Merry Christmas!
Justin Amash40,590 likes · 7,512 talking about this
40,590 likes · 7,512 talking about this
- AboutThe official Facebook Page of U.S. Rep. Justin Amash, Michigan's Third District | http://amash.house.gov/ http://twitter.com/repjustinamash
- On Tuesday night, House and Senate conferees reinserted language into the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to allow the government to indefinitely detain anyone in the U.S., including American citizens, upon the mere accusation that the person supports terrorism. No charge. No trial. No explanation.
The NDAA vote is Thursday. I will be saying NO to this violation of our civil liberties and our Constitution. You can tell Congress how you feel: http://house.gov/ http://senate.gov/. - I voted "yes" on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H R 4053, Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Improvement Act of 2012, which requires federal agencies to follow certain processes to reduce wasteful government spending. The bill requires greater sharing of "do not pay" lists among federal agencies—such as the Social Security Death Master File—and requires they be checked before releasing payment or other federal funds. The bill also requires reports on and audits of improper payments made under federal programs and their recovery rates. It passed 402-0.
- I voted "no" on the motion to permit closed conference meetings on H R 4310, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013. The motion gives conferees the option of closing the conference to the public when classified information "may be broached." I understand the need to keep some information that could endanger our Armed Forces confidential. I am concerned about the discretion confere...es are given to shield their discussions from public view. Remember that the 2012 NDAA permits the President to indefinitely detain persons, including American citizens, without charge or trial, at his discretion. The 2013 NDAA should amend the 2012 NDAA to repeal that authority, and debate on this issue should be open to the public, not closed as this motion allows. It passed 351-53.See More
- I voted "no" on the motion to instruct conferees on H R 4310, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013. The motion, offered by Democrats, instructs House conferees to agree to sec. 1249 of the Senate amendment, relating to a plan for promoting the safety of Afghan women during the security transition process. Generally, one side will use a motion to instruct to score political points at the other side's expense. I view them as procedural motions. It passed 399-4.
- I voted "no" on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H R 6190, Asthma Inhalers Relief Act of 2012, which extends the permitted sale date of a specific type of CFC-containing asthma inhaler through August 2013. The EPA began phasing out the sale of this inhaler in 2008 as part of its implementation of the Montreal Protocol, and none of them were to be sold beginning in 2012. The extension is me...ant to allow the inhaler's main producer to liquidate its existing inventory.
This bill does not change U.S. policy on the regulation of CFCs. It benefits one company almost exclusively by temporarily exempting them from a policy many other companies have had to comply with. Producers have known about the EPA's regulation for more than four years, and many other CFC-containing inhalers have already been phased out without any special treatment for their producers. It is inappropriate for Congress to change the law for the benefit of one or two companies. It failed 229-182 (suspension bills require a two-thirds majority to pass).See More - Thanks for being one of the more than 40,000 people who like my Facebook Page!
I will continue to use this Page to explain every vote I take on the House floor—now approaching 1,600 votes and explanations since I entered Congress. It's my honor and privilege to provide this transparency and accountability to people in Michigan's Third District and across the country. - Congratulations to my friend Rep. Tim Scott on his appointment as the next Senator from South Carolina. Tim is a strong conservative who is genuine, respected, and will do a fantastic job representing the people of his state.
- I voted "yes" on H Res 827, which makes it in order for the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend House Rules at any time through Friday, December 28. House Rules normally permits suspensions only on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. It passed 226-178.
- I voted "yes" on ordering the previous question (closing debate) on H Res 827, which makes it in order for the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend House Rules at any time through Friday, December 28. It passed 224-183.
- I voted "present" on approving the Journal of the previous session. I always vote "present" when this is not handled by voice vote, because we are never given adequate time to review the Journal. Generally, the point of the vote is to extend the current session by five minutes (so that leadership can whip us on an upcoming vote). Because a Journal vote is legislatively inconsequential, many Representatives oppose their own party on these votes to improve their independence rating. It was approved 272-102-3.
- I voted "yes" on the motion to suspend the rules and pass S 2367, 21st Century Language Act of 2012, which removes references to the word "lunatic" in the U.S. Code. I agree with Rep. Louie Gohmert that this is hardly a top priority for Congress in the face of the looming fiscal crisis, but I'm okay with striking outdated terms to keep the Code current. The bill passed 398-1.
- I voted "yes" on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H R 6602, which makes technical corrections and improvements to title 36 of the U.S. Code. The corrections involve renaming and renumbering chapters so the Code is up to date and easier to navigate. The bill passed 392-0.
- May God grant strength to the families of the children and adults who were murdered or injured in Newtown, Connecticut. This is so sad. Please pray for them.
Justin Amash shared a link.
From the article, on what GOP leadership wants from me:
"It's not that 'these are unpleasant people and bad colleagues and we don't want them around'; it's that they aren't just content to vote against bad stuff and then be quiet about it."
Bingo. Unlike many in Congress, I don't attack my colleagues personally. I just explain every vote on Facebook. These simple explanations upset many in the political class who want to avoid public scrutiny.- I voted "yes" on the motion to suspend the rules and pass S Con Res 50, which expresses the sense of Congress that the Secretary of State should continue working to promote a global Internet free from government control. It encourages resistance to the imposition of an International Telecommunication Union-mandated international settlement regime on the Internet. The non-binding resolution passed 397-0.
- I voted "no" on the motion to adjourn. The motion was meant to fail so members of Congress could show that they aren't planning to leave town until there's a deal to address the so-called fiscal cliff. This is a symbolic vote. It failed 3-393.
- I voted "present" on approving the Journal of the previous session. I always vote "present" when this is not handled by voice vote, because we are never given adequate time to review the Journal. Generally, the point of the vote is to extend the current session by five minutes (so that leadership can whip us on an upcoming vote). This was the only roll call vote of the day. Because a Journal vote is legislatively inconsequential, many Representatives oppose their own party on these votes to improve their independence rating. It was approved 290-106-2.
- I voted "no" on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H R 6582, American Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act, as amended. The bill makes several revisions to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 2007, which established energy efficiency standards for certain appliances and commercial equipment. I appreciate the bill's revisions that make energy efficiency standards more predicta...ble for those already regulated, but I'm concerned by the new energy efficiency mandates contained in the bill. It also requires a study on the potential "economic benefits" of providing the industrial sector with $5 billion in federal energy efficiency grants, which will only encourage Congress to spend more on these central-planning efforts. The bill passed 398-2-1.See More
Justin Amash shared a link.
I have received a response from Speaker Boehner concerning the secret scorecard used to target certain fiscally responsible members of the Budget and Financial Services committees.
The Speaker did not dispute the existence of a scorecard and he did not deny that it was used to justify the Representatives’ removals.
I recently was told that I received a "0" on the Republican leadership’s scorecard. Given my work with Democrats and Republicans on serious proposals to balance ...the budget, it is certain that the scorecard awarded points for supporting bigger deficits and more debt.
Americans deserve to know the priorities of the current House leadership team. As fellow House Republicans, we deserve to know how we’re being judged when we vote.
I’m proud of my fight for a balanced budget. Our leaders should be proud of the positions they take.
Mr. Speaker, show us the scorecard.
+ + +
Letter from Speaker Boehner: http://amash.house.gov/sites/amash.house.gov/files/121112BoehnerLetter.pdfSee MoreJustin Amash shared a link.
Dear President Obama and Congressional Leaders,
As you begin negotiations to improve our nation’s fiscal health, we write to express bipartisan support for including defense savings in any final budget agreement. We have serious concerns about the careless and arbitrary way that sequestration reduces defense spending, but we support its general intent to improve our fiscal condition. We believe that substantial defense savings can be achieved over the long-term, without com...promising national security, through strategic reductions in the Pentagon’s budget.
Respected policy organizations across the political spectrum have recently issued proposals that would responsibly achieve defense savings over the next decade. The Cato Institute, Taxpayers for Common Sense, the National Taxpayer’s Union, the Project on Defense Alternatives and others have released plans to save up to $550 billion without harming U.S. national security.
In fact, achieving defense savings as part of the larger effort to reduce the national debt will go a long way toward bolstering U.S. national security. As former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen pointed out, “The single biggest threat to our national security is our debt, so I also believe we have every responsibility to help eliminate that threat. We must, and will, do our part.”
The Pentagon’s budget has increased dramatically over the last decade, due in large part to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. As we transition from wartime to peacetime, and as we confront our nation’s fiscal challenges, future defense budgets should reflect the conclusion of these wars and acknowledge that our modern military is able to approach conflicts utilizing fewer – but more advanced – resources. Congress must consider these changes, not past spending or percentages of GDP, and move toward defense budgeting that focuses on meeting specific military requirements.
We know the United States can maintain the best fighting force in the world while also pursuing sensible defense savings. How we spend our resources is just as important as how much we spend. The true foundation of our military power is not dollars or equipment, but the men and women of our armed forces, who have no equal.
As you work toward a budget agreement to address our fiscal challenges, we urge you to include substantial defense savings.
Sincerely,
Mick Mulvaney
Member of Congress
Keith Ellison
Member of Congress
Tom McClintock
Member of Congress
Barbara Lee
Member of Congress
Morgan Griffith
Member of Congress
Michael Honda
Member of Congress
Justin Amash
Member of Congress
Jared Polis
Member of Congress
Raúl Labrador
Member of Congress
James Moran
Member of Congress
Timothy Johnson
Member of Congress
Barney Frank
Member of Congress
Chris Gibson
Member of Congress
Jerrold Nadler
Member of Congress
Reid Ribble
Member of Congress
Kurt Schrader
Member of Congress
Thomas Massie
Member of Congress
Edward Markey
Member of Congress
Dan Benishek
Member of Congress
Gwen Moore
Member of Congress
Scott Garrett
Member of Congress
Lynn Woolsey
Member of CongressSee More- I voted "yes" on H R 6429, STEM Jobs Act of 2012. This is the same bill that failed under suspension earlier this year, although a few changes have been made.
The revised version of the bill reauthorizes the temporary "V" visa program to allow the families of lawful permanent residents to wait in the United States (without work authorization) for a green card to become available after they have s...pent a year on the waiting list. The bill also attempts to offset its initial costs over the next five years by extending increased guarantee fees and premiums by one year, which is estimated to reduce the deficit by an additional $2.2 billion, although not until 2022.
My vote explanation for the original version is here: http://facebook.com/repjustinamash/posts/ 451203314919080.
H R 6429 isn’t perfect or comprehensive, but our immigration system is in dire need of reform, and this bill is a step in the right direction. It passed 245-139.See More - I voted "no" on the motion to recommit (return to committee) with instructions H R 6429, STEM Jobs Act of 2012. The motion instructs the Committee on the Judiciary to amend the bill to preserve the Diversity Visa Program and insert immigrant wage requirements. The underlying bill replaces the diversity visa lottery with a new visa for high-skilled immigrants. I don’t like favoring certain skill sets over others, but it’s better than the goal of engineering some notion of national or ethnic balance among our immigrants, and replacing this lottery system is a first step toward more comprehensive immigration reform. Moreover, this is a procedural motion, not a true amendment. It failed 157-231.
- I voted "yes" on H Res 821, the rule defining the process for considering H R 6429, STEM Jobs Act of 2012. The closed rule provides for 90 minutes of debate equally divided between the Chairman and the Ranking Member of the Committee on the Judiciary. The modified substitute amendment is considered adopted, and one motion to recommit with or without instructions may be offered. It is also made in order for the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules on Thursday, December 6 (House Rules permit suspensions only on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday). It passed 243-170.
Justin Amash shared a link.
Schedule for the United States House of Representatives | Week of December 10, 2012 (PDF): http://majorityleader.gov/floor/12-10-12.pdfJustin Amash shared a link.
Thanks to Soledad O’Brien for chatting with me this morning about GOP leadership's booting me off of the Budget Committee for wanting to balance the budget. (video attached)Justin Amash shared a note via Rand Paul.
Senator Rand Paul is correct in his description of the 2013 NDAA. It's the 2012 NDAA (not 2013) that authorizes indefinite detention without charge or trial. There's much more to be done to protect our rights and undo the harm of the 2012 N...DAA (which doesn't expire), but thanks to the efforts of United States Senator Mike Lee and Sen. Paul, we are making significant progress in (re-)advancing the principle that all people in the United States have a constitutionally protected right to full due process.See More- Thanks to those of you at home for speaking out—not for me, but for yourselves. I'm proud and honored to represent the vast majority of Americans who believe that Members of Congress need to work together to balance the budget.
We will no longer sit silently while political insiders and corporate lobbyists saddle our children and grandchildren with an insurmountable debt. It's time for Republican leadership to show us the vote scorecard they used to determine committee assignments—a scoring system that docks a person for fiscal responsibility.
Only in Washington, DC, is a person taken off of the Budget Committee for wanting to balance the budget.
#ShowUsTheScorecard - Rumor has it that I’ve been removed from the House Committee on the Budget. Remarkably, I still have not received a single call, e-mail, or text from Republican leadership confirming this story. In fact, I wouldn’t even have learned about it if not for the news reports. I look forward to hearing from my party’s leadership about why my principled, conservative voting record offends them. That’s sur...e to be a lively and entertaining conversation.
In the meantime, I can only speculate as to what specifically would make Republican leadership punish several of its party’s most principled members. Rep. Tim Huelskamp, who was kicked off of both Budget and the Committee on Agriculture, voted with me against the 2013 House budget resolution because it does not sufficiently address the federal government’s debt crisis. That was one of only three times during this Congress that I voted against the Chairman’s recommendations in committee. In fact, I voted with the Republican Chairman more than 95% of the time, and I have voted with my party’s leadership more than three-quarters of the time on the House floor.
What message does leadership’s heavy-handedness send? It says that independent thinking won’t be tolerated, not even 5% of the time. It says that voting your conscience won’t be respected. It says that fulfilling your commitment to your constituents to work with both Republicans and Democrats to reduce our debt takes a back seat to the desires of corporate special interests. And, most troubling for our party, it says to the growing number of young believers in liberty that their views are not welcome here.
I’ll miss working with my colleagues on Budget. I don’t relish this situation, but if one thing is clear based on the response from the grassroots, it’s that leadership’s actions will backfire. If they think kicking me off of a committee will lead me to abandon my principles or stifle my bipartisan work toward a balanced budget, I have a message for them: You’re dead wrong.See More Justin Amash shared a link.
To get a sense of the gap, consider this: When Amash was born in 1980, Democratic Rep. John Dingell, a fellow Michigander, had already been in Congress for 25 years.
Amash uses Twitter himself instead of having a staffer do it, allowing him to connect with constituents in a way some other congressmen won’t. And he said his libertarian version of conservatism could be appealing to a younger generation of voters who see only the “old” in GOP.
“The party has to adapt. It’s got to reach out to young people. It’s got to reach out to constituencies that it hasn’t reached before,” he said.
His advice to the new members of the so-called ’80s caucus? Get involved and know what you are talking about.
“I’ve developed relationships by focusing on policy and by being good at as many things as possible,” he said.- I voted "no" on the motion to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate Amendment to H R 915, Jaime Zapata Border Enforcement Security Task Force. The Senate Amendment only marginally improves the House version of the bill, which I voted against earlier this year. The amendment removes the explicit authorization for appropriations, but to implement the bill, the Department of Homeland Security will have to continue funding the task forces from its other appropriations. It passed 397-4.
My vote explanation for the House version is here: http://facebook.com/repjustinamash/posts/ 403579536348125. - I voted "no" on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H R 5997, Medical Preparedness Allowable Use Act. The bill adds medical preparedness to the list of allowable uses for two Homeland Security grant programs meant to assist state and local governments in the prevention and response to acts of terrorism. I have three main objections: (1) It's unnecessary (current language already allows such f...unding); (2) it puts upward pressure on funding by making it more likely that existing dollars will be spread over more uses; and (3) the bill's definition of terrorism is so broad that these grants may be used for many purposes that do not have a federal nexus and are not constitutionally authorized. The bill passed 397-1.See More
- I voted "yes" on H R 6156, Russia and Moldova Jackson-Vanik Repeal and Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012. The bill combines two separate bills.
The first bill removes the Jackson-Vanik amendment, which restricts trade with Russia. The amendment was intended to penalize Soviet countries that limited the ability of Jews to emigrate. The administration can waive Jackson-Vanik's... restrictions if it certifies that the target countries have stopped their abuses. Administrations have waived the amendment since the 1990s.
Russia finally joined the WTO in August. Russia's accession was contingent on the country lowering trade barriers and tariffs to other countries' goods and services. Every other country in the WTO, including the U.S., must give Russia "permanent normal trade relations" (PNTR), formerly known as "most favored nation" status. Even though it is routinely waived, Jackson-Vanik violates PNTR. If the U.S. does not repeal Jackson-Vanik, Russia does not have to lower its trade barriers to our country's goods and services.
The trade portion of H R 6156 also extends PNTR to Moldova.
The second bill combined in H R 6156 concerns the death of Sergei Magnitsky, a lawyer who alleged powerful interests had stolen billions of dollars from the Russian government. Magnitsky was imprisoned without a trial for a year before he was beaten to death by prison guards. The bill requires the administration to freeze the assets of and to deny entrance to the U.S. to persons responsible for Magnitsky's death.
I favor lowering trade barriers between the U.S. and Russia. Tariffs and trade barriers limit economic freedom and make us poorer. The human rights portion of the bill is not ideal. It's ironic that our government would criticize the judicial process of another country through a sanctions process that requires our own government to make factual and legal determinations about a murder that happened thousands of miles away. However, the bill replaces broad and relatively severe sanctions in the Jackson-Vanik amendment with narrower sanctions aimed at an abuse that recently occurred (as opposed to sanctioning an abuse that largely ceased decades ago). On balance, the bill moves us in the direction of economic freedom and a restrained foreign policy.
It passed 365-43.See More - ActivityDecemberPeople Who Like This4,152
Earlier in December
November
Earlier in 2012
Joined Facebook