Sponsorship· AbortionCosponsor
Loading figure…
Loading figure…
Gregory Meeks supports pursuing diplomatic engagement and international cooperation, as evidenced by his voting record on foreign aid and international relations. He has advocated for multilateralism and maintaining strong diplomatic ties.
Gregory Meeks supports pursuing diplomatic engagement and international cooperation, as evidenced by his voting record on foreign aid and international relations. He has advocated for multilateralism and maintaining strong diplomatic ties.
“Progressive Internationalism: globalize with US pre-eminence. (Aug 2000)”
How do you perceive this figure's political lean?
Community votes: Left 0% · Center 0% · Right 0% (0 votes)
Sign in to cast a vote.
Meeks supports expanding legal immigration and asylum pathways, having voted against measures that would restrict immigration and in favor of protections for undocumented immigrants, particularly those brought to the U.S. as children.
Meeks supports expanding legal immigration and asylum pathways, having voted against measures that would restrict immigration and in favor of protections for undocumented immigrants, particularly those brought to the U.S. as children.
“Rated 0% by FAIR, indicating a voting record loosening immigration. (Dec 2003)”
Meeks supports maintaining strong national defense and security capabilities while advocating for diplomatic solutions over military interventions. His record reflects a balance between security and diplomatic engagement.
Meeks supports maintaining strong national defense and security capabilities while advocating for diplomatic solutions over military interventions. His record reflects a balance between security and diplomatic engagement.
“Rated 100% by SANE, indicating a pro-peace voting record. (Dec 2003)”
Meeks supports government intervention to support economic stability and growth, having voted for significant stimulus packages and measures to assist workers affected by economic downturns. He has consistently advocated for economic policies that promote recovery and stability.
Meeks supports government intervention to support economic stability and growth, having voted for significant stimulus packages and measures to assist workers affected by economic downturns. He has consistently advocated for economic policies that promote recovery and stability.
“Voted YES on $900 billion COVID relief package. (Dec 2020)”
Gregory Meeks has a pro-choice voting record, having voted against measures that would restrict access to abortion and supporting funding for abortion services. He has been rated 100% by NARAL, indicating strong support for reproductive rights.
Gregory Meeks has a pro-choice voting record, having voted against measures that would restrict access to abortion and supporting funding for abortion services. He has been rated 100% by NARAL, indicating strong support for reproductive rights.
“Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)”
Gregory Meeks advocates for federal action to cut emissions and has supported measures to enforce limits on CO2 global warming pollution. He has also endorsed the Green New Deal, which aims for a significant reduction in carbon emissions.
Gregory Meeks advocates for federal action to cut emissions and has supported measures to enforce limits on CO2 global warming pollution. He has also endorsed the Green New Deal, which aims for a significant reduction in carbon emissions.
“Green New Deal: 10-year national mobilization. (Feb 2019)”
Meeks has consistently voted for stricter gun control measures, including background checks for all firearm sales and closing loopholes in gun sales regulations. He has been rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control stance.
Meeks has consistently voted for stricter gun control measures, including background checks for all firearm sales and closing loopholes in gun sales regulations. He has been rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control stance.
“Rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record. (Dec 2003)”
Meeks advocates for a larger government role in health coverage, supporting measures to expand access to healthcare and regulate drug prices. His voting record indicates a commitment to public health initiatives.
Meeks advocates for a larger government role in health coverage, supporting measures to expand access to healthcare and regulate drug prices. His voting record indicates a commitment to public health initiatives.
“Rated 88% by APHA, indicating a pro-public health record. (Dec 2003)”
Meeks advocates for more federal funding for public schools, having voted for significant increases in education funding and opposing voucher programs that divert funds from public education.
Meeks advocates for more federal funding for public schools, having voted for significant increases in education funding and opposing voucher programs that divert funds from public education.
“Rated 100% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education votes. (Dec 2003)”
Meeks supports expanding ballot access, advocating for measures such as automatic voter registration and opposing voter ID laws that could suppress voter turnout. He has a strong record on voting rights.
Meeks supports expanding ballot access, advocating for measures such as automatic voter registration and opposing voter ID laws that could suppress voter turnout. He has a strong record on voting rights.
“Sponsored bill to expand voter registration and voter access. (Feb 2021)”
Meeks has voted in favor of various free trade agreements and has supported measures to assist workers affected by globalization. His voting record indicates a mixed stance on trade issues, rated 40% by CATO.
Meeks has voted in favor of various free trade agreements and has supported measures to assist workers affected by globalization. His voting record indicates a mixed stance on trade issues, rated 40% by CATO.
Meeks supports stronger federal protections against discrimination, having voted in favor of prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation and reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. He has a pro-civil rights voting record, indicated by his ratings from various civil rights organizations.
Meeks supports stronger federal protections against discrimination, having voted in favor of prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation and reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. He has a pro-civil rights voting record, indicated by his ratings from various civil rights organizations.
“Rated 83% by the ACLU, indicating a pro-civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)”
Meeks supports government authority to implement public health measures, including vaccination mandates during health crises. He has voted for measures aimed at enhancing public health infrastructure and response capabilities.
Meeks supports government authority to implement public health measures, including vaccination mandates during health crises. He has voted for measures aimed at enhancing public health infrastructure and response capabilities.
“Rated 88% by APHA, indicating a pro-public health record.”
Meeks supports the legalization of marijuana at the federal level, advocating for reforms in drug policy that address social justice and public health concerns.
Meeks supports the legalization of marijuana at the federal level, advocating for reforms in drug policy that address social justice and public health concerns.
Position extraction pending on 7 issues: Taxes, School Curriculum, Criminal Justice, Tech Regulation, Elections & Campaigns, Religion & Public Life, Disaster Response.
Jul 20, 2026 · Congress.gov
Committee Hearings Held
“Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)”
Why: Cosponsoring the Reproductive Freedom for Veterans Act directly advances the stated position of supporting legal access to abortion and reproductive rights.
Jul 9, 2026 · Congress.gov
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
“Progressive Internationalism: globalize with US pre-eminence. (Aug 2000)”
Why: The International Human Rights Defense Act aims to promote human rights through diplomatic means, directly advancing the stated position of supporting diplomatic engagement and multilateralism.
View source →Jun 24, 2026 · Congress.gov
Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
“Rated 83% by the ACLU, indicating a pro-civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)”
Why: Cosponsoring the John Lewis Every Child Deserves a Family Act directly supports stronger federal protections against discrimination, particularly in relation to LGBTQ+ rights and family equality.
View source →Jun 23, 2026 · Congress.gov
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
“Rated 83% by the ACLU, indicating a pro-civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)”
Why: Cosponsoring the Pride In Mental Health Act directly supports the stated position of enhancing civil rights and protections, particularly for LGBTQ individuals.
View source →May 14, 2026 · Congress.gov
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
“Rated 88% by APHA, indicating a pro-public health record. (Dec 2003)”
Why: Cosponsoring the Maternal Health Pandemic Response Act directly advances the stated position by promoting expanded access to healthcare services.
View source →May 7, 2026 · Congress.gov
Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
“Progressive Internationalism: globalize with US pre-eminence. (Aug 2000)”
Why: Cosponsoring the No Funds for Iran War Act directly supports the stated position by promoting diplomatic engagement and preventing military action, aligning with the emphasis on multilateralism.
View source →May 4, 2026 · Congress.gov
Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
“Rated 83% by the ACLU, indicating a pro-civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)”
Why: Cosponsoring the Tyler Clementi Higher Education Anti-Harassment Act directly advances the stated position by promoting stronger protections against discrimination and harassment in educational settings.
View source →Apr 29, 2026 · Congress.gov
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
“Progressive Internationalism: globalize with US pre-eminence. (Aug 2000)”
Why: Cosponsoring the act directly supports the stated position by promoting human rights and public health through diplomatic engagement and international cooperation.
View source →Apr 23, 2026 · Congress.gov
Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute by the Yeas and Nays: 44 - 2.
“Rated 83% by the ACLU, indicating a pro-civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)”
Why: Cosponsoring the act directly supports stronger protections against discrimination and promotes equality, aligning with the stated position.
View source →Apr 20, 2026 · Congress.gov
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
“Progressive Internationalism: globalize with US pre-eminence. (Aug 2000)”
Why: Sponsoring a resolution to remove U.S. forces from hostilities aligns with the stated position of pursuing diplomatic engagement and international cooperation, as it emphasizes de-escalation and multilateral approaches to conflict.
View source →Apr 15, 2026 · Congress.gov
Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute by the Yeas and Nays: 44 - 2.
“Progressive Internationalism: globalize with US pre-eminence. (Aug 2000)”
Why: The resolution emphasizes diplomatic efforts and a negotiated settlement in Sudan, which directly aligns with the stated position of supporting diplomatic engagement and international cooperation.
View source →Apr 14, 2026 · Congress.gov (House roll-call)
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass — Result: Passed
“Green New Deal: 10-year national mobilization. (Feb 2019)”
Why: The Emergency Conservation Program Improvement Act is designed to enhance conservation efforts and reduce emissions, directly advancing the stated position on climate action.
View source →Jun 25, 2025 · Congress.gov
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 44 - 5.
“Progressive Internationalism: globalize with US pre-eminence. (Aug 2000)”
Why: Sponsoring the Burma GAP Act aligns with the position of pursuing diplomatic engagement and international cooperation, as the act focuses on addressing issues in Burma through multilateral efforts.
View source →Jun 23, 2025 · Congress.gov
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
“Progressive Internationalism: globalize with US pre-eminence. (Aug 2000)”
Why: Sponsoring a resolution to remove U.S. Armed Forces from hostilities aligns with the position of pursuing diplomatic engagement and international cooperation, as it emphasizes de-escalation and multilateralism.
View source →Apr 14, 2025 · Congress.gov
Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 462.
“Progressive Internationalism: globalize with US pre-eminence. (Aug 2000)”
Why: Sponsoring the Ukraine Support Act directly supports diplomatic engagement and international cooperation in response to global challenges, aligning closely with the stated position.
View source →Mar 6, 2025 · Congress.gov
Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committees on Financial Services, the Judiciary, and Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
“Progressive Internationalism: globalize with US pre-eminence. (Aug 2000)”
Why: Sponsoring a bill focused on U.S. engagement in Sudanese peace directly supports the stated position of pursuing diplomatic engagement and international cooperation.
View source →Feb 24, 2025 · Congress.gov
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
“Progressive Internationalism: globalize with US pre-eminence. (Aug 2000)”
Why: Sponsoring a resolution reaffirming support for Ukraine's sovereignty aligns with the position of pursuing diplomatic engagement and international cooperation in response to global challenges.
View source →Feb 21, 2025 · Congress.gov
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
“Progressive Internationalism: globalize with US pre-eminence. (Aug 2000)”
Why: Sponsoring a bill to repeal military force authorizations aligns with the position of promoting diplomatic engagement and multilateralism over military action.
View source →Feb 13, 2025 · Congress.gov
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
“Progressive Internationalism: globalize with US pre-eminence. (Aug 2000)”
Why: Sponsoring a resolution affirming NATO and its commitments directly supports the stated position of pursuing diplomatic engagement and international cooperation.
View source →Dec 3, 2024 · Congress.gov
Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committees on Financial Services, the Judiciary, and Oversight and Accountability, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
“Progressive Internationalism: globalize with US pre-eminence. (Aug 2000)”
Why: Sponsoring the U.S. Engagement in Sudanese Peace Act directly supports diplomatic engagement and international cooperation, aligning closely with the stated position.
View source →Jul 5, 2024 · Congress.gov
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 44 - 3.
“Progressive Internationalism: globalize with US pre-eminence. (Aug 2000)”
Why: Sponsoring the Rohingya GAP Act directly supports diplomatic engagement and international cooperation to address the humanitarian crisis faced by the Rohingya people, aligning closely with the stated position.
View source →May 10, 2024 · Congress.gov
Ordered to be Reported by Unanimous Consent.
“Progressive Internationalism: globalize with US pre-eminence. (Aug 2000)”
Why: Sponsoring a bill to host U.S.-Africa Leaders Summits directly advances the stated position of pursuing diplomatic engagement and international cooperation.
View source →Jun 15, 2026 · Congress.gov
Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute (Amended) by Voice Vote.
“Green New Deal: 10-year national mobilization. (Feb 2019)”
Why: The Great American Outdoors Act promotes conservation and environmental protection, which aligns with the stated position of supporting federal action to combat climate change.
View source →May 22, 2026 · Congress.gov
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
“Progressive Internationalism: globalize with US pre-eminence. (Aug 2000)”
Why: The resolution aims to limit military action without congressional authorization, which aligns with a diplomatic approach to foreign policy.
View source →Apr 16, 2026 · Congress.gov (House roll-call)
On Agreeing to the Resolution — Result: Failed
“Progressive Internationalism: globalize with US pre-eminence. (Aug 2000)”
Why: Voting Yea on a resolution to remove U.S. forces from hostilities aligns with the position of pursuing diplomatic engagement and international cooperation, as it suggests a preference for de-escalation and multilateral approaches.
View source →Apr 16, 2026 · Congress.gov
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
“Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)”
Why: The resolution highlights maternal and reproductive health issues, which aligns with the support for legal access to abortion and the protection of women's health choices.
View source →Mar 18, 2026 · Congress.gov
Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
“Rated 88% by APHA, indicating a pro-public health record. (Dec 2003)”
Why: Cosponsoring the Momnibus Act, which aims to improve maternal health and expand healthcare access, aligns with the stated position of supporting expanded healthcare access.
View source →Mar 5, 2026 · Congress.gov (House roll-call)
On Passage — Result: Passed
“Rated 0% by FAIR, indicating a voting record loosening immigration. (Dec 2003)”
Why: Voting Nay on the appropriations act, which funds border enforcement and detention, aligns with the position advocating for expanded legal immigration and asylum pathways.
View source →Mar 5, 2026 · Congress.gov (House roll-call)
On Agreeing to the Resolution — Result: Failed
“Progressive Internationalism: globalize with US pre-eminence. (Aug 2000)”
Why: Voting Yea on a resolution to remove U.S. forces from unauthorized hostilities aligns with the position of pursuing diplomatic engagement and international cooperation, as it emphasizes de-escalation and multilateral approaches.
View source →Jan 12, 2026 · Congress.gov
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
“Rated 0% by FAIR, indicating a voting record loosening immigration. (Dec 2003)”
Why: Cosponsoring the designation of Burma for temporary protected status aligns with the support for loosening immigration restrictions, as it provides humanitarian relief to individuals from a specific country.
View source →Jan 7, 2026 · Congress.gov
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
“Progressive Internationalism: globalize with US pre-eminence. (Aug 2000)”
Why: Cosponsoring a resolution commemorating a pro-democracy advocate aligns with the support for foreign aid initiatives aimed at promoting democratic institutions.
View source →Dec 18, 2025 · Congress.gov
Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, Financial Services, Ways and Means, Oversight and Government Reform, Energy and Commerce, and Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
“Progressive Internationalism: globalize with US pre-eminence. (Aug 2000)”
Why: Cosponsoring the act indicates support for foreign aid initiatives, particularly in the context of promoting democratic institutions and addressing foreign threats, aligning with the stated position.
View source →Dec 4, 2025 · Congress.gov
Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
“Progressive Internationalism: globalize with US pre-eminence. (Aug 2000)”
Why: Sponsoring a resolution that reaffirms U.S. cooperation with Honduras aligns with the stated position of supporting diplomatic engagement and international cooperation.
View source →Dec 1, 2025 · Congress.gov
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
“Progressive Internationalism: globalize with US pre-eminence. (Aug 2000)”
Why: The Stop Illegal Fishing Act promotes international cooperation to combat illegal fishing, aligning with the stated position of supporting diplomatic engagement and multilateralism in addressing global challenges.
View source →Nov 17, 2025 · Congress.gov
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
“Progressive Internationalism: globalize with US pre-eminence. (Aug 2000)”
Why: Sponsoring a resolution to remove U.S. forces from hostilities aligns with the position of pursuing diplomatic engagement and reducing military involvement, supporting multilateral approaches to conflict resolution.
View source →Feb 12, 2025 · Congress.gov
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
“Progressive Internationalism: globalize with US pre-eminence. (Aug 2000)”
Why: Sponsoring the Strengthening the Quad Act supports multilateral cooperation in the Indo-Pacific region, aligning with the stated position on diplomatic engagement and international cooperation.
View source →Dec 18, 2024 · Congress.gov
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
“Progressive Internationalism: globalize with US pre-eminence. (Aug 2000)”
Why: Sponsoring a resolution affirming U.S. support for Syria aligns with the stated position of pursuing diplomatic engagement and international cooperation.
View source →Sep 20, 2024 · Congress.gov
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
“Progressive Internationalism: globalize with US pre-eminence. (Aug 2000)”
Why: Sponsoring a bill to strengthen USAID management supports the position of pursuing diplomatic engagement and international cooperation, as effective aid management is crucial for multilateral efforts.
View source →Feb 25, 2026 · Congress.gov (House roll-call)
On Passage — Result: Passed
“Green New Deal: 10-year national mobilization. (Feb 2019)”
Why: Voting Nay on a bill aimed at promoting energy efficiency and reducing emissions directly contradicts the stated support for federal action to cut emissions and combat climate change.
View source →Jan 20, 2026 · Congress.gov
Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
“Progressive Internationalism: globalize with US pre-eminence. (Aug 2000)”
Why: Cosponsoring a bill that aims to restrict funding for NATO operations contradicts the stated support for foreign aid initiatives and assistance to developing nations.
View source →Jan 20, 2026 · Congress.gov
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
“Progressive Internationalism: globalize with US pre-eminence. (Aug 2000)”
Why: Cosponsoring a bill that appears to limit NATO involvement contradicts the stated support for foreign aid and assistance initiatives.
View source →Jan 16, 2025 · Congress.gov
Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
“Progressive Internationalism: globalize with US pre-eminence. (Aug 2000)”
Why: Sponsoring a sanctions bill against Russia moves against the stated position of pursuing diplomatic engagement and multilateralism, as sanctions typically escalate tensions rather than foster cooperation.
View source →Most are procedural sponsorships or actions on issues where this figure hasn't publicly stated a position. Highest-signal entries shown first.
Mar 5, 2026 · Congress.gov (House roll-call)
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree — Result: Passed
“Progressive Internationalism: globalize with US pre-eminence. (Aug 2000)”
Why: The motion's content is unclear regarding its implications for diplomatic engagement, making it difficult to determine its alignment with the stated position.
View source →Jul 27, 2026 · Congress.gov
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Agriculture, Ways and Means, Natural Resources, Financial Services, Transportation and Infrastructure, Education and Workforce, Oversight and Government Reform, and Science, Space, and Technology, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
“Green New Deal: 10-year national mobilization. (Feb 2019)”
Why: The measure's content could not be determined from the provided summary, making it unclear how it relates to the stated position on climate action.
View source →Jul 23, 2026 · Congress.gov
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
“Rated 0% by FAIR, indicating a voting record loosening immigration. (Dec 2003)”
Why: The measure's content could not be determined from the provided summary, making it unclear how it aligns with the stated position on immigration.
View source →Jul 16, 2026 · Congress.gov
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
“Progressive Internationalism: globalize with US pre-eminence. (Aug 2000)”
Why: The measure's content could not be determined from the provided summary, making it unclear how it relates to the stated position on diplomatic engagement and international cooperation.
View source →Jul 13, 2026 · Congress.gov
Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
“Rated 88% by APHA, indicating a pro-public health record. (Dec 2003)”
Why: The measure's content is unclear from the summary provided, making it difficult to determine its alignment with the stated position on healthcare.
View source →Jun 3, 2026 · Congress.gov
Referred to the Committee on Education and Workforce, and in addition to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, and Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
“Rated 88% by APHA, indicating a pro-public health record.”
Why: The measure's content is unclear from the provided summary, making it difficult to determine its alignment with the stated position on public health.
View source →May 20, 2026 · Congress.gov
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
“Progressive Internationalism: globalize with US pre-eminence. (Aug 2000)”
Why: The cosponsorship of a repeal act suggests a potential reduction in military aid, which could conflict with the support for foreign aid initiatives, but the specific implications of the act are unclear.
May 19, 2026 · Congress.gov
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
“Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)”
Why: The measure's content could not be determined from the provided information, making it unclear how it aligns with the stated position on abortion.
View source →Apr 27, 2026 · Congress.gov
Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
“Rated 88% by APHA, indicating a pro-public health record. (Dec 2003)”
Why: The measure's content could not be determined, as it is only referred to a committee without details on its provisions.
View source →Apr 15, 2026 · Congress.gov
Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
“Progressive Internationalism: globalize with US pre-eminence. (Aug 2000)”
Why: The measure's content is unclear from the provided summary, making it difficult to determine its alignment with the stated position on diplomatic engagement and multilateralism.
View source →Apr 9, 2026 · Congress.gov
Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
“Progressive Internationalism: globalize with US pre-eminence. (Aug 2000)”
Why: The measure's content is unclear from the summary provided, making it difficult to determine its alignment with the stated position on diplomatic engagement and multilateralism.
View source →Mar 26, 2026 · Congress.gov
Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
“Progressive Internationalism: globalize with US pre-eminence. (Aug 2000)”
Why: The cosponsorship aims to limit military force, which could align with promoting peaceful foreign relations, but it does not directly advance the support for foreign aid initiatives.
View source →Feb 13, 2026 · Congress.gov
Referred to the Committee on Appropriations, and in addition to the Committee on the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
“Rated 0% by FAIR, indicating a voting record loosening immigration. (Dec 2003)”
Why: The action of cosponsoring an appropriations bill does not clearly advance or contradict the stated support for loosening immigration restrictions, as the specific provisions of the bill are not detailed.
View source →Jan 27, 2026 · Congress.gov
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
“Progressive Internationalism: globalize with US pre-eminence. (Aug 2000)”
Why: The action of cosponsoring the Evan Anzoo Memorial Act is related to foreign affairs but lacks specific details on how it aligns with or advances foreign aid initiatives.
View source →Jan 8, 2026 · Congress.gov
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
“Progressive Internationalism: globalize with US pre-eminence. (Aug 2000)”
Why: The action relates to military presence rather than direct foreign aid, creating ambiguity about its alignment with the stated support for foreign assistance initiatives.
View source →Dec 19, 2025 · Congress.gov
Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
“Progressive Internationalism: globalize with US pre-eminence. (Aug 2000)”
Why: The cosponsorship aims to limit military force in Venezuela, which aligns with promoting peaceful assistance, but it does not directly advance funding for foreign aid initiatives.
View source →Dec 18, 2025 · Congress.gov
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
“Progressive Internationalism: globalize with US pre-eminence. (Aug 2000)”
Why: The measure's content could not be determined from the summary, making it unclear how it aligns with the stated position on diplomatic engagement and multilateralism.
View source →Jul 22, 2025 · Congress.gov
Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
“Rated 88% by APHA, indicating a pro-public health record. (Dec 2003)”
Why: The measure's content is unclear from the summary provided, making it difficult to determine its alignment with the stated position.
View source →Jul 17, 2025 · Congress.gov
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
“Progressive Internationalism: globalize with US pre-eminence. (Aug 2000)”
Why: The measure's content is unclear from the summary provided, making it difficult to determine its alignment with the stated position on diplomatic engagement and international cooperation.
View source →Jul 2, 2025 · Congress.gov
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
“Progressive Internationalism: globalize with US pre-eminence. (Aug 2000)”
Why: The measure's content could not be determined from the provided information, making it unclear how it aligns with the stated position on foreign policy.
View source →Apr 3, 2025 · Congress.gov
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
“Progressive Internationalism: globalize with US pre-eminence. (Aug 2000)”
Why: The measure's content is unclear from the provided information, making it difficult to determine its alignment with the stated position on diplomatic engagement and international cooperation.
View source →Mar 26, 2025 · Congress.gov
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
“Progressive Internationalism: globalize with US pre-eminence. (Aug 2000)”
Why: The action involves a request for information related to military strikes, which does not clearly advance or undermine the stated position of pursuing diplomatic engagement and multilateralism.
View source →Mar 6, 2025 · Congress.gov
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
“Progressive Internationalism: globalize with US pre-eminence. (Aug 2000)”
Why: The action of sponsoring a resolution related to a national emergency does not clearly indicate a direction toward or against diplomatic engagement or multilateralism, making the relationship unclear.
View source →Jan 16, 2025 · Congress.gov
Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
“Progressive Internationalism: globalize with US pre-eminence. (Aug 2000)”
Why: The measure's content could not be determined from the provided information, making it unclear how it aligns with the stated position on diplomatic engagement.
View source →Apr 15, 2026 · Congress.gov (House roll-call)
On Agreeing to the Resolution — Result: Passed
Why: Couldn't tag this action to any of the tracked issues, so it can't be compared against a stated position.
View source →Apr 14, 2026 · Congress.gov (House roll-call)
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended — Result: Passed
Why: Couldn't tag this action to any of the tracked issues, so it can't be compared against a stated position.
View source →Mar 5, 2026 · Congress.gov (House roll-call)
On Motion to Recommit — Result: Failed
Why: Couldn't tag this action to any of the tracked issues, so it can't be compared against a stated position.
View source →Mar 4, 2026 · Congress.gov (House roll-call)
On Motion to Refer — Result: Passed
Why: Couldn't tag this action to any of the tracked issues, so it can't be compared against a stated position.
View source →Mar 4, 2026 · Congress.gov (House roll-call)
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass — Result: Passed
Why: Couldn't tag this action to any of the tracked issues, so it can't be compared against a stated position.
View source →Feb 25, 2026 · Congress.gov (House roll-call)
On Motion to Recommit — Result: Failed
Why: Couldn't tag this action to any of the tracked issues, so it can't be compared against a stated position.
View source →Feb 24, 2026 · Congress.gov (House roll-call)
On Passage — Result: Passed
Why: Couldn't tag this action to any of the tracked issues, so it can't be compared against a stated position.
View source →Feb 24, 2026 · Congress.gov (House roll-call)
On Motion to Recommit — Result: Failed
Why: Couldn't tag this action to any of the tracked issues, so it can't be compared against a stated position.
View source →Feb 24, 2026 · Congress.gov (House roll-call)
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass — Result: Failed
Why: Couldn't tag this action to any of the tracked issues, so it can't be compared against a stated position.
View source →Feb 24, 2026 · Congress.gov (House roll-call)
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass — Result: Passed
Why: Couldn't tag this action to any of the tracked issues, so it can't be compared against a stated position.
View source →May 29, 2026 · Congress.gov
Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
Why: Tagged to Disaster Response, but no stated position has been extracted for that issue yet — judgement deferred until more news coverage is available.
View source →May 15, 2026 · Congress.gov
Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
“Voted YES on $900 billion COVID relief package. (Dec 2020)”
Why: Tagged to Economy & Jobs, but no stated position has been extracted for that issue yet — judgement deferred until more news coverage is available.
View source →Apr 20, 2026 · Congress.gov
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 43 - 0.
Why: Tagged to Trade, but no stated position has been extracted for that issue yet — judgement deferred until more news coverage is available.
View source →Apr 20, 2026 · Congress.gov
Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 39 - 5.
Why: Tagged to Trade, but no stated position has been extracted for that issue yet — judgement deferred until more news coverage is available.
View source →Apr 15, 2026 · Congress.gov
Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 44 - 0.
Why: Tagged to Tech Regulation, but no stated position has been extracted for that issue yet — judgement deferred until more news coverage is available.
View source →Apr 15, 2026 · Congress.gov
Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 44 - 0.
Why: Tagged to Trade, but no stated position has been extracted for that issue yet — judgement deferred until more news coverage is available.
View source →Mar 24, 2026 · Congress.gov
Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, Intelligence (Permanent Select), and Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Why: Tagged to Tech Regulation, but no stated position has been extracted for that issue yet — judgement deferred until more news coverage is available.
View source →Feb 17, 2026 · Congress.gov
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Why: Tagged to Trade, but no stated position has been extracted for that issue yet — judgement deferred until more news coverage is available.
View source →Feb 2, 2026 · Congress.gov
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Why: Tagged to Trade, but no stated position has been extracted for that issue yet — judgement deferred until more news coverage is available.
View source →Jan 21, 2026 · Congress.gov
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Why: Tagged to Tech Regulation, but no stated position has been extracted for that issue yet — judgement deferred until more news coverage is available.
View source →Dec 17, 2025 · Congress.gov
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Why: Tagged to Religion & Public Life, but no stated position has been extracted for that issue yet — judgement deferred until more news coverage is available.
View source →Sep 19, 2025 · Congress.gov
Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
“Voted YES on $900 billion COVID relief package. (Dec 2020)”
Why: Tagged to Economy & Jobs, but no stated position has been extracted for that issue yet — judgement deferred until more news coverage is available.
View source →Sep 11, 2025 · Congress.gov
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Why: Tagged to Trade, but no stated position has been extracted for that issue yet — judgement deferred until more news coverage is available.
View source →Jul 22, 2025 · Congress.gov
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Why: Tagged to Criminal Justice, but no stated position has been extracted for that issue yet — judgement deferred until more news coverage is available.
View source →Dec 18, 2024 · Congress.gov
Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
“Voted YES on $900 billion COVID relief package. (Dec 2020)”
Why: Tagged to Economy & Jobs, but no stated position has been extracted for that issue yet — judgement deferred until more news coverage is available.
View source →Dec 4, 2024 · Congress.gov
Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
“Voted YES on $900 billion COVID relief package. (Dec 2020)”
Why: Tagged to Economy & Jobs, but no stated position has been extracted for that issue yet — judgement deferred until more news coverage is available.
View source →Jul 30, 2026 · Congress.gov
Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Why: Couldn't tag this action to any of the tracked issues, so it can't be compared against a stated position.
View source →Jul 23, 2026 · Congress.gov
Referred to the Committee on Rules, and in addition to the Committee on House Administration, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Why: Couldn't tag this action to any of the tracked issues, so it can't be compared against a stated position.
View source →Jun 30, 2026 · Congress.gov
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Why: Couldn't tag this action to any of the tracked issues, so it can't be compared against a stated position.
View source →Jun 24, 2026 · Congress.gov
Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committees on Agriculture, Education and Workforce, Energy and Commerce, the Judiciary, and Financial Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Why: Couldn't tag this action to any of the tracked issues, so it can't be compared against a stated position.
View source →Jun 15, 2026 · Congress.gov
Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
Why: Couldn't tag this action to any of the tracked issues, so it can't be compared against a stated position.
View source →Apr 30, 2026 · Congress.gov
Referred to the Subcommittee on Nutrition and Foreign Agriculture.
Why: Couldn't tag this action to any of the tracked issues, so it can't be compared against a stated position.
View source →Apr 29, 2026 · Congress.gov
Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
Why: Couldn't tag this action to any of the tracked issues, so it can't be compared against a stated position.
View source →Apr 28, 2026 · Congress.gov
Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 39 - 7.
Why: Couldn't tag this action to any of the tracked issues, so it can't be compared against a stated position.
View source →Mar 5, 2026 · Congress.gov
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Why: Couldn't tag this action to any of the tracked issues, so it can't be compared against a stated position.
View source →Feb 26, 2026 · Congress.gov
Referred to the House Committee on House Administration.
Why: Couldn't tag this action to any of the tracked issues, so it can't be compared against a stated position.
View source →Feb 25, 2026 · Congress.gov
Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Why: Couldn't tag this action to any of the tracked issues, so it can't be compared against a stated position.
View source →Jan 30, 2026 · Congress.gov
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Why: Couldn't tag this action to any of the tracked issues, so it can't be compared against a stated position.
View source →Jan 27, 2026 · Congress.gov
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Why: Couldn't tag this action to any of the tracked issues, so it can't be compared against a stated position.
View source →Jan 21, 2026 · Congress.gov
Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
Why: Couldn't tag this action to any of the tracked issues, so it can't be compared against a stated position.
View source →Dec 18, 2025 · Congress.gov
Referred to the Committee on Financial Services, and in addition to the Committee on House Administration, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Why: Couldn't tag this action to any of the tracked issues, so it can't be compared against a stated position.
View source →Aug 29, 2025 · Congress.gov
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Why: Couldn't tag this action to any of the tracked issues, so it can't be compared against a stated position.
View source →May 14, 2025 · Congress.gov
Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Why: Couldn't tag this action to any of the tracked issues, so it can't be compared against a stated position.
View source →May 13, 2025 · Congress.gov
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Why: Couldn't tag this action to any of the tracked issues, so it can't be compared against a stated position.
View source →Apr 8, 2025 · Congress.gov
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H1529)
Why: Couldn't tag this action to any of the tracked issues, so it can't be compared against a stated position.
View source →Mar 6, 2025 · Congress.gov
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
Why: Couldn't tag this action to any of the tracked issues, so it can't be compared against a stated position.
View source →Jan 15, 2025 · Congress.gov
Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
Why: Couldn't tag this action to any of the tracked issues, so it can't be compared against a stated position.
View source →Jan 14, 2025 · Congress.gov
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H122)
Why: Couldn't tag this action to any of the tracked issues, so it can't be compared against a stated position.
View source →
Discussion
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion.
Sign in to join the discussion.