S. 475 designates “Juneteenth National Independence Day as a legal public holiday.” Juneteenth commemorates June 19, 1865, the day when Major General Gordon Granger led Union troops into Galveston, Texas, and read General Order Number Three, declaring, “in accordance with a Proclamation from the Executive of the United States, all slaves are free.” He was referring to the Emancipation Proclamation, issued by President Abraham Lincoln on January 1, 1863, which applied only to “persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State” that was in “rebellion against the United States.” However, slavery was not legally abolished until the ratification of the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution on December 6, 1865.

The House passed S. 475 on June 16, 2021 by a vote of 415 to 14 (Roll Call 170). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the United States already observes 10 other federal holidays. Furthermore, seeing as slavery ended on December 6, not June 19, the inclusion of the words “National Independence Day” to Juneteenth creates the appearance of supplanting July 4 as America’s Independence Day. This perpetuates a false and dangerous notion that the United States has different days of independence depending on one’s race or ancestry, and is consistent with the communist tactic of “dividing the people” along racial lines.

H.R. 2225 would authorize $77.9 billion through fiscal 2026 for federal funding of science and engineering research and development. Over these five years, National Science Foundation (NSF) spending would increase from $12.5 billion in fiscal 2022 to an annual level of $17.9 billion in fiscal 2026. This bill would also create a new NSF Directorate for Science and Engineering Solutions to fund research and development in response to “societal challenges” including climate change and “social and economic inequality.”

The House passed H.R. 2225 on June 28, 2021 by a vote of 345 to 67 (Roll Call 186). We have assigned pluses to the nays because there is no authorization in the Constitution to fund research and development, except for national defense.

H.R. 391 would require the president to develop and implement a strategy for advancing the Global Health Security Agenda, an international partnership to address global health threats posed by infectious diseases, which was launched by the United States and nearly 30 other nations in February 2014. One year later, the United Nations adopted the Sustainable Development Goals, which include specific reference to the importance of global health security. H.R. 391 would also require the president to: (1) create a new position within the U.S. government of “global health security strategy coordinator”; and (2) in cooperation with “relevant United Nations agencies, including the World Health Organization,” create a new “Fund for Global Health Security and Pandemic Preparedness.” U.S. contributions to the fund would be authorized by H.R. 391.

The House passed H.R. 391 on June 28, 2021 by a vote of 307 to 112 (Roll Call 188). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the Constitution does not authorize any spending for domestic healthcare, let alone international healthcare.

H.R. 567 would allow the secretary of state to establish the “Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism Partnership (TSCTP) Program.” The TSCTP Program would “coordinate all programs, projects, and activities of the United States Government in countries in North and West Africa,” including improving the “ability of military and law enforcement entities in partner countries to detect, disrupt, respond to, and prosecute violent extremist and terrorist activity,” to “cooperate with the United States and other partner countries on counterterrorism and counter-extremism efforts,” and to “enhance the border security capacity of partner countries,” along with helping those African governments provide numerous social services for their citizens.

The House passed H.R. 567 on June 29, 2021 by a vote of 395 to 15 (Roll Call 192). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the U.S. Constitution does not authorize Congress or the Executive Branch to enter into permanent military alliances (which could result in dragging the United States into a war), provide or facilitate social services in foreign countries, or protect the borders of countries overseas, especially when our national borders remain unprotected.

House Resolution 503 established the “Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol.” The committee has issued subpoenas targeting conservative lawmakers and allies of former President Trump, including Representative Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, among others. In an interview with Breitbart News, Jordan described the committee as “the weaponization of government,” adding, “It’s all designed to go after President Trump.”

The House passed H.R. 503 on June 30, 2021 by a vote of 222 to 190 (Roll Call 197). On December 8, 2021, Meadows filed a lawsuit against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and all nine members of the January 6 Committee. The lawsuit, which describes the committee’s actions as “unconstitutional,” rightfully points out, “To the extent Congress seeks to utilize subpoenas to investigate and punish perceived criminal wrongdoing, it unconstitutionally intrudes on the prerogatives of the Executive Branch.” Furthermore, the January 6 Committee is part of a growing trend toward tyranny and political persecution. For these reasons we have assigned pluses to the nays.

This bill (H.R. 4373) would provide $62.2 billion for the State Department, foreign operations, and related programs for fiscal 2022, a 12-percent increase over the amount appropriated for the previous fiscal year. Loaded with foreign aid, the bill’s provisions include $29.6 billion for bilateral economic assistance, $9 billion for international security assistance, and $4 billion for multilateral assistance. It also includes $3 billion to address climate change and other environmental issues, including a multilateral Green Climate Fund.

The House passed H.R. 4373 on July 28, 2021 by a vote of 217 to 212 (Roll Call 243). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the United States cannot afford to give aid to the rest of the world (in fact, the United States must borrow the money it gives away, since it is operating in the red), and there is no constitutional authorization to do so.

H.R. 4 would reestablish a “preclearance” process similar to what existed under the 1965 Voting Rights Act prior to 2013. Under it, states would be required to obtain permission from the U.S. Department of Justice prior to implementing modifications to their election laws. The types of election laws subject to preclearance under H.R. 4 include redistricting, and the bill effectively prohibits new voter ID laws or rollbacks of “multilingual voting materials.”

The House passed H.R. 4 on August 24, 2021 by a vote of 219 to 212 (Roll Call 260). We have assigned pluses to the nays because not only does this bill undermine election integrity, but it infringes upon state sovereignty as established under the 10th Amendment, subjugating it to the whims of federal bureaucrats.

H.R. 3755, the pro-abortion legislation known as the “Women’s Health Protection Act of 2021,” would “protect a person’s ability to determine whether to continue or end a pregnancy” and “protect a health care provider’s ability to provide abortion services.” Representative Judy Chu (D-Calif.), the bill’s sponsor, said her bill was needed because “we have seen an unprecedented number of state-based attacks on a woman’s right to choose.”

The House passed H.R. 3755 on September 24, 2021 by a vote of 218 to 211 (Roll Call 295). We have assigned pluses to the nays because abortion has nothing to do with the protection of women’s health, despite the name of the bill; and there is no right to an abortion in the Constitution, the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision notwithstanding.

H.R. 3684 would spend $1.2 trillion altogether, with $550 billion being new spending. Among numerous other provisions, H.R. 3684 would spend $110 billion on roads and bridges, $66 billion on rail projects, $65 billion on broadband, $62 billion on Energy Department programs, $55 billion on water infrastructure, $39 billion on public transportation, $25 billion on airports, and $7.5 billion on electric-vehicle charging stations. The bill also mandates that states create carbon-reduction programs subject to federal approval, creates a mileage-tax pilot program, and defines “gender identity” as a protected class.

The House passed H.R. 3684 on November 5, 2021 by a vote of 228 to 206 (Roll Call 369). We have assigned pluses to the nays because Congress is failing to address its fiscally irresponsible budgeting and appropriating process that yielded a federal deficit of $2.77 trillion in fiscal 2021. Moreover, virtually all of the bill’s provisions fall outside the Constitution’s specified powers.

The Build Back Better Act (H.R. 5376) is the centerpiece of President Biden’s administrative agenda. Officially it would spend a total of $1.75 trillion, but the actual cost is expected to be much higher according to other estimates. The bill would implement the agenda of the World Economic Forum’s collectivist “Great Reset,” provide amnesty for millions of illegal aliens, allocate $555 billion for implementing the far-left “Green New Deal,” override state laws that protect the sanctity of preborn children while also funding abortions in the United States, and impose $700,000 fines on employers violating Biden’s unconstitutional vaccine mandate through OSHA, among other radical provisions.

The House passed H.R. 5376 on November 19, 2021 by a vote of 220 to 213 (Roll Call 385). We have assigned pluses to the nays because by passing this bill Congress is failing to address its fiscally irresponsible budgeting and appropriating process. The Build Back Better Act is projected to add $367 billion to the deficit. Moreover, virtually all of the bill’s provisions are unconstitutional.