Charles Schumer on Government Reform Democratic Sr Senator (NY)

We need independent commission on insurrection

"But just as glaring is what the report didn't consider," Schumer said. "Indeed, what it was not allowed to consider. The report did not investigate, report on, or hardly make any reference to the actual cause--the actual impetus--for the attack on January 6."

"With the exception of a brief reference to former President Trump's remarks at the ellipse, Senate Republicans insisted that the report exclude anything having to do with the cause of the insurrection," he said.

"If anything, the joint report by the Homeland Security and Rules committees has strengthened the argument for an independent commission on January 6."

Applauds Campaign Finance Reform ban on soft money

Legitimize consideration of ideology for judicial nominees

Voted YES on Congressional pay raise.

Makes appropriations to the Senate for FY2010 for:
1. expense allowances;
2. representation allowances for the Majority and Minority Leaders;
3. salaries of specified officers, employees, and committees (including the Committee on Appropriations);
4. agency contributions for employee benefits;
5. inquiries and investigations;
6. the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control;
7. the Offices of the Secretary and of the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate;
8. miscellaneous items;
9. the Senators' Official Personnel and Office Expense Account; and
10. official mail costs.

Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Rep. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (D, FL-20): We, as Members of Congress, have responsibility not just for the institution, but for the staff that work for this institution, and to preserve the facilities that help support this institution. We have endeavored to do that responsibly, and I believe we have accomplished that goal.

Opponent's argument to vote No:Rep. SCALISE (R, LA-1): It's a sad day when someone attempts to cut spending in a bill that grows government by the size of 7%, and it's not allowed to be debated on this House floor. Some of their Members actually used the term "nonsense" and "foolishness" when describing our amendments to cut spending; they call that a delaying tactic. Well, I think Americans all across this country want more of those types of delaying tactics to slow down this runaway train of massive Federal spending. Every dollar we spend from today all the way through the end of this year is borrowed money. We don't have that money. We need to control what we're spending.

Voted YES on providing a US House seat for the District of Columbia.

• The District of Columbia shall be considered a Congressional district for purposes of representation in the House of Representatives.
• DC shall not be considered a State for purposes of representation in the US Senate.
• Reapportionment [census-based House seats] shall apply with respect to DC in the same manner as it applies to a State, except that DC may not receive more than one Member.
• Effective with the 112th Congress, the House of Representatives shall be composed of 437 Members, including the Member representing DC.
• The State of Utah is entitled to one additional Representative pursuant to this reapportionment.

Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Sen. ORRIN HATCH (R-UT): I am cosponsoring the legislation to provide a House seat for DC and an additional House seat for Utah. Representation and suffrage are so central to the American system of self-government that America's founders warned that limiting suffrage would risk another revolution and could prevent ratification of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held in 1820 that Congress' legislative authority over DC allows taxation of DC. Do opponents of giving DC a House seat believe that DC is suitable for taxation but not for representation?

Opponent's argument to vote No:Sen. JOHN McCAIN (R-AZ): I make a constitutional point of order against this bill on the grounds that it violates article I, section 2, of the Constitution. I appreciate the frustration felt by the residents of DC at the absence of a vote in Congress. According to many experts, DC is not a State, so therefore is not entitled to that representation. Also, one has to raise the obvious question: If DC is entitled to a Representative, why isn't Puerto Rico, which would probably entail 9 or 10 Members of Congress? [With regards to the seat for Utah], this is obviously partisan horse-trading.

Voted YES on granting the District of Columbia a seat in Congress.

• Considers D.C. a congressional district for purposes of representation in the House.
• D.C. shall not be considered a state for representation in the Senate.
• Limits D.C. to one Member under any reapportionment.
• Increases membership of the House from 435 to 437.
• Entitles Utah to one additional Representative until the next census, and modifies the reapportionment formula thereafter.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

Sen. BYRD: In 1978, I voted for H.J. Res. 554, that proposed amending the Constitution to provide for representation of D.C. [That amendment passed the Senate but was not ratified by the States]. While I recognize that others believe that the Constitution authorizes the Congress to "exercise exclusive legislation" over D.C., the historical intent of the Founders on this point is unclear. I oppose S.1257, because I doubt that our Nation's Founding Fathers ever intended that the Congress should be able to change the text of the Constitution by passing a simple bill.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Sen. HATCH. There are conservative and liberal advocates on both sides of this issue,and think most people know Utah was not treated fairly after the last census. For those who are so sure this is unconstitutional, [we include an] expedited provision that will get us to the Supreme Court to make an appropriate decision. It will never pass as a constitutional amendment. There are 600,000 people in D.C., never contemplated by the Founders of this country to be without the right to vote. They are the only people in this country who do not have a right to vote for their own representative in the House. This bill would remedy that situation.

Voted NO on requiring photo ID to vote in federal elections.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Sen. DOLE. I am proposing a commonsense measure to uphold the integrity of Federal elections. My amendment to require voters to show photo identification at the polls would go a long way in minimizing potential for voter fraud. When a fraudulent vote is cast and counted, the vote of a legitimate voter is cancelled. This is wrong, and my amendment would help ensure that one of the hallmarks of our democracy, our free and fair elections, is protected. Opinion polls repeatedly confirm that Americans overwhelmingly support this initiative.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

Sen. FEINSTEIN. If one would want to suppress the vote in the 2008 election, one would vote for this because this measure goes into effect January 1, 2008. It provides that everybody who votes essentially would have to have a photo ID. If you want to suppress the minority vote, the elderly vote, the poor vote, this is exactly the way to do it. Many of these people do not have driver's licenses. This amendment would cost hundreds of millions of dollars to actually carry out. It goes into effect--surprise--January 1, 2008 [to affect the presidential election]. I urge a "no" vote.

Voted NO on allowing some lobbyist gifts to Congress.

Proponents of the amendment say to vote NAY on the tabling motion because:
• Using the term "registered lobbyist'' will create a huge loophole. The Ethics Committee treats the actual listed lobbyists as registered lobbyists, but not the organization.
• So, for example, a company can give a Senator free tickets to a show or a baseball game, as long as a lobbyist doesn't actually offer or handle them. If the lobbyist's secretary makes the call, that would be permitted.
• If these companies can still give gifts, we won't have a real lobbyist gift ban. We won't be able to look the American people in the eye and say, "We just banned gifts from lobbyists,'' because we didn't.

Opponents of the amendment say to vote YEA on the tabling motion because:
• I can tolerate not accepting gifts from lobbyists. But this amendment goes a step further which is problematic.

  For example, I am a big fan of McDonald's. What about the kids working behind the counter? Would they be considered registered lobbyists because McDonald's has lobbyists? Would I not be able to go to lunch with my longtime friend who owns 12 McDonald's?

• Every company in the Fortune 1000 employs a lobbyist, either a private firm or an in-house lobbyist. Under this amendment, every person who works for Exxon, Wal-Mart, Home Depot, and countless other businesses that employ lobbyists in Washington would be considered registered lobbyists.
• If we want to ban the CEO and chairman of the board of the company from paying for a meal, or the head of a labor union, do that specifically. But this is so broadly developed I think it goes way beyond that.

Voted NO on establishing the Senate Office of Public Integrity.

Proponents of the bill say to vote YEA because:
• We have heard from the media about the bribes and scandals, but we have heard only silence from the House Ethics Committee. One of the greatest travesties of these scandals is not what Congress did, but what it didn't do.
• The American people perceive the entire ethics system--House and Senate--to be broken. We can pass all the ethics reforms we want--gift bans, travel bans, lobbying restrictions--but none of them will make a difference if there isn't a nonpartisan, independent body that will help us enforce those laws.
• The Office of Public Integrity established in this amendment would provide a voice that cannot be silenced by political pressures. It would have the power to initiate independent investigations and bring its findings to the Ethics Committees in a transparent manner.

Opponents of the bill say to vote NAY because:
• The Constitution gave us not only the right but the duty to create our own rules, including the rules concerning our ethics. They are enforced internally by the Senate itself.
• The decisions made under this amendment would be no different than right now. The final decision will be made by the Senate Ethics Committee. All this really does is find a way to further publicize that complaints have been made.
• We have people accusing us almost daily of having done something wrong and publishing it through blogs and all that. I think we should be very careful in setting up another tool for these bloggers to create more charges against the Senate.
• I cannot support an amendment that either replaces the Senate Ethics Committee or adds another layer to our already expensive and time-consuming process. I urge the Senate to defeat this provision.

Voted YES on banning "soft money" contributions and restricting issue ads.

Voted NO on require photo ID (not just signature) for voter registration.

Voted YES on banning campaign donations from unions & corporations.

Voted YES on funding for National Endowment for the Arts.

Subject independent 527s to rules for political committees.

OnTheIssues.org Explanation: "527 organizations" were inspired by the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. The "527" refers to the relevant section of the tax code. 527s are independent organizations which raise and spend money on behalf of a candidate, without coordinating with the candidate. An example is the "Swift Boat" group in the 2004 elections. OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: A bill to clarify when organizations described in section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code must register as political committees.

SPONSOR'S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Sen. McCAIN: This bill would end the illegal practice of "527" groups spending soft money on ads and other activities to influence Federal elections. A number of 527 groups raised and spent a substantial amount of soft money in a blatant effort to influence the outcome of last year's Presidential election. These activities are illegal under existing laws, and yet once again, the FEC has failed to do its job and has refused to do anything to stop these illegal activities. Therefore, we must pursue all possible steps to overturn the FEC's misinterpretation of the campaign finance laws, which is improperly allowing 527 groups whose purpose is to influence Federal elections to spend soft money on these efforts.

The bill we introduce today is simple. It would require that all 527s register as political committees and comply with Federal campaign finance laws, including Federal limits on the contributions they receive, unless the money they raise and spend is only in connection with non-Federal elections.

Enough is enough. It is time to stop wasting taxpayer's dollars on an agency that runs roughshod over the will of the Congress and the Constitution. We've fought too hard to sit back and allow this worthless agency to undermine the law.

LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Referred to Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. Hearings held; never came to a vote.

Reject photo ID requirements for voting.

OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: Expresses the sense of Congress that:

1. a requirement that U.S. citizens obtain photo identification cards before being able to vote has not been shown to ensure ballot integrity and places an undue burden on citizens' legitimate voting rights; (
2. the Department of Justice should challenge any state law that limits a citizen's ability to vote based on discriminatory photo identification requirements; and
3. any effort to impose national photo identification requirements for voting should be rejected.

SPONSOR'S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Sen. OBAMA: I am submitting a resolution to express the Senate's strong disapproval of recent efforts to disenfranchise Americans. Unfortunately, too many electoral reform efforts seem intent on limiting access to the ballot as opposed to expanding it. In the mid-20th century, the poll tax was the preferred means of disenfranchising large minority populations, specifically African Americans. Today, the poll tax is taking on a new form--a photo identification requirement for voters.

According to the National Commission on Federal Election Reform, such a requirement would "impose an additional expense on the exercise of the franchise, a burden that would fall disproportionately on people who are poorer and urban." Nevertheless, a number of States, including Georgia, have recently passed laws mandating government-issued photo identification for voters at the polls. Nationwide, at least 12% of eligible drivers do not have a driver's license. And Georgia has made it difficult for rural and urban folks to obtain their voter photo identification.

The Carter-Baker Commission on Federal Election Reform acknowledges that there is "no evidence of extensive fraud in U.S. elections or of multiple voting."

LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Referred to Senate Committee on Rules and Administration; never came to a vote.

Prohibit voter intimidation in federal elections.

Makes it unlawful for anyone before or during a federal election to knowingly communicate false election-related information about that election, with the intent to prevent another person from exercising the right to vote. Increases from one year to five years' imprisonment the criminal penalty for intimidation of voters.

Introductory statement by Sponsor:

Sen. OBAMA: This bill seeks to address the all-too-common efforts to deceive voters in order to keep them away from the polls. It's hard to imagine that we even need a bill like this. But, unfortunately, there are people who will stop at nothing to try to deceive voters and keep them away from the polls. What's worse, these practices often target and exploit vulnerable populations, such as minorities, the disabled, or the poor. We saw countless examples in this past election.

• Some of us remember the thousands of Latino voters in Orange County, California, who received letters warning them in Spanish that, "if you are an immigrant, voting in a federal election is a crime that can result in incarceration."
• Or the voters in Virginia who received calls from a so-called "Virginia Elections Commission" informing them--falsely--that they were ineligible to vote.
• Or the voters who were told that they couldn't vote if they had family members who had been convicted of a crime.

Sponsored DISCLOSE Act: ban political donations from Big Oil.

Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act or DISCLOSE Act: Amends the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA) to prohibit:
1. independent expenditures and payments for electioneering communications by government contractors if the value of the contract is at least $10 million;
2. recipients of assistance under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) from making any contribution to any political party, committee, or candidate for public office, or to any person for any political purpose; and
3. persons who enter into negotiations for an oil or gas exploration, development, or production lease under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act from making any contribution to any political party, or candidate for public office.

• Applies the ban on contributions and expenditures by foreign nationals to foreign-controlled domestic corporations.
• Repeals the prohibition against contributions by individuals age 17 or younger.
• Promoting Effective Disclosure of Campaign-Related Activity: Requires any person making independent expenditures exceeding $10,000 to file a report electronically within 24 hours.
• Expanded Requirements for Corporations and Other Organizations: Requires corporations, labor organizations, tax-exempt charitable organizations, and political organizations other than political committees (covered organizations) to include specified additional information in reports on independent expenditures of at least $10,000, excluding amounts paid from separate segregated funds as well as amounts designated for specified campaign-related activities.
• Disclosure by Covered Organizations of Information on Campaign Related Activity: Requires covered organizations to disclose to shareholders, members, or donors information on disbursements for campaign-related activity.

Require full disclosure of independent campaign expenditures.

Congressional Summary:

• Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections Act of 2012 or DISCLOSE Act:
• Amends the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA) to add to the definition of "independent expenditure" an expenditure by a person that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate, or takes a position on a candidates, qualifications, or fitness for office.
• Expands the period during which certain communications are treated as electioneering communications.
• Prescribes disclosure requirements for corporations, labor organizations, and certain other entities, including a political committee with an account established for the purpose of accepting donations or contributions that do not comply with the contribution limits or source prohibitions under FECA (but only with respect to such accounts).
• Repeals the prohibition against political contributions by individuals age 17 or younger.

• On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, ruled that prohibiting corporations and unions from making independent expenditures in political campaigns was unconstitutional. This ruling is frequently described as permitting corporations and unions to donate to political campaigns, but these claims are incorrect. The ruling did remove the previous ban on corporations and organizations using their funds for direct advocacy, including endorsing for or against specific candidates, actions that were previously prohibited.

  The result of Citizens United was that "Super PACs" spent millions on TV ads in the 2012 election, advocating both issues and candidates. The DISCLOSE Act attempts to reduce the negative effect of Citizens United by requiring disclosure of independent expenditures made by advocacy groups.

  Source: S3369/HR4010 12-S3369 on Jul 10, 2012

  No photo IDs to vote; they suppress the vote.

  Schumer signed Voting Rights Amendment Act

  Congressional Summary:Amends the Voting Rights Act of 1965 with respect to the requirement that a federal court retain jurisdiction for an appropriate period to prevent commencement of new devices to deny or abridge the right to vote. Expands the types of violations triggering the authority of a court to retain such jurisdiction to include certain violations of the Act as well as violations of any federal voting rights law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or membership in a language minority group. [This bill would ban requiring photo IDs in order to vote].

  Opponents recommend voting NO because:Sen. Bob Dole (on related bill from 2007, whether to add an amendment allowing photo ID): I am proposing a commonsense measure to uphold the integrity of Federal elections. My amendment to require voters to show photo identification at the polls would go a long way in minimizing potential for voter fraud. When a fraudulent vote is cast and counted, the vote of a legitimate voter is cancelled. This is wrong, and my amendment would help ensure that one of the hallmarks of our democracy, our free and fair elections, is protected. Opinion polls repeatedly confirm that Americans overwhelmingly support this initiative.

  Proponents support voting YES because:Sen. Dianne Feinstein (on related bill from 2007): If one would want to suppress the vote in the 2008 election, one would vote [for Dole's amendment] this because this measure goes into effect January 1, 2008. It provides that everybody who votes essentially would have to have a photo ID. If you want to suppress the minority vote, the elderly vote, the poor vote, this is exactly the way to do it. Many of these people do not have driver's licenses. This amendment would cost hundreds of millions of dollars to actually carry out. It goes into effect--surprise--January 1, 2008 [to affect the presidential election]. I urge a "no" vote.

  Source: H.R.3899/S.1945 14_S1945 on Jan 16, 2014

  Matching fund for small donors, with debate requirements.

  Schumer signed Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act

  Congressional Summary:Fair Elections Now Act--Amends 1971 FECA with respect to:

  • 500% matching payments to candidates for certain small dollar contributions;
  • a public debate requirement;
  • establishment of the Fair Elections Fund and of a Fair Elections Oversight Board;
  • remission to the Fair Elections Fund of unspent funds after an election civil penalties for violation of contribution and expenditure requirements;
  • Requires all designations, statements, and reports required to be filed under FECA to be filed directly with the FEC in electronic form accessible by computers.

  Statement of support for corresponding Senate bill: (Sunlight Foundation) Now we bring you the Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act, a bill that should probably be the least controversial of all. S. 375 would simply require senators and Senate candidates to file their public campaign finance disclosure reports electronically with the Federal Election Commission, the way House candidates and presidential candidates have been filing for over a decade. A version of the bill has been introduced during every congress starting in 2003 (!) yet it has been blocked repeatedly, a victim of political football.

  Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., has introduced the most recent version, which would ensure that paper Senate campaign finance reports are a thing of the past. But even with 50 bipartisan cosponsors, the bill faces an uphill battle. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky, has repeatedly prevented the bill from coming to the Senate floor. We won't be deterred--as long as McConnell continues to block the bill, we'll continue to highlight that his intransigence results in delayed disclosure of vital, public campaign finance information, not to mention wasting $500,000 in taxpayer money annually. Eventually, we'll win.

  Source: S375/H.R.269 14_S375 on Feb 25, 2013

  Statehood for the District of Columbia.

  Schumer co-sponsored H.R.317

  Congressional Summary: Sets forth procedures for admission into the United States of the state of New Columbia.

  • Requires the Mayor of the District of Columbia to submit to the voters propositions for statehood and adoption of a State Constitution, and issue a proclamation for the first elections to Congress of two Senators and one Representative of New Columbia.
  • Requires the President to issue a proclamation announcing the results and admitting New Columbia into the Union.
  • Provides for conversion of District government offices to state offices.

  Opponents reasons for voting NAY: (DCist.com, Sept. 2014): The Argument Against: Congress does not have the authority to grant statehood to D.C.; the 23rd amendment, which gave D.C. three electoral votes, would have to be repealed before statehood was granted. Washington is a wholly urban, one-industry town, dependent on the federal government far in excess of any other state. Moreover, with Congress no longer having authority over New Columbia but dependent on it, New Columbia could exert influence on the federal government far in excess of any other state.

  Supporters reasons for voting YEA: [Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-DC; the District of Columbia has one representative to Congress and no Senators; Rep. Holmes can introduce bills but her vote does not count]: This 51st state would have no jurisdiction over the federal territory or enclave that now consists of the Washington that Members of Congress and visitors associate with the capital of our country. Those would remain under federal jurisdiction. The New Columbia Admission Act was the first bill I introduced in 1991. Statehood is the only alternative for the citizens of the District of Columbia. To be content with less than statehood is to concede the equality of citizenship that is the birthright of our residents as citizens of the United States.

  Source: New Columbia Admission Act 15_H317 on Jan 13, 2015

  Sponsored bill for election holiday & easier voting access.

  Schumer co-sponsored For the People Act of 2019
  • This bill expands voter registration and voting access, makes Election Day a federal holiday, and limits removing voters from voter rolls.
  • The bill provides for states to establish independent, nonpartisan redistricting commissions.
  • The bill also sets forth provisions for sharing intelligence information with state election officials, and supporting states in securing their election systems, and establishing the National Commission to Protect U.S. Democratic Institutions.
  • This bill addresses campaign spending, by expanding the ban on foreign nationals contributing to or spending on elections; and expanding disclosure rules.
  • This bill establishes an alternative campaign funding system [with] federal matching of small contributions for qualified candidates.
  • The bill also requires candidates for President and Vice President to submit 10 years of tax returns.

  Opposing argument from the Heritage Foundation, 2/1/2019: HR1 federalizes and micromanages the election process administered by the states, imposing unnecessary mandates on the states and reversing the decentralization of the American election process. What HR1 Would Do:

  • Seize the authority of states to regulate the voting process by forcing states to implement early voting, automatic voter registration, same-day registration, online voter registration, and no-fault absentee balloting.
  • Make it easier to commit fraud at the polls through same-day registration, as election officials have no time to verify the accuracy of voter registration.
  • Degrade the accuracy of registration lists by automatically registering individuals from state databases, such as DMV.
  • Cripple the effectiveness of state voter ID laws by allowing individuals to vote without an ID and merely signing a statement in which they claim they are who they say they are.

  Legislative outcome: Passed House 234-193-5 on 3/8/19; received with no action in Senate thru 12/31/2019

  Source: H.R.1 &S.949 19-S949 on Jan 3, 2019

  Prohibit 'voter caging' which intimidates minority voting.

  Schumer co-sponsored prohibiting 'voter caging' which intimidates minority voting

  Rep. CONYERS: "Since the late 1950's, the pernicious practice of 'voter caging' has been used to discourage or prevent eligible voters from casting their vote. Recent elections have shown that caging tactics are not outdated, and in fact, have disenfranchised voters in recent midterm and Presidential elections. While caging efforts have traditionally been directed at minority communities, all voters are susceptible to these attempts at voter intimidation and suppression.

  "The undemocratic practice of voter caging involves sending mail to voters at the addresses at which they are registered to vote. Should such mail be returned as undeliverable or without a return receipt, the voter's name is placed on a 'caging list.' These caging lists are then used to challenge a voter's registration or eligibility.

  "In my home State of Michigan, I have seen firsthand how caging efforts are used to harass, bully, and ultimately disenfranchise, eligible voters. With a Michigan lawmaker advocating 'suppress the Detroit vote,' I cannot help but think that is synonymous with 'suppress the Black vote' as Detroit is 83% African American. These voter suppression campaigns always seem to target our most vulnerable voters--racial minorities, low-income people, homeless people, and college students.

  "Caging tactics meant to suppress the vote do more than impede the right to vote. They threaten to erode the very core of our democracy. By eliminating barriers to the polls, we can help restore what has been missing from our elections--fairness, honesty, and integrity."

  S.2305: PROHIBITION ON VOTER CAGING: No State or local election official shall prevent an individual from registering or voting in any election for Federal office, or challenge an individual's registration status or eligibility to vote, if the sole basis for such decision or challenge is evidence consisting of a voter caging document or voter caging list; or an unverified match list. Source: Caging Prohibition Act (S.2305/H.R.5038) 2007-S2305 on Nov 5, 2007

  Repeal automatic Congressional pay raises.

  Schumer signed Stop the Congressional Pay Raise Act

  A bill to prevent Members of Congress from receiving any automatic pay adjustment in 2010.

  For purposes of the provision of law amended by section 704(a)(2)(B) of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (5 U.S.C. 5318 note), no adjustment under section 5303 of title 5, United States Code, shall be considered to have taken effect in fiscal year 2010 in the rates of pay under the General Schedule.

  Source: S.542&HR.156 2009-S542 on Jan 6, 2009

  Remove President Trump from office for inciting insurrection.

  Schumer voted YEA removing President Trump from office for inciting insurrection

  GovTrack.us summary of H.Res.24: Article of Impeachment Against Former President Donald John Trump:

  The House impeached President Trump for the second time, charging him with incitement of insurrection. The impeachment resolution accused the President of inciting the violent riot that occurred on January 6, when his supporters invaded the United States Capitol injuring and killing Capitol Police and endangering the safety of members of Congress. It cites statements from President Trump to the rioters such as `if you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore,` as well as persistent lies that he won the 2020 Presidential election.

  Legislative Outcome:

  Bill introduced Jan 11, 2021, with 217 co-sponsors; House rollcall vote #117 passed 232-197-4 on Jan. 13th (a YES vote in the House was to impeach President Trump for inciting insurrection); Senate rollcall vote #59 rejected 57-43-0 on Feb. 13th (2/3 required in Senate to pass; a YES vote in the Senate would have found President Trump guilty, but since he had already left office at that time, a guilty verdict would have barred Trump from running for President in the future)

  Source: Congressional vote 21-HR24S on Jan 11, 2021

  Voted YES on two articles of impeachment against Trump.

  Schumer voted YEA Impeachment of President Trump

  RESOLUTION: Impeaching Donald Trump for high crimes and misdemeanors.

  ARTICLE I: ABUSE OF POWER: Using the powers of his high office, Pres. Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 US Presidential election. He did so through a course of conduct that included
  1. Pres. Trump--acting both directly and through his agents--corruptly solicited the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into a political opponent, former Vice President Joseph Biden; and a discredited theory promoted by Russia alleging that Ukraine--rather than Russia--interfered in the 2016 US Presidential election.
  2. With the same corrupt motives, Pres. Trump conditioned two official acts on the public announcements that he had requested: (A) the release of $391 million that Congress had appropriated for the purpose of providing vital military and security assistance to Ukraine to oppose Russian aggression; and (B) a head of state meeting at the White House, which the President of Ukraine sought.
  3. Faced with the public revelation of his actions, Pres. Trump ultimately released the [funds] to the Government of Ukraine, but has persisted in openly soliciting Ukraine to undertake investigations for his personal political benefit.
  These actions were consistent with Pres. Trump's previous invitations of foreign interference in US elections.
  ARTICLE II: OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS:
  1. Pres. Trump defied a lawful subpoena by withholding the production of documents sought [by Congress];
  2. defied lawful subpoenas [for] the production of documents and records;
  3. and directed current and former Executive Branch officials not to cooperate with the Committees.
  These actions were consistent with Pres. Trump's previous efforts to undermine US Government investigations into foreign interference in US elections. Source: Congressional vote ImpeachK on Dec 18, 2019

  Click here for definitions & background information on Government Reform. Click here for a Wikipedia profile of Charles Schumer. Click here for a Ballotpedia profile of Charles Schumer. Click here for SenateMatch quiz answers by Charles Schumer. Click here for a summary of Charles Schumer's positions on all issues. Click here for issue positions of other NY politicians. Click here for issue statements from NY primary archives. Click here for issue statements from NY secondary archives.
  Other candidates on Government Reform:		Charles Schumer on other issues:
  NY Gubernatorial: Andrew Cuomo Andrew Giuliani Andrew Yang Bill de Blasio Cynthia Nixon Eric Adams George Pataki Howie Hawkins John DeFrancisco Kathy Hochul Kirsten Gillibrand Larry Sharpe Lee Zeldin Letitia James Marc Molinaro Mike Bloomberg Rob Astorino Shaun Donovan Tom Suozzi Zephyr Teachout NY Senatorial: Alex Merced Chele Farley Dave Webber Kirsten Gillibrand Marc Molinaro Scott Noren Wendy Long NY politicians NY Archives	Senate races 2021-22: AK: Incumbent Lisa Murkowski(R) vs.Challenger Kelly Tshibaka(R) vs.2020 candidate Al Gross(D) AL: Incumbent Richard Shelby(R) vs.U.S. Rep. Mo Brooks(R) vs.Ambassador Lynda Blanchard(R) vs.Katie Britt(R) vs.Judge Jessica Taylor(R) vs.Brandaun Dean(D) vs.State Rep. John Merrill(R) AR: Incumbent John Boozman(R) vs.Candidate Dan Whitfield(D) vs.Jake Bequette(R) AZ: Incumbent Mark Kelly(D) vs.CEO Jim Lamon(R) vs.Blake Masters(R) vs.A.G. Mark Brnovich(R) vs.Mick McGuire(R) CA: Incumbent Alex Padilla(D) vs.2018 Senate candidate James Bradley(R) vs.Lily Zhou(R) vs.State Rep. Jerome Horton(D) CO: Incumbent Michael Bennet(D) vs.Eli Bremer(R) vs.USAF Lt. Darryl Glenn(R) CT: Incumbent Richard Blumenthal(D) vs.Challenger Joe Visconti(R) vs.2018 & 2020 House candidate John Flynn(R) FL: Incumbent Marco Rubio(R) vs.U.S.Rep. Val Demings(D) vs.U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson(D) GA: Incumbent Raphael Warnock(D) vs.Navy vet Latham Saddler(R) vs.Gary Black(R) vs.Herschel Walker(R) HI: Incumbent Brian Schatz(D) vs.Former State Rep. Cam Cavasso(R ?) IA: Incumbent Chuck Grassley(R) vs.State Sen. Jim Carlin(R) vs.Michael Franken(D) vs.Bob Krause(D) vs.Former U.S. Rep IA-1 Abby Finkenauer(D) ID: Incumbent Mike Crapo(R) vs.James Vandermaas(D) vs.Natalie Fleming(R) IL: Incumbent Tammy Duckworth(D) vs.U.S.Rep. Adam Kinzinger(? R) vs.Peggy Hubbard(R) IN: Incumbent Todd Young(R) vs.Challenger Haneefah Abdul-Khaaliq(D) vs.Psychologist Valerie McCray(D) vs.Thomas McDermott(D) KS: Incumbent Jerry Moran(R) vs.Michael Soetaert(D) vs.Mark Holland(D) vs.Joan Farr(R) KY: Incumbent Rand Paul(R) vs.State Rep Charles Booker(D) LA: Incumbent John Kennedy(R) vs.Luke Mixon(D) vs.Gary Chambers(D)	MD: Incumbent Chris Van Hollen(D) vs.Colin Byrd(D) MO: Incumbent Roy Blunt(R) vs.Eric Greitens(R) vs.Scott Sifton(D) vs.Eric Schmitt(R) vs.Lucas Kunce(D) vs.Mark McClosky(R) vs.Vicky Hartzler(R) vs.Tim Shepard(D) vs.Billy Long(R) NC: Incumbent Richard Burr(R,retiring) Erica Smith(D) vs.Mark Walker(R) vs.Ted Budd(R) vs.Pat McCrory(R) vs.Cheri Beasley(D) vs.Rett Newton(D) vs.Jeff Jackson(D) vs.Marjorie K. Eastman(R) ND: Incumbent John Hoeven(R) vs.Michael J. Steele(D) NH: Incumbent Maggie Hassan(D) vs.Don Bolduc(R) vs.Chris Sununu(R ?) NV: Incumbent Catherine Cortez Masto(D) vs.Adam Laxalt(R) NY: Incumbent Chuck Schumer(D) vs.Antoine Tucker(R) OH: Incumbent Rob Portman(R,retiring) Bernie Moreno(R) vs.Tim Ryan(D) vs.Jane Timken(R) vs.Josh Mandel(R) vs.JD Vance(R) vs.Mike Gibbons(R) vs.Morgan Harper(D) vs.Matt Dolan(R) OK: Incumbent James Lankford(R) vs.Nathan Dahm(R) vs.Joan Farr(R) OR: Incumbent Ron Wyden(D) vs.QAnon adherent Jo Rae Perkins(R) vs.Jason Beebe(R) PA: Incumbent Pat Toomey(R,retiring) vs.Everett Stern(R) vs.Jeff Bartos(R) vs.Val Arkoosh(D) vs.Carla Sands(R) vs.John Fetterman(D) vs.Malcolm Kenyatta(D) vs.Kathy Barnette(R) vs.Sharif Street(D) vs.Conor Lamb(D) vs.Sean Parnell(R) vs.Craig Snyder(R) vs.Mehmet Oz(R) SC: Incumbent Tim Scott(R) vs.State Rep. Krystle Matthews(D) SD: Incumbent John Thune(R) vs.State Rep. Billie Sutton(? D) UT: Incumbent Mike Lee(R) vs.Allen Glines(D) vs.Austin Searle(D) vs.Evan McMullin(I) VT: Incumbent Patrick Leahy(D) vs.Scott Milne(? R) vs.Peter Welch(D) WA: Incumbent Patty Murray(D) vs.Challenger Tiffany Smiley(R) WI: Incumbent Ron Johnson(R) vs.Tom Nelson(D) vs.Sarah Godlewski(D) vs.Alex Lasry(D) vs.Chris Larson(D) vs.Mandela Barnes(D)	Abortion Budget/Economy Civil Rights Corporations Crime Drugs Education Energy/Oil Environment Families Foreign Policy Free Trade Govt. Reform Gun Control Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Jobs Principles Social Security Tax Reform Technology War/Peace Welfare Other Senators Senate Votes (analysis) Bill Sponsorships Affiliations Policy Reports Group Ratings
  Contact info: Fax Number: 202-228-3027 Mailing Address: Senate Office SH-313, Washington, DC 20510 Phone number: (202) 224-6542

  
  
  
  
  
  Page last updated: Dec 17, 2021