Kristi L. Noem

Kristi L. Noem

  • R-SD, At-large District2011 – present
Kristi L. Noem's photo

Lifetime Score 62%

67%
‘11
2011: 67%
30%
2012: 30%
52%
2013: 52%
52%
2014: 52%
71%
2015: 71%
72%
2016: 72%
100%
‘17
2017: 100%

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

2017: 115th Congress 100%

  • 1: On Passage: REINS Act - H.R. 26Yea

    Key Vote 1: On Passage: REINS Act - H.R. 26

    Introduced by Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.), the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act requires congressional approval for economically significant rules promulgated by federal regulatory agencies. Rules defined as economically significant have an annual impact of $100 million or more. The Obama administration finalized more than 600 economically significant rules in less than eight years. The REINS Act brings a crucial check on executive power, reduces the influence of federal regulatory agencies, and begins to reclaim Congress’ constitutional power as the sole lawmaking authority under the Constitution.

    "Yea" votes scored.
  • 2: On Passage: Regulatory Accountability Act - H.R. 5Yea

    Key Vote 2: On Passage: Regulatory Accountability Act - H.R. 5

    Introduced by Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), the Regulatory Accountability Act seeks to reform the regulatory process, making it more transparent for the American people and more accountable to Congress. It also includes language to reverse the Chevron deference, which has been used by regulatory agencies to enact law without judicial review.

    "Yea" votes scored.
  • 3: On Passage: H.J. Res 41 - Resolution of Disapproval Against the SEC's Disclosure of Payments by Resource Extraction Issuers RuleYea

    Key Vote 3: On Passage: H.J. Res 41 - Resolution of Disapproval Against the SEC's Disclosure of Payments by Resource Extraction Issuers Rule

    This resolution of disapproval of the Congressional Review Act nullifies the Securities and Exchange Commission's Disclosure of Payments by Resource Extraction Issuers rule. Promulgated under the authority of the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, or Dodd-Frank, this rule requires resource extraction issuers to include in annual reports the payment of any entity controlled by the regulated business to foreign governments or the United States government "for the purpose of the commercial development of oil, natural gas, or minerals." The Securities and Exchange Commission projects initial compliance costs between $239 million and $700 million and annual compliance costs between $96 million and $591 million.

    "Yea" votes scored.
  • 4: On Passage: H.J.Res. 38 - Resolution of Disapproval Against the Department of the Interior's Stream Protection RuleYea

    Key Vote 4: On Passage: H.J.Res. 38 - Resolution of Disapproval Against the Department of the Interior's Stream Protection Rule

    This resolution of disapproval of the Congressional Review Act nullifies the Department of the Interior's Stream Protection Rule. With an annual estimated cost of $81 million, according to the Department of the Interior's Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, the Stream Protection Rule is another blow to the coal industry, which was a favorite target of the Obama administration. The National Mining Association estimates that rule will lead to billions of dollars in lost revenues to state and local governments, as well as the loss of between 113,000 and 280,000 jobs.

    "Yea" votes scored.
  • 5: On Passage: H.J. Res. 37 - Resolution of Disapproval Against the DOD, GSA, and NASA Federal Acquisition RegulationYea

    Key Vote 5: On Passage: H.J. Res. 37 - Resolution of Disapproval Against the DOD, GSA, and NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation

    This resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act nullifies a the Department of Defense, the General Services Administration, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's relating to the Federal Acquisition Regulation. This regulation requires federal contractors to disclose decisions on the reporting of violations of federal labor laws and creates paycheck transparency protections for employees of federal contractors. The rule is expected to cost employers $458.3 million in the first year, $413.7 million in the second year, and between $398.5 million and $400 million annually thereafter.

    "Yea" votes scored.
  • 6: On Passage: H.J.Res. 36 - Resolution of Disapproval Against the Bureau of Land Management’s Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and Resource Conservation RuleYea

    Key Vote 6: On Passage: H.J.Res. 36 - Resolution of Disapproval Against the Bureau of Land Management’s Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and Resource Conservation Rule

    This resolution of disapproval of the Congressional Review Act nullifies Bureau of Land Management’s Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and Resource Conservation Rule. With annual compliance costs between $114 million and $279 million, the so-called “venting and flaring” rule purports to reduce waste from “reduce the waste of natural gas from mineral leases administered” by the Bureau of Land Management. In reality, the purpose of the rule is to discourage oil and gas production on land overseen by the agency. The Bureau of Land Management estimates annual compliance costs between $114 million and $279 million.

    "Yea" votes scored.
  • 7: On Passage: H.J.Res. 57 - Resolution of Disapproval Against the Department of Education's Accountability and State Plans RuleYea

    Key Vote 7: On Passage: H.J.Res. 57 - Resolution of Disapproval Against the Department of Education's Accountability and State Plans Rule

    This resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act, which gives Congress authority to effectively nullify regulations submitted for review by federal agencies within 60 legislative days, would cancel the Department of Education’s Accountability and State Plans Rule. The Department of Education’s Accountability and State Plans Rule implements part of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) and leaves open a loophole that federal bureaucrats could exploit to force Common Core on states that haven't implemented the standards. Education officials from several states and local jurisdictions strongly opposed the rule when it was being crafted.

    "Yea" votes scored.
  • 8: On Passage: H.R. 372 - Competitive Health Insurance Reform ActYea

    Key Vote 8: On Passage: H.R. 372 - Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act

    Introduced by Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), the Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act would eliminate the antitrust exemption the health insurance industry currently has under the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945. One of the main problems with the health care system today is the protections put in place by the federal government that cater to special interest groups. The Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act promotes the free market and competition by changing a law put in place nearly 70 years ago to reflect the current market we have today. It would also ensure that the health insurance industry complies with the same laws other businesses do.

    "Yea" votes scored.
  • 9: On Passage: H.R. 1101 - Small Business Health Fairness ActYea

    Key Vote 9: On Passage: H.R. 1101 - Small Business Health Fairness Act

    ObamaCare has caused the cost of health insurance coverage to rise, making it difficult for small businesses to continue offering health insurance coverage to employees. The Small Business Health Fairness Act would help level the playing field for small businesses, which don’t have the negotiating power of larger firms and exemptions under Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), and lower administrative costs related to health insurance.

    "Yea" votes scored.
  • 10: On Passage: Consolidated Appropriations Act - H.R. 244Nay

    Key Vote 10: On Passage: Consolidated Appropriations Act - H.R. 244

    The process for the Consolidated Appropriations Act, which funds the federal government for the remainder of FY 2017, could not have been worse. This massive, nearly 1,700-page spending measure was negotiated behind closed doors between congressional leadership from both chambers and appropriators. With a Republican-controlled Congress and a Republican president, this spending bill reflects Obama-era spending levels. The bill annualizes base discretionary spending for FY 2017 at $1.07 trillion. This spending level blows through the spending caps established by the Budget Control Act of 2011 by $30 billion. The bill spends an additional $106 billion for overseas contingency operations, disaster relief, and other spending, which isn’t counted toward the spending caps. In total, the bill authorizes more than $1.175 trillion in annualized discretionary spending for FY 2017. The bill also falls short of promoting conservative priorities. While the bill does renew the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program and does not include funding for ObamaCare’s cost-sharing subsidies, it allocates nearly $296 million to bail out Puerto Rico’s Medicaid program, preserves current spending levels for the Environmental Protection Agency, increases spending for the National Institutes of Health and the National Endowment for the Arts, and provides a bailout for a private sector labor union.

    "Nay" votes scored. Double Score
  • 11: On Passage: Probation Officer Protection Act - H.R. 1039Did Not Vote

    Key Vote 11: On Passage: Probation Officer Protection Act - H.R. 1039

    While there is a need to protect law enforcement officers who are performing their duties, the Probation Officer Protection Act is an answer in search of a problem. Interference with a federal probation officer is already unlawful and current law already allows a law enforcement officer to arrest an individual or individuals who obstruct a federal probation officer during the performance of their duties. The instances in which third parties obstruct a federal probation officer are rare. While probationers have lost some of their Fourth Amendment rights, third parties have not. The Probation Officer Protection Act could lead to instances in which the Fourth Amendments rights of third parties are infringed because of overly broad language in Section 2(b) or interpretations of words in it, such as “intimidation” or “interference.” Additionally, the “rules and regulations” under which the arrest authority of federal probation officers will be determined by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, not by Congress. This creates yet another situation in which Congress is relenting its constitutional authority to another branch of the federal government.

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