How Arkansas’ congressional delegation voted
Here is how Arkansas’ U.S. senators and U.S. representatives voted on major roll call votes during the week that ended Friday.
KEY: ✔ FOR ✖ AGAINST ☐ NOT VOTING ▲ PASSED ▼ DEFEATED
Readers can visit www.VoteFacts. com for additional information on top issues and individual voting records in the current 118th Congress and recent 117th Congress.
HOUSE
▼ Removing U.S. troops from Syria. Rejected 321-103, legislation (H Con Res 21) that would require the removal of U.S. troops from Syria, where they have been fighting the Islamic state since 2014. The measure called for departure within six months under the post-Vietnam War Powers Act of 1973, which limits presidential authority to station combat forces abroad for long periods without a congressional declaration of war. The current authority for American actions in the Middle East is the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force, which Congress approved in response to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Fewer than 1,000 U.S. troops reportedly are based in Syria.
Sponsor Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., said that with Turkey, Russia and Syria “having every incentive to create pressure on ISIS, I do not believe that what stands between a caliphate and not a caliphate are the 900 Americans who have been sent to this hellscape with no definition of victory, with no clear objective… purely existing as a vestige to the regime-change failed foreign policies of multiple former [U.S.] presidents.”
Opponent Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., said: “ISIS once held territory the size of Great Britain, but thanks to our ongoing efforts, it no longer does. A complete withdrawal of U.S. forces, however, will have the same disastrous consequences as our rapid withdrawal from Afghanistan….Without U.S. Forces in Syria, our enemies will return; they will regrow; and they will come after our allies and, potentially, the United States.”
A yes vote was to end America’s military presence in Syria.
✖ Rick Crawford (R)
✖ French Hill (R)
✖ Steve Womack (R)
✖ Bruce Westerman (R)
▲ Addressing speech on Facebook, Twitter. Approved 219206, a bill (HR 140) that would impose civil penalties on any federal employee who uses official authority to curb lawful speech on social media platforms. The bill would do so by expanding the Hatch Act, which prohibits civil servants from engaging in political activity during working hours. Debate cited instances of the FBI and intelligence agencies warning social media about malicious foreign postings or seeking to block them or ask for disclaimers. Republicans said such interventions curb the free speech of their constituents, while Democrats said they protect America against the continued spread of anti-democracy Russian and Chinese propaganda. The bill requires security agencies to delay interventions for 72 hours after the apparently dangerous information surfaces, except that postings can be immediately confronted if they contain classified material or information about child pornography and human or drug trafficking. Supporter James Comer, R-Ky., said “Biden administration officials have publicly called upon and privately coordinated with private-sector social media companies to ban specific accounts viewed as politically inconvenient …. Whether an ordinary citizen or an established media organization, all Americans have a right to utilize these new and powerful communication technology resources to share their views and opinions without Uncle Sam putting his thumb on the scale to tilt the debate in one direction.”
Opponent Dan Goldman, D-N.Y., said the bill “welcomes the same kind of election interference that we know Russia did in 2016 and that they continue to do today. Just like Donald Trump sided with Vladimir Putin over our intelligence communities in Helsinki in 2018, this bill and the Republicans who are sponsoring this bill are siding with Russia and Vladimir Putin over our national security apparatus and our law enforcement.” A yes vote was to send the bill to the Senate.
✔ Crawford (R)
✔ Hill (R)
✔ Womack (R)
✔ Westerman (R)
▼ Bolstering law enforcement and national security. Defeated 218-204, a Democratic motion that sought to keep HR 140 (above) from taking effect until after law enforcement agency and intelligence agencies certify to Congress it would not impair their lawful mission to combat domestic terrorism or speech that incites violence or is discriminatory. Supporter Greg Landsman, D-Ohio, said: “We must be cleareyed about pro-Putin propaganda and who and why some…are promoting his will. Why are we being asked to ban American officials from trying to stop propaganda from foreign adversaries like Putin? Why are some proposing we leave Syria, which Putin wants? Why is the call to abandon Ukraine continuing to emerge from some members? Remember, Hitler did this. He used Americans to spread his propaganda, and it cost millions their lives. Putin is doing the same thing.”
Opponent John Rose, R-Tenn., said: “Our Founding Fathers fought hard to enshrine the right to free speech in our Constitution. As social media companies and `Big Tech’ corporations collude with rogue federal officials to censor and deplatform members of our free society — including members of Congress and other conservative voices — we must continue to do everything we can to fight to protect the First Amendment for everyone.” The bill “is a victory against the modern-day attacks on our freedom….”
A yes vote was to adopt the motion.
✖ Crawford (R)
☐ Hill (R)
✖ Womack (R)
✖ Westerman (R)
▲ Repealing clean water rule.
Adopted 227-198, a resolution (HJ Res 27) that would repeal new Biden administration rule stipulating that the 1972 Clean Water Act protects headwaters, wetlands and other waters upstream of the navigable waters directly covered by the half-century-old act. The rule would exempt non-navigable waters historically used in farming. Proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers, the “Waters of the United States Rule” is scheduled to take effect March 20, replacing a Trump administration rule that only lightly regulates non-navigable waters. Supporter Harriet Hageman, R-Wyo., said: “The feds have far exceeded their authority under the Clean Water Act and have expanded on the scope and intent of the original law by redefining what is a navigable water of the United States…. In many instances, these new and punitive regulations are a de facto taking of private property. Wyoming farmers, ranchers, builders, energy producers and small business owners … would suffer significantly if these changes to the navigable waters of the United States definition were enacted.” Opponent Melanie Stansbury, D-N.M., said: “In New Mexico, water is life, water is sacred, water is culture, and water is fundamental to everything that we do and everything that we are. For years, our State and our country and our communities have ridden the roller coaster of regulatory rollbacks on the Clean Water Act, but I never could have imagined that in the year 2023, we would be voting on a bill to gut the rule that protects our streams and rivers and our right to have clean water.”
A yes vote was to send the measure to the Senate.
✔ Crawford (R)
✔ Hill (R)
✔ Womack (R)
✔ Westerman (R)
SENATE
▲ IRS Commissioner Daniel
Werfel. Confirmed 52-42, Daniel Werfel to a five-year term as commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, where he will oversee an $80 billion, multi-year modernization of the agency financed by the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. Werfel’s previous federal posts included serving as acting IRS commissioner and controller of the Office of Management and Budget during the Barack Obama administration and acting OMB controller under President George W. Bush. He began his federal career in 1997 as an OMB policy analyst and then was a trial attorney in the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. Werfel worked most recently as a public affairs consultant in Washington.
A yes vote was to install Werfel as IRS commissioner.
✖ John Boozman (R)
✖ Tom Cotton (R)
▲ Nullifying new D.C. criminal code. Adopted 81-14, a resolution of disapproval (HJ Res 26) that would nullify a District of Columbia law designed bring the city’s 122-year-old criminal code into the 21st Century. The overhaul has drawn its loudest criticism over reductions in mandatory minimum sentencing for certain violent crimes, including a lowering of the carjacking penalty from 40 years to 24 years. But defenders said that under a 1973 law granting D.C. residents limited home rule, the city should be free to modernize its criminal code without congressional interference. The proposed new code was drafted by a nonpartisan commission in a five-year public process and enacted by the city council over the veto of Mayor Muriel Bowser.
Supporter Tom Cotton, R-Ark., said: “Crime is a policy choice and the choice is simple: If we put criminals behind bars, crime goes down; if we let criminals run amok, crimes goes up. We have seen the consequences of letting carjackers run amuck. Now we have a choice to fix that terrible mistake” in the District of Columbia. Opponent Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., said: “I support full democracy for the nearly 700,000 residents of the District of Columbia….who pay more federal taxes collectively than the people in 21 states….The Congress should not be overriding the will of the people of DC as reflected in their elected representatives” A yes vote was to send the resolution of disapproval to President Biden.
✔ Boozman (R)
✔ Cotton (R)
VoteFacts.com News Reports is a nonpartisan, fact-based news service whose mission is to help civically engaged individuals and organizations track major actions in the U.S. House and Senate. Readers can visit www.VoteFacts. com for additional information on top issues and individual voting records in the current 118th Congress and recent 117th Congress.