Vote Explainers - January 2023
Transparency is vital to democracy. Below please find explainers for key votes I took in the 118th Congress.
Republican Rules Package
Jan. 11, 2023
Every two years when a new Congress gets underway, one of the first measures to be voted on is a “rules package” that sets the rules of the road for how the House of Representatives will be governed over the course of the Congressional term. These rules set the parameters for how legislation can be crafted, considered, and voted on by the House. On Monday, January 9, I voted against the rules package that was designed and implemented by the new Republican majority.
Although the rules package included some good ideas that will help promote transparency and efficiency, and retained other effective policies that were already in place, overall, the package included a number of ill-advised provisions that will hinder smart policymaking.
The new rules prohibit any increase in spending, by itself, without corresponding cuts to existing programs. In other words, the new rules categorically prohibit increases in mandatory spending, even if a bill would not otherwise increase the deficit. Troublingly, the new rules also reimpose the so-called “Holman Rule,” which allows the House to single out individual federal employees for firing or having their salaries cut.
In addition, the Republican rules package ends the system that has recently allowed House members to vote remotely (by proxy) if need be, and which was put in place as a health measure during the height of the pandemic. Members of Congress do not exploit this ability to vote remotely as an opportunity to shirk our duties. If the pandemic worsens or case rates rise again in the future, eliminating the ability to protect people’s health by voting remotely could prove to be short-sighted.
As a final note, the rules package also teed-up a number of substantive pieces of legislation for early passage in the new Congress, and with which I disagree strongly. For example, the rules made it possible for the House to quickly consider a measure that would claw back money that has already been appropriated to the IRS to investigate wealthy individuals and corporations who have not paid their taxes. Not only should we not be encouraging tax avoidance as a matter of general policy, but the measure would add over $100 billion to the deficit. In addition, the new rules paved the way to establish a new special subcommittee on “the weaponization of the federal government,” which by all indications appears primarily designed to stymie legitimate law enforcement operations.
Throughout this Congress, I will look forward to working with both sides of the aisle to promote the important policy goals that best serve the Massachusetts Sixth District, our nation, and the world. Regrettably, I fear these new rules will frustrate the legislative process, rather than serve it well.
Family and Small Business Taxpayer Protection Act
Jan. 9, 2023
On Monday, January 9, I voted against H.R. 23, the Family and Small Business Taxpayer Protection Act. This bill was the very first piece of legislation brought to the House floor by the new Republican majority, and it would rescind $72 billion that was appropriated to the IRS to improve customer service and enforce our tax laws.
The ultra-rich and corporations have been evading billions of dollars in taxes for years. They have been able to do so in part because the IRS has been hollowed out: the IRS has fewer auditors now than it had in the 1950’s—when the economy was seven times smaller and far less complex. By rushing to starve the IRS of funds, the new House majority’s first order of business was effectively to encourage tax cheats to avoid paying their taxes. To make matters worse, by reducing the ability of the IRS to properly collect taxes that are legally owed, the bill would add $114 billion to the national debt over the next ten years. It is hard to imagine a more fiscally irresponsible way to kick off a new Congress.
The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act
Jan. 11, 2023
On Wednesday, January 11th, I voted against H.R. 26, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. This bill’s stated goal is to create requirements for providers in the case of a child “Born Alive” following an abortion, but, this bill does nothing of the sort. This is Republicans aiming to override both the medical judgment of health care providers and the power of states to set forth standards of care and is a dangerous intrusion into medical decision-making. This interference — and the bill’s strict criminal penalties — are intended to intimidate doctors and force them out of practice, even where abortion remains legal.
The Bill will also endanger the lives of infants. Its requirement that a health care practitioner ensure the immediate transportation and admission of a newborn infant to a hospital may not always be in the best interests of the infant’s health. In many cases, It may be safer and healthier to care for a medically fragile infant where it was born rather than transporting it many miles away. Current law has always protected newborn infants from both intentional harm by healthcare practitioners and harm from medical negligence. In 2002, Congress passed the bipartisan Born-Alive Infant Protection Act, to reiterate that fact, a law that law was already unnecessary given existing protections on the books.
Expressing the sense of Congress condemning the recent attacks on pro-life facilities, groups, and churches.
Jan. 11, 2023
On Wednesday, January 11th, I voted against H. Con. Res. 3, "Expressing the sense of Congress condemning the recent attacks on pro-life facilities, groups, and churches." While the American people must condemn violence in all forms, that is not what this resolution does. It focuses entirely on pro-life facilities to legitimize so-called ‘crisis pregnancy centers’ which masquerade as abortion providers and exist to coerce people into proceeding with pregnancy regardless of what is right for them.
In lieu of supporting this resolution, I am an original cosponsor of a House Resolution that condemns all Political Violence and Attacks on Health Care Facilities and Personnel
Protecting America’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve from China Act
Jan. 12, 2023
On Wednesday, January 12th, I voted in favor of H. Res. 22, "Protecting America’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve from China Act." This bill prohibits the sale and export of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to China.
Unfortunately, This bill is only necessary now because, at the urging of Big Oil, the Republican-controlled Congress voted in 2015 to reverse the 40-year ban on exporting crude oil — including to our foreign adversaries — thereby allowing American oil exports to China. Since that vote, China has exploited this ill-advised Republican policy change by purchasing and hoarding American crude oil. After years of not sending oil to China, U.S. exports of crude oil to the country increased nearly 100-fold under President Trump, sending over 391 million barrels of during his administration.
Last year, in response to soaring gasoline prices caused by Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, President Biden successfully used the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to lower prices at the pump and provide relief to American families.
Pandemic is Over Act
Jan. 31, 2023
On Tuesday, January 31st, I voted against H.R. 382, the Pandemic is Over Act. While I do agree that America has largely returned to its pre-pandemic way of life, abruptly ending the Public Health Emergency would immediately disrupt insurance coverage, negatively impact patient out-of-pocket costs, and threaten provider payments. This bill would make it harder for patients and providers to seek out and deliver essential care. The Biden Administration has already announced its intention to end the Public Health Emergency on May 11th, a timeline that gives ample time for states and localities to begin to unwind COVID accommodations without haphazardly endangering millions of Americans.
Freedom for Health Care Workers Act
Jan. 31, 2023
On Tuesday, January 31, 2023, the House voted on H.R. 497, the so-called Freedom for Health Care Workers Act. The bill would nullify the rule issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) requiring healthcare workers who participate in Medicare and Medicaid to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19. The bill would also prohibit HHS from issuing a substantially similar rule.
It goes without saying that healthcare workers should not be exposing their patients to unnecessary risk; preventing the unnecessary exposure of extremely sick patients to COVID-19 is fundamentally common sense. By proposing this ill-conceived measure, House Republicans chose to sideline safety in favor of pseudo-science anti-vaccine sentiments in an attempt to force healthcare professionals to violate their Hippocratic Oath to do no harm. I voted no on the measure.