Congressional Votes

House Resolution 1037 would find two advisors to President Donald Trump — Peter Navarro, who served as White House director of trade and manufacturing policy, and Daniel Scavino, Jr., who served as White House deputy chief of staff — in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with subpoenas issued by the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol. The resolution would also direct the speaker of the House to “take all other appropriate action to enforce the subpoenas.” The House passed H. Res. 1037 on April 6, 2022 by a vote of 220 to 203 (Roll Call 118). We have assigned pluses to the nays because honoring the subpoenas would undermine the constitutional separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of government. President Trump had invoked executive privilege, and as Navarro pointed out, “it is not my privilege to waive” it. The January 6 committee is not a court of law; it is a kangaroo court. In fact, it was rigged from the beginning, when Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) took the unprecedented action of nixing two of Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s (R-Calif.) choices for the committee — Representatives Jim Banks (R-Ind.) and Jim Jordan (R-Ohio). Pelosi instead put on the so-called bipartisan committee RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) Liz Cheney (Wy.) and Adam Kinzinger (Ill.).

House Resolution 503 established the “Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol.” The committee has issued subpoenas targeting conservative lawmakers and allies of former President Trump, including Representative Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, among others. In an interview with Breitbart News, Jordan described the committee as “the weaponization of government,” adding, “It’s all designed to go after President Trump.”

The House passed H.R. 503 on June 30, 2021 by a vote of 222 to 190 (Roll Call 197). On December 8, 2021, Meadows filed a lawsuit against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and all nine members of the January 6 Committee. The lawsuit, which describes the committee’s actions as “unconstitutional,” rightfully points out, “To the extent Congress seeks to utilize subpoenas to investigate and punish perceived criminal wrongdoing, it unconstitutionally intrudes on the prerogatives of the Executive Branch.” Furthermore, the January 6 Committee is part of a growing trend toward tyranny and political persecution. For these reasons we have assigned pluses to the nays.

S. 475 designates “Juneteenth National Independence Day as a legal public holiday.” Juneteenth commemorates June 19, 1865, the day when Major General Gordon Granger led Union troops into Galveston, Texas, and read General Order Number Three, declaring, “in accordance with a Proclamation from the Executive of the United States, all slaves are free.” He was referring to the Emancipation Proclamation, issued by President Abraham Lincoln on January 1, 1863, which applied only to “persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State” that was in “rebellion against the United States.” However, slavery was not legally abolished until the ratification of the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution on December 6, 1865.

The House passed S. 475 on June 16, 2021 by a vote of 415 to 14 (Roll Call 170). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the United States already observes 10 other federal holidays. Furthermore, seeing as slavery ended on December 6, not June 19, the inclusion of the words “National Independence Day” to Juneteenth creates the appearance of supplanting July 4 as America’s Independence Day. This perpetuates a false and dangerous notion that the United States has different days of independence depending on one’s race or ancestry, and is consistent with the communist tactic of “dividing the people” along racial lines.

H.R. 51, the Washington, D.C. Admission Act, would admit most of the District of Columbia as the 51st state, rename it “Washington, Douglass Commonwealth,” and give it full representation in Congress, with two U.S. senators and one U.S. representative. Under the bill, the area of Washington, D.C., surrounding the National Mall and including the White House and U.S. Capitol would remain a separate federal district with three electoral votes in accordance with the 23rd Amendment.

The House passed H.R. 51 on April 22, 2021 by a vote of 216 to 208 (Roll Call 132). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the push for D.C. statehood is merely a politically motivated effort to gain two Democratic Party senators and thus more easily advance a left-wing agenda. Moreover, granting statehood to the District of Columbia violates Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. H.R. 51 purports to circumvent this constitutional prohibition by reducing D.C. to basically the Capitol and surrounding governmental buildings.

The House adopted the article of impeachment (“Incitement of Insurrection”) against President Donald Trump on January 13, 2021. The article, contained in House Resolution 24, was then sent to the Senate to decide whether or not to convict Trump and remove him from office. The article alleges that Trump engaged in “high Crimes and Misdemeanors by inciting violence against the Government of the United States.” He did so, the article claims, by repeatedly issuing “false statements asserting that the Presidential election results were the product of widespread fraud and should not be accepted by the American people or certified by State or Federal officials”; by reiterating the claim that “we won the election” at his January 6, 2021, Washington, D.C., rally; and by saying in his January 6 speech, “if you don’t fight like hell you’re not going to have a country anymore.”

The Senate acquitted Trump on February 13, 2021 by a vote of 57 to 43 (Roll Call 59; a two-thirds majority of those present and voting is required to convict). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the Senate may not constitutionally convict a private citizen, which is what Trump was at the time of this vote, and also because he had not committed any crime — much less “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (the constitutional standard for impeachment) — by exercising his right to free speech regarding the election results and political activism. Also, to interpret his “fight like hell” remark as a call to violence is ludicrous. In the same speech, Trump stated, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

During the impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump (House Resolution 24), Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) made a constitutional point of order that the “proceeding, which would try a private citizen and not a president, a vice president or civil officer, violates the Constitution.”

The Senate tabled (killed) Paul’s point of order on January 26, 2021 by a vote of 55 to 45 (Roll Call 8). We have assigned pluses to the nays because Paul’s point is constitutionally unassailable. The Constitution states, “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Yet as of January 20, when Joe Biden was sworn in as president, Trump was a private citizen to whom the impeachment power does not apply.

The article of impeachment (“Incitement of Insurrection”), contained in House Resolution 24, would impeach President Donald Trump for engaging in “high Crimes and Misdemeanors by inciting violence against the Government of the United States.” The article alleges Trump incited violence and insurrection by repeatedly issuing “false statements asserting that the Presidential election results were the product of widespread fraud and should not be accepted by the American people or certified by State or Federal officials”; by reiterating the claim that “we won the election” at his January 6, 2021, Washington, D.C., rally; and by saying in his January 6 speech, “if you don’t fight like hell you’re not going to have a country anymore.”

The House adopted the article of impeachment on January 13, 2021 by a vote of 232 to 197 (Roll Call 17). We have assigned pluses to the nays because President Trump had not committed any crime — much less “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (the constitutional standard for impeachment) — by exercising his right to free speech regarding the election results and political activism. Also, to interpret his “fight like hell” remark as a call to violence is ludicrous. In the same speech, Trump stated, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

This bill (H.R. 6784) would direct the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to issue a rule removing the gray wolf from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife, thus removing federal protections for the species in the 48 contiguous United States. It would also direct the Interior Department to reissue a 2011 rule delisting gray wolves in the Western Great Lakes region of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan, and would exempt both rules, and another rule delisting the species in Wyoming, from judicial review.

The House passed H.R. 6784 on November 16, 2018 by a vote of 196 to 180 (Roll Call 420). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because decisions regarding human interaction with various animal species, if handled by government at all, should be handled at the state and local levels. The U.S. Constitution does not give the federal government the authority to declare animals endangered and thus off-limits to hunt or otherwise manage. The growing gray wolf population has been a menace to farmers and ranchers in many states, and farmers are not allowed to protect their own property owing to federal regulations. Working to overturn such regulations is a good thing.

This bill (S. 1182) would extend the authorization of the National Flood Insurance Program through November 30, 2018.

The House passed S. 1182 on July 25, 2018 by a vote of 366 to 52 (Roll Call 373). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the Constitution does not give the federal government authority to get into the insurance business. Having the federal government as an insurer essentially subsidizes risky behavior, such as building in flood-, fire-, and earthquake-prone areas, and forces the taxpayer to pick up the tab. Insurance policies for natural disasters should be offered by private insurers, with the market setting the rates for such coverage.

This bill (H.R. 2) would reauthorize and extend federal farm and nutrition programs through fiscal 2023, including crop subsidies, conservation, rural development and agricultural trade programs, and the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (aka food stamps). The Congressional Budget Office estimates that direct spending on agricultural and nutrition programs under this bill would total $867 billion over 10 years. And according to an article in The Hill entitled “Once again, the farm bill is stuffed with food stamps” (May 14, 2018), “roughly 80 percent of the [Farm] bill’s annual budget is earmarked for food stamps.” This bill would also reauthorize a whole variety of other agricultural and nutritional programs, as well as allow industrial hemp to be grown in the United States, subject to strict state regulation.

The Senate passed H.R. 2 on June 28, 2018 by a vote of 86 to 11 (Roll Call 143). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to subsidize food or agriculture. Moreover, food subsidies have done little to lift people out of poverty, and farm subsidies have caused market distortions as the government essentially picks winners and losers in the food production industry.

During consideration of the farm bill (H.R. 2), Representative Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) introduced an amendment to prohibit federal interference in the interstate transportation of unpasteurized milk and milk products between states that allow for the distribution of such products for direct human consumption.

The House rejected Massie’s amendment on May 18, 2018 by a vote of 79 to 331 (Roll Call 201). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the U.S. Constitution does not give the federal government any authority over what foods a person chooses to consume. In other words, it is illegal for the federal government to make raw milk illegal. While the federal government does have authority to “regulate Commerce … among the several States,” there is no reason for federal interference in a scenario such as this, where a product is legally sold in each of the states in question. Massie’s amendment would have limited federal overreach and should have been supported.

This bill (Senate Joint Resolution 52) would nullify and disapprove of the new Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rule that seeks to deregulate the Internet. In 2015, as a result of fears that providers would “throttle” customers’ Internet connections and charge higher rates for certain times and/or services, the Obama-era FCC imposed common-carrier mandates on broadband Internet service providers, essentially regulating the Internet as a public utility. The Trump FCC under Chairman Ajit Pai overturned this rule, allowing the Internet to be more or less unregulated as it had been before the rule.

The Senate passed Senate Joint Resolution 52 on May 16, 2018 by a vote of 52 to 47 (Roll Call 97). We have assigned pluses to the nays because regulation of the Internet is not a proper function of the federal government under the Constitution. The new FCC rule under Commissioner Pai was more of a hands-off approach to the Internet, allowing service providers to set their own rules. This is the correct approach, as any provider “throttling” service or overcharging customers will lose business to more competitive providers in a free market setting. Government, in scenarios such as these, will nearly always cause more problems than it claims to attempt to solve. Case in point: Regulations are not always applied equally, as under the Obama FCC rule some sites were forced to “play fair,” while some of the big guys, such as Netflix and Google, could still set their own rules.

This bill (H.R. 2266) would make available $36.5 billion in emergency supplemental funding for fiscal 2018 to partially cover the costs of responding to multiple natural disasters, including hurricanes and wildfires. It would include $18.7 billion for the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Disaster Relief Fund and would cancel $16 billion of the Treasury debt incurred by FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program.

The Senate agreed to pass H.R. 2266 on October 24, 2017 by a vote of 82 to 17 (Roll Call 248). We have assigned pluses to the nays because federal involvement in natural disaster relief is not only unconstitutional, but also wasteful, inefficient, ineffective, and often harmful, as The New American has pointed out numerous times. Federal intervention into natural disaster recovery efforts typically makes matters worse for those who are afflicted by the disaster, as federal bureaucrats are often ill-informed of the needs of those affected and attempt to take control of relief efforts away from state and local organizations that better understand the situation. Disaster relief is much better handled by states, counties, and local communities, coupled with volunteer efforts from across the country. As it stands now, most disaster relief work is already done by private entities.

This bill (H.R. 2844) would require special elections to be held within 45 days to fill vacant House seats in the extraordinary circumstance of more than 100 vacancies. This requirement would be waived if the vacancies occur within 75 days of an already-scheduled general election.

This bill is a good example of Congress using its legitimate power under the Constitution to solve a problem rather than proposing a potentially dangerous constitutional amendment. A year ago the Continuity of Government Commission (CGC) recommended that governors appoint House members (perhaps from a list of candidates provided by individual congressmen) in the event a substantial number of congressmen are killed or incapacitated, presumably in a terrorist attack.

However, H.R. 2844 would solve the problem of the loss of a large number of congressmen through the already-existing congressional power to determine "the times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives" (Article I, Section 4). And it would do so through special elections rather than appointment.

The House passed H.R. 2844 on April 22, 2004 by a vote of 306 to 97 (Roll Call 130). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because this bill utilizes an already-existing congressional power to address a bona-fide concern and preempts a dangerous alternative proposal for a large number of vacant House seats being filled by appointment.

This amendment to S. 1753 (National Consumer Credit Reporting System Improvement Act of 2003) would require each federal agency or department engaged in data mining to submit a public report to Congress. Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) introduced this amendment because of his concerns about Total Information Awareness-type programs being developed at various federal agencies. His amendment would require the reports to Congress to assess "the likely impact of the implementation of the data-mining technology on privacy and civil liberties..."

The Senate agreed to a motion to table (kill) this amendment to S. 1753 on November 4, 2003 by a vote of 61 to 32 (Roll Call 435). We have assigned pluses to the "nays" -- that is, those who opposed killing the amendment -- because federal data mining activity is clearly a threat to the Fourth Amendment, which guarantees "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures."