Both sides of the
long-running debate have said a wilderness expansion would put oil development in the coastal
plain further out of reach.” [Alaska Dispatch News, 4/03/15]
339
Voted For Resolution Disapproving Of “Waters Of The United States” Rule, Which Expanded
Jurisdiction Of EPA And Army Corps Of Engineers Under Clean Water Act
Voted For Congressional Disapproval Of “Waters Of The United States” Rule, Which Expanded
Jurisdiction Of EPA And Army Corps Of Engineers Under Clean Water Act. In January 2016,
Coffman voted for a resolution expressing congressional disapproval of the “Waters of the United States”
rule. “The Obama administration announced new protections Wednesday for thousands of waterways and
wetlands … On its face, the Waters of the United States rule is largely a technical document, defining
which rivers, streams, lakes and marshes fall under the jurisdiction of the Environmental Protection
Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers. … The agencies and their supporters say the safety of drinking
water and stream health are threatened because of weak state and local regulation and a lack of
enforcement. The rule is meant to make it clearer which waterways EPA and the Corps of Engineers can
oversee under the 43-year-old Clean Water Act, which covers ‘navigable waters’ such as the Mississippi
River and Lake Erie but is vague on how far upstream protections must go to keep those water bodies
clean.” The resolution passed 253 to 166. [S J Res 22, Vote #45, 1/13/16; Politico, 5/27/15]
Voted For Legislation That Would Block Obama Administration Efforts To Restrict Mountaintop
Removal Coal Mining Process
Voted For Legislation That Would Block Obama Administration Efforts To Restrict Mountaintop
Removal Coal Mining Process. In January 2016, Coffman voted for legislation that would block
Administration attempts to restrict a controversial coal mining process. “A House Republican introduced
a bill Monday that would block the Obama administration’s efforts to restrict the controversial
mountaintop removal coal mining process. The Interior Department is planning to propose soon a
regulation to restrict mountaintop removal mining near streams in an effort to protect streams in
Appalachia from the mining waste. … Mooney’s bill would stop Interior’s Office of Surface Mining from
going forward with the rule for at least a year, stop it from using the Clean Water Act to justify the rule
and require the agency to conduct a study into the industry impacts of the regulation.” The bill passed 235
to 188. [HR 1644, Vote #42, 1/12/16; The Hill, 3/30/15]
Voted Against An Amendment To Make It Easier To Postpone Delay Of A Rule If Delay Would
Significantly Contribute To Development Of Negative Chronic Or Long-Term Health Conditions
Voted Against An Amendment To Make It Easier To Postpone Delay Of A Rule If Delay Would
Significantly Contribute To Development Of Negative Chronic Or Long-Term Health Conditions.
In January 2016, Coffman voted against an amendment to H.R. 1644 that would make it easier to delay
the postponement of a rule “if there is a threat that a delay would cause or significantly contribute to the
development of negative chronic or long-term health conditions.” The amendment failed 190 to 235. [HR
1644, Vote #40, 1/12/16; Morning Consult, 1/12/16]
Voted Against Preventing Delays To Rules That Address Imminent Or Long-Term Threats To
Human Life And Removing Delays To Rules That Protect Public Health
Voted Against Preventing Delays To Rules That Address Imminent Or Long-Term Threats To
Human Life And Removing Delays To Rules That Protect Public Health. In January 2016, Coffman
voted against a Democratic Motion to Recommit that would prevent delays to rules that address imminent
340
or long-term threats to human life. “The Democratic Motion to Recommit would protect American
families and communities by preventing delays to rules that address imminent or long-term threats to
human life, and removing delays to rules that protect public health in the event of an increase of lifethreatening illnesses such as: heavy metal contamination, lung cancer, heart or kidney disease or birth
defects in communities near mountaintop removal coal mining projects.” The Motion to Recommit failed
186 to 237. [H R 1644, Vote #41, 1/12/16; Motion to Recommit, 1/12/16]
Voted For Requiring Hunters’ Access To Federal Lands, Blocking Prohibitions On Ivory
Trafficking And Regulations On Lead In Bullets
Voted For Requiring Hunters’ Access To Federal Lands, Blocking Prohibitions On Ivory
Trafficking And Regulations On Lead In Bullets. In February 2016, Coffman voted for a bill that
would allow hunters greater access to federal land managed by the Departments of Interior and Forest
Service while blocking restrictions on the trafficking of elephant ivory, combat regulations on lead
contained in bullets, and prevent the Army Corps of Engineers from restricting firearms on Corps
properties. “This bill would require the Interior Department and the U.S. Forest Service to provide access
to lands managed by those agencies for hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting. … Additionally, the
bill blocks the Administration’s rule to restrict trade in elephant ivory and allows the importation into the
U.S. of polar bear hunting trophies taken prior to when polar bears were listed as threatened under the
Endangered Species Act. The measure also amends the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to prohibit
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating lead contained in bullets, angling lures, and
other hunting and fishing equipment.” [HR 2406, Vote #101, 2/26/16; Office of the Democratic Whip,
2/23/16]
POTUS: Bill Would Combat Environmental Protections, Restrict Regulations On Firearm
Possession And Hunting And Fishing Activities. “[T]he Administration strongly opposes Title VI,
which would: (1) exclude management decisions from the National Environmental Policy Act, the
cornerstone law guiding environmental protection and public involvement in Federal actions; … (3)
undermine the Wilderness Act of 1964. The Administration also strongly opposes the following: …
Title IV, which would prohibit the Secretary of the Army from promulgating or enforcing any
regulations that would prohibit the possession of firearms at water resources development projects
with limited exceptions; … (5) Title XIV, which would restrict the ability of the Secretaries of the
Interior and Commerce to regulate certain recreational or commercial fishing access to certain waters;
(6) Title XV, which would potentially create public safety issues by restricting the ability of the
Secretary of Agriculture and Forest Service Chief to regulate certain hunting and fishing activities
within the National Forest System…” [Statement of Administration Policy, Executive Office of the
President, 2/24/16]
Voted For Repealing A Rule Which Banned Controversial Hunting Practices In Alaskan Natural
Preserves
Voted For An Amendment To Repeal The National Park Service Rule On Hunting And Trapping
Practices In Alaskan National Preserves. In February 2016, Coffmanvoted for an amendment which
“would require the National Park Service director to withdraw a 2015 final rule on hunting and trapping
in Alaskan national preserves, and would prohibit the director from issuing a similar rule.” The
amendment was adopted 236-169. [HR 2406, Vote #98, CQ, 2/26/16]
341
Natural Park Service’s Rule “Banned A Handful Of Controversial Hunting Practices On
The 20 Million Acres Of Alaska’s National Preserves.” “Driving a deeper wedge between state
and federal game managers, the National Park Service on Friday banned a handful of controversial
hunting practices on the 20 million acres of Alaska's national preserves where sport hunting is
allowed. Among the “state-authorized practices being prohibited (because they) conflict with
National Park Service law” are: Taking wolves and coyotes (including pups) during the animals’
denning season. Taking black bears with artificial light at den sites. Taking brown or black bears
attracted to bait. Using dogs in black bear hunts. State law currently prohibits using dogs to hunt
big game, with an exception for black bears. … Shooting swimming caribou, a practice primarily
used in the Noatak National Preserve in Northwest Alaska. Currently, state law prohibits taking
big game that is swimming, but hunters may shoot a swimming caribou from a boat under power,
and hunters can also shoot a caribou that has emerged from the water on the shoreline while the
hunter is still in a moving boat. … The new rules, published Friday, override state regulations, and
state officials contend they subjugate the state’s role, established under the Alaska National
Interest Lands Act, as the managing authority of fish and wildlife on all Alaska lands. But the Park
Service countered that the new rules only cement temporary regulations that have been imposed
annually for several years.” [Alaska Dispatch News, 10/23/15]
Voted Against Amendment To Eliminate An Exemption Which Allowed Importing Polar Bear
Trophies Taken In Sport
Voted Against Amendment To Eliminate An Exemption Which Allowed Importing Polar Bear
Trophies Taken In Sport. In February 2016, Coffman voted against amendment to HR 2406. “An
amendment No. 3 printed in House Report 114-429 to strike Title III, the exemption to import polar bear
trophies taken in sport.” The amendment failed, 159 to 242. [HR 2406, Vote #93, 2/26/16]
2014: Hunters Who Killed Polar Bears In Canada Were Not Allowed To Import Their Game
Into The United States. “Since 2008, dozens of polar bears have been held in frozen, climatecontrolled conditions in Canada, waiting for the U.S. government to allow them into the country.
There's just one issue: These bears are dead. A complicated series of conservation laws and
disagreements between the governments of Canada and the U.S. have left 41 American polar bear
hunters and their prizes trapped in a bureaucratic limbo over the past six years. Rep. Don Young, RAlaska, who claims to be the only member of Congress to have killed one of the massive mammals
himself, aims to remedy that this week. While the United States outlawed polar bear hunting in the
Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (except among Alaskan natives, who are still allowed to hunt
the bears), the practice remains legal in Canada, attracting dozens of American big-game hunters
every year.” [The Atlantic, 2/04/14]
Voted Against Exempting From Requirement For Congressional Approval Rules Governing
Pipelines Carrying Natural Gas and Hazardous Materials
Voted Against Exempting From Requirement For Congressional Approval Rules Governing
Pipelines Carrying Natural Gas and Hazardous Materials. In July 2015, Coffman voted against an
amendment that “would exempt rules intended to ensure the safety of natural gas or hazardous materials
342
pipelines from the Congressional approval process outlined in the bill.” The amendment failed, 166-244.
[HR 427, Vote #476; CQ Floor Votes, 7/28/15]
Voted For Prohibiting EPA Regulations That Relied Upon Non-Public Scientific Research,
Limiting EPA’s Ability To Combat Pollution And Climate Change
Voted For Prohibiting EPA Regulations That Relied Upon Non-Public Scientific Research. In March
2015, Coffman voted for a bill that “prohibits EPA from proposing, finalizing or disseminating a rule or
other ‘covered action’ unless all scientific and technical information used to decide upon the rule is made
available to the public so the research can be independently analyzed and reproduced.” The bill passed
241 to 175. [HR 1030, Vote #125, 3/18/15; CQ House Action Reports, 3/13/15]
Would Limit EPA’s Ability To Write Regulations To Combat Pollution And Climate Change.
“Critics say the bill would severely handicap the EPA’s ability to write regulations necessary to fight
pollution and climate change and protect the environment and human health, and would require the
EPA to violate patient confidentiality. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy has criticized the
accusation from the GOP, saying transparency and sound science are among the agency’s priorities.”
[The Hill, 2/27/15]
Voted For Amendment To Block Bureau Of Reclamation From Buying Water To Increase
Instream Flow To Help Fish
Voted For Amendment To Block Bureau Of Reclamation From Buying Water To Increase
Instream Flow To Help Fish. In May 2015, Coffman voted for amendment to prohibit the buying of
water for the purpose of enhancing river flow to help fish. “The House briefly debated at about 1:20 a.m.
Friday, and eventually approved along nearly party lines, an amendment by Rep. Tom McClintock, RCalif., that would block the Bureau of Reclamation from buying water for the purpose of supplementing
river flows to help fish.” The amendment passed, 228 to 183. [HR 2028, Vote #211, 5/01/15; Associated
Press, 5/01/15]
U.S. Bureau Of Reclamation Public Affairs Officer: Major Water Purchases Were Made To
Meet Water Quality Standards. “Rep. Tom McClintock’s amendment to forbid federal agencies
from purchasing water during California’s catastrophic drought in order to release it into rivers to
meet environmental requirements was adopted May1 as part of the House of Representatives’ Fiscal
Year 2016 Energy and Water Appropriations Act. The amendment was adopted on a vote of 226-9,
and final passage of the Appropriations Act on a vote of 230-7. … Public Affairs Officer Erin Curtis
said the agency’s major water purchases in recent years have been on the San Joaquin River in order
to comply with the Vernalis Adaptive Management Plan intended to meet water quality standards at
343
Vernalis, not far from where the Stanislaus River meets the San Joaquin River.” [Calaveras
Enterprise, 5/08/15]
U.S. Bureau Of Reclamation Public Affairs Officer: Bureau Required By Law To Release
Water To Protect Water Quality, Fish And Wildlife. “Curtis noted in an email that the bureau is
required by a variety of environmental laws to release water to protect water quality as well as fish
and wildlife. Among the beneficiaries of those releases are farms and cities that draw water from the
San Joaquin River Delta.” [Calaveras Enterprise, 5/08/15]
Farms And Cities Benefit From Releases. “Among the beneficiaries of those releases are farms and
cities that draw water from the San Joaquin River Delta.” [Calaveras Enterprise, 5/08/15]
Calaveras Enterprise: “Flows From The Stanislaus River Help Dilute Salt Contamination That
Would Otherwise Render Water In the Delta Unusable For Irrigation.” “Rep. Tom McClintock’s
amendment to forbid federal agencies from purchasing water during California’s catastrophic drought
in order to release it into rivers to meet environmental requirements was adopted May1 as part of the
House of Representatives’ Fiscal Year 2016 Energy and Water Appropriations Act. … Flows from the
Stanislaus River help dilute salt contamination that would otherwise render water in the delta unusable
for irrigation and more expensive to treat for drinking water.” [Calaveras Enterprise, 5/08/15]
Voted For Amendment Prohibiting Funding For Energy Department’s Climate Models Program
Voted For Amendment Prohibiting Funding For Energy Department’s Climate Models Program.
In May 2015, Coffman voted for amendment prohibiting funding for the Energy Department’s climate
models program. “The House has passed an amendment sponsored by Rep. Paul A. Gosar, R-Arizona, to
the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. The amendment would bar
funding for the Energy Department’s Climate Model Development and Validation program. Gosar said
funding Energy’s ‘duplicative and wasteful’ climate modeling effort was not central to Energy’s mission
and was redundant, given an abundance of other global climate models being adopted by other U.S. and
foreign governments and private businesses.” The amendment passed, 224 to 184. [H.R. 2028, Vote #209,
5/01/15; Bangor Daily News, 5/08/15]
CQ Roll Call: Program “Evaluates Predictive Models Of The Earth’s Climate.” “Nearly all
Democrats united to vote against the $35.4 billion spending measure (HR 2028), which advanced by a
vote of 240-177 after lawmakers debated amendments late into the night Thursday and early Friday.
… Lawmakers also approved an amendment 224-184 that would bar funding for a DOE program that
evaluates predictive models of the Earth's climate.” [CQ Roll Call, 5/01/15]
Voted Against Protecting America’s Waterways To Ensure Safe Drinking Water Supply
Voted Against Protecting America’s Waterways To Ensure Safe Drinking Water Supply. In May
2015, Coffman voted against a motion that would “protect the quality of America’s water supply for safe
drinking, particularly in the Great Lakes, which has been affected by harmful algal blooms; drought
mitigation in California and the West; agriculture and irrigation; and flood and coastal storm protection
from wetlands.” The motion failed 175 to 241. [HR 1732, Vote #218, 5/12/15; Democratic Leader,
5/12/15]
344
Voted For Allowing The Speaker Of The House And Senate Majority Leader To Appoint Members
To Committee Reviewing Energy Department Carbon Capture Research Program
Voted For Allowing The Speaker Of The House And Senate Majority Leader To Appoint Members
To Committee Reviewing Energy Department Carbon Capture Research Program. In May 2015,
Coffman voted for an amendment that would allow the Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of
the Senate to appoint members to the STEM Education Advisory Panel and a second advisory committee
that would oversee the Energy Department’s carbon capture and sequestration research program. The
amendment passed 234 to 183. [HR 1806, H.Amdt. 248, Vote #253, 5/20/15; CQ Floor Votes, 5/20/15]
Voted Against Amendment To Shift $4 Million From BLM To Fish And Wildlife Service To Fight
Against Invasive Species
Voted Against Amendment To Shift $4 Million From BLM To Fish And Wildlife Service To Fight
Against Invasive Species. In July 2015, Coffman voted against an amendment to reduce the Bureau of
Land Management by $4,010,000 and increase the US Fish and Wildlife Service by $3,902,000.
According to the amendment’s sponsor, Rep. John Garamendi, “There is a problem in the [SacramentoSan Joaquin River] delta … The delta is being totally overrun by water hyacinths. Other parts of the
United States and the West are also finding these invasive water squats plants plugging their pumps,
reducing water supply … What this amendment does is address that problem by adding $3,902,000 to the
aquatic habitat and species conservation fund, thereby allowing the Federal agencies to work with the
State and local agencies to attack the aquatic plants … those who want to have more water flowing south
to the San Joaquin Valley and southern California’s great metropolitan areas, including Orange County,
ought to be in favor of unplugging the pumps and getting the water hyacinths reduced in the delta.” The
amendment failed, 181 to 244. [HR 2822, Vote #393, 7/08/15; Bill Summary, Library of Congress,
7/08/15, House Congressional Record, Page H4733, 6/25/15]
Voted Against Reducing Funding For The Secretary Of Departmental Operations To Increase
Funding For The Environmental Programs And Management By More Than $1.9 Million
Voted Against Reducing Funding For The Secretary Of Departmental Operations To Increase
Funding For The Environmental Programs And Management By More Than $1.9 Million. In July
2015, Coffman voted against “an amendment to reduce funding for the Office of the Secretary
Departmental Operations by 1,913,000 and increase the funding for the Environmental Programs and
Management by a similar amount..” The amendment failed 188-239. [HR 2822, Vote #396, 7/08/15; H
AMDT 550, 7/08/15
No Funds From The Act Could Be Used To Reclassify The West Indian Manatee From An
Endangered Species To A Threatened Species. “None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to consider a petition to reclassify the West Indian manatee from an endangered species to a
threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.” [CQ Floor Amendment Analysis,
7/07/15]
Environmental Programs And Management Is Focused On Running Programs To Reduce Negative
Environmental Impacts. “Environmental management programs support the NIEHS Environmental
345
Policy and the overall goal of reducing negative environmental impacts. These programs were established
to assure compliance with federal, state, and local environmental regulations. Each program includes
specific requirements that are documented in the NIEHS EMS Manual as well as a corresponding written
plan, procedure, or instruction.” [National Institute of Environmental health Sciences, accessed 10/21/15]
Voted Against Ending Prohibition On Using Funds To Implement Coastal And Marine Spatial
Planning And Management Components Of The National Ocean Policy
Voted Against Ending Prohibition On Using Funds To Implement Coastal And Marine Spatial
Planning And Management Components Of The National Ocean Policy. In July 2015, Coffman voted
against “an amendment to strike section 425, which prohibits the use of funds to further implement
coastal and marine spatial planning and management components of the National Ocean Policy” The
amendment failed 191-238. [HR 2822, Vote #398, 7/08/15; H AMDT 568, 7/08/15]
Coastal And Marine Spatial Planning Was Recommended By Task Force On Ocean Policy
Started By President Obama. “On June 12, 2009, President Obama signed a memorandum
establishing the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force, led by the White House Council on
Environmental Quality. Then, on July 19, 2010, this task force released a set of final
recommendations that set a new direction for improved stewardship of the ocean, our coasts, and the
Great Lakes.” [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, accessed 10/21/15]
Costal And Marine Spatial Planning Involves Agencies Working Together And Sharing
Information To Preserve Coasts And Ocean Ecosystems. “Coastal and marine spatial planning—or
marine planning—is a science-based tool that regions can use to address specific ocean management
challenges and advance their goals for economic development and conservation. Just as federal
agencies work with states, tribes, local governments, and others to manage forests, grasslands, and
other areas, they also can use marine planning to coordinate activities among all coastal and ocean
interests and provide the opportunity to share information. This process is designed to decrease user
conflict, improve planning and regulatory efficiencies, decrease associated costs and delays, engage
affected communities and stakeholders, and preserve critical ecosystem functions and services.”
[National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, accessed 10/21/15]
Voted Against An Amendment That Sought To Disrupt The Ivory Market And Prevent Killing Of
Elephants For Their Ivory
Voted Against Voted Against An Amendment That Sought To Disrupt The Ivory Market And
Prevent Killing Of Elephants For Their Ivory. In July 2015, Coffman voted against an amendment that
would have sought to disrupt the ivory market and prevent killing of elephants for their ivory. The
amendment “would block implementation of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rules and policies necessary
to disrupt ivory markets and ensure that U.S. citizens do not contribute to the ongoing slaughter of
African elephants.” The amendment failed 244 to 183. [HR 2822, H.AMDT.584, Vote #405, 7/08/15;
Congressional Quarterly’s House Action Reports, 7/08/15; NRDC June & July 2015 Legislative Threats
to the Endangered Species Act, 8/03/15]
346
Voted For Amendment Cutting Funds By One Percent Across-The-Board For The Department Of
The Interior, Environment, And Related Agencies Appropriations Act Of 2016
Voted For Amendment Cutting Funds By One Percent Across-The-Board For The Department Of
The Interior, Environment, And Related Agencies Appropriations Act Of 2016. In July 2015,
Coffman voted for the Blackburn amendment cutting funds from the Department Of The Interior,
Environment, And Related Agencies Appropriations Act Of 2016 by one percent across-the-board. The
amendment failed, 168 to 258. [HR 2822, Amendment #59, Vote #407, 7/07/15]
Voted For Amendment Prohibiting President From Creating National Monuments Against Local
Objection In States, Including Oregon, California, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah And Nevada
Voted For Amendment Prohibiting President From Creating National Monuments Against Local
Objection In States, Including Oregon, California, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah And Nevada. In July
2015, Coffman voted for an amendment blocking the President from creating National Monuments in
certain counties if there was local objection. “Cresent Hardy introduced an amendment to an Interior
Department bill that would block Obama from creating monuments in areas with local opposition. His
amendment made its way into the bill on a 222-206 vote, and lists counties in Nevada, Arizona,
California, New Mexico, Oregon and Utah as off-limits. ‘This Antiquities Act has been abused,’ Hardy
said in an interview Friday. ‘I am a huge supporter of protecting certain lands, but I think there's a right
process to go through it.’ Hardy accused Obama and Reid of pushing the Nevada monument to burnish
their legacies.” The amendment passed, 222 to 206. [HR 2822, Vote #409, 7/07/15; Star-Tribune,
7/10/15]
Voted For Expediting Environmental Reviews Of Logging And Underbrush Removal Projects On
Tribal And Federal Lands, But Would Impose Barriers To Challenge Projects In Court
Voted For Expediting Environmental Reviews Of Logging And Underbrush Removal Projects On
Tribal And Federal Lands. In July 2015, Coffman voted for the Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2015
that “would speed up environmental reviews of logging and underbrush removal projects on tribal and
federal lands. The Obama administration opposes the measure … The bill would allow shortened
environmental reviews for projects to remove trees after natural disasters such as floods, landslides or
insect or disease outbreaks; tree removal to comply with forest management plans such as wildlife habitat
improvement; and thinning to reduce the risk of wildfires. Democrats questioned a provision that would
require individuals or groups that want to challenge approved projects in court to post bonds large enough
to cover estimated legal fees and expenses.” The bill passed, 262 to 167, and then referred to the Senate
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. [HR 2647, Vote #428, 7/09/15; CQ News, 7/09/15]
The Office Of Management And Budget Claimed HR 2647 Will Undermine Public Trust In
Forest Management Projects. “HR 2647 includes several provisions that will undermine
collaborative, landscape-scale forest restoration by undermining public trust in forest management
projects and by limiting public participation in decision-making.” [Office of Management and Budget,
7/08/15]
Would Also Reduce Available Funding In The Forest Service’s Budget For Restoration And
Risk Reduction Programs. “[T]he requirement in H.R. 2647 to fully fund the ten-year average for
347
wildland fire suppression would mean that less funding is available each year in the agencies’ budgets
for restoration and risk reduction programs as it is diverted to the ever-increasing ten-year average.”
[Office of Management and Budget, 7/08/15]
Would Make It More Difficult To Challenge Forest Restoration Projects In Court. “[T]he
Administration opposes provisions in the bill that require litigants to post a bond when challenging
forest restoration projects. As the Forest Service has demonstrated, the best way to address concerns
about litigation is to develop restoration projects in partnership with broad stakeholder interests
through a transparent process informed by the best available science.” [Office of Management and
Budget, 7/08/15]
Voted Against Amendment To Prevent “Further Evaluation Or Adoption” Of Environmental
Impact Processes That Did Not Address Risks Associated With Climate Change
Voted Against Amendment To Prevent “Further Evaluation Or Adoption” Of Environmental
Impact Processes That Did Not Address Risks Associated With Climate Change. In September 2015,
Coffman voted against amendment that “sought to prevent further evaluation or adoption of an alternative
that does not adequately address risks associated with flooding, wildfire, and climate change.” The
amendment “would reform the review process for the environmental impact of federally-funded
construction projects. The goal of these reforms would be to streamline the review process under the
National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA. The bill also would prohibit the consideration of the ‘social
cost of carbon’ in any environmental review or decision making process.” The bill failed, 170 to 228. [H
Amdt 699, Vote #508, 9/25/15; Govtrack, 9/25/15]
Voted Against An Amendment To Include Impact On Low-Income And Minority Communities In
Environmental Impact Statements For New Construction Projects
Voted Against An Amendment To Include Impact On Low-Income And Minority Communities In
Environmental Impact Statements For New Construction Projects. In September 2015, Coffman
voted against an amendment to include potential impacts on low-income and minority communities in
environmental impact statements for new construction projects. “The House has passed an amendment
sponsored by Rep. Raul M. Grijalva, D-Ariz., to the RAPID Act (H.R. 348). The amendment would
require regulators to include impacts on low-income and minority communities in their assessments of
environmental impact statements for construction projects. Grijalva said the requirement would seek to
fulfill ‘the promise of environmental justice for all communities.’” The amendment passed 320 to 88. [HR
348, Vote #509, 9/25/15; On Agreeing to the Amendment, 9/25/15; Albany Herald, 10/04/15]
The Amendment Was Part Of The RAPID Act, Which Streamlined Environmental Review
Processes For Infrastructure Projects. “The House passed legislation on Friday to streamline the
environmental review process for infrastructure projects. The bill passed largely along party lines by a
vote of 233-170, with seven mostly centrist Democrats joining all Republicans in support. Under the
measure, federal agencies would only have to use one environmental impact statement and one
environmental assessment as required by the National Environmental Policy Act.” [The Hill, 9/25/15]
348
Voted Against An Amendment To Allow State, Local, And Tribal Officials To Extend Deadlines
For Environmental Impact Studies
Voted Against An Amendment To Allow State, Local, And Tribal Officials To Extend Deadlines
For Environmental Impact Studies. In September 2015, Coffman voted against an amendment that
would have allowed state, local, and tribal officials to extend deadlines for environmental impact studies.
The amendment failed 179 to 230. [HR 348, Vote #510, 9/25/15; On Agreeing to the Amendment,
9/25/15]
Amendment Was Part Of The RAPID Act, Which Rejected Inclusion Of Social Cost Of Carbon
And Required Environmental Impact Studies To Be Completed Within Two Years. “The House
passed a bill (HR 348) to scale back the National Environmental Policy Act as a regulator of large
construction projects in the United States. The bill disavows the social cost of carbon emissions; sets a
two-year deadline for completing environmental reviews; requires lawsuits challenging reviews to be
filed within 180 days; limits the number of reviews per project; authorizes states to prepare alternative
environmental assessments; and allows agencies to accept secondary rather than original analyses of
environmental effects.” [Washington Post, 10/01/15]
Voted Against Amendment Excluding Projects That Would Limit Access To Hunting Or Fishing,
Affect Endangered Species Or Automatically Approved By Lack Of Agency Decision
Voted Against Amendment To Exclude Projects That Would Limit Access To Hunting Or Fishing,
Affect Endangered Species Or Automatically Approved By Lack Of Agency Decision. In September
2015, Coffman voted against an amendment “that would exclude projects that would limit access to or
opportunities for hunting or fishing, or that would affect an endangered or threatened species under the
Endangered Species Act from the bill’s provision that would automatically approve projects if the agency
has not made a decision within the bill’s deadlines.” The bill stipulated a deadline of between 90 and 120
days. The amendment failed, 187 to 223. [HR 348, Amendment #6, Vote #512, 9/25/15; CQ, 9/25/15]
Voted Against Prohibiting Federal Agencies From Using Social Cost Of Carbon In Environmental
Reviews And Decision Making
Voted Against Prohibiting Federal Agencies From Using Social Cost Of Carbon In Environmental
Reviews And Decision Making. In September 2015, Coffman voted against an amendment that would
have removed language “prohibit[ing] agencies from using the social cost of carbon in an environmental
review or environmental decision making process.” The amendment failed 179 to 229. [HR 348, Vote
#513, 9/25/15]
Voted For Prohibiting Federal Agencies From Considering Greenhouse Gasses And Their Link To
Climate Change When Reviewing Environmental Permits For Government Construction Projects
Voted For Prohibiting Federal Agencies From Considering Greenhouse Gasses And Their Link To
Climate Change When Reviewing Environmental Permits For Government Construction Projects.
In September 2015, Coffman voted for an amendment to HR 348 that would “bar federal agencies from
using draft guidance for accounting for greenhouse gas emissions and their link to climate change in
349
reviewing environmental permits for federal government construction projects.” The amendment passed
223 to 186. [HR 348, Vote #514, 9/25/15; Citizen Times, 10/02/15]
Voted For Weakening Environmental Review, Including Banning Carbon Costs Considerations, Of
Major Federal Actions Related To Construction Projects
Voted For Weakening Environmental Review, Including Banning Carbon Costs Considerations, Of
Major Federal Actions Related To Construction Projects. In September 2015, Coffman voted for the
Responsibly and Professionally Invigorating Development Act of 2015 (RAPID Act) which would
weaken the environmental review and permitting process for federal construction projects. “This bill
establishes procedures to streamline the regulatory review, environmental decision making, and
permitting process for major federal actions that are construction activities undertaken, reviewed, or
funded by federal agencies. … No more than one environmental impact statement and one environmental
assessment for a project must be prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)
for a project, except for supplemental environmental documents prepared under NEPA or environmental
documents prepared pursuant to a court order. After the lead agency issues a record of decision, federal
agencies may only rely on the environmental document prepared by the lead agency. … A lead agency
may not use the social cost of carbon in the environmental review or environmental decision making
process.” The bill passed, 233 to 170. [HR 348, Vote #518, 9/25/15; CRS, 1/14/15]
The RAPID Act Was Opposed By The Obama Administration. “The Administration strongly
opposes H.R. 348, which would undercut responsible decisionmaking and public involvement in the
Federal environmental review and permitting processes. As the Administration said when virtually
identical legislation was considered previously, H.R. 348 would increase litigation, regulatory delays,
and potentially force agencies to approve a project if the review and analysis cannot be completed
before the proposed arbitrary deadlines. This legislation would complicate the regulatory process and
create two sets of standards for Federal agencies to follow to review projects – one for "construction
projects" and one for all other Federal actions, such as rulemakings or management plans.” [Office of
Management and Budget, Statement of Administration Policy, 9/16/15]
Voted Against Preventing The Weakening Of Any Provisions That Preserve Safe Drinking
Water, Private Property Rights, And the Health, Safety, And Sovereignty Of Native American
Tribes. In September 2015 Coffman voted against a motion that would ensure provisions that
safeguard drinking water, private property rights, and Native American sovereignty rights would not
be weakened by the RAPID Act. The motion failed 175 to 229. [HR 348, Vote #517, 9/25/15; Motion
to Recommit, 9/25/15]
Voted For Considering Bill That Could Create “Dangerous Exemptions From Catch Limits”
Designed To Prevent Overfishing
Voted For Resolution To Consider Bill That Could Create “Dangerous Exemptions From Catch
Limits,” Preventing Overfishing. In May 2015, Coffman voted for considering reauthorization of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, which “provide[s] flexibility for fishery managers and stability for fisherman[.]”
U.S. Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) has proposed several changes to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act that he says will give fishery managers more flexibility in rebuilding
fish stocks. He has said the changes will allow fishery managers to address the economic needs of
350
fishermen. But some fishermen and environmentalists said Young’s proposal creates dangerous
exemptions from catch limits that are designed to prevent overfishing. They point to a recent federal
report that says several economically valuable East Coast fish stocks are rebounding and no longer subject
to overfishing as evidence that the Magnuson-Stevens act is effective in its current form.” The resolution
passed 237 to 174. [H Res 274, Vote #215, 5/21/14; Associated Press, 4/30/15]
Rep. Raul Grijalva: “HR 1335 Would Take Us Back To The Dark Ages By Gutting ScienceBased Requirements To Rebuild Overfished Stocks And Set Annual Catch Limits.” “The U.S.
House Natural Resources Committee today passed a bill to renew the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the
nation’s fundamental fisheries law. The sponsor, Alaska Congressman Don Young, says the law has
kept foreign fishing fleets off America’s shores and sustained healthy fisheries. …’H.R. 1335 would
take us back to the dark ages by gutting science-based requirements to rebuild overfished stocks and
to set annual catch limits,’ said Rep. Raul Grijalva of Arizona, the committee’s top Democrat.”
[Alaska Public Radio, 4/30/15]
Voted For Bill Removing Timeframe Which Allowed For Rebuilding Of Depleted Fishing Stocks
Voted For Bill Removing Timeframe Which Allowed For Rebuilding Of Depleted Fishing Stocks. In
June 2015, Coffman voted for the reauthorization of the Magnusen-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act, to remove the ten-year timeframe, which allowed for the rebuilding of depleted fishing
stocks. “Defying a White House veto threat, the Republican-controlled House on Monday approved a bill
to give regional fisheries managers more power to set local fishing levels in federal waters. The bill,
sponsored by Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, would remove a 10-year timeframe for rebuilding depleted fish
stocks and allow fisheries managers to consider the economic needs of fishing communities in setting
annual catch limits.” The bill passed 225 to 152. [HR 1335, Vote #267, 6/01/15; Associated Press,
6/01/15]
Alaska Public Radio: Opponents Believed Bill Would Allow Commercial Interests To Push
Managers To Set Too High Of Harvest Levels. “A bill to reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Act,
the nation’s primary fishing law, passed the U.S. House this evening, largely on party lines. The
sponsor, Alaska Congressman Don Young, says the bill makes practical revisions to continue a law
that has restored the health of America’s fisheries. … Young’s bill also introduces a controversial
element of flexibility in fisheries management. It would eliminate the mandatory 10-year planning
period for rebuilding depleted stocks. Opponents says that allows for commercial interests to pressure
managers to set harvest levels too high. Young, though, says the rebuilding time frame should vary,
depending on the needs of the species.” [Alaska Public Radio, 6/01/15]
Independent National Research Council: 43-Percent Of Fish Stocks Classified As Overfished
Were “Rebuilt Or Showed Good Progress Toward Rebuilding Within 10 Years.” “A 2013 report
by the independent National Research Council found that federal efforts to rebuild depleted fish
populations have largely been successful, but said pressure to overfish some species remains high and
some fish stocks have not rebounded as quickly as projected. Forty-three percent of fish stocks
identified as being overfished were rebuilt or showed good progress toward rebuilding within 10
years, the time limit required by the Magnuson-Stevens law, the report said. Another 31 percent were
on track to rebuild if sharply reduced fishing levels remain in place, the report said.” [Associated
Press, 6/01/15]
351
Voted Against Motion To Require “Polluters” To Pay For Clean-Up Of Spill Of Toxics Or Oil That
Would Harm Fisheries, Fishing Jobs Or Fishing Communities
Voted Against Motion To Require “Polluters” To Pay For Clean-Up Of Spill Of Toxics Or Oil That
Would Harm Fisheries, Fishing Jobs Or Fishing Communities. In June 2015, Coffman voted against a
motion to recommit which would require “polluters” to pay for clean-up of a toxic spill or oil spill that
would harm fisheries, fishing jobs or fishing communities. “The Democratic recommit amendment
protects our fisheries and forces polluters to pay for cleanup of a toxic spill or oil spill that harms
fisheries, fishing jobs, and local fishing communities.” The motion failed 155 to 233. [HR 1335, Vote
#266, 6/01/15; Motion To Recommit, 6/01/15]
Voted For Amendment Requiring Any Plan To Address Salmon Recovery Include Examination Of
Predator Impact, Not Just Water Flow
Voted For Amendment Requiring Any Plan To Address Salmon Recovery Include Examination Of
Predator Impact, Not Just Water Flow. In June 2015, Coffman voted for an amendment requiring any
recovery plan for salmon require that attention be placed on whether predators, not just water flows, have
an impact. “An issue at the heart of our water debates – whether nonnative fish prey heavily on salmon
and steelhead – wriggled through Congress this week. The U.S. House of Representatives approved an
amendment proposed by Rep. Jeff Denham, R-Turlock, that would require attention to this issue in any
recovery plan for salmon or steelhead under the Endangered Species Act … The idea raises concerns in
two camps – environmental groups and bass anglers. The former say predation could be part of the
problem but the biggest need is increased flows in rivers. The latter do not want to lose a fish that is
among the most popular in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and its tributaries.” The amendment passed,
245 to 181. [HR 2578, Amendment #86, Vote #295, 6/03/15; Modesto Bee, 6/05/15]
Voted Against Protecting Native American Sacred Lands
Voted Against Protecting Native American Sacred Lands. In October 2015, Coffman voted against a
motion “that would ensure that nothing in the bill would contravene the authority of the president to avoid
adversely affecting the physical integrity of any site identified as sacred by virtue of established religious
significance to, or ceremonial use by, and Indian religion.” The motion failed 184-239. [HR 538, Vote
#543; CQ Floor Votes, 10/8/15]
Voted For The Native American Energy Act Which Would Reduce Federal Regulations On The
Development Of Native American Land
Voted For The Native American Energy Act Which Would Reduce Federal Regulations On The
Development Of Native American Land. In October 2015, Coffman voted for for a bill that “would
reduce federal regulations on the development of Indian lands to expedite the development of energy. As
amended, the bill would allow state, tribe, and local governments in an affected area to continue to
comment on an environmental impact statement. Further, the bill would create a demonstration project
with Indian tribes to perform administrative, management, and other functions of programs of the Tribal
Forest Protection Act.” The bill passed 254-173. [HR 538, Vote #544; CQ Floor Votes, 10/8/15]
352
Republicans Argued That The Bill Would Allow Native Americans To Develop Reservations
Easier. “Young says the bill would cut red tape to help Native people develop their own resources.
On the House floor before the vote, the Alaska Republican argued the bill would also deter frivolous
lawsuits, in part by shortening the timeline for legal challenges. ‘The judicial review provision is
crucial for Alaska natives, whose ability to develop their own settlement lands has been abused by
special interest groups filing lawsuits,’ he said.” [Alaska Public Radio Network, 10/9/15]
The White House Issued A Veto Threat And Democrats Argued That The Bill Would Weaken A
“Bedrock” Conservation Law. “The White House issued a veto threat this week. In a memo,
President Obama’s advisors said the bill would undermine public oversight and set unrealistic
deadlines…conservation law, the National Environmental Policy Act. And, Grijalva says, it could
apply on non-Indian lands, too. ‘If an energy company is developing natural resources anywhere in
the United States and they get a tribal partner they could fall under this provision,’ he said. ‘This
could incentivize energy companies to partner with tribes simply for the benefit of skirting NEPA and
profiting from restricted judicial review.’” [Alaska Public Radio Network, 10/9/15]
Voted For An Amendment That Blocked Funding To Establish National Ocean Policy, A Policy
Initiative Aimed At Increasing Planning And Coordination On Ocean Use
Voted For An Amendment That Blocked Funding To Establish National Ocean Policy, A Policy
Initiative Aimed At Increasing Planning And Coordination On Ocean Use. In June 2015, Coffman
voted for an amendment that blocked funding to establish national ocean policy, a policy initiative aimed
at increasing planning and coordination on ocean use. “The House voted along party lines to attach an
amendment from Rep. Bill Flores (R-Texas) prohibiting the use of funds to establishing the National
Ocean Policy, an effort the Obama administration began in 2010 with the aim of improving coordination
and planning. The House has attached the rider to spending bills in the past, driven by Republican
assertions that the policy is akin to ‘zoning the oceans.’” The amendment passed 236 to 190. [HR 2578,
Vote #291, 6/03/15; On Agreeing to the Amendment, 6/03/15; Environment & Energy Publishing,
6/04/15]
Voted Against Collaborating With California Officials To Install A Fish Screen To Protect
Migrating Salmon
Voted Against Collaborating With California Officials To Install A Fish Screen To Protect
Migrating Salmon. In July 2015, Coffman voted against an amendment that would direct federal
agencies to collaborate with the California Department of Water Resources to “help installation of a fish
screen at the Delta Cross Channel Gates to protect migrating salmon.” The amendment was rejected by a
vote of 182-236. [HR 2898, Vote #443, 7/16/15; CQ Floor Votes, 7/15/15; Sacramento Bee, 7/15/15]
Voted Against Amendment To Provide Funding For Water Recycling And Reuse Projects
Voted Against Amendment To Provide Funding For Water Recycling And Reuse Projects. In July
2015, Coffman voted against an amendment that would fund water reclamation programs and water reuse
projects so that the Bureau of Reclamation can investigate additional opportunities to reclaim and reuse
wastewater and naturally impaired ground and surface water. The amendment was rejected by a vote of
353
Supported Expedited Environmental Review Of Oregon LNG Project
Supported Expedited Environmental Review Of Oregon LNG Project. “Fourteen Republican
members of Congress on Monday urged FERC to quickly finish its environmental review of the proposed
Jordan Cove liquefied natural gas (LNG) export project along the south-central coast of Oregon. They
called the project the only outlet to overseas markets for gas produced in Wyoming, Colorado and Utah.
Sens. John Barrasso and Michael Enzi from Wyoming joined … Mike Coffman (CO)… in sending a
letter urging completion of an environmental review ‘as soon as possible.’ In writing Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission Chairman Cheryl LaFleur, the lawmakers described Jordan Cove as ‘essential’ to
ensure that Rocky Mountain states and Indian tribes have the opportunity to access overseas markets and
enjoy the economic benefits of LNG exports.” [Rep. Mike Coffman press release, 1/15/15]
Voted For Amendment To Protect Hunting & Fishing Rights In Mark Twain National Forest
Voted For Amendment To Protect Hunting & Fishing Rights In Mark Twain National Forest. In
February 2016, Coffman voted for amendment to HR 2406. “The U.S. House of Representatives Friday
passed two amendments authored by Congressman Jason Smith, of Missouri’s 8th District, to preserve the
ability of Missourians to freely hunt and fish in the Mark Twain National Forest and other public lands.
During passage of H.R. 2406, the Sportsmen’s Heritage and Recreational Enhancement (SHARE) Act,
the U.S. House voted to adopt language offered by Smith on the House floor which prevents the National
Forest Service from physically blocking or locking any access point to the Mark Twain National Forest
for hunters and fisherman…. Smith’s amendments help specifically protect the roughly 1.3 million people
who hunt or fish in the Mark Twain National Forest.” The amendment passed, 232 to 173. [HR 2406,
Vote #95, 2/26/16; The Rolla Daily News, 2/28/16]
Voted Against Removing Requirement That States Approve Federal Fishing Regulations In
Waters Under Jurisdiction Of National Park Service And Office Of National Marine Sanctuaries
Voted Against Removing Requirement That States Approve Federal Fishing Regulations In Waters
Under Jurisdiction Of National Park Service And Office Of National Marine Sanctuaries. In
February 2016, Coffman voted against amendment to HR 2406. “An amendment No. 8 printed in House
Report 114-429 to strike language that requires state approval of federal fishing regulations in waters
under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service and the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries.” The
amendment failed, 169 to 236. [HR 2406, Vote #94, 2/26/16]
Voted to Undermine Critical Environmental Protections
In 2013, Coffman voted to require that the Environmental Protection Agency submit a report to Congress
and to the Department of Energy before it could receive final approval to implement energy-related
regulations that could cost more than $1 billion.
Supporters of the bill believed it would bring greater transparency to EPA regulations and reduce the
overall costs of compliance with such rules, which, they believed, caused energy prices to increase.
Opponents of the bill, however, argued that it would block critical regulations that protected the
354
environment and public health, and would allow key protections, such as the Clean Water Act and Clean
Air Act, to be invalidated. [Energy and Commerce Committee Report, 7/22/13]
The Energy and Commerce Committee’s ranking member, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA.), called the bill
“yet another science-denying attack on the EPA.”
“At some point, we need to stop acting like members of the flat earth society and start listening to the
scientists,” Waxman said. [The Hill, 7/10/13]
The bill passed 232-181. [HR 1582, Vote # 432, 8/01/13]
CBO: Bill Would Cost $35 Million to Implement
According to a Congressional Budget Office report, “implementing H.R. 1582 would cost $35
million over the 2014-2018 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts…CBO
estimates that implementing H.R. 1582 would not have a significant impact on spending by EPA
because most of the analysis that it would need to complete under H.R. 1582 will already be
conducted to meet similar reporting requirements under existing Executive Orders. CBO
estimates, however, that DOE would need additional appropriations of about $7 million annually
to meet new and expanded reporting requirements under H.R. 1582.” [H.R. 1582 Cost Estimate,
Congressional Budget Office, 7/22/13]
Voted Against Environmental Protections for Children and Seniors
In 2013, Coffman voted against an amendment to protect environmental regulations that keep children
and seniors safe.
The amendment would exempt regulations that would result in reduced incidence of cancer, premature
mortality, asthma attacks, or respiratory disease in children or seniors from a Republican bill that would
allow the Secretary of Energy to veto some environmental regulations. [CQ Floor Votes, 8/01/13]
“As currently written, H.R. 1582 would cripple the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency to
protect the water we drink and the air we breathe. My amendment simply ensures that the EPA can
continue to protect children and seniors from the harmful impacts of pollution,” Rep. Lois Capps, the
amendment’s sponsor, said. [Capps statement, Congressional Record, page H5291, 8/01/13]
Voted to Speed Up Reviews of Mineral Exploration and Mining Permits
In September 2013, Coffman voted to speed up reviews of mineral exploration and mining permits. The
bill would reclassify domestic mining of rare earth and other critical and strategic minerals on federal
lands as “infrastructure projects” under a March 2012 executive order designed to streamline the
permitting and review process.
355
Democrats opposed provisions of the law that would weaken an environmental law requirement if critical
mine exploration or mine permits meet safeguards of federal or state permitting agencies. The legislation
would limit the review process for mineral exploration to 30 months, during which federal permitting
agencies would need to defer to state data and analysis. [CQ Weekly, 9/23/13]
Voted to Allow Critical Minerals to be Exported to China or Iran
Before the final bill passed, Coffman voted against an amendment that would prohibit the export
of strategic and critical minerals produced under the permit to China or Iran. It would also prohibit
the issuance of permits to companies in which China or Iran has an ownership interest or to those
convicted of violating Iran sanctions laws. [CQ Floor Votes, 9/18/13]
Voted to Undermine California’s Water Laws
In February 2014, Coffman voted for a bill that would roll back state and federal laws to send more water
from the Delta to the San Joaquin Valley.
The San Jose Mercury News reported that the bill “would roll back federal environmental protections, halt
restoration of the San Joaquin River’s flow and salmon habitat, and pre-empt various state water and
endangered-species laws.” [San Jose Mercury News, 2/04/14]
Voted to Gut the Ability of the EPA to Manage Superfund Sites
In January 2014, Coffman voted for a bill that the Sierra Club said would “gut the Superfund law.”
The Huffington Post reported that the bill “would make it harder for the government to require companies
that deal with hazardous substances to carry enough insurance to cover cleanup. The bill would also
require more consultation with states before the government imposes cleanup requirements for Superfund
sites.” [The Huffington Post, 1/09/14]
The Sierra Club criticized that the bill “would essentially transfer responsibility for hazardous waste site
cleanup from the EPA to the states and gut the power of the EPA to effectively manage hazardous waste
cleanups under Superfund provisions.” [Sierra Club, 1/13/14]
Voted to Limit Environmental Reviews
356
In March 2014, Coffman voted to limit environmental reviews required by the National Environmental
Policy Act. The bill would create an 18-month maximum deadline for an environmental assessment and a
36-month maximum deadline for an environmental impact statement. [The Hill, 3/06/14]
Voted to Prevent Air Pollution Regulation Implementation
In 2011, Coffman voted to prevent air pollution regulations from going into effect.
The bill would exempt what is called “nuisance dust” from regulation under the Clean Air Act. The bill
defined “nuisance dust” as particulate matter “generated primarily from natural sources, unpaved roads,
agricultural activities, earth moving, or other activities typically conducted in rural areas.” [Salt Lake
Tribune, 12/10/11; CQ Floor Votes, 12/08/11]
Democrats warned that the bill could pose a threat to public health because it would cover dust from
mining operations, smelters and other industrial sources. The Congressional Budget Office also estimated
that it would cost the EPA $10 million to rework its existing air pollution standards and to study whether
changes would be necessary in its national monitoring network. [USA Today, 12/08/11]
Coffman even voted against a motion to ensure that the Environmental Protection Agency would continue
to be allowed to regulate particulate containing cadmium, lead or asbestos released from mining activities
and from demolition and renovation. [CQ Floor Votes, 12/08/11]
Voted to Block Environmental Protection Agency Rules on the Disposal of Coal Ash
In 2011, Coffman voted to block the Environmental Protection Agency rules on the disposal of coal ash.
The bill blocked the EPA rules on the disposal of coal ash which would either regulate it as a federal
hazardous-waste or require states to regulate it as a non-hazardous waste. The bill instead allowed states
to regulate coal-ash as a municipal waste. [Houston Chronicle, 10/15/11; CQ Floor Votes, 10/14/11]
According to the Houston Chronicle, “coal ash – the residue of coal combustion at electric utility plants –
contains a range of toxic metals, including chromium, arsenic and lead. Environmental groups, which
want the EPA to regulate coal ash as a hazardous waste, say those chemicals can get into groundwater
when ash-disposal structures fail, putting people at risk. [Houston Chronicle, 10/15/11]
Before final passage of the bill, Coffman even voted against a motion which would require monitoring for
imminent failures of coal-ash impoundment systems and the notification of state and local first responders
and evacuation of the endangered people. [CQ Floor Votes, 10/14/11]
357
Voted to Block Regulation of Dangerous Pollutants
In 2011, Coffman voted to block regulations to reduce emissions of pollutants from coal-fired power
plants by the Environment Protection Agency.
The bill would have required the establishment of a committee to analyze the impact of certain EPA
regulations on the economy, delaying the rules, including those on mercury emissions. [Chicago Tribune,
9/24/11; CQ Floor Votes, 9/23/11]
Before consideration of the final bill, Coffman even voted against requiring the EPA to “plan and
implement a strategy, using existing authority, to control air pollution that could affect the Great Lakes.”
[CQ Floor Votes, 9/23/11]
Voted to Nullify Rules Limiting Mercury Pollution from Cement Plants
In 2011, Coffman voted to nullify rules limiting mercury pollution from cement plants.
The bill would nullify Environmental Protection Agency rules for cement plant emissions and require the
development of new rules which would not go into effect until 2017. [Washington Post, 10/09/11; CQ Floor
Votes, 10/06/11]
According to the Washington Post, the EPA projected up to $19 in public-health benefits for every dollar
of compliance cost to manufacturers. The rule would curb emissions of mercury, which spread to water
and fish and can cause brain damage in infants and children. The rules also would curb emissions of
particulates that cause heart and lung diseases, as well as gases such as nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide
that form smog. [Washington Post, 10/9/11]
Before final consideration of the bill, Coffman even voted against a motion to implement the current
emissions standards for cement kilns within five miles of a school, day-care, playground or hospital with
a maternity ward or neonatal unit. The motion failed 176-247. [CQ Floor Votes, 10/06/11; HR 2681, Vote #763,
10/06/11]
Voted to Nullify Rules Regulating Emissions for Commercial and Industrial Boilers
In 2011, Coffman voted to nullify certain rules regulating emissions for commercial and industrial boilers.
The bill would nullify the current rules for commercial and industrial boilers and require the
Environmental Protection Agency to write new rules and finalize them within 15 months of the bill
becoming law. [CQ Floor Votes, 10/13/11]
358
Coffman even voted against a motion to implement the current proposed commercial and industrial boiler
standards for any waste incinerator within five miles of a nursing home, assisted living facility, or
hospital. [CQ Floor Votes, 10/13/11]
Voted to Bar the EPA from Regulating Greenhouse Gas
In 2011, Coffman voted to prohibit the EPA from addressing climate change by regulating greenhouse
gases, to change the definition of air pollutant in the Clean Air Act and to keep states from addressing
climate change through the regulation of greenhouse gases.
The bill changed the definition of air pollutant to exclude greenhouse gas as it pertained to climate change
(though greenhouse gases could be regulated for reasons other than climate change). It also repealed
previous EPA regulations on stationary sources of greenhouse gases and barred the EPA from issuing any
new regulations on stationary sources of greenhouse gases. Automobile emission standards were exempt
from this bill. [CQ House Action Report, 4/04/11]
According to an article in the San Francisco Chronicle: “This really is a shocking attack on states’ rights
and on public health,” said Stanley Young, a spokesman for the California Air Resources Board, which is
working on emissions standards for cars that would take effect in 2017. He estimated that the bill could
roll back scheduled cuts in pollution and petroleum consumption by 25 percent nationwide. [San Francisco
Chronicle, 3/14/11]
Coffman even voted against a motion which would have specified that the authority of the EPA
administrator under the Clean Air Act wouldn’t be abridged by the bill when it came to protecting the
health of children and seniors from air pollution produced by large sources of carbon dioxide.
Voted against Ensuring that Deregulation of Greenhouse Gases Wouldn’t Threaten Our National
Security
In 2011, Coffman voted against allowing the EPA and the Secretary of Defense to certify if a lack of
greenhouse gas regulation would threaten national security before repealing those regulations.
The amendment prevented the provisions of this legislation from going into effect until the EPA
Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, certified that the consequences of not
regulating greenhouse gas emissions. The certification would include the consequences of the subsequent
impact on climate change, including the potential to create sustained natural and humanitarian disasters
and the ability to likely foster political instability where societal demands exceed the capacity of
359
governments to cope. It would also require certification that the repeal of those regulations did not
jeopardize American security interests at home or abroad. [Congressional Record, p. H2380, 4/06/11]
The overarching bill changed the definition of air pollutant to exclude greenhouse gas as it pertained to
climate change (though greenhouse gases could be regulated for reasons other than climate change). It
also repealed previous EPA regulations on stationary sources of greenhouse gases and barred the EPA
from issuing any new regulations on stationary sources of greenhouse gases. Automobile emission
standards were exempt from this bill. [CQ House Action Report, 4/04/11]
The amendment failed, 165-260. [H.R. 910 H. Amdt. 485, Vote #239, 4/06/11]
Voted to Cut Funding to Produce Energy-Efficient Cars
In 2011, Coffman voted for a short-term appropriations bill which cut $1.5 billion from the Department of
Energy’s Advance Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program.
The continuing resolution would fund the federal government through November 18, 2011. The
legislation would cut $1.5 billion from the Department of Energy’s Advanced Technology Vehicles
Manufacturing Loan program while providing $3.65 billion for disaster assistance.
“I was disappointed to see that the House shortchanged the Federal Emergency Management Agency,”
Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, said on the Senate floor, “failing to provide the
funding to adequately help Americans whose lives have been devastated by floods, hurricanes and
tornadoes.” [New York Times, 9/21/11]
The motion to concur failed 195-230. [HR 2608, Vote #719, 9/21/11]
Vehicle Manufacturing Program Was Bush-Era Program, Supported Thousands of Jobs
The Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing program was signed into law and first funded
under President George W. Bush.
According to the Center for American Progress, cutting the program would “compound economic
harm by hurting American manufacturing plants and eradicating tens of thousands of jobs as
companies retool to build more efficient vehicles for the future.”
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 included the Advanced Technology Vehicle
Manufacturing program to help auto companies and their suppliers convert their domestic plants to
produce more fuel-efficient vehicles and to create or maintain auto industry jobs. It provided direct
loans to help them retool their facilities or build new ones to make parts or build vehicles that are
at least 25 percent more efficient than cars in 2005. [Center for American Progress, 9/15/11]
Opposed Energy Efficient School Construction
In 2009, Coffman opposed a bill to promote energy-efficient school building. The bill authorized billions
of dollars for “green” school renovation and modernization projects. The bill authorized$6.4 billion in
360
fiscal 2010 for school construction projects and such funds as necessary through fiscal 2015. The bill
required that all funding for fiscal 2015 be used for projects that meet environmental friendliness
standards. The measure also authorized $600 million from fiscal 2010 to fiscal 2015 specifically for
schools in the Gulf Coast region, where many schools were destroyed or severely damaged by hurricanes
Katrina and Rita. [CQ Weekly Report Education, 5/18/09]
Voted Against Protecting New Species under the Endangered Species Act
In 2011, Coffman voted against protecting new species and habitats under the Endangered Species Act.
The amendment struck language from the underlying bill which “barred the Fish and Wildlife Service
from listing new species and habitats for protection under the Endangered Species Act.” [CQ Floor Votes,
7/27/11]
The amendment passed 224-202. [HR 2584, Vote #652, 7/27/11]
Voted Against Making Hairstreak Butterfly the Official State Insect
In 1996, Coffman voted against a bill that would make the Colorado hairstreak butterfly the official state
insect.
The bill was sought by hundreds of the state’s schoolchildren.
The bill passed the Senate, 24-8. [Denver Post, 2/15/96]
Said No to Funds to Protect Great Lakes
In 2009, Coffman voted against the Interior Appropriations bill. The measure included $475 million for
cleaning up waterways, fighting invasive species and helping wildlife in the Great Lakes. [CQ Bill
Analysis; Detroit News, 6/27/09]
The money included:
 $147 million to clean up highly toxic rivers and harbors that feed into the lakes.
 $60 million to prevent and remove invasive species.
 $98 million to refurbish areas near shores and to prevent “non-point” pollution, such as fertilizer
and oil run-off.
 $105 million to restore and protect habitat and wildlife.
 $65 million to monitor progress of cleanup.
Supported Water Quality Investment Act of 2009
361
In 2009, Coffman voted in favor of a bill reauthorizing $13.8 billion over five years in wastewater
treatment grants and loans as part of a broader $19.4 billion package of water quality measurers. The bill
included five water quality bills that separately passed the House during the previous Congress.
The bill included a provision extending the Davis-Bacon wage standards to state and local projects
receiving grants or loans through the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. The measure also included a
“Buy American” provision that required most steel, iron and manufactured goods used in projects
financed by the revolving fund to be produced in the United States. Included in the bill was $150 million
a year to address sediment contamination in the Great Lakes watershed. [CQ Floor Votes, 3/12/09]
Signed “No Climate Tax Pledge”
In 2010, Coffman signed a “No Climate Tax Pledge” in which they promised to oppose “any legislation
relating to climate change that includes a net increase in government revenue.” [Colorado Independent,
1/3/12]
Supported Alternative Fuels And A Departure From Fossil Fuels; Supported Nuclear Energy,
Citing France As An Example
Supported Alternative Fuels And A Departure From Fossil Fuels; Supported Nuclear Energy,
Citing France As An Example. In June 2008, when asked about his stance on energy policy, Coffman
said, “We need to look at alternatives that make sense in the long-run. I think we need to get away from
fossil fuels in the long-run. We also need to look at nuclear power, and I think it can be safely done with
the right regulatory framework around it. France – I hate to use that as an example – but they’re about 80
percent right now, 80 percent of their electricity is generated by nuclear power.” [4:46 – 5:10, 6/01/08]
Sponsored Bill to Streamline Approval Process for Domestic Oil Production
In 2011, Coffman sponsored a bill that would “streamline the approval process for onshore oil and gas
production permits on federal lands to produce for domestic oil and gas,” his press release read.
“Instead of depleting our emergency reserves, the Obama Administration should stop standing in the way
of allowing Americans to develop our own energy resources,” Coffman said. [Coffman press release, 6/27/11]
Voted to Limit Outer Continental Shelf Drilling Regulations
In 2011, Coffman voted to limit the EPA’s ability to regulate drilling on the outer continental shelf.
The bill limited the EPA to six months to deny air pollution permits for offshore rigs and platforms. The
bill also “limits challenges to the EPA’s appeals board and restricts which emissions can be evaluated.”
362
Voted Against Determining the Benefit of Lowering Environmental Standards for Off-shore
Drilling
In 2011, Coffman voted against a motion which required the EPA administrator to determine if a
Republican bill would actually result in lower gas prices at the pump.
The motion would have required the EPA administrator to study whether relaxing the off-shore oil and
gas permitting process, as laid out in the Republicans’ underlying bill, would actually reduce the cost of
gas per gallon at gas stations. Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee suggested that
this bill would lower gas prices. [House Energy and Commerce Press Release, 6/22/11; Congressional
Record, 6/22/11]
Voted to Allow Offshore Drilling on the East Coast and Off of Southern California
In 2011, Coffman voted for a bill which expanded the available land for offshore drilling to include areas
in the Pacific near southern California and off the east coast in the Atlantic Ocean.
The legislation would have expanded the land available for offshore drill leasing to include parts off the
shore of southern California and the eastern seaboard during the 2012-2017 five-year oil and gas leasing
period. [The Hill, 5/11/11; The Hill, 3/29/11; Bloomberg News, 5/11/11]
Voted to Force the Sale of Off-shore Oil Leases near Virginia and in the Gulf of Mexico
In 2011, Coffman voted for a bill which forced the sale of oil and natural gas leases in the waters off the
coast of Virginia and in the Gulf of Mexico about a year after the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe.
The legislation required the Secretary of the Interior to hold sales for specific off-shore leases located in
the Gulf of Mexico and off the coast of Virginia. It also stated that the environmental requirements for
these sales would be considered as having been met by the current Environmental Impact Statement.
[New York Times, 5/06/11; CQ Floor Votes, 5/05/11]
Coffman even voted against a motion which specified that all the oil and natural gas produced by the land
from these leases would be sold only in the United States.
Voted to Speed Up Oil and Gas Lease Approvals in the Gulf of Mexico
363
In 2011, Coffman voted for a bill which required the Department of the Interior to rule on exploratory
drilling permits for lessees in the Gulf of Mexico in 60 days or less or the permit would be considered
approved.
The legislation required the Department of the Interior to deem applications for oil and gas drilling
permits approved 30 days, or as many as 60 days (after two possible 15 day extensions), after receiving
the application. If the application is denied then the Department of the Interior must provide written
reasons for the denial.
Democrats opposed the bill because they felt that it would hinder the ability of the Department of the
Interior to approve the leases in a responsible way. [The Hill, 05/05/11; The Hill, 5/11/11; USA Today,
5/12/11; CQ BillAnalysis, 5/20/11; FoxBusiness, 5/11/11]
Coffman even voted against a motion which stopped the sale of new leases to companies which still owed
fines and penalties for economic and environmental damages in the Gulf of Mexico.
Voted to Force the Sale of Off-shore Oil Leases near Virginia and in the Gulf of Mexico
In 2011, Coffman voted for a bill which forced the sale of oil and natural gas leases in the waters off the
coast of Virginia and in the Gulf of Mexico about a year after the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe.
The legislation required the Secretary of the Interior to hold sales for specific off-shore leases located in
the Gulf of Mexico and off the coast of Virginia. It also stated that the environmental requirements for
these sales would be considered as having been met by the current Environmental Impact Statement.
[New York Times, 5/06/11; CQ Floor Votes, 5/05/11]
Coffman even voted against a motion which specified that all the oil and natural gas produced by the land
from these leases would be sold only in the United States.
Voted Against Protecting Workers Reporting Safety Violations on Offshore Rigs
In 2010, Coffman voted against passing whistleblower protections that prohibit employers from
discriminating against offshore energy development workers who report suspected safety violations to
state or federal authorities. The bill also protected against workers testified before Congress or refused to
perform their job because of safety violations or because of a “good faith belief” that doing so could result
in injury.
364
The vote came just months after the Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion killed 11 workers and resulted
in months of oil leaking into the Gulf of Mexico.
House Education and Labor Chairman George Miller explained that the measure closed a loophole that
provided protections to those who worked in onshore energy development, but not those who worked
offshore.
“In passing these bills today,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, “we will uphold our commitment to
America’s families and businesses to rebuild the Gulf Coast and make families whole and to ensure the
size of this spill and the scope of it never happens again.” [CQ Today, 7/30/10]
Opposed Lifting Liability Cap on Offshore Spills, Revamping Oversight
In 2010, Coffman voted against a bill that would lift the $75 million cap on liability for offshore oil spills
and revamp federal oversight of the industry by eliminating the Minerals Management Service. The
responsibilities of the MMS would be split among three new agencies in the Interior Department.
The measure was supported as a means to prevent another potential catastrophe like the Deepwater
Horizon rig explosion, which killed 11 workers and spewed millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf of
Mexico.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, the measure would reduce the deficit by $1.7 billion
through fiscal 2020. It imposed stiffer penalties for oil rig safety violations, required independent
certifications of key drilling equipment and banned the practice of granting environmental waivers for
drilling plans. [CQ Today, 7/30/10; CNN, 7/30/10]
The measure passed, 209-193. [HR 3534, Vote #513, 7/30/10]
Said No to Funds to Protect Great Lakes
In 2009, Coffman voted against the Interior Appropriations bill. The measure included $475 million for
cleaning up waterways, fighting invasive species and helping wildlife in the Great Lakes. [CQ Bill
Analysis; Detroit News, 6/27/09]
The money included:
 $147 million to clean up highly toxic rivers and harbors that feed into the lakes.
 $60 million to prevent and remove invasive species.
 $98 million to refurbish areas near shores and to prevent “non-point” pollution, such as fertilizer
and oil run-off.
 $105 million to restore and protect habitat and wildlife.
 $65 million to monitor progress of cleanup.
365
366
FEMA and Disaster Relief Issues
 Called for increased wildfire prevention funding after having cast one of
his seven votes against it just four months earlier
 Voted to provide funds to cover insurance claims of victims of Hurricane
Sandy after opposing it
 Voted against considering a delay in flood insurance rate increases three
times; voted against reforming the National Flood Insurance Program
Coffman played both sides of the wildfire fighting and prevention issue when he
voted seven times against funding for related programs but then advocated for
increased funding for such programs. Coffman voted to provide victims of
Hurricane Sandy with insurance benefits after initially opposing it and voted
against delaying flood insurance rate increases, reforming the National Flood
Insurance Program.
Seven Times Voted Against Providing Funds For Wildfire Fighting And Prevention. Between 2009
and 2014, Coffman cast seven votes that were opposed to providing additional funds for wildfire
Appropriations bill. The measure included $3.6 billion for efforts to prevent and fight wildfires by the
U.S. Forest Service and Interior Department. Total amount included $1.9 billion for wildland fire
suppression, a $526 million increase above the 2009 non-emergency level. The total amount also
included $357 million in contingent fire suppression reserve funds. The bill passed 254-173. [HR
2996, Vote #475, 6/26/09; CQ Bill Analysis]
House Republicans voted for a fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution (HR 1), which cut $400 million
in funding for Wildland Fire Management programs. HR 1 only provided $2,972,600,000 for
Wildland Fire Management, down from $3,372,600,000 in the previous fiscal year. HR 1 bill did not
include cuts to FLAME funding, which are accounts used to cover the cost of large or complex fires
when Wildland Fire Management funds are exhausted. This bill was not enacted into law. [H.R.
1, Vote # 147, 2/19/11; Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations, CRS,
5/12/11]
367
including $122 million from the FLAME funds. HR 1473 provided $2,844,300,000 for Wildland Fire
Management, including $352,000,000 for the FLAME funds. In the prior fiscal year, Congress
appropriated $3,372,600,000 for Wildland Fire Management and $474,000,000 for the FLAME funds.
FLAME funds are accounts used to cover the cost of large or complex fires when Wildland Fire
Management funds are exhausted. The bill was enacted into law. [H.R. 1473, Vote #268, 4/14/11;
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations, CRS, 5/12/11]
2012: Voted Against a Plan to Reduce the Risk of Wildfires. On June 19, 2012, House Republicans
voted against a plan that would have allowed States to treat insect-infected trees and remove
hazardous fuels on Federal land to reduce the risk of wildfires. [HR 2578, Vote #386, 6/19/12]
2012: Switch Vote To “No” On Wildfire Prevention. In 2012, Coffman changed his vote from yes
to no regarding to a wildfire prevention amendment. Coffman change his vote to “no” with one
minute left in the roll call on an amendment offered by Congressman Perlmutter that according to The
Cortez Journal, would “give the federal government authority to contract with states to remove beetlekilled trees.” [The Cortez Journal, 6/22/12]
Wildfires In The Western United States. In July 2015, Coffman voted against a motion to recommit
that would ensure an adequate supply of water for safe drinking that is untainted by arsenic, salt, or
other toxins which become concentrated in diminished water supplies, to fight wild fires, and to honor
tribal water rights. The motion was rejected by a vote of 183-239. [HR 2898, Vote #446, 7/16/2015;
Interior established a framework to partner with local entities to reduce the risks of wildfire upon Western
communities and their water supplies.” [Rep. Mike Coffman press release, 11/07/14]
Coffman: “We Must Take All Necessary Steps To Protect Our Forests And Our Watersheds On
Public Lands From Catastrophic Wildfires And Invasive Species.” “Colorado is a state blessed
with many natural resources, but some of the most important are our forest lands and watersheds,”
Coffman wrote in the letter. “These are vital resources for the economy and quality of life for many
of our families and businesses. We must take all necessary steps to protect our forests and our
368
watersheds on public lands from catastrophic wildfires and invasive species.” [Rep. Mike Coffman
Voted to Provide Funds to Cover Insurance Claims of Victims of Hurricane Sandy
In January 2013, Coffman voted for providing $9.7 billion in assistance to victims of Hurricane Sandy.
The funds would be the first part of a larger aid package sought by affected states.
The bill would give the National Flood Insurance Program the authority to borrow $9.7 million to cover
insurance claims filed by those whose homes were damaged or destroyed by the storm. FEMA previously
notified Congress that it would be unable to cover all of the claims. [New York Times, 1/04/13]
All votes against the aid came from House Republicans. The bill passed, 354-67. [HR 41, Vote #7,
1/04/13]
Republicans Slammed GOP Colleagues for Delaying Vote on Bill
Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey criticized Republicans for delaying an initial vote on the
bill, declaring they “failed the most basic test of leadership” and calling their behavior
“disappointing” and “disgusting.” [CNN, 1/03/13]
Republican Congressman Peter King of New York called on residents of New York and New
Jersey to halt campaign contributions to Republicans after the bill was delayed and said there was
“dysfunction in the Republican leadership.” [Politico, 1/02/13; CNN, 1/02/13]
Congressman Michael Grimm of New York called the Republican delay tactics a “personal
betrayal” that was “untenable and unforgivable.” [NBC, 1/02/13]
Voted Against Providing $51 Billion in Emergency Aid to Victims of Hurricane Sandy
In January 2013, Coffman voted against providing $51 billion in emergency aid to victims of Hurricane
Sandy. The governors of New York and New Jersey previously requested $82 billion in aid to cover
damage in their states.
The aid would be directed to those victims whose homes were damaged or destroyed, as well as to
business owners who suffered heavy losses. The package would also pay for repairing transit systems,
fixing bridges and tunnels, reimbursing local governments for emergency spending, and replenishing
shorelines. [New York Times, 1/28/13]
Accused by Republican Congressman as Being a Hypocrite on Disaster Aid
In 2013, Coffman was accused as being a hypocrite by Republican Congressman Peter King for voting
against Hurricane Sandy aid, but supported aid for flood victims in Colorado.
369
FOX 31: “Colorado's four Republican members of Congress were savaged as hypocrites by two of their
colleagues from New York, still upset that the delegation voted against a congressional aid package for
victims of Hurricane Sandy but have more recently supported federal aid for victims of devastating
flooding here in their home state.”
“You never know when and where these disasters are gonna hit […] They should just thank God, we
didn't use the same tactics against them that they used against us,” Congressman Peter King said. [FOX
31, 10/2/13]
Said he Voted for the $17 Billion Initial Package
In 2013, Coffman said he voted for the for the initial $17 billion in direct aid but didn't support the second
relief package because it included spending that didn't have anything to do with Sandy, “such as the $150
million allocated for fisheries in Alaska,” Coffman said. [Denver Post, 10/4/13]
Said it was a Wasteful $33 Billion Amendment
“I absolutely believe that the federal government should assist areas affected by disasters […] But I could
not justify subsequently supporting a wasteful $33 billion Senate amendment,” Coffman said. [Denver
Post, 10/4/13]
Headline: Colorado Republicans respond to New York delegation's 'hypocrisy' charge [FOX 31,
10/2/13]
Headline: Jersey takes jab at GOP [Denver Post, 10/4/13]
Headline: Dan Kozak: Boulder's floods and GOP hypocrisy in disaster relief [Daily Camera, 10/7/13]
Republican Congressman Called No Votes “Disgraceful”
Republican Congressman Peter King called House Republicans who voted against Hurricane
Sandy aid “disgraceful” and said they made representatives from the impacted region feel like
“third-world beggars.”
“Quite frankly, it’s going to be difficult going back and working with people you sit next to,” said
King. [New York Daily News, 1/18/13]
…Even Voted to Offset Relief Funds with Cuts to Military
In January 2013, Coffman voted for an amendment sponsored by Congressman Mick Mulvaney
that would require a 1.63 percent cut to all discretionary spending to offset the original $17 billion
Hurricane Sandy relief bill.
Republican Congressman Bill Young, chairman of the Appropriations Defense subcommittee, said
he opposed the amendment because it would cut military pay. Politico reported that amendment
would include cuts to the Pentagon’s budget. [The Hill, 1/15/13; Politico, 2/05/13]
370
The amendment failed, 162-258. [HR 152, Vote #14, 1/15/13]
Voted for $17 Billion for Relief Needs
In January 2013, Coffman voted for a supplemental $17 billion to address immediate needs
relating to damage from Sandy. The amendment was sponsored by Republican Appropriations
Chair Hal Rogers.
The funds included $5.4 billion for FEMA’s disaster relief fund, $5.4 billion for public
transportation in New York and New Jersey, $3.9 billion for HUD development programs, $1.4
billion for the Army Corps of Engineers, and millions more.
The amendment was adopted, 327-91. [HR 152, Vote #15, 1/15/13]
Voted Against $33.7 Billion in Long-Term Recovery Aid
In 2013, Coffman voted against an additional $33.7 billion for long-term recovery spending. The
amount included $2 billion to repair federal highways.
The amendment passed, 228-192. [HR 152, Vote #22, 1/15/13]
Voted Against Considering a Delay in Flood Insurance Rate Increases Three Times; Voted Against
Reforming The National Flood Insurance Program
In 2014, Coffman voted three times against considering delaying flood insurance premium increases
resulting from the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012. [Times-Picayune, 2/04/14] The
New York Times reported that “over the past year, millions of coastal property owners were hit with flood
insurance rate increases that sent their premiums soaring up to five or 10 times the previous amounts. As
their insurance bills soared and their property values plummeted, homeowners begged lawmakers to block
or delay the Biggert-Waters provisions.” [New York Times, 1/30/14]
The Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act would have delayed the premium increases. [TimesPicayune, 2/04/14]
 Coffman voted against consideration of the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act.
[Congressional Record, 2/04/14]
 Headline: House rejects Democratic proposal for quick vote on Senate-passed bill delaying
flood insurance hikes [Times-Picayune, 2/04/14]
371
Voted Against Reforming the National Flood Insurance Program. In 2011, Coffman voted against
extending and making bipartisan reforms to the National Flood Insurance Program. The bill would extend
the National Flood Insurance program for five years and make bipartisan reforms to help extend the life of
the program, in which some 20,000 communities nationwide participated. Some of these reforms included
increasing the allowed premium percentage increase, increasing the minimum deductible for properties,
and allowing communities that are required to buy flood insurance to seek a suspension while they
worked to improve their flood protection systems. The bill passed 406-22. [HR 1309, Vote #562, 7/12/11;
Associated Press, 7/12/11]
Voted For Storm Impact Prevention, FEMA Funding
Voted For Storm Impact Prevention, FEMA Funding. In January 2015, Coffman voted for a bill “that
would authorize $21 million per year from fiscal 2015-2017 for the National Windstorm Impact
Reduction Program. For each year, it would authorize $5.3 million for the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, $9.7 million for the National Science Foundation, $4.1 million for the National
Institutes for Standards and Technology and $2.3 million for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.” The bill passed 381-39. [HR 23, Vote #10, 1/07/15; CQ Votes]
Voted Against Amendment To Increase Funding For Inland Oil Spill Programs By More Than $5
Million
Voted Against Amendment To Increase Funding For Inland Oil Spill Programs. In July 2015,
Coffman voted against an amendment to increase funding for inland oil spill programs. The Amendment
would reduce funding for Bureau of Ocean Energy Management by $5,434,000 and to increase funding
for Inland Oil Spill Programs by a similar amount. According to the amendment’s sponsor, Rep. Lois
Capps, “When it comes to oil spills, the damage gets worse by the minute, so ensuring that spill response
teams are properly trained and prepared to respond quickly is essential to minimizing the impacts. This is
precisely why the EPA has jurisdiction over the inland oil spill program. … Despite its scope and
importance, this program has been seriously underfunded for years, and H.R. 2822 only makes things
worse by funding this program at nearly 25 percent less than the President Requested. My amendment
would simply increase funding for this program by 5.4 million, to match the President’s requested amount
of $23.4 million for fiscal year 2016.” The amendment failed, 184 to 243. [HR 2822, Vote #394, 7/08/15;
Bill Summary, Library of Congress, 7/08/15, House Congressional Record, Page H4741, 6/25/15]
Voted Against Striking Provision Allowing Vacant Public Land Grazing Allotments When Existing
Allotment Is Unusable Due To Drought Or Wildfire
Voted Against Striking Provision Allowing Vacant Public Land Grazing Allotments When Existing
Allotment Is Unusable Due To Drought Or Wild Fire. In July 2015, Coffman voted against “an
372
amendment to strike section 433, which provides for vacant public land grazing allotments when an
existing allotment is unusable due to drought or wildfire.” The amendment failed 178 to 251. [HR 2822,
Vote #399, 7/08/15; H AMDT 570, 7/08/15]
Voted Against Preserving Legal Recourse To Salvage And Reforestation Projects Conducted In
Response To Catastrophic Events
Voted Against Preserving Legal Recourse To Salvage And Reforestation Projects Conducted In
Response To Catastrophic Events. In July 2015, Coffman voted against an amendment that would
“strike section 203 and Title III from the bill, which impose restrictions on lawsuits. Section 203 prohibits
restraining orders, preliminary injunctions and injunctions pending appeal against salvage and
reforestation projects conducted in response to catastrophic events.” The amendment failed, 181 to 247.
[HR 2647, Vote #427, 7/09/15; CQ Floor Votes, 7/09/15]
Voted for Pandemic and Disaster Preparedness Funding
In 2013, Coffman voted for the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Reauthorization Act.
The bill would strengthen national preparedness and response for public health emergencies, eliminate
bureaucratic inefficiencies and accelerate the stockpiling of vaccines.
The bill passed, 370-28, and was signed into law. [HR 307, Vote #56, 3/04/13]
Voted Against Increased Funding to Prepare for Natural Disasters
In 2013, Coffman voted against a motion to increase funding FEMA activities to prepare for natural
disasters.
The amendment to the homeland security appropriations bill would increase by $25 million the total
provided for state and local programs, tribal emergency response training, and a pre-disaster mitigation
grant program.
Voted Against Reauthorizing Funds for Rural Schools, Firefighters and Policemen
In February 2014, Coffman voted against a motion that would reauthorize the Payments in Lieu of Taxes
initiative, or federal payments to local governments to offset losses in property taxes to non-taxable
Federal lands within their boundaries. [CQ Floor Votes, 2/06/14]
The Department of the Interior reported that PILT payments help rural communities fund firefighters and
police departments, construction of publics cools and roads, and search-and-rescue operations.
[Department of the Interior, accessed 4/08/14]
373
Opposed Flood Insurance Premium Increases
In March 2014, Coffman voted for stopping flood insurance premium increases for some homeowners
while capping future premium increase.
The bill would reinstate the flood insurance program’s grandfathering provision that was eliminated under
the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act, meaning that homes compliant with previous flood
maps would not be hit with large premium increases under new maps.
The bill would also limit yearly premium increases to an average of 15 percent per year while stipulating
that no individual policy holder pay an increase of more than 18 percent per year. [Times-Picayune,
3/12/14]
Voted Against Eliminating the National Flood Insurance Program
In 2011, Coffman voted against an amendment to eliminate the National Flood Insurance Program.
The amendment to eliminate the National Flood Insurance Program would not impact current coverage
but would prevent the NFIP from issuing new policies or renewing old ones. The amendment would allow
states to form interstate compacts to provide flood insurance. [CQ Floor Votes, 7/12/11; Associated Press,
7/12/11]
Voted In Favor Of Authorizing Insurance Program for Flood Victims
In 2010, Coffman voted in favor of reauthorizing the National Flood Insurance Program through fiscal
2015.
The program provides 95 percent of flood insurance policies in the country and was intended to alleviate
the financial burden to taxpayers after a natural disaster. The bill increased the coverage limits for the
program and allowed flood insurance premiums to increase by up to 20 percent year.
The measure authorized $250 million over five years for outreach and education efforts by FEMA, who
administers the flood insurance program, and created an Office of Flood Insurance Advocate within the
agency. [CQ Today, 7/15/10]
374
Finance and Consumer Protection Issues
 Voted against preventing gas price hikes
 Blamed homeowners for financial crisis, said people took out loans they
couldn’t afford
 Advocated for a return to the Glass-Steagall Act, breaking up the big banks; …
But later voted to deregulate Wall Street and weaken reforms
 Twice voted against regulating overseas Wall Street trading
 Consistently voted to undermine the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,
protect consumers from predatory lending and seniors from deceptive practices
 Voted for blocking consideration on a vote to crack down on corporations that
avoid taxes by moving overseas
 Voted to remove protections on food, toys, and drinking water
 Voted against requiring companies to report chemicals that could contaminate
public drinking water

Coffman voted against preventing gas price hikes and instituting consumer
protections regarding food, toys, and drinking water – even going so far as to vote
against legislation that would require companies to report chemicals that could
contaminate public drinking water. He blamed homeowners for the financial crisis
– saying people took out loans they couldn’t afford – while opposing efforts to
increase consumer protections and protect against the predatory lending and
deceptive practices that contributed to the recession. Despite advocating for a
return to the Glass Steagall Act, Coffman voted to deregulate Wall Street, weaken
reforms for the industry, and restrict regulation of overseas trading. He also
opposed legislation that would crack down on corporations that avoid taxes by
moving overseas.
Voted Against Preventing Gas Price Hikes
375
Voted Against Preventing Gas Price Hikes. In 2011, Coffman voted against limiting the seizures of
American farm and ranch land and to prevent gas price hikes. The motion would have directed “the
president to ensure federal agencies take ‘any feasible step’ to prevent an increase in gas prices and limit
seizures of American farm and ranch land.” The motion failed 181-248. [HR 1938, Vote #649, 7/26/11; CQ
Blamed Homeowners For Financial Crisis, Said People Took Out Loans They Couldn’t Afford
Blamed Homeowners For Financial Crisis, Said People Took Out Loans They Couldn’t Afford. In
June 2011, during a U.S. House Small Business Committee hearing, Coffman blamed homeowners for the
financial crisis, saying, “One of the stunning things that is lacking in Dodd-Frank, and I think it’s part due
to the fact, well part largely due to the fact that government never wants to point the finger at itself. But if
we look at the catalyst of the financial crisis, it’s subprime lending. And who mandated subprime lending.
Who was the one who came forward with this policy that said: ‘Let’s take people that really can’t afford
these homes, and let’s put them in these homes, and then of course we’ll securitize it and bundle it up,
credit rating agencies missed it.’ Therein lies the crisis, and it was government. And guess what’s not
included in Dodd-Frank: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac; the very catalyst that drove us into the ditch is
nowhere mentioned.” [House Small Business Committee hearing, YouTube, 0:03 – 0:54, 6/17/11]
Advocated For A Return To The Glass-Steagall Act, Breaking Up The Big Banks; … But Later
Voted To Deregulate Wall Street And Weaken Reforms Aimed At Preventing Another Bailout
Advocated For A Return To The Glass-Steagall Act. “I think this too big to fail notion that, if you look
at the Dodd-Frank bill, it institutionalizes too big to fail and what it calls systemic risks. I think that’s
wrong and I think it’s going to create some horrible distortions in this country. I think we need to go back
to the Glass-Steagall, the Glass-Steagall Act, where we [inaudible] the big banks and we break up the
investment banking and commercial banking. I co-sponsored a bill that does that.” [Rep. Coffman town
hall, YouTube, 6:03 – 6:37, 2/27/11]
… But Voted For Bill To Deregulate Wall Street. In January 2015, Coffman voted for legislation that
combined the text from eleven bills and would roll back or delay a number of regulations in the DoddFrank financial reform law. “The most serious attack of the bunch came in the form of a partial two-year
delay of the Volcker Rule, which would ban banks from speculating in securities markets with taxpayer
money. The bill would have allowed Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase to hold onto almost $50 billion in
risky corporate debt packages known as collateralized loan obligations through 2019.” The bill passed,
271 to 154. [HR 37, Vote #37, 1/14/15; Huffington Post, 1/10/14]
… And Voted To Weaken Wall Street Reform And Roll Back Rules Limiting Risky Bank
Investments. In January 2015, Coffman voted for a bill “to relax some requirements under the 2010
Dodd-Frank financial regulatory law. The measure would delay until July 2019 a provision of the law’s
Volcker Rule intended to limit risky investments by banks, and make other changes.” The vote failed to
reach a 2/3 majority, 276 to 146. [HR 37, Vote #9, 1/7/15; Bloomberg, 1/7/15]
… And Voted For Lobbyist-Drafted Law That Would Weaken Financial Protection Rules Aimed
At Preventing Another Bailout. In October 2013, Coffman voted for the Swaps Regulatory
Improvement Act, a bill that would roll back a provision of the Dodd-Frank law requiring banks to
separate some derivatives trading into separate units not backed by the government’s insurance fund. The
376
New York Times reported that Citigroup lobbyists drafted more than 70 of the 85 lines of the bill. The
AFL-CIO criticized that the bill would “effectively subsidize swaps dealing by Wall Street banks that
benefit from taxpayer-backed guarantees.” The bill passed, 292-122. [HR 992, Vote #569, 10/30/13; New
York Times, 10/30/13; AFL-CIO, 10/30/13]
Twice Voted Against Regulating Overseas Wall Street Trading
Voted For Consideration Of Bill Restricting Ability Of Commodity Futures Trading
Administration Ability To Regulate Wall Streets’ Banks Overseas Trade. In June 2015, Coffman
voted for the consideration of a bill reauthorizing the Commodity Futures Trading Administration. “The
U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation to curb the power of the nation’s top derivatives
regulator, advancing the measure over Democrats’ objections and in the face of a veto threat from
President Barack Obama. The Republican-led House on Tuesday voted 246-171, mostly along party-lines,
for a bill that would renew the responsibilities of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission while
limiting its ability to regulate Wall Street banks’ overseas trades. It also would force the CFTC to do more
cost-analysis of its rules, a key requirement that could stall the agency’s work.” The resolution passed 243
to 182. [H. Res. 288, Vote #274, 6/03/15; Bloomberg News, 6/09/15]
Bloomberg News: Bill Would Force CFTC To Conduct Additional Cost Analysis Of Its Rules,
“A Key Requirement That Could Stall The Agency’s Work.” “The U.S. House of Representatives
passed legislation to curb the power of the nation’s top derivatives regulator, advancing the measure
over Democrats’ objections and in the face of a veto threat from President Barack Obama. The
Republican-led House on Tuesday voted 246-171, mostly along party-lines, for a bill that would
renew the responsibilities of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission while limiting its ability to
regulate Wall Street banks’ overseas trades. It also would force the CFTC to do more cost-analysis of
its rules, a key requirement that could stall the agency’s work.” [Bloomberg News, 6/09/15]
Voted For Weakening Federal Oversight Of American Financial Institutions Trading Overseas. In
June 2015, Coffman voted for final passage of HR 2289, The Commodity End-User Relief Act of 2015.
The bill limited “the CFTC’s authority to regulate cross-border derivatives trading. It would require the
agency to issue rules that allow U.S. firms to carry out trades in the eight largest foreign markets without
U.S. supervision, provided those countries have equivalent oversight.” The bill passed 246 to 171. [HR
2289, Vote #309, 6/09/15; CQ News, 6/09/15]
Consistently Voted To Undermine The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Protect Consumers
From Predatory Lending And Seniors From Deceptive Practices
Four Times Voted To Weaken The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Between 2011 and 2015,
Coffman voted to weaken or undermine the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Below is a list of his
votes.
2011: Voted to Weaken the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. In 2011, Coffman voted to
weaken the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, created in response to the financial meltdown to
protect consumers. The bill replaced the current system of a single director with a five-member
commission and “would strengthen the veto power of the Financial Stability Oversight Council over
the bureaus decisions.” Democrats argued that the changes gave more power to banking regulators,
377
who would be expected to side with the banks. The bill passed 241-173. [HR 1315, Vote #621, 7/21/11;
Washington Post, 7/22/11; The Hill, 7/21/11]
2011: Voted to Undermine the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. In 2011, Coffman voted to
limit the effectiveness of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The legislation would
limit the effectiveness of the CFPB, a bureau created by the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory bill,
which “has the authority to regulate financial markets in ways meant to improve consumer
protection”. The CFPB, which had a single director, would instead have a five-member board. This
legislation would also change the two-thirds majority vote by the Financial Stability Oversight
Council to override a CFPB decision to just a simple majority. The bill passed 241-173. [HR 1315,
Vote #621, 7/21/11; The Hill, 7/21/11]
2015: Voted For Limiting Funding For Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. In April 2015,
Coffman voted for a bill that limited funding for the CFPB. “Passage of the bill that would formally
establish three advisory boards with which the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) that
must consult on matters regarding small businesses, credit unions and community banks. The measure
is offset by limiting funding for the CFPB in future years. As amended, the bill would encourage the
CFPB to ensure the participation of veteran-owned small-business concerns as members of the Small
Business Advisory Board.” The bill passed 235-183. [HR 1195, Vote #167, 4/22/15; CQ News,
4/22/15]
2015: Voted Against Measure To Prohibit Individuals Or Companies Convicted Of
Predatory Lending From Serving On CFPB Boards. In April 2015, Coffman voted against a
motion that protected military bases and veterans from predatory lenders. The motion would
“prohibit individuals from serving as members of the any of the advisory boards if within the last
ten years they have been employed or acted as an agent of a company whose been subject to a
state or federal enforcement action for predatory lending or fraud against veterans or
servicemembers.” The motion was rejected, 184-234. [HR 1195, Vote #166, 4/22/15; CQ News,
4/22/15]
Voted Against Requiring Minority And Women Owned Small Business Representatives On
Small Business Advisory Council. In April 2015, Coffman voted against an amendment “that
would require the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to include representatives of minorityand women-owned small-business concerns as members of the Small Business Advisory Board.”
The amendment was passed 244-173. [HR 1195, Vote #165, 4/22/15; CQ News, 4/22/15]
Voted To Consider Bill Establishing Small Business, Credit Union, and Community Bank
Advisory Boards On House Floor. In April 2015, Coffman voted for considering a bill
establishing a small business advisory board, credit union advisory council, and community bank
advisory council as a part of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The rule was adopted,
242-182. [HRes 200, Vote #155, 4/15/15; CQ Votes, 4/15/15]
2015: Voted For Mandating Private Sector Input On Federal Agency Rules, Expand Judicial
Review, And Restrict CFPB Funding. In February 2015, Coffman voted for the Unfunded Mandates
Information and Transparency Act of 2015. “in a new GOP attempt to roll back federal regulations,
the House passed a measure Wednesday aimed at limiting agency rules that impose unfunded
mandates. Lawmakers approved the bill 250-173, after adding a provision that would restrict funding
378
for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau…The main part of the bill (HR 50) would expand and
modify the 1995 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (PL 104-4) that requires all federal agencies to
consult with the private sector when developing rules... The measure would extend judicial review of
agency rules and permit a court to stay, enjoin or invalidate a rule if an agency fails to complete the
required UMRA analysis or adhere to the regulatory principles.” The bill passed 250 to 173. [HR 50,
Vote #64, 2/04/15; CQ News, 2/04/15]
Coalition For Sensible Safeguards: “The Unfunded Mandates Information and
Transparency Act Lets Big Business Write The Rules.” “But the Coalition for Sensible
Safeguards (CSS) says the bill would give businesses special access to regulators and block
hypothetical future rules without the public knowing. ‘The Unfunded Mandates Information and
Transparency Act lets big business write the rules,’ Katherine McFate, president of the Center for
Effective Government and CSS co-chair, said in a statement. ‘It doesn’t improve or streamline the
regulatory process, which is already plagued by hurdles and delays. This act would make it even
more difficult for agencies to implement laws enacted by Congress.’” [The Hill, 1/30/15]
HR 50 Cut CFPB Funding By $36 Million. “Limits the total budget authority which the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau may request from the Federal Reserve to $550 million in
FY 2016. This limitation is needed to ensure that the CFPB will comply with the requirements
contained elsewhere within HR 50 without increasing their drawdown of funds from the federal
reserve, which would otherwise add a direct spending cost to the bill. The limitation is set at $36
million below the CBO baseline projection for CFPB Budget Authority in FY 2016.” [HR 50,
Amendment #4, 2/04/15]
Voted Against Protecting Seniors from Abusive, Deceptive, or Unfair Practices. In 2011, Coffman
voted against ensuring the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau would retain its ability to protect
seniors from abusive, deceptive, or unfair practices. The motion failed 183-232. [HR 1315, Vote #620,
7/21/11; CQ Floor Votes, 7/21/11]
Voted Against Protecting Consumers from Predatory Lending, Financial Fraud. In 2011, Coffman
voted against banning individuals convicted of financial fraud from advertising or soliciting non-publicly
traded securities. The motion would have continued to ban advertising or general solicitation for nonpublicly traded securities from individuals if they had been “convicted of fraud in connection with a
financial transaction including predatory lending to a veteran.” The motion failed 190-236. [HR 2940, Vote
#827, 11/03/11; CQ Floor Votes, 11/03/11; Congressional Record, 11/03/11]
Voted For Blocking Consideration On A Vote To Crack Down On Corporations That Avoid Taxes
By Moving Overseas
Voted For Blocking Consideration On A Vote To Re-Authorize A Long-Term Transportation Bill
And To Crack Down On Corporations That Avoid Taxes By Moving Overseas. In July 2015,
Coffman voted for blocking consideration on “a vote to re-authorize a long-term Transportation Bill that
provides 6 years of funding so states and localities can address critical infrastructure needs. The bill
would also stop corporations that seek to move abroad to avoid paying their taxes and use that money for
transportation improvements here in America.” A vote against the previous question was to force the vote
on the long-term Transportation bill and the crackdown on corporations that move overseas to avoid
379
paying taxes. The motion to order the previous question passed, 245 to 182. [H Res 362, Vote #438,
Voted to Remove Protections on Food, Toys, and Drinking Water. In February 2011, Coffman voted
against a measure that would have required Congressional committees to place a high priority on tracking,
reviewing and preserving the standards that ensure the safety of the food and drinking water supply, and
the safety of children’s toys. “This is and should be an essential function of our nation’s government,”
said motion sponsor Rep. Russ Carnahan, D-Mo. The motion failed, 178-242. [HR 72, Vote #32, 2/11/11;
CQ Today, 2/11/11]
Opposed a Solution to Make Food Safer. In 2009, Coffman voted against the Food Safety
Enhancement Act of 2009 which would have modernized and strengthened the way we protect
America’s food supply and ensure fewer outbreaks of food borne illnesses. The bill required the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) to create a system for tracing food along the food chain so that recalls
could be implemented more quickly. It also for the first time allowed the FDA to impose civil and
criminal penalties and to implement mandatory food quarantines, both for the first time. The measure
passed 280-150. [H.R. 2749, #657, 7/29/09; CQ Today, 7/30/09]
Voted Against Requiring Companies To Report Chemicals That Could Contaminate Public
Drinking Water
Voted Against Requiring Companies To Report Chemicals That Could Contaminate Public
Drinking Water. In February 2016, Coffman voted against a motion “that would require any
manufacturer of items that contain chemicals that could contaminate public drinking water to submit data
to relevant state and federal agencies on the product's risks to human health and the environment,
including studies on neurotoxicity and cancer-causing effects. Exposing the public to such items without
these studies would be considered prohibited under a federal toxic substances law.” The motion failed
165-238. [HR 2406, Vote #100, 2/26/16; CQ, 2/26/16]
Voted To “Dramatically” Restrict Government’s Ability To Enact New Safety Standards
Voted For “Dramatically” Restricting Government’s Ability to Enact New Safety Standards. In
January 2015, Coffman voted for restricting the government’s ability to enact new regulations or safety
standards. “The House passed a measure Tuesday to dramatically restrict the government's ability to enact
any significant new regulations or safety standards, potentially hamstringing the efforts of every federal
agency, from financial regulators to safety watchdogs. …The primary way the bill would work is by
making just about every step an agency takes on a major new rule subject to numerous legal challenges. It
does that by defining major rules as ones that have direct costs of more than $100 million or indirect costs
above $1 billion, or would have significant costs for just about anyone, including government. Then it
requires that for any such rule, agencies must make public their cost-benefit analyses of the new
regulation and choose the cheapest option.” The bill passed 250 to 175. [HR 185, Vote #28, 1/13/15;
Huffington Post, 1/13/15; CQ Floor Votes, 1/13/15]
380
Law Professor: “Irresponsible Reform: The House Favors Extreme Legislation That Would
Delay Public Protections by Ten Years or More.” [Center For Progressive Reform Blog, 1/13/15]
Voted For Reducing Transparency Of Firms That Offer Stock Options
Voted For Reducing Transparency Requirements For Firms That Offer Stock Options. In February
2016, Coffman voted for a bill that “would reduce the disclosure burden on firms that offer stock options
to their employees.” The bill passed 265 to 159. [HR 1675, Vote #61, 2/03/16; Business Wire, 2/04/16]
Voted Against Excluding Individuals Convicted Of Securities-Related Crimes From Reduced
Disclosure Over Employee Stock Options
Voted Against Excluding Individuals Convicted Of Securities-Related Crimes From Reduced
Disclosure Over Employee Stock Options. In February 2016, Coffman voted against a motion that
would have, “prohibit[ed] individuals convicted of felonies or misdemeanors involving securities from
making use of the exemptions or other authorities that would be provided under the bill.” The underlying
bill, “would reduce the disclosure burden on firms that offer stock options to their employees.” The
motion failed 184 to 241. [HR 1675, Vote #60, 2/03/16; CQ Floor Votes, 2/03/16; Business Wire,
2/04/16]
Voted Against Amendment Narrowing The Exemption From XBRL Reporting Requirements To
Businesses With Total Gross Revenues Of Less Than $1 Billion.
Voted Against Amendment Narrowing The Exemption From XBRL Reporting Requirements To
Only “Emerging Growth Companies.” In February 2016, Coffman voted against an amendment
“narrow[ed] the underlying bill’s exemption from XBLR requirements to only ‘Emerging Growth
Companies’ and only for a period of three years, while permitting such companies to elect to use XBLR
for such reporting.” The amendment failed 173 to 248. [HR 1675, Vote #59, 2/03/16; Daily Whip,
2/03/16; CQ Floor Votes, 2/03/16]
XBRL Is A Financial Reporting Language Provides Faster And More Efficient Reporting For
Compliance, Performance, And Business Reports. “In a nutshell, XBRL provides a language in
which reporting terms can be authoritatively defined. Those terms can then be used to uniquely
represent the contents of financial statements or other kinds of compliance, performance and business
reports. XBRL lets reporting information move between organisations(sic) rapidly, accurately and
digitally.” [XBRL.org, accessed 3/09/16]
“Emerging Growth Companies” Are Companies With Gross Annual Revenues Less Than $1
Billion. “An ‘emerging growth company’ is defined in the Securities Act and the Exchange Act as an
issuer with “total annual gross revenues” of less than $1 billion during its most recently completed
fiscal year.” [Securities and Exchange Commission, 12/21/15]
Voted Against Limiting The Exemption From XBRL Reporting For Emerging Growth Companies
To Companies That Are First Required To File With The SEC After The Bill’s Enactment
381
Voted Against Limiting The Exemption From XBRL Reporting For Emerging Growth Companies
To Companies That Are First Required To File With The SEC After The Bill’s Enactment. In
February 2016, Coffman voted against an amendment that would “limit the exemption under the bill for
emerging growth companies and companies with annual revenues of less than $250 million from the
current requirement for companies to use eXtensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL), an
interactive data format, for filing financial statements with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Specifically, the amendment would limit the exemption to issuers that are first required to file financial
statements after the bill's enactment.” The amendment failed 194 to 221. [HR 1675, Vote #58, 2/03/16;
XBRL Is A Financial Reporting Language Provides Faster And More Efficient Reporting For
Compliance, Performance, And Business Reports. “In a nutshell, XBRL provides a language in
which reporting terms can be authoritatively defined. Those terms can then be used to uniquely
represent the contents of financial statements or other kinds of compliance, performance and business
reports. XBRL lets reporting information move between organisations(sic) rapidly, accurately and
digitally.” [XBRL.org, accessed 3/09/16]
Voted Against Amendment Directing Securities And Exchange Commission (SEC) To Study
Prevalence Of Employee Ownership Plans In Companies That Include Social Benefit
Voted Against Amendment Directing Securities And Exchange Commission (SEC) To Study
Prevalence Of Employee Ownership Plans In Companies That Include Social Benefit. In February
2016, Coffman voted against an amendment that would have “direct[ed] the Securities and Exchange
Commission to study and report to Congress on the prevalence of employee ownership plans within
companies that include a flexible or social benefit component in their articles of incorporation, as
permitted by relevant state laws.” The amendment failed 180 to 243. [HR 1675, Vote #57, 2/03/16; CQ
Voted For Preventing Bank Regulators From “Requesting Or Ordering Banks” To Close Customer
Accounts Involved In Ongoing Law Enforcement Investigations.
Voted For Preventing Bank Regulators From “Requesting Or Ordering Banks” To Close Customer
Accounts Involved In Ongoing Law Enforcement Investigations. In February 2016, Coffman voted for
a bill to “limit regulators’ ability to request shutting off bank accounts associated with businesses
suspected of fraud. Passed largely along party lines by a vote of 250-169, the bill would prevent banking
regulators from requesting or ordering banks to close specific customer accounts unless the reason isn’t
based solely on reputation.” The bill passed 250 to 169. [H. 766, Vote #63; The Hill, 2/04/16]
Voted Against Motion Ensuring Financial Institutions Haven’t Broken The Law By Taking
Advantage Of Service Members Or Abusing Mortgage Market
Voted Against Motion Ensuring Financial Institutions Haven’t Broken The Law By Taking
Advantage Of Service Members Or Abusing Mortgage Market. In February 2016, Coffman voted
against a motion that would have prevented the Financial Institution Customer Protection Act of 2016
from taking effect until it had been certified that financial institutions covered by bill haven’t broken the
382
law, taken advantage of service members or perpetrated abuses in the mortgage market during the
previous five years. The motion failed, 177 to 240. [H.R. 766, Vote #62; Congressional Record, 2/04/16]
Voted To Set New Standard On Deciding “Whether Certain Lawsuits Are Heard In Federal
Instead Of State Court”
Voted For To Set New Standard On Deciding “Whether Certain Lawsuits Are Heard In Federal
Instead Of State Court.” In February 2016, Coffman voted for ‘The Fraudulent Joinder Prevention Act’,
which “would set a new, national standard for deciding whether certain lawsuits are heard in federal
instead of state court because an in-state co-defendant should not have been joined to the case. The bill
would require district courts to deny motions to send a lawsuit back to state court because a defendant is
from the same state as a plaintiff if: there was fraud in the pleading of jurisdictional facts in relation to the
co-defendant joined to the lawsuit, it is not plausible that state law would impose liability against the codefendant, state or federal law bars claims against the co-defendant, or if there is no good faith intention
to seek a judgment against the co-defendant.” The bill passed, 229 to 189. [HR 3624, Vote #89, 02/24/16;
CQ, 2/25/16]
Legislation Would “Make It More Difficult For Americans To Enforce Their Rights In State
Courts.” On February 23, 2016, the Center for Justice and Democracy sent a group letter to
Speaker Ryan and Leader Pelosi opposing ‘The Fraudulent Joinder Prevention Act.’ “The House
will soon be voting on H.R. 3624, the ‘Fraudulent Joinder Prevention Act.’ “This bill would upend
long established law in the area of federal court jurisdiction, place unreasonable burdens on the
federal judiciary, and make it more difficult for Americans to enforce their rights in state courts.
… H.R. 3624 would undermine this fundamental precept and force state cases into federal court
when they don’t belong there. The bill would do this by transforming the centuries-old concept
called ‘fraudulent joinder,’ which is a way to defeat complete diversity i.e., when non-diverse
defendants are in case.” [Center for Justice and Democracy, 2/23/16]
Voted Against Motion Exempting Cases Where Plaintiff “Seeks Relief In Connection With The
Sexual Abuse And Exploitation Of A Minor” From Lawsuit Reform Bill
Voted Against Motion Exempting Cases Where Plaintiff “Seeks Relief In Connection With The
Sexual Abuse And Exploitation Of A Minor” From Lawsuit Reform Bill. In February 2016, Coffman
voted against “motion to recommit the ‘Fraudulent Joinder Prevention Act’ to the Judiciary Committee
with instructions to report it back immediately with an amendment that would exempt from the bill cases
in which the plaintiff seeks relief in connection with the sexual abuse and exploitation of a minor.” The
motion failed, 180 to 239. [HR 3624, Vote #88, 02/24/16; CQ, 2/25/16]
Voted Against Amendment Exempting Cases In Which Plaintiffs Seek Compensation Because Of
Bad Faith Of Insurer
Voted Against Amendment Exempting Cases In Which Plaintiffs Seek Compensation Because Of
Bad Faith Of Insurer. In February 2016, Coffman voted against an amendment “that would exempt
cases in which plaintiffs seek compensation because of the bad faith of an insurer” from Fraudulent
Joinder Prevention Act. The amendment failed, 178 to 237. [HR 3624, Vote #87, 02/24/16; CQ Floor
Vote 87, 2/25/16; CQ Floor Votes 89, 2/25/16]
383
Voted Against Amendment To Fairness In Class Action Litigation Act To Protect Privacy Of
Asbestos Exposure Victims.
Voted Against Amendment To Fairness In Class Action Litigation Act To Protect Privacy Of
Asbestos Exposure Victims. In January 2016, Coffman Voted Against an amendment to the Fairness in
Class Action Litigation Act that that would “require asbestos trusts to provide a report available to the
public regarding demands received and payments made, and would repeal the requirement that the report
contain the personal information of people paid by the trust.” The amendment was rejected in Committee
of the Whole by a vote of 179-222. [H R 1927, Vote #31, 1/08/16; CQ Floor Votes, 1/08/16]
Voted Against Amendment To The Fairness In Class Action Litigation Act To Allow Plaintiffs
Access To Information Held In Trusts.
Voted Against Amendment To The Fairness In Class Action Litigation Act To Allow Plaintiffs
Access To Information Held In Trusts. In January 2016, Coffman Voted Against an amendment to the
Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act that would “allow litigants in a pending class action suit to access
information held in a trust that is directly related to a plaintiff's claim for asbestos exposure.” The
amendment was rejected in Committee of the Whole by a vote of 174-228. [H R 1927, Vote #30, 1/08/16;
Voted Against Amendment To Remove Anti-Consumer Rights Provisions From Bill Tightening
Class Action Lawsuit Requirements.
Voted Against Amendment To Remove Anti-Consumer Rights Provisions From Bill Tightening
Class Action Lawsuit Requirements. In January 2016, Coffman Voted Against an amendment to the
Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act. The original bill would “eliminate most consumer class actions
by forcing consumers to prove that they’ve each suffered the exact same type and scope of injury from a
company in order for their case to be certified—and move forward as a group—in court.” The amendment
would eliminate the same "scope" of injury clause from the bill. The amendment was rejected in
Committee of the Whole by a vote of 177-223. [H R 1927, Vote #29, 1/08/16; CQ Floor Votes, 1/08/16;
The Hill, 10/07/15]
Voted Against Amendment Exempting Lawsuits Involving Fraudulent College And Universities
Claims From Bill Tightening Class Action Lawsuit Requirements.
Voted Against Amendment Exempting Lawsuits Involving Fraudulent College And Universities
From Bill Tightening Class Action Lawsuit Requirements. In January 2016, Coffman voted against an
amendment to the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act that would “exempt claims against institutions
under Title IV of the Higher Education Act, education loan institutions as defined by section 221 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or educational institutions as defined by chapter 33 of Title 38 United
States Code.” The amendment was rejected in Committee of the Whole by a vote of 177-223. [H R 1927,
384
Voted Against Amendment Exempting Equal Pay Lawsuits From Bill Tightening Class Action
Lawsuit Requirements.
Voted Against Amendment Exempting Equal Pay Lawsuits From Bill Tightening Class Action
Lawsuit Requirements. In January 2016, Coffman Voted Against an amendment to the Fairness in
Class Action Litigation Act that would “exempt a pay equity claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
or the Fair Labor Standards (Equal Pay) Act.” The amendment was rejected in Committee of the
Whole by a vote of 177-224. [H R 1927, Vote #27, 1/08/16; CQ Floor Votes, 1/08/16]
Voted Against Exempting Housing Discrimination Lawsuits From Bill Tightening Class Action
Lawsuit Requirements.
Voted Against Exempting Housing Discrimination Lawsuits From Bill Tightening Class Action
Lawsuit Requirements. In January 2016, Coffman Voted Against an amendment to the Fairness in Class
Action Litigation Act that would “exempt claims under the Fair Housing Act or the Equal Credit
Opportunity Act.” The amendment was rejected in Committee of the Whole by a vote of 172-229. [H R
Voted Against Exempting Product Safety Regulations Intended To Protect Children Under Two
From Congressional Approval On Major Rules Changes
Voted Against Exempting Product Safety Regulations Intended To Protect Children Under Two
From Congressional Approval On Major Rules Changes. In July 2015, Coffman voted against an
amendment that “would exempt rules pertaining to the safety of any product designed for children under
two from the Congressional approval process outlined in the bill.” The amendment failed, 167-243. [HR
427, Vote #478; CQ Floor Votes, 7/28/15]
Voted For Bill To Stifle Government’s Ability To Enact Rules To Protect Americans
Voted For Bill To Stifle Government’s Ability To Enact Rules To Protect Americans. In July 2015,
Coffman voted for the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act, “a bid to roll
back the executive branch's rulemaking authority … Democrats fear the legislation would pave the way
for Republicans to block what they believe to be much-needed public health and environmental
protections. Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) said the REINS Act is a ‘gift to the economic elites’ that would
‘stop all future regulations.’” The bill passed 243 to 165. [HR 427, Vote #482, 7/28/15; The Hill, 7/28/15]
Voted Against An Amendment To Exempt FDA Consumer Safety Rules From The SCRUB Act
385
Voted Against An Amendment To Exempt FDA Consumer Safety Rules From The SCRUB Act. In
January 2016, Coffman voted against an amendment to the Searching for and Cutting Regulations that are
Unnecessarily Burdensome (SCRUB) Act that would “exempt rules issued by the Food and Drug
Administration concerning consumer safety.” The amendment was rejected 173-245. [HR 1155, Vote
#18, 1/07/16; CQ Floor Votes, 2/02/16]
Voted Against An Amendment To Exempt Rules Issued In Response To Emergencies From The
SCRUB Act
Voted Against An Amendment To Exempt Rules Issued In Response To Emergencies From The
SCRUB Act. In January 2016, Coffman voted against an amendment to the Searching for and Cutting
Regulations that are Unnecessarily Burdensome (SCRUB) Act that would “exempt rules issued in
response to an emergency.” The amendment was rejected 176-239. [HR 1155, Vote #16, 1/07/16; CQ
Voted Against Exempting Safety Regulations For Nuclear Reactors From Congressional Approval
On Major Rule Changes
Voted Against Exempting Safety Regulations For Nuclear Reactors From Congressional Approval
On Major Rule Changes. In July 2015, Coffman voted against an amendment that “would exempt any
rule relating to nuclear reactor safety standards from the Congressional approval process outlined in the
bill.” The amendment failed, 167-241. [HR 427, Vote #479; CQ Floor Votes, 7/28/15]
Voted Against Protecting Public Health And Safety Regulations From Significant Delays
Voted Against Protecting Public Health And Safety Regulations From Significant Delays. In January
2015, Coffman voted against an amendment exempting public health and safety regulations from the
bill’s burdensome requirements on creating new rules. “The House has rejected an amendment sponsored
by Rep. Gerald E. Connolly, D-Va., to the Regulatory Accountability Act (H.R. 185) … Connolly said the
exemption was needed to ensure that regulations needed to protect food and drug safety and air and water
quality can move forward promptly.” The amendment failed 242 to 177. [HR 185, Amendment No. 4,
Vote #26, 1/13/14; Albany Herald, 1/16/15]
Voted Against Exempting FDA Consumer Protections From Greater Regulatory Review And Legal
Challenges
Voted Against Exempting FDA Consumer Protections From Greater Regulatory Review And Legal
Challenges. In February 2015, Coffman voted against Jackson Lee of Texas Part A Amendment No. 6, an
386
amendment to the Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2015 that “sought to
exempt from the bill all regulations issued by the Food and Drug Administration relating to consumer
safety, including those issued pursuant to the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act.” HR 527 was a bill
under which “the SBA would have new authority to ensure agencies comply with the law's regulatory
review requirements, including by getting more directly involved with agency reviews of proposed rules.
It would expand the ability of small businesses and other small entities affected by an agency's regulations
to legally challenge those rules.” The amendment failed 184 to 234. [HR 527, Vote #66, 2/05/15;
Thomas.loc.gov, 2/05/15; CQ News HR 527 Coverage, 2/05/15]
Voted Against Protecting Government’s Authority to Issue Recalls of Contaminated Foods
In 2011, Coffman voted against protecting the government’s authority to issue mandatory recalls of
suspected contaminated foods.
The amendment would have stipulated that nothing in the bill would have hindered the Food and Drug
Administration’s authority to issue mandatory recalls of suspected contaminated foods. [CQ Floor Votes,
12/01/11]
Voted Against Banning Airlines from

Brian Walsworth

Transcription

Similar documents

2016JRRocks Camp

w hile you have been busy taking care of your family

10% All Year Round Guaranteed Discount for All

Speaker Brochure - Ontario Landowners Association

Cable Dahmer Chevrolet

Coffman Oil - Citizen Tribune

2016 Park Brochure

award-Winning Family Fun!

Northrop Auditorium/East River Road Garage Directions and Map