Vote Notes on Legislation
July 11, 2024
The House issued a subpoena ordering the Attorney General to produce the audio recording of the Robert Hur interview with President Biden. The administration based its decision not to prosecute Mr. Biden on Hur’s assessment that a jury would view him sympathetically as an “elderly man with a poor memory.” Meanwhile, the same administration is vigorously attempting to jail President Trump for the same offense. Knowing the full context of this interview requires all of the non-verbal cues that a written transcript cannot fully and faithfully reproduce. This understanding is essential to inform the House whether a double standard is being applied and what statutory changes may be necessary to correct it. The Attorney General has defied the House subpoena, making specious claims of executive privilege that are certain to be struck down by the courts. The House has held the Attorney General in contempt, but the Department of Justice that he heads refuses to prosecute him. This produces a second glaring double standard, since that same Justice Department has already prosecuted and jailed two Trump administration officials for the same offense. To enforce its subpoena, the House is pursing the matter in court in order to obtain a ruling on the legality of the Attorney General’s refusal to comply. This is the appropriate response, and the same process that ultimately compelled Richard Nixon to turn over tape recorded conversations in the Watergate investigation. Nevertheless, a resolution proposing to invoke “Inherent Contempt” against the Attorney General was brought to the floor. It levies a fine against the Attorney General of $10,000 a day until he complies. “Inherent Contempt” is an established – although seldom used -- power that Congress holds to defend its own proceedings, including the issuance of subpoenas. Under several Supreme Court decisions, this allows the House to arrest individuals and bring them to the bar of the House to answer for their conduct. The last time the House invoked this power was in 1934. This resolution is a gross misuse of this power and I oppose it.
April 20, 2024
This bill is a collection of several minor bills I support, including greater reporting of Fentanyl traffic and Iranian human rights violations, and tightened sanctions on Iranian oil and weapons exports. But it also includes two major provisions that I cannot support. One is the ban on TikTok, which I believe is an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment. The other is the REPO act, that would seize sovereign Russian assets. This would be an unprecedented peacetime act and runs a high risk of discouraging foreign investments in the United States, particularly U.S. Treasury notes. These provisions set very dangerous precedents.
December 1, 2023
This resolution substantially broadens the grounds for expulsion that the House has observed for nearly 2 ½ centuries. I do not condone the conduct that is alleged. Indeed, I condemn it. After all I have read about Mr. Santos, I feel a little like Thaddeus Stevens when he was asked if there was anything Simon Cameron wouldn’t steal. He said, “I don’t think he would steal a red hot stove.” When Cameron objected, Stevens gladly withdrew the remark. The power of expulsion negates the right of the people to choose the representative they most want to speak for them in Congress. Such an extreme power should be used with extreme care. Until now, the precedent for expulsion has been limited to acts of disloyalty (joining the confederacy) and conviction of serious crimes involving the office. Santos has been charged with such crimes, but has not been convicted. Although Congress is not required to wait for a verdict, I believe it should. Trial by a jury of one’s peers is an essential element of our jurisprudence, and a congressional committee, buffeted by partisanship, political pressures and personal relationships is a poor substitute. Given the heightened political passions that are afoot these days, I think we should resist expanding the traditional grounds for expulsion and trust our justice system and our citizens to resolve the issue, as surely they will.
November 15, 2023
The continuing resolution we tried to pass under McCarthy had significant spending reductions and a strong border security component. Sadly, this was defeated by a handful of self-proclaimed conservatives joined by every Democrat, and we lost that opportunity. The six-week CR then adopted was to give us enough time to finish the appropriations process and press conservative policies in negotiations with the Senate. This was thwarted when McCarthy was removed by self-proclaimed conservatives, joined by every Democrat. Ironically, this Continuing Resolution, supported by every Democrat but two, has NO spending reductions, NO border security, extends the Pelosi levels of spending for another three months and includes a one-year extension of the farm bill, which means no reforms to the bloated food stamp program. We have met the big spenders, and they is us.
November 13, 2023
Alejandro Mayorkas is the worst cabinet secretary in American history, guilty of malfeasance, neglect of duty and maladministration. He has implemented Biden’s open border policy that has produced the worst mass illegal migration ever recorded. Elections have consequences, and this is one of them. The grounds for impeachment are explicitly laid out in the Constitution: “Treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Treason and bribery are well defined. But from the beginning, politicians have tried to stretch the meaning of “high crimes and misdemeanors” to apply to political disagreements, and that is antithetical to the fundamental architecture of the Constitution.
November 2, 2023
This motion defeated the official censure of Rashida Tlaib for her antisemitic rhetoric. I voted yes because we must never punish speech, no matter how vile it may be. I denounce her defense of Hamas in the strongest possible terms. I can do so because of the freedom of speech our Constitution protects. Speech can be ugly, disgusting, hateful, prejudiced and alarming. But it can never be dangerous to a free society as long as men and women of good will have the freedom of speech to dispute it, challenge it and reject it. That freedom is only safe for the rest of us if it is safe for the worst of us. Indeed, it is this freedom that protects US from THEM. Accordingly, I voted to table the motion.
December 6, 2022
Proving that you can’t judge a bill by its title, the “Protect Our Children Act of 2022 spends $60 million over the next two years as grants to local and state law enforcement to “implement effective responses to internet-facilitated child sexual exploitation and internet crimes against children.” Although the cause is vitally important, as with most grant programs, there is no independent audit of its effectiveness. My observation is that much grant money disappears into the salaries of various groups and agencies who will write glowing reports of their work and apply for more grants next year.
Grants are taken from ALL taxpayers and given only to agencies in selected states. If this is a federal responsibility, it should be addressed federally, with all jurisdictions benefiting from the funds.
Grants have become the third biggest expenditure of the federal government, behind only Social Security and national defense. We give away a half-trillion dollars a year in this manner – roughly $4,000 from an average family’s taxes -- with little oversight, little accountability, little follow-up and little results.
Meanwhile, the problems they are supposed to solve seem to get worse.
December 2, 2022
This bill reauthorizes and increases funding for the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV) Program through FY 2027. Yes, home visits by social workers to at-risk families is a good thing to do, and I supported reauthorization in 2017. But given the dire financial condition of the federal government – and the absence of a federal nexus that justifies a grant program of this nature – I believe this is a decision that should be left to state and local governments to implement at their discretion and with their resources, as many did before the federal program began. Worse, according to the bill’s Committee Report, “we lack data about the impact of interventions funded by the federal program.” Translation: nobody knows if it even works.
November 30, 2022
The looming railroad strike would cause significant short-term damage to the economy: supply chain disruptions, price spikes, shortages, all in time for the Christmas holidays. But this measure would cause significant long-tern damage, by asserting government fiat into what should rightfully be terms freely negotiated between employers and employees. The terms of this agreement are certain to produce significant and permanent price increases on consumers by dramatically increasing the cost of shipping everything that travels by rail. Above all, this crisis argues for removing the compulsive nature of forced unionism and to restore the fundamental right of individuals to make their own decisions and negotiate terms that to them are most advantageous to their needs. Twenty-six states have right to work laws and they tend to be those with the most prosperous economies and standards of living. It’s time to implement the same reforms nationally.
Issues:Fiscal and Economic
September 30, 2022
I am highly skeptical of pilot programs that are automatically extended without proving their worth, and taxpayer grants to businesses where private investors are unwilling to risk their own capital. Finally, the increasing financial entanglement between businesses and government is unhealthy in a free society and is a breeding ground for corruption, political favoritism and misallocation of resources. For all these reasons, I am a no vote.