Andy Barr

Andy Barr

  • R-KY, 6th District2013 – present
Andy Barr's photo

Lifetime Score 67%

68%
‘13
2013: 68%
57%
2014: 57%
67%
2015: 67%
75%
2016: 75%
74%
2017: 74%
52%
2018: 52%
91%
‘19
2019: 91%

Contact Information

Key Voting Record

Ineligible / Out of OfficeDid Not Vote
Voted with FreedomWorks principlesAnti-Freedom Vote
Print Scorecard

Key Vote Description

Legislator Score / Vote

2019: 116th Congress 91%

  • 1: On Passage: Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019Nay

    Key Vote 1: On Passage: Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019

    The Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY 2019 was introduced on the first day of the 116th Congress, without any markup or hearings. No amendments were allowed from the floor. The bill spends at the levels authorized by the Bipartisan Budget Act, which are higher than the previous spending caps established in 2015. No fiscal conservative should support such a poor process and higher spending levels.

    "Nay" votes scored.
  • 2: On Agreeing to Title III of the Resolution: Rule Allowing the House to Meddle in the Federal ObamaCare CaseNay

    Key Vote 2: On Agreeing to Title III of the Resolution: Rule Allowing the House to Meddle in the Federal ObamaCare Case

    Title III of H.Res. 6 allows the House of Representatives to intervene in the federal court case, United States v. Texas, which challenges the constitutionality of ObamaCare since the elimination of the individual mandate tax. The rule provides an unlimited budget for Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to meddle in the case, which is currently pending appeal. The merits of the case are already being argued by state attorneys general on opposite sides of ObamaCare. The House involving itself in this case is unnecessary and wasteful.

    "Nay" votes scored.
  • 3: On Passage: Federal Civilian Workforce Pay Raise Fairness Act - H.R. 790Nay

    Key Vote 3: On Passage: Federal Civilian Workforce Pay Raise Fairness Act - H.R. 790

    The Federal Civilian Workforce Pay Raise Fairness Act gives civilian workers a 2.6 percent pay increase, retroactive to the beginning of 2019, without any offsets. Congress cannot continue to spend money it doesn't have when facing a projected budget deficit of nearly $900 in FY 2019 and a $22 trillion national debt.

    "Nay" votes scored.
  • 4: On Agreeing to the Conference Report: Consolidated Appropriations Act - H.J.Res. 31Yea

    Key Vote 4: On Agreeing to the Conference Report: Consolidated Appropriations Act - H.J.Res. 31

    In the new House Democrat rules package, Democrats tried to sell the idea that leadership under them would be different than leadership under former Speaker Paul Ryan. One change made to sell this lie was expanding the “three-day rule” meant to require ample time for members to consider legislation before voting on it to a full 72 hours. Unsurprisingly, this rule hasn’t been adhered to very frequently thus far into the 116th Congress, and this spending package is no exception. Just as House Republican leadership in March 2018 dropped the text of a 2,232-page omnibus spending bill less than 24 hours before forcing members to vote on it — ignoring the three-day rule in the process — House Democratic leadership is today doing the same. Likely fewer than 12 hours will have passed between members laying eyes on this bill and members casting their votes on it. This means that nobody will have read it and nobody will be fully aware of what is in it, but, of course, members will be told they need to support it or be blamed for another shutdown. This is simply no way to govern.

    "Nay" votes scored.
  • 5: On Agreeing to the Amendment: Green Amendment (#25) to H.R. 1Yea

    Key Vote 5: On Agreeing to the Amendment: Green Amendment (#25) to H.R. 1

    This amendment, sponsored by Rep. Mark Green (R-Tenn.), reiterates that freedom of speech is a fundamental right. This is not a controversial amendment, but it conflicts with House Democrats' H.R. 1, which seeks to restrict speech in an unprecedented way.

    "Yea" votes scored.
  • 6: On Agreeing to the Amendment: Davidson Amendment (#32) to H.R. 1Yea

    Key Vote 6: On Agreeing to the Amendment: Davidson Amendment (#32) to H.R. 1

    This amendment, sponsored by Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio), strikes subtitle F of H.R. 1, which would force the disclosure of contributions made by corporations. This is a clear attempt by House Democrats to pave the way for political pressure on businesses that donate to organizations that promote certain causes, including ideological organizations, with which Democrats disagree.

    "Yea" votes scored.
  • 7: On Agreeing to the Amendment: Davidson Amendment (#33) to H.R. 1Yea

    Key Vote 7: On Agreeing to the Amendment: Davidson Amendment (#33) to H.R. 1

    This amendment, sponsored by Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio), strikes subtitle E of H.R. 1, which would repeal the prohibition on new regulations from the Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service of 501(c)(4) organizations.

    "Yea" votes scored.
  • 8: On Passage: For the Politicians Act, H.R. 1Nay

    Key Vote 8: On Passage: For the Politicians Act, H.R. 1

    H.R. 1 includes several problematic provisions, many of which run roughshod over the freedom of speech and freedom of association protected by the First Amendment and privacy. The bill will do this by threatening to expose the identities of private citizens who participate in the political process, thus opening them, and their businesses, to threats and intimidation. H.R. 1 would require that “all organizations involved in political activity” must disclose their donors. This provision hides under the guise of transparency but will discourage many American citizens from participating in the political process, and from dedicating their resources to it. This is hardly giving political power to the people. It is the opposite and will have a chilling effect on free speech. The Supreme Court, in Citizens United v. FEC (2010), upheld that political donations are protected free speech under the First Amendment. Subtitle A of Title V of H.R. 1 actually goes as far as to declare that it is the sense of Congress that this decision is “detrimental to democracy” and that the Constitution should be amended to flout it. At least the supporters of this bill recognize that they need a constitutional amendment to regulate campaign finance. Yet, they unabashedly attempt to do so throughout this unconstitutional legislation.

    "Nay" votes scored. Triple Score
  • 9: On Passage: "Save the Internet Act" - H.R. 1644Nay

    Key Vote 9: On Passage: "Save the Internet Act" - H.R. 1644

    The “Save the Internet” Act would bring us back to the Obama-era paradigm of big government interference in the economy, less innovation, and lower levels of investment. With America on the cusp of unlocking and deploying fifth generation (5G) technology, it is vitally important that we not shift back to this burdensome reality. Light touch regulations give providers the space to innovate in the ways they build out broadband infrastructure in underserved communities. Too many Americans have limited Internet access. We can bridge this “digital divide” by lowering government barriers. Erecting new ones, as this bill suggests, will only slow that progress. This legislation also presents property rights issues. The “tubes” used to deliver Internet by Internet service providers (ISP) are their property. Mandating how that property may be used and what prices they can charge is a violation of their property rights. Any lasting framework set forth for Internet governance must embrace this principle. The Save the Internet Act, on the other hand, outright rejects it. The “Save the Internet” Act would also serve as a tax hike on everyday Americans. Because of legislation like the Internet Tax Freedom Act of 1998 and the Tax Freedom Forever Act of 2016, Americans do not pay taxes on data use and information services. Reclassifying the Internet as a Title II public utility and telecommunications service would allow every America to be taxed extra for their data use. This could increase their Internet bill by up to 20 percent a month. This is unacceptable.

    "Nay" votes scored.
  • No votes for this year match the provided filters.
  • View scorecard »