Vote Explainers - February 2023
Transparency is vital to democracy. Below please find explainers for key votes I took in the 118th Congress.
H.J.Res.7 - Relating to a national emergency declared by the President on March 13, 2020
On Wednesday, February 1st, I voted against the resolution to end the national emergency declared by President Trump at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Though ending the National Emergency has fewer immediate implications than the ending of the public health emergency, it would be irresponsible to deny states the necessary time to phase out their emergency funding and expanded social benefits. An immediate cutoff would leave countless working families stranded without the critical benefits on which they rely. I support the Biden Administration’s orderly wind down of these special allowances that will close with the ending of the emergency declaration on May 11th. This bill is simply political posturing from a party more committed to opposing the President than doing right by their constituents.
H. Con. Res. 9, "Denouncing the horrors of socialism."
On Thursday, February 2, I voted in favor of H. Con. Res. 9, "Denouncing the horrors of socialism." The resolution, passing on a bipartisan basis, correctly denounced the brutality of extreme socialist regimes and the deplorable authoritarians that led them. The resolution details historical and contemporary examples from the USSR, China, Cuba, North Korea, Cambodia, Venezuela, and Nicaragua.
The resolution was not perfect. A close reading could be seen as questioning the role of the government in providing collective benefits like fire departments or medicare coverage. Despite this, it was important to stand with my colleagues to make clear the United States is a proudly capitalist country where ambition is rewarded and despots are condemned.
H.J.Res. 30, Disapproving of the Dept. of Labor’s Rule on Investment Factors
On Tuesday, February 28th, I voted against H.J.Res. 30. This bill disapproves of the Department of Labor’s newly finalized rule, which allows retirement plan fiduciaries to consider all relevant economic factors when making decisions, including environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors. To be clear, the rule does not mandate consideration of these factors, nor does it remove the requirement that fiduciaries must act in the best interest of their clients and only focus on factors relevant to a risk and return analysis.
This rule simply permits fiduciaries to better protect pensions and life savings by allowing them to consider a wider range of long-term factors that pose legitimate risk to people’s savings. Preventing fiduciaries from considering ESG factors would hinder their ability to use their expertise and judgment to weigh all available information and determine a best course of action to protect the savings in their care.