Here’s how U.S. House members and senators voted on major issues during the legislative week of N0v. 6-10, 2023.

The floor of the U.S. House of Representatives



Voting 234 for and 188 against, the House on Nov. 8, 2023, censured Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., the only Palestinian-American in Congress, over anti-Israel comments she has made while calling for a ceasefire in the Israel-Hamas war and denouncing Israeli attacks that are killing civilians as well as militants and terrorists in the Gaza Strip. The censure resolution (H Res 845) objected, in part, to her spreading on social media the words “from the river to the sea,” a pro-Palestinian rallying cry interpreted to mean the eradication of Israel. The resolution said the phrase is “a genocidal call to violence to destroy the state of Israel and its people to replace it with a Palestinian state extending from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.” Censure ranks behind expulsion as the most severe punishment the House can impose on a member.

Floor Debate, Pro & Con:

Rich McCormick, R-Ga., who sponsored the resolution, said Tlaib “has levied unbelievable falsehoods about our greatest ally, Israel, and the attack on October 7….Anti-Semitic hate is being promoted by a small group of members in this body — chiefly, Representative Tlaib. We must hold her accountable.”

Another supporter, Jack Bergman, R-Mich., said Tlaib’s “continued assault on the only Jewish state in the world, Israel, is reprehensible and this body should come together to support this censure resolution to say to Representative Tlaib: Enough.”

Tlaib said: “My criticism has always been of the Israeli government and [Prime Minister] Netanyahu’s actions. It is important to separate people and governments. No government is beyond criticism. The idea that criticizing the government of Israel is anti-Semitic sets a very dangerous precedent, and it is being used to silence diverse voices speaking up for human rights across our nation.”

Another opponent, Jamie Raskin, D-Md., said: “The freedom to speak includes the freedom to disagree, the right to think radically differently from the majority about important things, or else it is no freedom at all. It is easy to defend freedom of speech for people when you agree with them. The test for each member today is whether you can defend freedom of speech for people when you most fundamentally and vehemently disagree with them.”

A yes vote was to censure Tlaib.


Voting 208 for and 212 against, the House on Nov. 8, 2023, defeated an amendment that sought to defund the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention in the current budget year. The office was created in September and is chaired by Vice President Kamala Harris. It approaches America’s mounting firearms carnage from a public-health perspective in hopes of developing gun-control policies that can be implemented within the bounds of the Second Amendment. But in the view of the National Rifle Association, the office’s “real purpose is to employ professional gun-control advocates and amplify their propaganda and agenda with taxpayer dollars.” This amendment was offered to a fiscal 2024 appropriations bill (HR 4664) that was later passed.

Floor Debate, Pro & Con:

Sponsor Matt Rosendale, R-Mont., said the office seeks “to bypass Congress unilaterally and implement the left’s gun control agenda.” But his amendment “would throw a wrench in the gun-control lobbyists’ plans and severely hamper the Biden administration’s ability to impose further restrictions on our Second Amendment rights.”

Opponent Matt Cartwright, D-Pa., said: “As a gun owner myself, I tell you that [the] task force seeks to enact commonsense gun safety measures that the majority of Americans support. These include background checks for all gun sales, closing the gun show and online sale loopholes and implementing red flag laws temporarily to disarm individuals who pose a danger to themselves or others.”

A yes vote was to adopt the amendment.


Voting 191 for and 238 against, the House on Nov. 7, 2023, defeated an amendment that sought to eliminate funding in fiscal 2024 for a program funding the installation of electric-vehicle charging stations on interstate highway corridors. The program targeted by this amendment would appropriate $885,00 million in grants to states in 2024 and $4.2 billion over five years to create a nationwide network of charging stations in federally designated Alternative Fuel Corridors. The funding is authorized by the administration’s 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. This amendment was proposed to a bill (HR 4820), later passed, that would fund the departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development in 2024.

Floor Debate, Pro & Con:

Amendment sponsor Harriet Hageman, R-Wyo., said: “The Biden administration’s stated goal for this latest government boondoggle is to utilize taxpayer funding to strategically deploy electric-vehicle charging stations across America. Not only is such an endeavor not the federal government’s responsibility, but this program also doesn’t work, won’t work and will end up wasting massive amounts of federal money.”

Opponent Debbie Dingell, D-Mich., said: “Electric vehicles are the future of transportation in this country and in the world….As we continue to invest in this EV transition, it is critical that we get the charging infrastructure right. We must do everything within our power to keep America competitive, to make it easier for consumers to make this transition, and that is what this program does.”

A yes vote was to adopt the amendment.


Voting 144 for and 282 against, the House on Nov. 7, 2023, defeated an amendment to eliminate funding in fiscal 2024 for the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS program, the only federal program dedicated to helping low-income individuals with AIDS find affordable housing. Begun during the 1980s in the Reagan administration, the program serves more than 75,000 persons in 55,000 households, providing rental assistance and access to permanent housing. This amendment sought to remove $505 million for the program from HR 4820, a bill to fund the departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development in 2024. The bill was later passed.

Floor Debate, Pro & Con:

Amendment sponsor Warren Davidson, R-Ohio, said: “AIDS is a horrific disease. We have lots of horrific diseases in our country, but we don’t have programs for everybody that gets a disease. We don’t have programs specifically for people that get cancer, for example….It is time to curb our spending….It is not compassionate to bankrupt America.”

Opponent Mike Quigley, D-Ill., said: “Housing is the greatest unmet need for people living with HIV, and [this program] is the only federal funding dedicated to directly addressing this need….It is difficult to overstate the cruelty of this amendment and the damage it would do to public health and to one of our most vulnerable populations.”

A yes vote was to adopt the amendment.



Voting 62 for and 36 against, the Senate on Nov. 7, 2023, confirmed Dr. Monica M. Bertagnolli as director of the National Institutes of Health. She had been director of the National Cancer Institute, which is part of the NIH. A cancer surgeon and survivor of early-stage breast cancer diagnosed last year, Bertagnolli, born in 1959, is the second woman confirmed to direct the NIH, which is the world’s leading medical research agency with an annual budget of $47 billion. She was employed at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and was a professor of surgery at Harvard Medical School in previous work.

Floor Debate, Pro & Con:

Supporter Benjamin Cardin, D-Md., said: “Thanks to Dr. Bertagnolli’s decades of experience as a physician-scientist, she has obtained a well-rounded view of medical research that…will properly inform her decisions as NIH director. Her work to better understand the development and treatment of various types of cancer highlights the diligence and effectiveness that qualify Dr. Bertagnolli for this position.”

Opponent Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., said “our healthcare system is broken, it is dysfunctional, it is failing,” and Dr. Bertagnolli “has not convinced me that she is prepared to take on the greed and power of the drug companies and the healthcare industry in general, nor is she prepared, in my view, to fight for the transformative changes the NIH needs at this critical moment.”

A yes vote was to confirm the nominee.


By a tally of 50 for and 48 against, the Senate on Nov. 8, 2023, voted to keep in place a permanent waiver of “Buy America” requirements for the manufacture of electric-vehicle (EV) charging stations in the United States. The vote killed a proposed Federal Highway Administration (FHA) rule that would end the waiver on July 1, 2024, so that as of that date, chargers would have to be made by American – not Chinese — companies to receive FHA approval. The vote adopted a resolution (SJ Res 38) to disapprove of the FHA rule. This left intact a permanent waiver of “Buy America” requirements for chargers under a 40-year-old federal procurement policy known as the Manufactured Products General Waiver.  

The administration’s 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act included at least $5 billion to spur the manufacture of EV charging stations in the United States. In response, the charging industry has announced plans to invest more than $500 million in plants in states including Illinois, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio and Pennsylvania. The AFL-CIO and United Steelworkers Union declared support of the FHA rule and opposition to the Republican-sponsored resolution of disapproval.

Floor Debate, Pro & Con:

Marco Rubio, R-Fla., who sponsored the resolution of disapproval, said: “If we are going to spend $5 billion of taxpayer money to build electric vehicle charging stations in the United States, [they] should be made by Americans, in America, using American products.”

Opponent Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., said Rubio’s measure “would significantly set back American jobs and American manufacturing. If you want American taxpayer dollars to be required to purchase American-made products, including EV chargers, you need to vote no on this resolution….”

A yes vote was to adopt the resolution.