Sponsorship· HealthcareCosponsor
Loading figure…
Loading figure…
Meeks advocates for maintaining or expanding U.S. foreign aid, emphasizing the importance of international assistance in promoting global stability and humanitarian efforts.
Meeks advocates for maintaining or expanding U.S. foreign aid, emphasizing the importance of international assistance in promoting global stability and humanitarian efforts.
“Voted YES on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999)”
Meeks has voted against measures that would restrict immigration and has supported legislation to provide pathways to legal status for undocumented immigrants, including those who came to the U.S. as children.
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 has voted against measures that would restrict immigration and has supported legislation to provide pathways to legal status for undocumented immigrants, including those who came to the U.S. as children.
“Voted NO on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)”
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)”
Meeks supports federal action to cut emissions and has voted for measures aimed at regulating greenhouse gases and promoting renewable energy. He has also endorsed the Green New Deal, which calls for a significant mobilization to address climate change.
Meeks supports federal action to cut emissions and has voted for measures aimed at regulating greenhouse gases and promoting renewable energy. He has also endorsed the Green New Deal, which calls for a significant mobilization to address climate change.
“Voted YES on enforcing limits on CO2 global warming pollution. (Jun 2009)”
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 supports a larger government role in health coverage, advocating for expanded access to healthcare services and coverage, including support for the Affordable Care Act and Medicare expansion.
Meeks supports a larger government role in health coverage, advocating for expanded access to healthcare services and coverage, including support for the Affordable Care Act and Medicare expansion.
“Voted YES on overriding veto on expansion of Medicare. (Jul 2008)”
Meeks supports expanding ballot access and has voted against measures that would impose stricter voter ID laws, advocating for reforms that enhance voter participation.
Meeks supports expanding ballot access and has voted against measures that would impose stricter voter ID laws, advocating for reforms that enhance voter participation.
“Voted NO on requiring photo ID for voting in federal elections. (Sep 2006)”
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.
Position extraction pending on 5 issues: Taxes, Education, School Curriculum, Criminal Justice, Tech Regulation.
May 14, 2026 · Congress.gov
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
“Voted YES on overriding veto on expansion of Medicare. (Jul 2008)”
Why: Cosponsoring the Maternal Health Pandemic Response Act directly supports expanding healthcare access, particularly for maternal health, aligning closely with the stated position.
Apr 29, 2026 · Congress.gov
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
“Voted YES on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999)”
Why: Cosponsoring the Protecting Human Rights and Public Health in Foreign Assistance Act directly supports the stated position by promoting U.S. assistance aimed at human rights and public health in developing nations.
View source →Apr 23, 2026 · Congress.gov
Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute by the Yeas and Nays: 44 - 2.
“Voted YES on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999)”
Why: Cosponsoring the act directly supports foreign aid initiatives aimed at protecting Afghan women and girls, aligning with the commitment to U.S. assistance and promoting democratic institutions.
View source →Apr 14, 2026 · Congress.gov (House roll-call)
2/3 Yea-And-Nay — Result: Passed
“Voted YES on enforcing limits on CO2 global warming pollution. (Jun 2009)”
Why: Voting Yea on the Emergency Conservation Program Improvement Act directly supports climate initiatives and aligns with the stated goal of reducing carbon emissions.
View source →Jul 2, 2025 · Congress.gov
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
“Voted YES on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999)”
Why: Sponsoring the SAK PASE in Haiti Act directly supports foreign aid initiatives and aligns with the commitment to assist developing nations.
View source →Jun 25, 2025 · Congress.gov
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 44 - 5.
“Voted YES on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999)”
Why: Sponsoring the Burma GAP Act directly supports foreign aid initiatives aimed at promoting democratic institutions and assistance to developing nations, aligning closely with the stated position.
View source →Apr 14, 2025 · Congress.gov
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
“Voted YES on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999)”
Why: Sponsoring the Ukraine Support Act directly aligns with the stated position of supporting foreign aid initiatives, particularly in promoting assistance to a nation in need.
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.
“Voted YES on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999)”
Why: Sponsoring the U.S. Engagement in Sudanese Peace Act directly supports foreign aid initiatives aimed at promoting peace and democratic institutions in Sudan, aligning closely with the stated position.
View source →Feb 24, 2025 · Congress.gov
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
“Voted YES on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999)”
Why: Sponsoring a reaffirmation of support for Ukraine's sovereignty directly advances the stated position of supporting foreign aid initiatives and assistance to countries in need.
View source →Dec 18, 2024 · Congress.gov
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
“Voted YES on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999)”
Why: Sponsoring a resolution affirming U.S. support for Syria aligns directly with the stated position of advocating for foreign aid and assistance to developing nations.
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.
“Voted YES on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999)”
Why: Sponsoring the U.S. Engagement in Sudanese Peace Act directly supports foreign aid initiatives and promotes democratic institutions, aligning closely with the stated position.
View source →Sep 20, 2024 · Congress.gov
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
“Voted YES on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999)”
Why: Sponsoring the Strengthening USAID Management Act directly supports the stated position by enhancing the management and effectiveness of foreign aid initiatives.
View source →Jul 5, 2024 · Congress.gov
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 44 - 3.
“Voted YES on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999)”
Why: Sponsoring the Rohingya GAP Act directly supports foreign aid initiatives aimed at assisting the Rohingya people, aligning closely with the stated position of advocating for U.S. assistance to developing nations.
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.
“Voted YES on overriding veto on expansion of Medicare. (Jul 2008)”
Why: Cosponsoring the Workplace Violence Prevention Act supports healthcare access indirectly by promoting a safer work environment for healthcare workers, aligning with the broader goal of improving public health.
View source →May 29, 2026 · Congress.gov
Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
“Voted YES on enforcing limits on CO2 global warming pollution. (Jun 2009)”
Why: Cosponsoring the Community Flood Resilience Act supports climate initiatives by addressing flood resilience, which aligns with the broader goals of reducing climate change impacts.
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: Cosponsoring a resolution to designate Black Maternal Health Week supports reproductive health awareness and aligns with the broader pro-choice stance, even though it does not directly address abortion access.
View source →Mar 18, 2026 · Congress.gov
Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
“Voted YES on overriding veto on expansion of Medicare. (Jul 2008)”
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)
Yea-and-Nay — Result: Passed
“Voted NO on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)”
Why: Voting Nay on the appropriations act aligns with the stated position by opposing funding that could support stricter immigration enforcement measures.
View source →Feb 25, 2026 · Congress.gov (House roll-call)
Yea-and-Nay — Result: Failed
“Voted YES on enforcing limits on CO2 global warming pollution. (Jun 2009)”
Why: Voting in favor of the Homeowner Energy Freedom Act aligns with support for renewable energy initiatives, even if the bill did not pass.
View source →Jan 12, 2026 · Congress.gov
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
“Voted NO on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)”
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.
“Voted YES on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999)”
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.
“Voted YES on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999)”
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.
“Voted YES on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999)”
Why: Sponsoring a commitment to cooperate with Honduras on counter-narcotics aligns with the broader support for foreign aid and assistance initiatives, even if it focuses on a specific country and issue.
View source →Dec 1, 2025 · Congress.gov
Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 47 - 2.
“Voted YES on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999)”
Why: Sponsoring the Stop Illegal Fishing Act supports foreign aid by promoting sustainable practices that can benefit developing nations, aligning with the broader commitment to assistance and democratic promotion.
View source →Jul 17, 2025 · Congress.gov
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
“Voted YES on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999)”
Why: Sponsoring the act indicates support for foreign aid initiatives, aligning with the stated position of advocating for U.S. assistance to developing nations.
View source →Apr 3, 2025 · Congress.gov
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
“Voted YES on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999)”
Why: Sponsoring the act indicates support for transparency and accountability in foreign aid, aligning with the stated position of promoting democratic institutions and assistance to developing nations.
View source →Feb 12, 2025 · Congress.gov
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
“Voted YES on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999)”
Why: Sponsoring the Strengthening the Quad Act supports U.S. assistance and cooperation with partner nations, aligning with the stated position on foreign aid.
View source →Dec 4, 2024 · Congress.gov
Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
“Voted YES on enforcing limits on CO2 global warming pollution. (Jun 2009)”
Why: Sponsoring a housing conversion program can contribute to climate initiatives by promoting energy efficiency and reducing emissions, aligning with the stated support for climate change initiatives.
View source →May 10, 2024 · Congress.gov
Ordered to be Reported by Unanimous Consent.
“Voted YES on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999)”
Why: Sponsoring a directive for U.S.-Africa Leaders Summits supports the stated position by promoting engagement and assistance to developing nations, aligning with the advocacy for foreign aid initiatives.
View source →Feb 25, 2026 · Congress.gov (House roll-call)
Yea-and-Nay — Result: Passed
“Voted YES on enforcing limits on CO2 global warming pollution. (Jun 2009)”
Why: Voting Nay on a bill aimed at promoting energy freedom and potentially supporting renewable energy contradicts the stated commitment to climate initiatives and reducing carbon emissions.
View source →Feb 17, 2026 · Congress.gov
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Why: Sponsoring a measure to terminate tariffs contradicts the support for free trade agreements and assistance for workers affected by globalization.
View source →Feb 2, 2026 · Congress.gov
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Why: Sponsoring a measure to terminate duties contradicts the support for free trade agreements and assistance for affected workers, as it undermines protective trade measures.
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.
“Voted YES on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999)”
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.
“Voted YES on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999)”
Why: Cosponsoring a bill that appears to limit NATO involvement contradicts the stated support for foreign aid and assistance initiatives.
View source →Most are procedural sponsorships or actions on issues where this figure hasn't publicly stated a position. Highest-signal entries shown first.
Apr 16, 2026 · Congress.gov (House roll-call)
Yea-and-Nay — Result: Failed
“Voted YES on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999)”
Why: The vote to direct the President to remove U.S. forces from hostilities does not directly address foreign aid but reflects a stance on military involvement, leaving the relationship to foreign aid unclear.
View source →Mar 5, 2026 · Congress.gov (House roll-call)
Yea-and-Nay — Result: Failed
“Voted NO on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)”
Why: The appropriations act may include various provisions related to immigration, but without specific details on its impact on restrictions or protections, the overall alignment with the stated position is unclear.
View source →Mar 5, 2026 · Congress.gov (House roll-call)
Yea-and-Nay — Result: Failed
“Voted YES on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999)”
Why: The vote to direct the President to remove forces from unauthorized hostilities does not directly align with supporting foreign aid initiatives, as it focuses on military engagement rather than assistance to developing nations.
View source →May 22, 2026 · Congress.gov
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
“Voted YES on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999)”
Why: The action to remove U.S. Armed Forces from hostilities in Cuba does not directly advance foreign aid initiatives, but it also does not oppose the broader support for U.S. assistance to developing nations.
View source →May 20, 2026 · Congress.gov
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
“Voted YES on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999)”
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.
View source →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 action of cosponsoring the IMPACT to Save Moms Act does not clearly advance or contradict the stated pro-choice position, as the specific provisions of the act are not detailed.
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.
“Voted YES on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999)”
Why: The action to cosponsor the No Funds for Iran War Act does not directly align with the support for foreign aid, as it may limit funding for certain international initiatives, creating ambiguity in its relationship to the stated position.
Apr 30, 2026 · Congress.gov
Referred to the Subcommittee on Nutrition and Foreign Agriculture.
“Voted YES on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999)”
Why: The action of cosponsoring the Hot Foods Act is related to nutrition and agriculture but does not directly address foreign aid or assistance to developing nations, leading to unclear alignment with the stated position.
View source →Apr 27, 2026 · Congress.gov
Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
“Voted YES on overriding veto on expansion of Medicare. (Jul 2008)”
Why: The Safe Step Act aims to improve access to healthcare by addressing step therapy protocols, but its specific impact on expanding overall healthcare access is unclear from the available information.
View source →Apr 20, 2026 · Congress.gov
Received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
“Voted YES on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999)”
Why: The action addresses military involvement rather than direct foreign aid, creating ambiguity about its alignment with the stated support for foreign assistance initiatives.
View source →Apr 20, 2026 · Congress.gov
Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 39 - 5.
Why: The action of cosponsoring a compliance act does not clearly align with or contradict the support for free trade agreements, as it focuses on regulatory measures rather than trade promotion.
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.
“Voted YES on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999)”
Why: The cosponsorship of the act does not directly advance foreign aid initiatives, as it focuses on terrorist designation rather than funding or support for developing nations.
View source →Apr 15, 2026 · Congress.gov
Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute by the Yeas and Nays: 44 - 2.
“Voted YES on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999)”
Why: The action condemns violence and calls for a negotiated settlement, which aligns with promoting stability, but it also calls for an end to external support, which may conflict with the support for foreign aid initiatives.
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.
“Voted YES on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999)”
Why: While the act addresses foreign aid indirectly by targeting Russian oil revenues, it does not directly advance the stated support for U.S. assistance to developing nations.
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.
“Voted YES on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999)”
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.
“Voted NO on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)”
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.
“Voted YES on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999)”
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.
“Voted YES on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999)”
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.
“Voted YES on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999)”
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 →Sep 11, 2025 · Congress.gov
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Why: The sponsorship of the Regional China Officer Authorization Act does not clearly align with or contradict the stated position on trade, as it focuses on foreign relations rather than direct trade policy.
View source →Jun 23, 2025 · Congress.gov
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
“Voted YES on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999)”
Why: The action addresses military involvement rather than foreign aid, creating ambiguity about its alignment with the stated support for U.S. assistance to developing nations.
View source →Mar 26, 2025 · Congress.gov
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
“Voted YES on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999)”
Why: The inquiry does not directly advance foreign aid initiatives but also does not oppose them; it focuses on accountability regarding military actions, leaving the relationship to the stated position unclear.
View source →Mar 6, 2025 · Congress.gov
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
“Voted YES on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999)”
Why: The sponsorship relates to a national emergency, which could involve foreign aid, but lacks specific details on how it aligns with the stated support for foreign aid initiatives.
View source →Feb 21, 2025 · Congress.gov
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
“Voted YES on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999)”
Why: The action to repeal military force authorizations does not directly align with supporting foreign aid initiatives, as it focuses on military authorizations rather than promoting assistance or funding for foreign operations.
View source →Feb 13, 2025 · Congress.gov
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
“Voted YES on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999)”
Why: The sponsorship affirms NATO commitments, which relates to foreign aid in a security context, but does not directly advance funding or assistance initiatives for developing nations.
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.
“Voted YES on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999)”
Why: The sponsorship of the act indicates engagement with foreign policy, but the specific focus on a tunnel project does not clearly align with broader support for foreign aid 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.
“Voted YES on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999)”
Why: The action addresses sanctions related to foreign policy but does not directly advance the stated support for foreign aid initiatives to developing nations.
View source →Apr 14, 2026 · Congress.gov (House roll-call)
2/3 Yea-And-Nay — 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)
2/3 Yea-And-Nay — 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)
Yea-and-Nay — 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)
2/3 Yea-And-Nay — 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)
Yea-and-Nay — 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)
Yea-and-Nay — 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)
2/3 Yea-And-Nay — 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)
2/3 Yea-And-Nay — 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 4, 2026 · Congress.gov
Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
Why: Tagged to Education, 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 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 Tech Regulation, 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 →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 18, 2025 · 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 →May 15, 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 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 →Apr 15, 2026 · Congress.gov
Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 44 - 0.
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 →Dec 17, 2025 · Congress.gov
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign 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 →Nov 17, 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 →Sep 19, 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 →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 →Dec 18, 2024 · 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 →
Discussion
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion.
Sign in to join the discussion.