Juan VargasRepresentativeCaliforniaDistrict 52ndDemocratContact:Website: vargas.house.gov
Phone: (202) 225-8045
|
Constitutional Votes
|
Juan Vargas
Representative
CaliforniaDistrict 52nd
Democrat
Status: Active Legislator
Contact:
Constitutional Votes
Score | Congress |
---|---|
16% | Lifetime |
7% | 118th (2023-2024) 118th (2023-2024) |
3% | 117th (2021-2022) 117th (2021-2022) |
22% | 116th (2019-2020) 116th (2019-2020) |
23% | 115th (2017-2018) 115th (2017-2018) |
13% | 114th (2015-2016) 114th (2015-2016) |
28% | 113th (2013-2014) 113th (2013-2014) |
Voting History
116th (2019-2020)
Legislation | Vote Date | Good Vote | Vote |
---|---|---|---|
H.R. 6395 | 12/28/2020 | Good: No | Yes |
NDAA (Veto Override)
We oppose. The act includes spending not only for legitimate national defense, but also for military interventionism in foreign lands that does not make America safer. Also, the legislation undercuts the president’s legitimate authority as commander-in-chief by restricting his ability to withdraw troops from Afghanistan, Germany, and South Korea.
Read More
The National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal 2021 (H.R. 6395) authorizes $740 billion in military spending. When President Donald Trump vetoed the NDAA on December 23, 2020, he stated in his veto message that “my administration recognizes the importance of the Act to our national security.” But, he also said, “Numerous provisions in the Act particularly contradict my Administration’s foreign policy, particularly my efforts to bring the troops home. I oppose endless wars, as does the American public.” He also cited other reasons for vetoing the NDAA, including Congress’ failure to end Section 230, which protects the social-media giants from liability for content posted on their sites, allowing them to create leftist monopolies. The House overrode President Trump’s veto of the NDAA on December 28, 2020 by a vote of 322 to 87 (Roll Call 253). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the act includes spending not only for legitimate national defense, but also for military interventionism in foreign lands that does not make America safer. Also, the legislation undercuts the president’s legitimate authority as commander-in-chief by restricting his ability to withdraw troops from Afghanistan, Germany, and South Korea. View vote details at congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/6395 |
|||
H.R. 133 | 12/21/2020 | Good: No | Yes |
Appropriations/Coronavirus (Part 2)
We oppose. Congress is failing to address its fiscally and constitutionally irresponsible budgeting and appropriating process that yielded an annual federal deficit of $3.1 trillion in fiscal 2020. Congress is minimizing its accountability to voters by combining all “discretionary” federal spending and coronavirus aid into one gigantic bill and only holding two votes on that bill in the House. Moreover, most of the coronavirus aid provisions, including direct checks, federal unemployment benefits, and subsidization of the economy, exceed the federal government’s authority.
Read More
H.R. 133, the 2021 Consolidated Appropriations Act, was split in two parts by the House of Representatives under a voting procedure known as “dividing the question.” This part of the bill includes about $519 billion in discretionary appropriations and another $900 billion in coronavirus aid. Its discretionary provisions include a combined $197 billion for the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education departments; $114 billion in mandatory Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program funding; and $590 million in aid to developing countries. The coronavirus aid provisions include $600 checks per adult or dependent child, $300 per week in federal unemployment benefits through March 14, 2021, $325 billion in loans and grants to small businesses, $81.9 billion in Education Department grants, $25 billion in rental assistance, and $13 billion in agricultural assistance. The House passed this part of H.R. 133 on December 21, 2020 by a vote of 359 to 53 (Roll Call 251). We have assigned pluses to the nays because Congress is failing to address its fiscally and constitutionally irresponsible budgeting and appropriating process that yielded an annual federal deficit of $3.1 trillion in fiscal 2020. Congress is minimizing its accountability to voters by combining all “discretionary” federal spending and coronavirus aid into one gigantic bill and only holding two votes on that bill in the House. Moreover, most of the coronavirus aid provisions, including direct checks, federal unemployment benefits, and subsidization of the economy, exceed the federal government’s authority. View vote details at congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/133 |
|||
H.R. 133 | 12/21/2020 | Good: No | No |
Appropriations/Coronavirus (Part 1)
We oppose. Congress is failing to address its profligate spending that yielded an annual federal deficit of $3.1 trillion in fiscal 2020. Moreover, Congress is minimizing its accountability to voters by combining all “discretionary” federal spending and coronavirus aid into one gigantic bill and only holding two votes on that bill in the House.
Read More
H.R. 133, the 2021 Consolidated Appropriations Act, was split in two parts by the House of Representatives under a voting procedure known as “dividing the question.” This part of the bill includes $860 billion in “discretionary” appropriations, including $696 billion for the Defense Department (which includes spending for foreign military interventionism as well as legitimate national defense) and $69 billion for the Homeland Security Department. The House passed this part of H.R. 133 on December 21, 2020 by a vote of 327 to 85 (Roll Call 250). We have assigned pluses to the nays because Congress is failing to address its profligate spending that yielded an annual federal deficit of $3.1 trillion in fiscal 2020. Moreover, Congress is minimizing its accountability to voters by combining all “discretionary” federal spending and coronavirus aid into one gigantic bill and only holding two votes on that bill in the House. View vote details at congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/133 |
|||
H.R. 4447 | 09/24/2020 | Good: No | Yes |
Sustainable Energy
We oppose. The bill advances a radical environmentalist agenda and increases federal government meddling in the energy market. Under the Constitution’s Interstate Commerce Clause, the federal government is empowered “to regulate Commerce … among the several States” only to prevent the restriction of the free flow of goods among the states. Moreover, H.R. 4447 infringes on U.S. sovereignty and will cause energy costs to skyrocket.
Read More
H.R. 4447, called the Clean Economy Jobs and Innovation Act, is a 1,206-page climate bill that would create a goal of reducing net greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2050, in line with recommendations by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The bill also creates and reauthorizes multiple grants favoring “clean” energy sources. And it includes multiple provisions requiring federal government cooperation and integration with international organizations and standards. The House passed H.R. 4447 on September 24, 2020 by a vote of 220 to 185 (Roll Call 206). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the bill advances a radical environmentalist agenda and increases federal government meddling in the energy market. Under the Constitution’s Interstate Commerce Clause, the federal government is empowered “to regulate Commerce … among the several States” only to prevent the restriction of the free flow of goods among the states. Moreover, H.R. 4447 infringes on U.S. sovereignty and will cause energy costs to skyrocket. View vote details at congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/4447 |
|||
H.R. 2694 | 09/17/2020 | Good: No | Yes |
Pregnant Workers
We oppose. Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to regulate private employers, and federal requirements for covered benefits usually mean decreased pay. This is a matter reserved for the states and the people under the 10th Amendment.
Read More
H.R. 2694, titled the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, would enact federal workplace regulations on employers with 15 or more employees, requiring them to make “reasonable accommodations” for employees whose workplace performance might be impacted by pregnancy or childbirth. The House passed H.R. 2694 on September 17, 2020 by a vote of 329 to 73 (Roll Call 195). We have assigned pluses to the nays because nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to regulate private employers, and federal requirements for covered benefits usually mean decreased pay. This is a matter reserved for the states and the people under the 10th Amendment. View vote details at congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/2694 |
|||
H.R. 7573 | 07/22/2020 | Good: No | Yes |
Removing Statues From the Capitol
We oppose. The statues that fill the National Statuary Hall are sent by the states at their discretion, and Congress should not be assuming the authority to tell the states which statues they are and are not allowed to place in the hall. This is plainly an attempt to erase American history.
Read More
H.R. 7573 provides for the removal of certain statues and busts from display in the Capitol. It demands that statues of members of the Confederacy be removed from the National Statuary Hall and prohibited from being displayed at the Capitol in the future. The statues in question will be returned to the states that sent them, at the states’ expense, if the states desire. The House passed H.R. 7573 on July 22, 2020 by a vote of 305 to 113 (Roll Call 156). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the statues that fill the National Statuary Hall are sent by the states at their discretion, and Congress should not be assuming the authority to tell the states which statues they are and are not allowed to place in the hall. This is plainly an attempt to erase American history. View vote details at congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/7573 |
|||
H.R. 1957 | 07/22/2020 | Good: No | Yes |
Public Lands
We oppose. This bill irresponsibly increases the federal deficit and diverts energy royalties from being spent for needed constitutional purposes. Additionally, the Constitution does not authorize Congress to purchase private property except “for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.” Moreover, the federal government already owns a huge percentage of land directly —about 28 percent of the nation — and is a demonstrably poor steward of public lands.
Read More
H.R. 1957, the Great American Outdoors Act, permanently funds the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) at $900 million annually. The LWCF was created in 1964 to purchase and develop land for “recreational” uses. The bill also creates the National Parks and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund (NPPLLRF), which is funded at $1.9 billion annually for five years. This funding comes from oil, gas, and other energy royalties on federal property, and the NPPLLRF allocates this funding to maintenance in national parks and other federal lands. The House passed H.R. 1957 on July 22, 2020 by a vote of 310 to 107 (Roll Call 155). We have assigned pluses to the nays not only because this bill irresponsibly increases the federal deficit and diverts energy royalties from being spent for needed constitutional purposes, but also because the Constitution does not authorize Congress to purchase private property except “for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.” Moreover, the federal government already owns a huge percentage of land directly —about 28 percent of the nation — and is a demonstrably poor steward of public lands. View vote details at congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1957 |
|||
H.R. 2 | 07/01/2020 | Good: No | Yes |
Federal Highway and Transit Programs
We oppose. The federal government should not be funding highways, addressing transportation-related “climate-change” issues, promoting motor-vehicle safety, or imposing a tax on driving in order to pay for highway construction and maintenance. Such projects should be left in the hands of state or municipal governments, where the Constitution intends such issues to be handled.
Read More
H.R. 2 authorizes funding for federal highway, transit, highway safety, motor carrier, research, hazardous materials, and rail programs of the Department of Transportation. It provides $46.4 billion in fiscal 2021 funding and provides up to $12.5 billion in funding through fiscal 2025 to reduce the “climate-change” impacts of the surface-transportation system. It also implements new transportation safety requirements and directs the Transportation Department to establish a pilot program for a national motor vehicle per-mile user fee to maintain the Highway Trust Fund. The House passed H.R. 2 on July 1, 2020 by a vote of 233 to 188 (Roll Call 138). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the federal government should not be funding highways, addressing transportation-related “climate-change” issues, promoting motor-vehicle safety, or imposing a tax on driving in order to pay for highway construction and maintenance. Such projects should be left in the hands of state or municipal governments, where the Constitution intends such issues to be handled. View vote details at congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/2 |
|||
H.R. 51 | 06/26/2020 | Good: No | Yes |
Washington, D.C., Statehood
We oppose. 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.
Read More
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 June 26, 2020 by a vote of 232 to 180 (Roll Call 122). 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. View vote details at congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/51 |
|||
H.R. 7120 | 06/25/2020 | Good: No | Yes |
Police
We oppose. Law enforcement is a local or state matter, and that is where decisions such as requiring police officers to wear body cameras should be made. By contrast, H.R. 7120 would move the country further in the direction of a federalized police force beholden to Washington.
Read More
H.R. 7120, titled “The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act,” would further interject the federal government in local law enforcement. As summarized by the Congressional Research Service, the bill “authorizes the Department of Justice to issue subpoenas in investigations of police departments for a pattern or practice of discrimination”; “establishes a framework to prohibit racial profiling at the federal, state, and local levels”; and “establishes new requirements for law enforcement officers and agencies, including … wear[ing] body cameras.” The House passed H.R. 7120 on June 25, 2020 by a vote of 236 to 181 (Roll Call 119). We have assigned pluses to the nays because law enforcement is a local or state matter, and that is where decisions such as requiring police officers to wear body cameras should be made. By contrast, H.R. 7120 would move the country further in the direction of a federalized police force beholden to Washington. View vote details at congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/7120 |
|||
H.R. 6800 | 05/15/2020 | Good: No | Yes |
The Heroes Act
It is unconstitutional for Congress to bail out the U.S. economy.
Read More
The Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions Act, or HEROES Act, (H.R. 6800) is another bloated unconstitutional coronavirus aid package, to the tune of $3.2 trillion — even more ambitious than the already swollen $2.2 trillion CARES Act (H.R. 748) passed by Congress. The HEROES Act would provide a second round of stimulus checks to qualifying individuals and families. It also includes about $1 trillion in aid for state and local governments to pay essential workers, such as first responders, healthcare workers, and teachers, who are at most at risk of losing their jobs due to state and local budgetary shortfalls. The House passed H.R. 6800 on May 15, 2020 along partisan lines by a vote of 208 to 199 (Roll Call 109). We have assigned pluses to the nays because there is no provision in the Constitution for Congress to bail out the economy. View vote details at congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/6800 |
|||
H.R. 266 | 04/23/2020 | Good: No | Yes |
Coronavirus
We oppose. Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to disburse loans to small businesses or cover the salaries of laid-off employees. It is not the responsibility of the federal government to bail out businesses or the unemployed.
Read More
The Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act (H.R. 266) was the fourth coronavirus aid package that Congress passed. It was primarily passed to replenish the funds of and give additional lending power to the Small Business Administration and its Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). The PPP was originally established by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or CARES Act, (H.R. 748), the third and massive $2.2 trillion coronavirus stimulus package previously passed by voice vote in the House. The House passed H.R. 266 on April 23, 2020 by a vote of 388 to 5 (Roll Call 104). We have assigned pluses to the nays because nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to disburse loans to small businesses or cover the salaries of laid-off employees. It should never be the responsibility of the federal government to bail out businesses or people forced out of business or work. View vote details at congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/266 |
|||
S.J.R. 68 | 03/11/2020 | Good: Yes | Yes |
War Powers
We support. According to the U.S. Constitution, only Congress may declare war. It is unfortunate that Congress has to pass a resolution enforcing this, but doing so puts a check on the war powers assumed by recent presidents.
Read More
The Iran War Powers Resolution (Senate Joint Resolution 68) would direct the president to terminate the use of U.S. armed forces for hostilities against Iran or any part of its government or military unless Congress has declared war or provided specific statutory authorization for the use of armed forces. It would clarify that nothing in the joint resolution may be construed to prevent the president from using military force to defend the United States against imminent attack. The House passed S. J. Res. 68 on March 11, 2020 by a vote of 227 to 186 (Roll Call 101). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because, according to the U.S. Constitution, only Congress has the authority to declare war. The fact that Congress has to pass a resolution enforcing this concept is unfortunate, but doing so puts a check on the war powers assumed by recent presidents and should be commended. View vote details at congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/68 |
|||
H.R. 6172 | 03/11/2020 | Good: No | Yes |
FISA
We oppose. While many of the proposed FISA modifications positive from a freedom and privacy standpoint, Congress should have instead voted to not reauthorize the FISA and let it expire. Despite the program’s title, the act permits surveillance of Americans who are not charged with any crime.
Read More
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (H.R. 6172) would modify and reauthorize through December 1, 2023 federal surveillance authorities under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and subsequent laws. The bill would limit a number of authorities under Section 215 of the Patriot Act, such as prohibiting the collection of information when an individual has a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” The House passed H.R. 6172 on March 11, 2020 by a vote of 278 to 136 (Roll Call 98). We have assigned pluses to the nays because, while many of the modifications to the FISA are positive from a freedom and privacy standpoint, Congress should have instead voted to not reauthorize the FISA and let it expire. Despite being labeled the “Foreign” Intelligence Surveillance Act, the act does permit surveillance of Americans who are not charged with any crime. View vote details at govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr6172 |
|||
H.J.R. 70 | 02/13/2020 | Good: No | Yes |
Equal Rights Amendment
We oppose. The time to ratify the ERA has long ended. Any further attempt to resurrect it to continue the ratification process is unconstitutional and inconsistent with the amendment ratification process as laid out in Article V of the Constitution.
Read More
This bill (House Joint Resolution 79) would retroactively remove the already-expired ratification deadline from the original 1972 Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) legislation (H. J. Res. 208 of the 92nd Congress). H.J. Res. 79 is a desperate attempt by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats to circumvent the legislative process and rule of law in order to provide yet another opportunity to ratify the pro-abortion and already-failed ERA. The House passed H. J. Res. 79 on February 13, 2020 by a vote of 232 to 183 (Roll Call 70). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the time to ratify the ERA as part of the Constitution has come and gone, and any further attempt to resurrect it in order to continue the ratification process is unconstitutional, being inconsistent with the amendment ratification process as laid out in Article V of the Constitution. View vote details at govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hjres79 |
|||
H.R. 5430 | 12/19/2019 | Good: No | Yes |
USMCA
We oppose. Congress is not authorized by the Constitution to surrender our national sovereignty to any transnational regional government, including the nascent North American Union.
Read More
The United States-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement (H.R. 5430) was negotiated between the three nations to be a replacement for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The USMCA continues the Deep State’s long-term project of creating a European Union-style, supranational government for North America, aka the North American Union. The USMCA creates a new Free Trade Commission that will play an executive role similar to the role played by the European Commission in developing the EU. The House passed the USMCA on December 19, 2019 by a vote of 385 to 41 (Roll Call 701). We have assigned pluses to the nays because Congress is not authorized by the Constitution to surrender our national sovereignty to any transnational regional government, such as the nascent North American Union. View vote details at govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr5430 |
|||
H.R. 755 | 12/18/2019 | Good: No | Yes |
Impeachment (Article II – Obstruction of Congress)
We oppose. The “obstruction of Congress” charge does not rise to the level of the “high crimes and misdemeanors” for which a president may be impeached and removed. There is uncontestable truth to the charge: Trump did direct the executive branch to ignore subpoenas issued by highly partisan, pro-impeachment House committees. What is contested is whether a president may constitutionally ignore such subpoenas. But that is an issue for the federal judiciary, not impeachment, to decide.
Read More
Article II of the impeachment resolution (House Resolution 755) accuses President Donald Trump of “obstruction of Congress.” According to Article II, Trump “directed the unprecedented, categorical, and indiscriminate defiance of subpoenas issued by the House of Representatives pursuant to its ‘sole Power of Impeachment.’” The House adopted Article II on December 18, 2019 by a vote of 229 to 198 (Roll Call 696). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the “obstruction of Congress” charge by no means rises to the level of the “high crimes and misdemeanors” for which a president may be impeached and removed from office. In fact, there is uncontestable truth to the charge: Trump did direct the executive branch to ignore subpoenas issued by highly partisan, pro-impeachment House committees. What is contested is whether a president may constitutionally ignore such subpoenas in the historic tug of war between the executive and legislative branches. But that is an issue for the federal judiciary, not impeachment, to decide. View vote details at govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hres755 |
|||
H.R. 755 | 12/18/2019 | Good: No | Yes |
Impeachment (Article I – Abuse of Power)
We oppose. In his actions on Ukraine, Trump did not commit “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors,” the constitutional requirement for impeaching and removing a president or other U.S. “civil officer.” The House presented no evidence of any “high crimes.” Trump was accused of withholding aid from Ukraine, but the aid was provided. Also, there is no crime in making a request to investigate Hunter Biden and Burisma, as was alleged.
Read More
Article I of the impeachment resolution (House Resolution 755) accuses President Donald Trump of “abuse of power” by soliciting the interference of a foreign power, Ukraine, in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. According to Article I, “He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that included soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations that would benefit his reelection, harm the election prospects of a political opponent [former Vice President Joe Biden], and influence the 2020 United States Presidential election to his advantage.” Article I also alleges that Trump conditioned the release of $391 million in aid to Ukraine on the Ukrainian government publicly announcing the investigations he requested. Trump’s actions, claims Article I, “compromised” U.S. national security. The House adopted Article I on December 18, 2019 by a vote of 230 to 197 (Roll Call 695). We have assigned pluses to the nays because, in his actions on Ukraine, Trump did not commit “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors,” the constitutional requirement that must be met for impeaching and removing from office a president (or other U.S. “civil officer”). On the contrary, the controversy over Trump’s actions on Ukraine amount to a tempest in a teapot. Where are the “high crimes”? The House did not present evidence of any. Trump is accused of withholding aid from Ukraine, but the aid was provided. He is also accused of requesting an investigation into Hunter Biden and the Ukrainian company Burisma, which paid Hunter $50,000 per month during a period when his father was vice president. But there is no crime in making such a request. View vote details at govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hres755 |
|||
H.R. 1158 | 12/17/2019 | Good: No | None |
Appropriations
We oppose. Many programs within this defense-related minibus are unconstitutional. This bill also is fiscally irresponsible, considering the $26 trillion national debt and projected $3.8 trillion budget deficit.
Read More
This bill (H.R. 1158) would provide $860.3 billion in discretionary spending for four of the 12 fiscal 2020 appropriations bills: $695.1 billion for the Defense Department; $68 billion for the Homeland Security Department; $73.2 billion for the Commerce and Justice Departments and science and related agencies; and $23.8 billion for the Treasury Department, Internal Revenue Service, and other agencies. Here are some highlights of some of the unconstitutional programs hidden within this super-sized appropriations bill: $70.7 billion in overseas contingency operations funding, primarily for the ongoing, undeclared war in Afghanistan and other counterterrorism operations; $22.3 billion for the unconstitutional Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); $17.4 billion in unconstitutional disaster relief funds; and $3.28 billion in unconstitutional federal funding for state and local law-enforcement activities. The House passed H.R. 1158 on December 17, 2019 by a vote of 280 to 138 (Roll Call 690). We have assigned pluses to the nays because many programs within this defense-related minibus are for unconstitutional purposes, and in light of a $26 trillion national debt and a $3.8 trillion budget deficit, this jumbo-sized appropriations bill is also fiscally irresponsible. View vote details at govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr1158 |
|||
H.R. 1865 | 12/17/2019 | Good: No | None |
Appropriations
We oppose. Most of the spending programs in this appropriations bill are unconstitutional. Also, congressional spending for fiscal 2020 is grossly fiscally irresponsible. In mid-2020, our national debt was about $26 trillion, and the federal budget deficit for 2020 was expected to be an astounding $3.8 trillion.
Read More
This bill (H.R. 1865) would provide approximately $540 billion in discretionary spending for eight of the 12 fiscal 2020 appropriations bills: $184.9 billion for Labor-HHS-Education; $23.5 billion for Agriculture; $48.3 billion for Energy-Water; $36 billion for Interior-Environment; $5 billion for Legislative Branch; $110.4 billion for Military Construction-VA; $54.7 billion for State-Foreign Operations; and $74.3 billion for Transportation-HUD. Hidden within the above largely boring tabulations of appropriations are a few high-profile, unconstitutional programs, such as $96 billion for domestic food programs (think “food stamps”); tens of billions of dollars for foreign aid, UN membership, and UN peacekeeping; and $23.9 billion for HUD’s Section 8 rental assistance voucher program. The House passed H.R. 1865 on December 17, 2019 by a vote of 297 to 120 (Roll Call 689). We have assigned pluses to the nays because most of the spending programs in this appropriations bill are unconstitutional, and on top of that congressional spending for fiscal 2020 is grossly fiscally irresponsible. Currently our national debt is about $26 trillion, and the federal budget deficit for 2020 is expected to be an astounding $3.8 trillion. View vote details at govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr1865 |
|||
H R 4378 | 09/19/2019 | Good: No | No |
Short-term Appropriations
We oppose. Congress is failing to address its fiscally- and constitutionally-irresponsible budgeting and appropriating process that is yielding annual federal deficits of about $1 trillion. This directly contributes to the national debt’s growth.
Read More
This bill (H.R. 4378) would provide funding for federal government operations and services through November 21, 2019, at fiscal 2019 levels. Passage of this bill, known as a continuing appropriations resolution, was necessary because the House Democrats had passed only 10 of the 12 major 2020 fiscal year appropriations bills so far, and the Senate had not even passed one of the 12, even though the 2020 fiscal year began on October 1, 2019. The House passed H.R. 4378 on September 19, 2019 by a vote of 301 to 123 (Roll Call 538). We have assigned pluses to the nays because with this continuing appropriations bill, Congress is failing to address its fiscally and constitutionally irresponsible budgeting and appropriating process that is currently yielding annual federal deficits of about $1 trillion that contribute directly to the dramatic growth of our $23 trillion national debt. View vote details at govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr4378 |
|||
H R 3877 | 07/25/2019 | Good: No | Yes |
Budget Deal
We oppose. Spending must be brought under control, and deficits must be eliminated to avoid fiscal disaster — not “down the road,” but now. Additionally, much of the bill’s spending is unconstitutional.
Read More
This two-year budget bill (H.R. 3877) would establish sufficiently high spending limits to allow the Washington spendathon to continue (and then some) through fiscal years 2020 and 2021. It would also suspend the national debt ceiling until July 31, 2021, in order to accommodate accumulating federal debt between now and then without having to vote to raise the debt limit. Congressional Quarterly (CQ) noted that the bill would “add $324 billion to spending limits over the next two years, not counting an extra $157 billion mainly for overseas military operations.” And although $77 billion of that would be offset, CQ further noted that the supposed cuts “don’t take effect until fiscal 2027.” Representative Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) was so outraged by the budget deal that he attempted (but failed) to change the bill’s title to read, “A bill to kick the can down the road, and for other purposes.” The House passed the budget deal on July 25, 2019 by a vote of 284 to 149 (Roll Call 511). We have assigned pluses to the nays not only because spending needs to be brought under control and deficits eliminated to avoid fiscal disaster — not “down the road,” but now — but also because much of the spending is unconstitutional. View vote details at govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr3877 |
|||
H R 2500 | 07/12/2019 | Good: Yes | Yes |
On Agreeing to the Amendment 33 to H R 2500
We support Representative Amash’s amendment. Indefinite detention without trial is a serious violation of the right to habeas corpus, the issuance of a warrant based on probable cause (Fourth Amendment), and the right to a “speedy and public” trial (Sixth Amendment).
Read More
Indefinite Military Detention. During consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA; H.R. 2500), Representative Justin Amash (R-Mich.) introduced an amendment to prohibit the indefinite military detention of any person (including American citizens) detained in the United States, its territories, or its possessions under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force or the NDAA. Instead, such persons would be immediately transferred from military detention for trial and afforded “all the due process as provided for under the Constitution.” The House rejected Amash’s amendment on July 12, 2019 by a vote of 187 to 236 (Roll Call 460). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because indefinite detention without trial is a serious violation of long-cherished legal protections, including the right to habeas corpus, the issuance of a warrant based on probable cause (Fourth Amendment), and the right to a “speedy and public” trial (Sixth Amendment). View vote details at opencongress.org/vote/2019/h/460 |
|||
H R 2157 | 06/03/2019 | Good: No | Yes |
Disaster Supplemental Appropriations
We oppose. The federal government has no constitutional authority to rebuild areas stricken by natural disasters. Such activity should be undertaken by private companies and charities first, and, as a last resort, handled by local or state governments. Disasters would arguably be handled more effectively this way compared to the feds.
Read More
This bill (H.R. 2157) would provide $19.1 billion in supplemental disaster funds for response efforts to damage caused by hurricanes, wildfires, earthquakes, tornadoes, floods, and other natural disasters that occurred in 2017, 2018, and 2019. It includes nutrition assistance for individuals impacted by natural disasters in Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa. And it provides funds for economic assistance, employment training, healthcare, agricultural losses, and infrastructure repairs in disaster-stricken areas. The House passed H.R. 2157 on June 3, 2019 by a vote of 354 to 58 (Roll Call 232). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the federal government does not have authority under the Constitution to rebuild areas stricken by natural disasters. Such activity should be undertaken by private companies and charities first, and, as a last resort, handled by local or state governments. This would arguably result in disasters being handled much more efficiently and effectively, as the federal government is often criticized for its slow, inefficient, and ineffective response to such events (think FEMA). View vote details at govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr2157 |
|||
H R 5 | 05/17/2019 | Good: No | Yes |
Equality Act
We oppose. This bill would harm heterosexual children and adults, as well as threaten the First Amendment freedoms of religion and association.
Read More
This bill (H.R. 5) would expand the definition of protected classes in federal law to include “sexual orientation and gender identity.” Regarding the latter, the Equality Act explicitly states that “an individual shall not be denied access to a shared facility, including a restroom, a locker room, and a dressing room, that is in accordance with the individual’s gender identity.” That is, males who identify as females would be able to use the public restrooms, locker rooms, and dressing rooms of the opposite sex — and visa versa. Moreover, the bill not only fails to include religious exemptions (e.g., allowing a church adoption agency to refuse placing children with homosexual couples), but explicitly states that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 cannot be used as a defense against the bill’s applications. The House passed the Equality Act on May 17, 2019 by a vote of 236 to 173 (Roll Call 217). We have assigned pluses to the nays because of the harm it would cause to heterosexual children and adults, as well as threatening religious freedom and the right of association. View vote details at govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr5 |
|||
H R 9 | 05/02/2019 | Good: No | None |
Paris Agreement
We oppose. The Paris Agreement never should have been signed by the U.S. It functions as a treaty, despite the U.S. Senate having never ratified it as is constitutionally-required. Also, fulfilling the agreement’s terms would stifle the U.S. economy and energy sector while making no impact on alleged man-made global warming.
Read More
This bill (H.R. 9) would prohibit the use of federal funds for U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on climate change and would require the president to develop a plan for the United States to meet contributions promised under the Obama administration. The House passed H.R. 9 on May 2, 2019 by a vote of 231 to 190 (Roll Call 184). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the Paris Agreement never should have been signed by the United States in the first place. The Paris Agreement essentially functions as a treaty, and the United States entered into it without ratification by the U.S. Senate, which is required under the Constitution. Furthermore, from a practical standpoint, fulfilling the terms of the agreement would stifle the U.S. economy and energy sector while making almost no impact whatsoever on alleged man-made global warming. View vote details at govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr9 |
|||
S J RES 7 | 04/04/2019 | Good: Yes | Yes |
Yemen
We support. Congress is vested with the power to declare war, and it has not authorized any intervention or war in Yemen. Nor should Congress do so since the civil war in Yemen does not threaten the U.S.
Read More
This bill (Senate Joint Resolution 7) would direct “the President to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities in or affecting the Republic of Yemen … unless and until a declaration of war or specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces has been enacted.” The measure exempts U.S. forces “engaged in operations directed at al Qaeda or associated forces.” The House passed S.J. Res. 7 on April 4, 2019 by a vote of 247 to 175 (Roll Call 153). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because Congress is vested with the power to declare war, and Congress has not authorized any intervention or war in Yemen. Nor should Congress do so, since the civil war in Yemen does not threaten the United States. View vote details at govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/sjres7 |
|||
H R 8 | 02/27/2019 | Good: No | Yes |
Firearms Background Checks
We oppose. This bill would severely infringe upon the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. It would make it very difficult for law-abiding citizens to privately sell their firearms or to purchase firearms from a private seller.
Read More
The Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019 (H.R. 8) would mandate universal background checks, essentially ban all private firearm sales, and create a federal registry of all gun owners in the United States. Michael Hammond, the legislative counsel for Gun Owners of America, noted, “Bottom line, H.R. 8 was not about public safety. Over and over again we see that mass shooters, who don’t steal their weapons, pass background checks before purchasing their firearms. So extending the background checks to private sales will do nothing to keep guns ‘out of the wrong hands.’” The House passed H.R. 8 on February 27, 2019 by a vote of 240 to 190 (Roll Call 99). We have assigned pluses to the nays because this bill would severely infringe upon the Second Amendment-protected right to keep and bear arms, since the bill’s onerous regulations would make it very difficult for law-abiding citizens to privately sell their firearms or to purchase firearms from a private seller. View vote details at govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr8 |
|||
S 47 | 02/26/2019 | Good: No | Yes |
Public Lands
We oppose. The Constitution does not authorize Congress to purchase private property except “all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.”
Read More
This bill (S. 47) would permanently reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), which was first authorized in 1964 to assist states in the planning, acquisition, and development of “recreation” lands. The LWCF was initially funded by proceeds from the sales of surplus federal property, motorboat fuel taxes, and fees for recreational use of federal lands, but by 1969 a major funding source was added: fees charged to oil and gas companies for extracting resources from public lands. In this way this could be portrayed as making more “recreational” public land available without any cost to taxpayers (neglecting to admit that ending the LWCF funding would benefit taxpayers by freeing up the fossil-fuel royalties for other purposes). The LWCF has been spending about $1 billion per year in recent years. This bill would also authorize other federal activities pertaining to natural resources, such as designating “National Heritage Areas” and “Conservation Districts.” The House passed S. 47 on February 26, 2019 by a vote of 363 to 62 (Roll Call 95). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the Constitution does not authorize Congress to purchase private property except “all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.” View vote details at govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/s47 |
|||
H.J.R. 31 | 02/14/2019 | Good: No | No |
Consolidated Appropriations (H.J.R. 31)
We oppose. Most of the bill’s spending programs are unconstitutional and unacceptably expand our debt and deficit.
Read More
This bill (House Joint Resolution 31) would provide $333 billion in discretionary spending for the seven remaining fiscal 2019 appropriations bills: Agriculture ($23 billion); Commerce-Justice-Science ($64.1 billion); Financial Services ($23.4 billion); Homeland Security ($61.6 billion); Interior-Environment ($35.6 billion); State-Foreign Operations ($54.2 billion); and Transportation-Housing and Urban Development ($71.1 billion). The House passed the final version of the bill (the conference report) on February 14, 2019 by a vote of 300 to 128 (Roll Call 87). We have assigned pluses to the nays because most of the bill’s spending programs are unconstitutional, our nation’s national debt is about $23 trillion, and our nation’s 2019 federal budget deficit was nearly $1 trillion. View vote details at govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hjres31 |