Congressional Votes

S. 3385 would extend enhanced ObamaCare subsidies, originally enacted under the 2021 American Rescue Plan Act and the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, by an additional three years.

The Senate did not vote directly on S. 3385, but on a motion to invoke cloture (and thus limit debate) so the bill could be voted on. The motion to invoke cloture was rejected on December 11, 2025 by a vote of 51 to 48 (Roll Call 644; a three-fifths majority of the entire Senate is required to invoke cloture). We have assigned pluses to the nays because Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution does not authorize Congress to subsidize health insurance. ObamaCare reduced individual choice in the health-insurance market, increased costs for many Americans, and has been poorly run from the beginning, exactly what is to be expected when the federal government attempts to regulate and subsidize healthcare.

H.R. 1069, the “PROTECT Our Kids Act,” would prohibit federal education funds from being awarded to any elementary or secondary school that directly or indirectly receives support from the government of the People’s Republic of China. This includes partnerships with Confucius Institutes or Classrooms and other arrangements involving Chinese government-backed funding, materials, or personnel.

The House passed H.R. 1069 on December 4, 2025 by a vote of 247 to 164 (Roll Call 313). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution does not permit Congress to fund or legislate on education. Furthermore, federal funds should not subsidize foreign governments’ propaganda, especially adversarial communist regimes with a documented record of censorship and influence operations. Allowing China to finance curricula, personnel, or materials in American schools threatens national sovereignty, undermines parental authority, and exposes students to ideological indoctrination incompatible with American principles.

S. J. Res. 80 would overturn a 2022 Bureau of Land Management (BLM) rule for the 23-million-acre National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPR-A). This disapproval restores a less-restrictive plan that opens more areas to development, and reverses the closure of 48 percent of the NPR-A.

The House passed S. J. Res. 80 on November 18, 2025 by a vote of 216 to 209 (Roll Call 296). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because Congress' disapproval nullifies an unconstitutional regulation that imposed restrictive land management and burdened American energy production under the pretext of environmental protection. The BLM's management of lands exceeds constitutional limits under Article I, Section 8; Article IV, Section 3; and the 10th Amendment. Additionally, such environmentalist policies align with the UN's Agenda 2030, undermining national sovereignty and individual liberty. Congress should reject such policies, abolish the BLM, and transfer lands to state or private ownership.

S. J. Res. 80 would overturn a 2022 Bureau of Land Management (BLM) rule for the 23-million-acre National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPR-A). This disapproval restores a less-restrictive plan that opens more areas to development, and reverses the closure of 48 percent of the NPR-A.

The Senate passed S. J. Res. 80 on October 30, 2025 by a vote of 52 to 45 (Roll Call 599). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because Congress' disapproval nullifies an unconstitutional regulation that imposed restrictive land management and burdened American energy production under the pretext of environmental protection. The BLM's management of lands exceeds constitutional limits under Article I, Section 8; Article IV, Section 3; and the 10th Amendment. Additionally, such environmentalist policies align with the UN's Agenda 2030, undermining national sovereignty and individual liberty. Congress should reject such policies, abolish the BLM, and transfer lands to state or private ownership.

During consideration of the fiscal 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (S. 2296), Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) offered an amendment to prohibit any Federal Reserve bank from paying interest on reserve balances that are maintained at a Federal Reserve bank by or on behalf of a big bank or another depository institution. Of the need for his amendment, Paul explained, “The Federal Reserve pays both foreign and domestic banks to simply park their money in Fed accounts — in other words, to not loan money at all. Over the past 5 years, the Fed’s big bank bailout amounts to over half a trillion dollars…. My amendment ends these subsidies.”

The Senate rejected Paul’s amendment on October 9, 2025 by a vote of 14 to 83 (Roll Call 562). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the unconstitutional Federal Reserve should not bail out or subsidize banks at the expense of taxpayers.

H.R. 5125, the “District of Columbia Judicial Nominations Reform Act of 2025,” would abolish the District of Columbia Judicial Nomination Commission, allow the U.S. president to nominate D.C. judges without its involvement, and transfer authority to appoint chief judges from the commission to the president. Currently, the president can only nominate individuals recommended by the commission.

The House passed H.R. 5125 on September 17, 2025 by a vote of 218 to 211 (Roll Call 274). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the District of Columbia Judicial Nomination Commission infringes upon the president’s authority to “nominate” and “appoint … Officers of the United States” under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. Article II, Section 2 checks the president’s appointment powers by requiring Senate confirmation for “Officers of the United States” and allowing Congress to “vest the Appointment of … inferior Officers” in “Courts of Law” or “Heads of Departments,” but it does not permit the use of technocratic commissions to check the president’s authority.

During consideration of the fiscal 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 3838), Representative Rich McCormick (R-Ga.) offered an amendment to prohibit the Defense Department (aka War Department) from, in its military recruitment advertising, entering into contracts with entities that “rate or rank news or information sources for the factual accuracy of their content.”

The House adopted McCormick’s amendment on September 10, 2025 by a vote of 219 to 211 (Roll Call 258). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because freedom of speech is a right enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution, and the government trespasses on this right when it contracts with entities that (as Congress.gov puts it in its description of the amendment) “perform fact-checking and information-grading services for purposes of censoring their political opponents.” McCormick noted on the House floor that his amendment is necessary because “the DOD, or now the Department of War, has contracted with organizations such as NewsGuard and the Global Disinformation Index,” whose ratings display a decidedly left-wing bias. He also said, “We should not be excluding large swaths of Americans [from military recruiting efforts] simply because they watch or read conservative news.”

During consideration of the fiscal 2026 energy-water appropriations bill (H.R. 4553), Representative Scott Perry (R-Pa.), acting for Representative Chip Roy (R-Texas), offered an amendment to strike all funding for the now-defunct Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

The House rejected Scott's amendment on September 4, 2025 by a vote of 127 to 297 (Roll Call 236). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because Congress should end all unconstitutional federal control over the domestic energy sector, in accordance with Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. The push for a "green" or "renewable" economy is part of the UN's 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which seeks to implement extreme "climate change" policies. It is nothing other than a fanatical attempt by globalist elites to increase their taxing authority. Rather than undermining American sovereignty, energy independence, and free-market principles, Congress must refrain from exercising regulatory powers that the 10th Amendment reserves to the "States respectively, or to the people."

H.R. 4, the “Rescissions Act of 2025,” would rescind $9 billion in funding previously appropriated by Congress for fiscal 2025, including $7.9 billion in foreign aid and $1.1 billion for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The foreign-aid rescissions include $800 million for migration and refugee assistance, $361 million for international peacekeeping operations, and $169 million for international organizations such as the United Nations and World Health Organization.

The Senate passed H.R. 4 on July 17, 2025 by a vote of 51 to 48 (Roll Call 411). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution does not authorize Congress to establish or fund public media, or to send financial aid to foreign countries. Although $9 billion is a small number compared to the total amount of federal expenditures, it is a good first step toward reining in unconstitutional, reckless spending.

H.R. 1919, the "Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act," would prohibit the Federal Reserve from issuing a central bank digital currency directly to individuals or through intermediaries, bar its use as a tool of monetary policy, and prevent the creation of a federally controlled digital-dollar system that could enable financial surveillance, transaction censorship, and centralized control over Americans' economic lives.

The House passed H.R. 1919 on July 17, 2025 by a vote of 219 to 210 (Roll Call 201). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because Article I, Sections 8 and 10 of the Constitution state that only Congress has the power to "coin Money," referring to precious metals such as gold and silver. The Federal Reserve's fiat system already departs from these limits, and a central bank digital currency would further erode liberty by enabling constant tracking of transactions and unprecedented government surveillance and control over Americans' financial lives.

S. 1582, the "Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act," would regulate cryptocurrency stablecoins, digital assets used as a means of payment redeemable for a fixed amount of currency. It requires stablecoin issuers to apply to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to be a "permitted payment stablecoin issuer" and maintain 1:1 reserves in approved assets. Additionally, it empowers the Federal Reserve Board, FDIC, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and Department of the Treasury to oversee permitted stablecoin issuers.

The House passed S. 1582 on July 17, 2025 by a vote of 308 to 122 (Roll Call 200). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the GENIUS Act expands government surveillance and control over private financial activities, creating a backdoor to a central bank digital currency. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution does not permit Congress to regulate the financial sector, and the Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and unwarranted government surveillance.

During consideration of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (H.R. 1), Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) offered an amendment to end federal tax credits for projects utilizing battery and energy-storage technologies that begin construction more than 60 days after the bill's enactment, phasing out taxpayer-funded subsidies and curbing federal favoritism toward "green" energy. By contrast, the enacted law preserves longer-term subsidies for energy storage while ending tax credits for wind and solar projects placed in service after December 31, 2027.

The Senate rejected Lee's amendment on July 1, 2025 by a vote of 21 to 79 (Roll Call 360). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the amendment would have ended these subsidies almost immediately rather than allowing them to continue for years. By preserving "green" energy credits, Congress continues to advance policies aligned with the UN's Agenda 2030, using federal tax law to manipulate the economy and impose globalist energy priorities that fall well outside the Constitution's enumerated powers.

S. 1582, the "Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act," would regulate cryptocurrency stablecoins, digital assets used as a means of payment redeemable for a fixed amount of currency. It requires stablecoin issuers to apply to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to be a "permitted payment stablecoin issuer" and maintain 1:1 reserves in approved assets. Additionally, it empowers the Federal Reserve Board, FDIC, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and Department of the Treasury to oversee permitted stablecoin issuers.

The Senate passed S. 1582 on June 17, 2025 by a vote of 68 to 30 (Roll Call 318). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the GENIUS Act expands government surveillance and control over private financial activities, creating a backdoor to a central bank digital currency. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution does not permit Congress to regulate the financial sector, and the Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and unwarranted government surveillance.

H.R. 4, the “Rescissions Act of 2025,” would rescind $9.4 billion in funding previously appropriated by Congress for fiscal 2025, including $8.3 billion in foreign aid and $1.1 billion for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The foreign-aid rescissions include $800 million for migration and refugee assistance, $361 million for international peacekeeping operations, and $169 million for international organizations such as the United Nations and World Health Organization.

The House passed H.R. 4 on June 12, 2025 by a vote of 214 to 212 (Roll Call 168). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution authorizes Congress to neither establish or fund public media nor send financial aid to foreign countries. Although $9.4 billion is a small number compared to the total amount of federal expenditures, it is a good first step toward reining in unconstitutional, reckless spending.

H. J. Res. 42 would overturn a Department of Energy rule imposing new efficiency-standard certification, labeling, and enforcement requirements for dozens of appliances, preventing the regulation from taking effect.

The Senate passed H. J. Res. 42 on April 30, 2025 by a vote of 52 to 46 (Roll Call 223). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because Congress — and unelected federal agencies — lacks constitutional authorization to dictate appliance standards, which drive up costs, reduce consumer choice, and micromanage private industry. Energy policy and consumer decisions are not among the enumerated powers of the federal government, and Congress should rein in bureaucratic rulemaking — driven by the false climate-change narrative promoted by Marxists and globalists — that substitutes centralized mandates for market freedom and individual judgment.

Representative Gus Bilirakis (R-Fla.) made a motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1402, the “Transparency In Charges for Key Events Ticketing (TICKET) Act,” which would require ticket sellers, including those in the secondary market, to clearly display the total ticket price, including all fees. The bill mandates an itemized breakdown of the base ticket price and additional fees before purchase completion, bans speculative ticketing, and requires refunds for canceled or significantly postponed events.

The House agreed to Bilirakis’ motion on April 29, 2025 by a vote of 409 to 15 (Roll Call 107). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to regulate private industries such as ticketing. This legislation imposes unnecessary federal mandates, duplicating existing, market-driven industry practices. Such regulations would likely increase operational costs for ticket sellers, leading to higher ticket prices for consumers and placing undue burdens on smaller vendors.

H. J. Res. 20 would overturn a 2024 Department of Energy rule, titled "Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Gas-fired Instantaneous Water Heaters," that imposed new requirements on gas-fired instantaneous water heaters and effectively banned the sale of non-condensing models.

The Senate passed H. J. Res. 20 on April 10, 2025 by a vote of 53 to 44 (Roll Call 207). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the federal government should not impose regulatory standards on consumer products. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution does not authorize Congress to regulate consumer products; this is reserved to the states, as the 10th Amendment affirms.

During consideration of a budget resolution for fiscal 2025 (House Concurrent Resolution 14), Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) offered an amendment to increase the federal minimum wage to at least $17 an hour over five years.

The Senate rejected Sanders' amendment on April 5, 2025 by a vote of 47 to 52 (Roll Call 184). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the "Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938," which mandates a federal minimum wage for nearly every employee in the United States, is unconstitutional. Nothing in the Constitution authorizes Congress to set the wages of non-federal or private employees. In fact, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution limits Congress to regulating "Commerce … among the several States," preventing interference by the federal government in intrastate economic matters. The 10th Amendment reinforces that all powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved "to the States respectively, or to the people."

Representative Brian Babin (R-Texas) made a motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1534, the "Innovative Mitigation Partnerships for Asphalt and Concrete Technologies (IMPACT) Act," which would authorize the Department of Energy to fund research and development partnerships focused on reducing greenhouse-gas emissions from asphalt and concrete production.

The House agreed to Babin's motion on March 25, 2025 by a vote of 350 to 73 (Roll Call 74). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to fund or facilitate emissions research. Moreover, this bill feeds into the climate-change hoax and would align federal laws more closely with the UN's Agenda 2030. By funding "green" construction initiatives, it would distort the free market, misallocate taxpayer funds, and raise costs for businesses, homeowners, and other taxpayers.

H. J. Res. 35 would overturn the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2024 “Waste Emissions Charge” rule, which imposed annual fees on oil and gas facilities that emit methane above certain thresholds. The resolution blocks the EPA from imposing this rule — intended to curb greenhouse-gas emissions — on petroleum and natural-gas systems.

The Senate passed H. J. Res. 35 on February 27, 2025 by a vote of 52 to 47 (Roll Call 97). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because neither the EPA nor its methane-emissions-fee rule are authorized under the Constitution. Moreover, the rule was driven by the false climate-change narrative that serves as a pretext for implementing the UN’s Agenda 2030, which undermines national sovereignty and promotes centralized, global control.

H. J. Res. 35 would overturn the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2024 “Waste Emissions Charge” rule, which imposed annual fees on oil and gas facilities that emit methane above certain thresholds. The resolution blocks the EPA from imposing this rule — intended to curb greenhouse-gas emissions — on petroleum and natural-gas systems.

The House passed H. J. Res. 35 on February 26, 2025 by a vote of 220 to 206 (Roll Call 52). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because neither the EPA nor its methane emissions-fee rule are authorized under the Constitution. Moreover, the rule was driven by the false climate-change narrative that serves as a pretext for implementing the UN’s Agenda 2030, which undermines national sovereignty and promotes centralized, global control.

H.R. 26, the "Protecting American Energy Production Act," would prohibit the president from declaring a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing (fracking) unless authorized by an act of Congress. The bill also declares, "States should maintain primacy for the regulation of hydraulic fracturing for oil and natural gas production on state and private lands."

The House passed H.R. 26 on February 7, 2025 by a vote of 226 to 188 (Roll Call 35). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the federal government should not interfere with oil and natural-gas production. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution does not authorize Congress to regulate energy production; this is reserved to the states, as the 10th Amendment affirms. Allowing the United States to fully utilize its energy resources would make the country more self-sufficient and potentially create millions of jobs.

Representative Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.) made a motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 776, which would reauthorize the Nutria Eradication and Control Act of 2003 through fiscal 2030. This law enables the U.S. Department of the Interior to provide funding to states in order to eradicate nutria — large, invasive, semiaquatic rodents native to South America — and restore wetlands damaged by them.

The House agreed to Westerman’s motion on February 4, 2025 by a vote of 361 to 56 (Roll Call 29). We have assigned pluses to the nays because Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution does not authorize Congress to establish or fund conservation programs. The 10th Amendment reserves any such powers to “the States respectively, or to the people.”

Representative Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.) made a motion to suspend the rules and pass S. 3791, the "America's Conservation Enhancement Reauthorization Act of 2024," which would reauthorize multiple conservation and wildlife programs through fiscal 2030. These include the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, the Chesapeake Bay Program, and programs to conserve North American wetlands and fish habitats. The bill also would increase the authority of the National Fish Habitat Board, and create and reauthorize programs mitigating or providing compensation for depredation by federally protected species.

The House agreed to Westerman's motion on December 3, 2024 by a vote of 366 to 21 (Roll Call 479). We have assigned pluses to the nays because Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution does not authorize Congress to establish conservation or wildlife programs. The 10th Amendment reserves any such powers to "the States respectively, or to the people."

House Joint Resolution 165 would block a Department of Education rule that expands the federal government’s interpretation of Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include protections for sexual harassment, assault, pregnancy-related conditions, and LGBTQ+ status at colleges and universities. The rule would impose ideological mandates that undermine privacy, parental authority, and fairness — particularly in women’s sports, where biological males would be allowed to compete. They would also have access to women’s bathrooms and locker rooms.

The House passed H. J. Res. 165 on July 11, 2024 by a vote of 210 to 205 (Roll Call 354). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the federal government has no constitutional authority to be involved in education or to prohibit discrimination — real or perceived.

During consideration of the fiscal 2025 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 8070), Representative Chip Roy (R-Texas) offered an amendment to prohibit funds authorized by this bill from being used to implement President Joe Biden's climate-change executive orders, which focused on tackling "climate change," promoting "clean energy," "conserving" natural resources, "improving" refugee programs, boosting domestic semiconductor production, and ensuring "environmental justice" for "underserved communities." Biden's key goals with his executive orders included net-zero emissions by 2050, renewable-energy expansion, and stronger protections for "vulnerable populations."

The House adopted Roy's amendment on June 12, 2024 by a vote of 215 to 210 (Roll Call 256). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because Biden's climate orders exceed the president's constitutional authority, reduce U.S. energy independence, violate free-market principles, and promote global environmental policies that undermine U.S. sovereignty, such as the UN's 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

Senate Joint Resolution 58 would reverse a December 2023 Department of Energy rule setting stricter energy-efficiency standards for non-weatherized and mobile-home gas furnaces at 95-percent annual fuel utilization efficiency. The rule seeks to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and methane, though it would increase sulfur-dioxide and mercury emissions due to higher electricity use.

The Senate passed S. J. Res. 58 on May 21, 2024 by a vote of 50 to 45 (Roll Call 176). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to regulate furnaces and other appliances.

Representative Wesley Hunt (R-Texas) made a motion to suspend the rules and pass S. 546, the "Recruit and Retain Act," which expands the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) federal grant program intended to support the recruitment efforts of law-enforcement agencies, including local police, throughout the country.

The House agreed to Hunt's motion on May 14, 2024 by a vote of 370 to 18 (Roll Call 196). We have assigned pluses to the nays because Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution does not authorize Congress to support local law-enforcement agencies. Federal funding of local police departments and county sheriffs comes with strings attached, usually in the form of oversight, regulations, and other homogenized standards — none of which are constitutional.

Representative Frank Lucas (R-Okla.) made a motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 4824, the “Carbon Sequestration Collaboration Act,” which would expand the Department of Energy’s carbon-storage program to include carbon-sequestration projects. The bill would also require the Energy Department to submit a report to Congress within two years “to identify and address scientific challenges for widespread adoption of terrestrial carbon sequestration.”

The House agreed to Lucas’ motion on April 30, 2024 by a vote of 364 to 44 (Roll Call 156). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the federal government has no authority under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution to engage in energy or environmental policy. Furthermore, carbon sequestration is closely connected to the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which is antithetical to the Constitution and U.S. sovereignty.

H.R. 7888, titled the "Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act," would reauthorize for two years, until 2026, Title VII of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which governs electronic surveillance of foreign terrorism suspects. Among other provisions, the bill would require additional procedures for searches by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) involving U.S. citizens and FBI surveillance requests to the secret FISA Court. It would also expand the definition of an "electronic communication service provider" and allow congressional leaders to access FISA Court and FISA Court of Review meetings.

The Senate passed H.R. 7888 on April 20, 2024 by a vote of 60 to 34 (Roll Call 150). We have assigned pluses to the nays because FISA has been used to spy on U.S. citizens without a warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment. While the bill includes provisions ostensibly to protect the privacy of U.S. citizens, those provisions fail to uphold Americans' Fourth Amendment-protected rights. Furthermore, the FISA Court approves just about any surveillance request that comes its way, and given the track record of intelligence agencies, it is unlikely that they would actually follow these rules.

During consideration of a bill to reauthorize Title VII of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA (H.R. 7888), Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) offered an amendment to prohibit federal officials from requesting orders under FISA to surveil U.S. persons, including citizens and permanent residents. It would ban officials from querying information collected under Section 702 using search terms connected to a U.S. person. Additionally, the amendment would prohibit information obtained about a U.S. person from being used as evidence against that person in criminal, civil, or administrative proceedings.

The Senate rejected Paul’s amendment on April 19, 2024 by a vote of 11 to 81 (Roll Call 147). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.

S. 4072 would have prohibited the use of fiscal 2024 funding to implement, enforce, or administer certain EPA rules on tailpipe emissions for vehicles. This includes the proposed May 2023 rule and the final March 2024 rule setting multipollutant emissions standards for light-duty and medium-duty vehicles for model years 2027 and beyond.

The Senate rejected S. 4072 on April 18, 2024 by a vote of 52 to 46 (Roll Call 142; a 60-vote majority was required for passage). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the federal government has no constitutional authority to impose environmental regulations.

H.R. 7888, titled the "Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act," would reauthorize for two years, until 2026, Title VII of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which governs electronic surveillance of foreign terrorism suspects. Among other provisions, the bill would require additional procedures for searches by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) involving U.S. citizens and FBI surveillance requests to the secret FISA Court.

The House passed H.R. 7888 on April 12, 2024 by a vote of 273 to 147 (Roll Call 119). We have assigned pluses to the nays because FISA has been used to spy on U.S. citizens without a warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment. While the bill includes provisions to ostensibly protect the privacy of U.S. citizens, those provisions fail to uphold Americans' Fourth Amendment-protected rights.

During consideration of the “Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024” (H.R. 2882), Senator Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) offered an amendment to prohibit funds under the bill from being used by the federal government to label a U.S. citizen’s speech as “disinformation or misinformation” or to coerce online platforms to alter, remove, restrict, or suppress such speech.

The Senate rejected Schmitt’s amendment on March 23, 2024 by a vote of 47 to 51 (Roll Call 109). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the First Amendment specifically states that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” This restrictive clause was designed to protect Americans’ right to free speech from “misconstruction or abuse” of power by the federal government, as expressed in the 1789 Joint Resolution of Congress proposing the Bill of Rights.

During consideration of a continuing appropriations resolution (H.R. 7463), Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) offered an amendment to prohibit the Federal Reserve from creating an emergency lending program or facility that purchases or sells the debt of any state or municipality.

The Senate rejected Paul’s amendment on February 29, 2024 by a vote of 37 to 53 (Roll Call 63). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because this amendment would have been a step toward ultimately abolishing the unconstitutional Federal Reserve System. The Federal Reserve is the largest domestic holder of U.S. public debt, which has surpassed $36 trillion. It had already caused much damage to our nation’s economy, through its inflationary policies and issuance of fiat currency, prior to its announcement during Covid-19 that it would also be willing to buy or sell the debt of state and local governments. According to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, only Congress has the power to “coin Money” and “regulate the Value thereof.” Moreover, Article I, Section 10 specifies that “No State” shall “make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.”

S. J. Res. 43 would formally disapprove of a July 2023 Department of Education rule modifying Income Driven Repayment (IDR) plans for student-loan borrowers. This rule, unveiled shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Biden administration student loan-forgiveness plan in Biden v. Nebraska, would reduce the amount borrowers pay and make it easier to forgive loans held for 20 to 25 years. Speaking on the Senate floor, Senator Bill Cassidy (R-La.) stated the rule “transfers the burden of $559 billion in Federal student loans to the 87 percent of Americans who don’t have student loans, who chose not to go to college, or who already responsibly paid off their debts.”

The Senate rejected S. J. Res. 43 on November 15, 2023 by a vote of 49 to 50 (Roll Call 310). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the federal government has no authority under the Constitution to subsidize or involve itself in higher education. Furthermore, the Department of Education’s rule merely transfers the cost of these unpaid loans to taxpayers, harming Americans and further eroding our nation’s fiscal situation.

During consideration of the fiscal 2024 Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill (H.R. 5894), Representative Mary Miller (R-Ill.) offered an amendment to defund the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) by $536,922,000 — its total earmarked budget for fiscal 2024.

The House rejected Miller’s amendment on November 14, 2023 by a vote of 131 to 300 (Roll Call 648). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution does not authorize Congress to establish a federal regulatory agency, such as OSHA, to inspect workplace conditions. Nor does the Constitution empower the federal government to require Americans to take vaccines, especially experimental mRNA injections, as a condition of their employment, as OSHA tried to do.

During consideration of the fiscal 2024 financial-services appropriations bill (H.R. 4664), Representative Diana Harshbarger (R-Tenn.) offered an amendment to strike all funding for firearms and ammunition for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

The House rejected Harshbarger’s amendment on November 8, 2023 by a vote of 187 to 238 (Roll Call 625). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the federal government is not constitutionally authorized to engage in domestic law enforcement, as the 10th Amendment clarifies. IRS agents should not be armed with guns, ammunition, or military-style equipment. Rather, the IRS ought to be defunded and abolished. The American people must demand that Congress end the weaponization of the federal bureaucracy, reject all efforts to create a nationalized police force, and work to repeal the 16th Amendment (income tax).

During consideration of the fiscal 2024 Transportation-HUD appropriations bill (H.R. 4820), Representative Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) offered an amendment that would prohibit the use of federal funds to implement Section 24220 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which requires that all new passenger motor vehicles be equipped with “advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology.”

The House rejected Massie’s amendment on November 7, 2023 by a vote of 201 to 229 (Roll Call 616). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because this federal “kill-switch” mandate to forcibly “monitor the performance” of every driver and automatically “prevent or limit motor vehicle operation” is a violation of the fundamental right of the American people to travel freely, with a reasonable expectation of privacy. The Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution not only protect against “unreasonable searches and seizures” of persons and their possessions, but also provide that no person shall be deprived of “liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

During consideration of the fiscal 2024 environment-interior appropriations bill (H.R. 4821), Representative Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) offered an amendment to prohibit funds from being used to provide additional funding for national monument designations under the Antiquities Act. According to Ogles, “In the 8 years that Joe Biden was Vice President under the Obama administration, the Antiquities Act was weaponized for 550 million acres of land. That is roughly a quarter of the land by acreage in the United States. That is a problem that goes beyond the scope and intent of this act.”

The House rejected Ogles’ amendment on November 2, 2023 by a vote of 175 to 244 (Roll Call 592). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because, although the Founding Fathers did not envision the federal government indefinitely “owning” 30 percent of the land area of the states as it now does, they did grant Congress, not the president, the “Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States” (Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution). As to whether the federal government has the right to ownership and control of a large percentage of the land area of the states for an indefinite period of time, here’s Founding Father Thomas Jefferson’s answer in his Kentucky Resolutions of 1798: “The several states composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that by compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, delegated to that Government certain definite powers, reserving each state to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self Government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.”

During consideration of a consolidated appropriations minibus (H.R. 4366), Senator J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) offered an amendment that would prohibit any funds made available by the bill for the Transportation Department for fiscal 2024 to be used to enforce a Covid-19 mask mandate.

The Senate adopted Vance’s amendment on October 25, 2023 by a vote of 59 to 38 (Roll Call 266). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the federal government has no authority under the Constitution to impose mask mandates.

During consideration of the fiscal 2024 agriculture appropriations bill (H.R. 4368), Representative Harriet Hageman (R-Wy.) offered an amendment to prevent funds from being used to mandate electronic identification ear tags for cattle and bison.

The House rejected Hageman’s amendment on September 27, 2023 by a vote of 97 to 336 (Roll Call 419). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the federal government has no authority under the Constitution to regulate agriculture. Furthermore, Hageman’s amendment would push back against the United Nations’ Agenda 2030, which is inherently contrary to the Constitution. Congress should eliminate all federal involvement in agriculture.

During consideration of the fiscal 2024 National Defense Authorization Act (S. 2226), Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) offered an amendment to “Prohibit the Secretary of Defense from issuing any replacement Covid-19 vaccine mandate without Congressional approval.” Cruz’ amendment would also require the Department of Defense to (1) “reinstate any service member separated solely for Covid-19 vaccine status who wants to return to service”; (2) “restore the rank of any service member demoted solely for Covid-19 vaccine status”; (3) adjust to “honorable” any “general” discharge given due to Covid-19 vaccine status; (4) “expunge … any adverse action based solely on Covid-19 vaccine status”; and (5) “make every effort to retain service members not vaccinated against Covid-19.”

The Senate rejected Cruz’ amendment on July 26, 2023 by a vote of 46 to 53 (Roll Call 199). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because it is unconstitutional to force vaccinations on people.

The Securing Growth and Robust Leadership in American Aviation Act (H.R. 3935) would reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) through fiscal year 2028. It would gradually increase annual authorizations for federal aviation programs from $12.7 billion in fiscal 2024 to $14 billion in fiscal 2028. It would also transfer federal oversight authority over unmanned aircraft systems, which support and control unmanned aerial vehicles or drones, from the Department of Transportation to the FAA.

The House passed H.R. 3935 on July 20, 2023 by a vote of 351 to 69 (Roll Call 364). We have assigned pluses to the nays because of the bill’s unconstitutional federal overreach. The federal government should stay out of the regulation of unmanned aerial systems and vehicles, which should instead be managed by local ordinances or (at most) state laws. Ultimately, the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to control or regulate private or commercial aviation. Instead, such matters should be under the auspices of local and state governments, and left up to the market to determine.

H. J. Res. 44 would formally disapprove of a January 2023 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) rule expanding the definition of a “short-barreled rifle” to include those with stabilizing braces, and requiring such firearms to comply with various requirements under the National Firearms Act (NFA).

The Senate rejected H. J. Res. 44 on June 22, 2023 by a vote of 49 to 50 (Roll Call 171). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the ATF’s stabilizing-brace rule violates the Second Amendment-protected right to keep and bear arms. Furthermore, there is no constitutional basis for the ATF’s or NFA’s existence.

S. J. Res. 11 would formally disapprove of an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule mandating stricter emissions standards on heavy-duty vehicles and engines. The rule aims to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions from such vehicles by nearly 50 percent by 2045.

The Senate failed to override President Biden’s veto of S. J. Res. 11 on June 21, 2023 by a vote of 50 to 50 (Roll Call 167). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the federal government has no authority under the Constitution to implement environmental regulations. Furthermore, the EPA’s rule feeds right into the climate-change hoax and, by extension, the UN’s Agenda 2030, and would impose onerous regulations on businesses.

This resolution (S. J. Res 4) purports that the Equal Rights Amendment “is valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution, having been ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States.”

The Senate did not vote directly on S. J. Res. 4, but on a motion to invoke cloture (and thus limit debate) so the bill could be voted on. The motion to invoke cloture was rejected on April 27, 2023 by a vote of 51 to 47 (Roll Call 99; a three-fifths majority of the entire Senate is required to invoke cloture). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the claim that the ERA is a “valid … part of the Constitution” is a sham. When Congress submitted the ERA to the states for ratification in 1972, it set a seven-year ratification period that ended on March 22, 1979. During that period, 35 states ratified the ERA, but four of those states reconsidered and rescinded their ratifications. This left the ERA seven states short of the three-fourths majority (38 states) needed to become part of the Constitution. Prior to the deadline, when it became apparent the 38-state threshold would not be reached, Congress extended the deadline to June 30, 1982. This legally dubious extension caused a fifth state to rescind, and during the extension period no new states ratified. In recent years, three new states have ratified the ERA. But to claim that this makes the ERA part of the Constitution is to ignore the long-expired deadlines, as well as the five states that rescinded.

According to H. J. Res. 7, “the national [Covid-19] emergency declared by the finding of the President on March 13, 2020, in Proclamation 9994 … is hereby terminated.”

The Senate passed H. J. Res. 7 on March 29, 2023 by a vote of 68 to 23 (Roll Call 80). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because it is unconstitutional to suspend the Constitution by declaring national public-health emergencies.

H. J. Res. 27 would disapprove of a rule submitted by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Department of Defense, and Environmental Protection Agency on January 18, 2023 that again revises the definition of the “Waters of the United States.” During House debate on the bill, Representative Tracey Mann (R-Kan.) declared, “Agricultural producers have been forced to operate their businesses under three different definitions of water in the last 10 years, and this most recent rule removes long-standing bipartisan exemptions for common water features like ponds and streams found on family farms and other private property. With this vote, Congress has a golden opportunity to stand up not only for people who feed, fuel, and clothe us all, but also for all Americans whose businesses and private lives will be affected by this Big Government encroachment onto their property.”

The Senate passed H. J. Res. 27 on March 29, 2023 by a vote of 53 to 43 (Roll Call 79). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because both federal water regulations and the EPA are unconstitutional, and if the latest Biden administration rule were allowed to stand, activities such as farming and real estate development would be greatly hampered, since farmers and developers would be subject to increased unconstitutional permit requirements and fines concerning their treatment of almost any body of water, no matter how small.

During consideration of an energy and permitting package (H.R. 1), Representative Scott Perry (R-Pa.) offered an amendment to repeal Section 115 of the Clean Air Act, which allows the Environmental Protection Agency to impose emissions-reduction requirements on state governors if an “international agency” or the Department of State determines that “pollutants” emitted in the United States “endanger public health or welfare in a foreign country.”

The House rejected Perry’s amendment on March 29, 2023 by a vote of 96 to 336 (Roll Call 173). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because Section 115 of the Clean Air Act has for decades served to disguise the federal government’s unconstitutional seizure of control over the domestic energy sector — a plan designed to not only erode state sovereignty, but implement United Nations-led global “climate change” policy. The 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution clearly reserves any such regulatory powers to the “States respectively, or to the people,” as opposed to unelected, unaccountable foreign bureaucrats.

During consideration of an education-policy bill (H.R. 5), Representative Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) offered an amendment to express the sense of Congress that the authority of the Department of Education “to operate or administer any office or program related to elementary or secondary education should be terminated on or before December 31, 2023.”

The House rejected Massie’s amendment on March 24, 2023 by a vote of 161 to 265 (Roll Call 156). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because education is not the role of government, let alone among the limited and specified powers enumerated for Congress in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. A child’s education is the responsibility of, as well as a fundamental right of choice retained by, his or her parents. Forcing American citizens to furnish taxpayer money for a compulsory, failing, and government-run K-12 school system violates their individual liberties.

H. J. Res. 27 would disapprove of a rule submitted by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Department of Defense, and Environmental Protection Agency on January 18, 2023 that again revises the definition of the “Waters of the United States.” During House debate on the bill, Representative Tracey Mann (R-Kan.) declared, “Agricultural producers have been forced to operate their businesses under three different definitions of water in the last 10 years, and this most recent rule removes long-standing bipartisan exemptions for common water features like ponds and streams found on family farms and other private property. With this vote, Congress has a golden opportunity to stand up not only for people who feed, fuel, and clothe us all, but also for all Americans whose businesses and private lives will be affected by this Big Government encroachment onto their property.”

The House passed H. J. Res. 27 on March 9, 2023 by a vote of 227 to 198 (Roll Call 142). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because both federal water regulations and the EPA are unconstitutional, and if the latest Biden administration rule were allowed to stand, activities such as farming and real estate development would be greatly hampered, since farmers and developers would be subject to increased unconstitutional permit requirements and fines concerning their treatment of almost any body of water, no matter how small.

H. J. Res. 30 would reverse the December 2022 Labor Department rule modifying standards under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act to allow retirement-plan fiduciaries to consider environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors in making investment decisions and exercising shareholder rights, including when voting on shareholder resolutions and board nominations.

The Senate passed H. J. Res. 30 on March 1, 2023 by a vote of 50 to 46 (Roll Call 35). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because “woke” ESG policies, which corporations and governments are increasingly embracing, are aligned with the United Nations’ Agenda 2030. The UN’s Agenda 2030 is inherently contrary to the Constitution, and ESG promotes leftist policies including radical environmentalism, gun control, and the LGBT agenda. Plus, the U.S. Constitution does not authorize the federal government to regulate retirement plans.

H. J. Res. 30 would reverse the December 2022 Labor Department rule modifying standards under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act to allow retirement-plan fiduciaries to consider environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors in making investment decisions and exercising shareholder rights, including when voting on shareholder resolutions and board nominations.

The House passed H. J. Res. 30 on February 28, 2023 by a vote of 216 to 204 (Roll Call 124). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because “woke” ESG policies, which corporations and governments are increasingly embracing, are aligned with the United Nations’ Agenda 2030. The UN’s Agenda 2030 is inherently contrary to the Constitution, and ESG promotes leftist policies including radical environmentalism, gun control, and the LGBT agenda. Plus, the U.S. Constitution does not authorize the federal government to regulate retirement plans.

According to H. J. Res. 7, “the national [Covid-19] emergency declared by the finding of the President on March 13, 2020, in Proclamation 9994 … is hereby terminated.”

The House passed H. J. Res. 7 on February 1, 2023 by a vote of 229 to 197 (Roll Call 104). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because it is unconstitutional to suspend the Constitution by declaring national public-health emergencies.

H.R. 497, the “Freedom for Health Care Workers Act,” would eliminate the Health and Human Services (HHS) Covid-19 vaccine mandate on healthcare providers furnishing items and services in Medicare- and Medicaid-certified facilities. It would also prohibit HHS from publishing any substantially similar rule.

The House passed H.R. 497 on January 31, 2023 by a vote of 227 to 203 (Roll Call 98). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because an executive branch agency, such as HHS, has no lawmaking power according to Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution, and therefore cannot impose vaccine mandates via executive decree. Even with an act of Congress, Covid-19 vaccine mandates would still be unconstitutional due to the lack of constitutional authority for Congress to pass a law mandating what you must put into your body.

Senate Joint Resolution 63 would terminate the Covid-19 national emergency declared by President Donald Trump on March 13, 2020. As Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) stated in a November 17, 2022 op-ed, “The Constitution is the guarantor of our liberties. So it should come as no surprise that those who crave power to rule over their fellow man always seek to suspend the Constitution by declaring and perpetuating national emergencies.” He went on to write, “A president should not be able to unilaterally aggrandize his powers by saying a magic word. If he will not terminate the national emergency himself, it falls to us, the people’s representatives in Congress, to act, and, in the wise words of the court, remind Biden that ‘there is no pandemic exception to the Constitution.’”

The Senate passed the resolution terminating the Covid-19 national emergency on November 15, 2022 by a vote of 62 to 36. (Roll Call 355). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because it is unconstitutional to suspend the Constitution by declaring national public health emergencies.

H.R. 5376 would spend at least $512 billion on federal programs, subsidies, and tax credits. This includes $369 billion for various climate-change initiatives with the goal of lowering carbon emissions by 40 percent by 2030, including $270 billion in tax credits, $27 billion in grants to state and local governments and nongovernmental organizations to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, and $9.7 billion to support zero-emission or carbon-capture technology in rural areas; $64 billion to extend expanded ObamaCare subsidies for three years; and $79.3 billion in expanded IRS funding (including to hire up to 87,000 new agents). Among other programs, the bill imposes a 15-percent minimum tax — based on the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD’s) global minimum tax proposal — on corporations with at least $1 million in annual income, enacts drug-pricing changes for Medicare, and raises fee rates on energy production on public lands.

The House passed H.R. 5376 on August 12, 2022 by a vote of 220 to 207 (Roll Call 420). We have assigned pluses to the nays because Congress is failing to address its fiscally irresponsible budgeting and appropriating process that yielded a federal deficit of $1.38 trillion in fiscal 2022. Moreover, the bill advances a radical environmentalist agenda, and virtually all of its provisions fall outside the Constitution’s specified powers.

H.R. 5376 would spend at least $512 billion on federal programs, subsidies, and tax credits. This includes $369 billion for various climate-change initiatives with the goal of lowering carbon emissions by 40 percent by 2030, including $270 billion in tax credits, $27 billion in grants to state and local governments and nongovernmental organizations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and $9.7 billion to support zero-emission or carbon-capture technology in rural areas; $64 billion to extend expanded ObamaCare subsidies for three years; and $79.3 billion in expanded IRS funding (including to hire up to 87,000 new agents). Among other programs, the bill imposes a 15-percent minimum tax — based on the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD’s) global minimum tax proposal — on corporations with at least $1 million in annual income, enacts drug-pricing changes for Medicare, and raises fee rates on energy production on public lands.

The Senate passed H.R. 5376 on August 7, 2022 by a vote of 50 to 50 (Roll Call 325). We have assigned pluses to the nays because Congress is failing to address its fiscally irresponsible budgeting and appropriating process that yielded a federal deficit of $1.38 trillion in fiscal 2022. Moreover, the bill advances a radical environmentalist agenda, and virtually all of its provisions fall outside the Constitution’s specified powers.

During consideration of the budget reconciliation bill (aka the Inflation Reduction Act), Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) made a motion to commit the bill to the Senate Judiciary Committee for changes that would prohibit the Justice Department from using resources to “inappropriately target” or classify parents as “domestic terrorists” based on their engagement with public- school officials.

The Senate rejected Cruz’ motion on August 7, 2022 by a vote of 50 to 50 (Roll Call 316). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because Congress should ensure that executive branch officials do not abridge parents’ freedom of speech or their right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, which is protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

H.R. 4346 would appropriate $54.2 billion over five years, including $52.7 billion for semiconductor research and manufacturing and $1.5 billion for 5G development and implementation, and authorizes a 25-percent tax credit for spending on semiconductor manufacturing facilities. Additionally, H.R. 4346 authorizes, over five years, $81 billion for the National Science Foundation (NSF), $67 billion for the Energy Department, $11 billion for the Commerce Department, and $9.7 billion for the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Among other actions, the bill authorizes new and existing NASA programs, requires the NSF to support research in new fields including climate change, and authorizes programs to improve underrepresented groups’ participation in STEM fields.

The House passed H.R. 4346 on July 28, 2022 by a vote of 243 to 187 (Roll Call 404). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the Constitution does not authorize Congress to fund research and development programs for the private sector. The free market, not government, is the key to technological and economic progress.

H.R. 4346 would appropriate $54.2 billion over five years, including $52.7 billion for semiconductor research and manufacturing and $1.5 billion for 5G development and implementation, and authorizes a 25-percent tax credit for spending on semiconductor manufacturing facilities. Additionally, H.R. 4346 authorizes, over five years, $81 billion for the National Science Foundation (NSF), $67 billion for the Energy Department, $11 billion for the Commerce Department, and $9.7 billion for the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Among other actions, the bill authorizes new and existing NASA programs, requires the NSF to support research in new fields including climate change, and authorizes programs to improve underrepresented groups’ participation in STEM fields.

The Senate passed H.R. 4346 on July 27, 2022 by a vote of 64 to 33 (Roll Call 271). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the Constitution does not authorize Congress to fund research and development programs for the private sector. The free market, not government, is the key to technological and economic progress.

S. 4008, “A bill to provide COVID relief for restaurants, gyms, minor league sports teams, border businesses, live venue service providers, exclave businesses, and providers of transportation services,” would provide $48 billion for Small Business Administration grants to help small businesses that were harmed by the Covid pandemic.

The Senate did not vote directly on S. 4008, but on a motion to invoke cloture (and thus limit debate) so the bill could be voted on. The motion to invoke cloture was rejected on May 19, 2022 by a vote of 52 to 43 (Roll Call 192; a three-fifths majority of the entire Senate is required to invoke cloture). We have assigned pluses to the nays because not only is such spending not authorized anywhere in the Constitution, but this additional deficit spending would contribute to the ruinous inflation that is currently plaguing Americans. The economic harms to restaurants and other small businesses that S. 4008 is supposed to remedy were due to the unconstitutional federal and state Covid-19 lockdowns and vaccine mandates in the first place.

H.R. 3807, the ‘‘Relief for Restaurants and other Hard Hit Small Businesses Act of 2022,’’ would provide $55 billion for Small Business Administration grants, including $42 billion for restaurants and $13 billion for small businesses, supposedly to help those small businesses that were most harmed by the Covid pandemic. On the House floor, Representative Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Mo.) noted that H.R. 3807 is “yet another spending bill that will add to our Nation’s debt and deficit and continue to spike inflation,” and that “if Democrats were serious about helping restaurants and small businesses, they would have called for an end to the ever-changing mandates and lockdowns that forced so many businesses to close their doors.”

The House passed H.R. 3807 on April 7, 2022 by a vote of 223 to 203 (Roll Call 123). We have assigned pluses to the nays because not only is such spending not authorized anywhere in the Constitution, but this additional deficit spending would contribute to the ruinous inflation that is currently plaguing Americans. The economic harms to restaurants and other small businesses that H.R. 3807 is supposed to remedy were due to the unconstitutional federal and state Covid-19 lockdowns and vaccine mandates in the first place.

Senate Joint Resolution 37, introduced by Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.), would provide “for congressional disapproval … of the rule submitted by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention relating to ‘Requirement for Persons To Wear Masks While on Conveyances [planes, trains, and buses] and at Transportation Hubs.’” In a floor speech in support of his resolution on March 15, 2022, Senator Paul stated, “While the efficacy of masks is debatable, the question of whether or not the Federal Government possesses the power to mandate that you wear a mask is not debatable. The 10th Amendment clearly states that powers not specifically enumerated by the Constitution for the Federal Government are retained by the States and the people respectively.”

The Senate passed S. J. Res. 37 on March 15, 2022 by a vote of 57 to 40 (Roll Call 81). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the CDC rule requiring persons to wear masks while on planes, trains, and buses is unconstitutional based on the 10th Amendment.

H.R. 2471, officially known as the “Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2022,” would provide $1.5 trillion in discretionary appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2022 for federal government operations and services. Among the many unconstitutional and wasteful spending provisions in the bill was $13.6 billion in assistance to Ukraine against Russia, over $100 billion on Green New Deal-based initiatives, and $45 billion for the National Institutes of Health, which amounts to a 10-percent increase for the NIH from the previous fiscal year.

The Senate passed H.R. 2471 on March 10, 2022 by a vote of 68 to 31 (Roll Call 78). We have assigned pluses to the nays because with this omnibus bill, members of Congress are again failing to address their fiscally and constitutionally irresponsible budgeting and appropriating process that is currently yielding record-high inflation and increasing the already ballooning federal deficits, in addition to minimizing their accountability to their constituents by combining all discretionary federal spending for fiscal 2022 into one gigantic “go big or go home” bill.

During consideration of the Omnibus Appropriations bill (H.R. 2471), Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) offered an amendment “to prohibit funding for COVID-19 vaccine mandates.” When speaking in favor of his amendment on the Senate floor, Lee stated, “a few short months ago, President Biden issued a series of Executive orders. These Executive orders … proposed some pretty sweeping mandates on the American people, mandates insisting that covered persons, including for our purposes today military employees, Federal workers, employees of businesses with government contracts with the Federal Government, and medical professionals who contract with CMS — basically anyone involved with the provision of services through Medicare or Medicaid must get the COVID-19 vaccine on condition of termination…. That is not right, it is not American, and it is not constitutional, but more than anything, it is not moral.”

The Senate rejected Lee’s amendment on March 10, 2022 by a vote of 49 to 50 (Roll Call 75). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because, as Lee pointed out, “the very first clause of the very first section of the very first article [of the Constitution] says that ‘all legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.’”

This means that a president has no lawmaking power via executive orders, and therefore cannot impose vaccine mandates without an act of Congress. Even with an act of Congress, Covid-19 vaccine mandates would not be automatically considered constitutional due to the lack of constitutional authority for Congress to pass such a law.

H.R. 4521, the America COMPETES Act of 2022, would authorize about $350 billion in federal funding over five years. This includes the funding of scientific research and development programs, with more than $52 billion for the U.S. semiconductor industry. H.R. 4521 would also authorize $8 billion for the UN Green Climate Fund, codify a requirement that the U.S. implement the Paris climate agreement, direct the U.S. Armed Forces to implement climate-change training, and enable increased admission levels of refugees and economic migrants.

The House passed H.R. 4521 on February 4, 2022 by a vote of 222 to 210 (Roll Call 31). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the Constitution does not authorize Congress to fund research and development programs. Furthermore, the bill advances a radical environmentalist agenda; erodes U.S. national sovereignty; and encourages increased migration, a tool of the Deep State to fundamentally alter the United States.

During consideration of a continuing resolution (H.R. 6119) that would provide funding for federal government operations and services through February 18, 2022, Senator Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) offered an amendment to prohibit “moneys from this bill to be used to fund or enforce the White House’s COVID vaccine mandates on the American people for the duration of” the continuing resolution. In his floor speech in support of his amendment, Marshall, a physician, stated, “Whether to receive the vaccine or not is a personal choice. It should not be mandated via unconstitutional Executive actions…. Make no mistake, these vaccine mandates are not about public health or science. If they were, the White House would recognize the 92 percent of Americans ... who already built up immunity to this virus between vaccines and natural immunity.”

The Senate rejected Marshall’s amendment on December 2, 2021 by a vote of 48 to 50 (Roll Call 476). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the Constitution does not grant the power to any branch of the federal government to force citizens to submit to vaccinations.

The Build Back Better Act (H.R. 5376) is the centerpiece of President Biden’s administrative agenda. Officially it would spend a total of $1.75 trillion, but the actual cost is expected to be much higher according to other estimates. The bill would implement the agenda of the World Economic Forum’s collectivist “Great Reset,” provide amnesty for millions of illegal aliens, allocate $555 billion for implementing the far-left “Green New Deal,” override state laws that protect the sanctity of preborn children while also funding abortions in the United States, and impose $700,000 fines on employers violating Biden’s unconstitutional vaccine mandate through OSHA, among other radical provisions.

The House passed H.R. 5376 on November 19, 2021 by a vote of 220 to 213 (Roll Call 385). We have assigned pluses to the nays because by passing this bill Congress is failing to address its fiscally irresponsible budgeting and appropriating process. The Build Back Better Act is projected to add $367 billion to the deficit. Moreover, virtually all of the bill’s provisions are unconstitutional.

During consideration of Senate Concurrent Resolution 14, Senator Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) offered an amendment to “prohibit the Council on Environmental Quality and the Environmental Protection Agency from promulgating rules or guidance that bans hydraulic fracturing in the United States.” During debate on the Senate floor, Cramer stated, “This amendment would simply prohibit any ban on hydraulic fracturing. Such a ban would raise Americans’ cost of living, weaken our national security, and, of course, actually enhance greenhouse gas emissions. Thanks to the technology of fracking, since 2007, U.S. oil production has doubled, and natural gas production has increased by 60 percent.... And, by the way, banning fracking would lead to triple-digit oil prices and possible global economic shock as per the University of Chicago.”

The Senate adopted Cramer’s amendment on August 10, 2021 by a vote of 57 to 42 (Roll Call 323). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the federal government should not interfere with energy exploration. Regulation of various industries, such as energy, is not one of the federal government’s enumerated powers under the Constitution. Allowing the United States to fully utilize its energy resources would make the country more self-sufficient and potentially create millions of jobs.

H.R. 2225 would authorize $77.9 billion through fiscal 2026 for federal funding of science and engineering research and development. Over these five years, National Science Foundation (NSF) spending would increase from $12.5 billion in fiscal 2022 to an annual level of $17.9 billion in fiscal 2026. This bill would also create a new NSF Directorate for Science and Engineering Solutions to fund research and development in response to “societal challenges” including climate change and “social and economic inequality.”

The House passed H.R. 2225 on June 28, 2021 by a vote of 345 to 67 (Roll Call 186). We have assigned pluses to the nays because there is no authorization in the Constitution to fund research and development, except for national defense.

S. 1260, the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act, would authorize $250 billion over five years for federal funding of scientific research and development programs, including more than $52 billion for the U.S. semiconductor industry; $81 billion for the National Science Foundation (NSF), including $52 billion for the existing NSF programs and $29 billion for a new NSF directorate for technology and innovation that would support research and development in key areas such as artificial intelligence, automation, quantum computing, biotechnology, and advanced energy; and $23.5 billion (in fiscal 2021 alone) for NASA.

The Senate passed S. 1260 on June 8, 2021 by a vote of 68 to 32 (Roll Call 226). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the Constitution does not authorize Congress to fund research and development programs.

During consideration of the Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Act (S. 914), Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) offered an amendment to “limit the authority to reserve water rights in designating a national monument.” The amendment stated: “(1) No reservation of water rights. — In designating a national monument under subsection (a), the President may not reserve any implied or expressed water rights associated with the national monument. (2) Applicable law. — Water rights associated with a national monument designated under subsection (a) may be acquired for the national monument only in accordance with the laws of the State in which the water rights are located.”

The Senate rejected Lee’s amendment on April 29, 2021 by a vote of 41 to 54 (Roll Call 177). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the Constitution does not grant the federal government the power to designate national monuments or to grant water rights.

H.R. 1799 would extend the authorization for the Treasury Department’s Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) from March 31 to June 30, 2021. The PPP provides Small Business Administration-backed loans to businesses of 500 employees or less struggling as a result of the draconian COVID-19 lockdowns issued by governors across the country beginning in 2020 and extending into 2021. PPP loans do not have to be paid back so long as employers only use the funds for legitimate business expenses, such as PPP-approved payroll costs, mortgages, rent, operation expenditures, personal protective equipment as may have been required by state-issued emergency orders, property damage as a result of violent mob protests that occurred in 2020 and not covered by the business’s insurance, and suppliers’ costs for contracts or other bills of goods and services purchased prior to taking out the loan.

The Senate passed H.R. 1799 on March 25, 2021 by a vote of 92 to 7 (Roll Call 140). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to bail out or lend funds to business.

H.R. 1319, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, would follow the precedent set in 2020 of spending multiple trillions of dollars within one year on unconstitutional programs in the name of coronavirus relief. As summarized by a Treasury Department fact sheet posted after the House and Senate had approved the $1.9 trillion spending bill, 90 million Americans would receive more than $242 billion in direct payments ($1,400 for individuals, $2,800 for married couples, and $1,400 for each dependent); families would receive $3,600 for children under age six, and $3,000 for other children under age 18; state and local governments would receive $325 billion in emergency direct payments; states, territories, and tribes would receive $10 billion for capital projects; states, territories, and tribes would receive $10 billion for homeowner relief; states, territories, and tribes would receive $21.6 billion for emergency rental assistance for households affected by COVID-19; etc.

The House passed H.R. 1319 on March 10, 2021 by a vote of 220 to 211 (Roll Call 72). We have assigned pluses to the nays because Congress is failing to address its fiscally irresponsible budgeting and appropriating process that yielded annual federal deficits of $3.1 trillion in fiscal 2020 and an expected $3.0 trillion in 2021. Moreover, virtually all of the coronavirus aid provisions, including direct checks, federal unemployment benefits, and economic subsidies, are unconstitutional.

H.R. 1319, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, would follow the precedent set in 2020 of spending multiple trillions of dollars within one year on unconstitutional programs in the name of coronavirus relief. As summarized by a Treasury Department fact sheet posted after the House and Senate had approved the $1.9 trillion spending bill, 90 million Americans would receive more than $242 billion in direct payments ($1,400 for individuals, $2,800 for married couples, and $1,400 for each dependent); families would receive $3,600 for children under age six, and $3,000 for other children under age 18; state and local governments would receive $325 billion in emergency direct payments; states, territories, and tribes would receive $10 billion for capital projects; etc.

The Senate passed H.R. 1319 on March 6, 2021 by a vote of 50 to 49 (Roll Call 110). We have assigned pluses to the nays because Congress is failing to address its fiscally irresponsible budgeting and appropriating process that yielded annual federal deficits of $3.1 trillion in fiscal 2020 and an expected $3.0 trillion in 2021. Moreover, virtually all of the coronavirus aid provisions, including direct checks, federal unemployment benefits, and subsidization of the economy, are unconstitutional.

This resolution (Senate Joint Res. 54) would “direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities in the Republic of Yemen that have not been authorized by Congress.”

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) made a motion on November 28, 2018 to discharge the Senate Foreign Relations Committee from further consideration of Senate Joint Res. 54, so that it could be voted on by the full Senate. In his effort to advance the bill, Sanders was supported not only by all Democrat senators who voted but also by constitutional-minded Republicans.

Sanders’ motion was agreed to by a vote of 63 to 37 (Roll Call 250). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because only Congress is vested with the power to declare war. A foreign military intervention is an act of war, and Congress has not authorized any intervention or war in Yemen. Nor should Congress do so, since the civil war in Yemen does not threaten the United States.

This bill (H.R. 6784) would direct the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to issue a rule removing the gray wolf from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife, thus removing federal protections for the species in the 48 contiguous United States. It would also direct the Interior Department to reissue a 2011 rule delisting gray wolves in the Western Great Lakes region of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan, and would exempt both rules, and another rule delisting the species in Wyoming, from judicial review.

The House passed H.R. 6784 on November 16, 2018 by a vote of 196 to 180 (Roll Call 420). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because decisions regarding human interaction with various animal species, if handled by government at all, should be handled at the state and local levels. The U.S. Constitution does not give the federal government the authority to declare animals endangered and thus off-limits to hunt or otherwise manage. The growing gray wolf population has been a menace to farmers and ranchers in many states, and farmers are not allowed to protect their own property owing to federal regulations. Working to overturn such regulations is a good thing.

This measure (Senate Joint Resolution 63) would nullify and disapprove of the rule from the Departments of Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services that would expand the duration of short-term health-insurance plans. Short-term health-insurance plans, which are not required to follow federal health-insurance regulations — such as guaranteed issue, guaranteed renewability, and coverage of essential benefits — are very affordable and can be purchased at any time (i.e., not subject to enrollment periods). “Short-term” originally meant up to one year, but was reduced to three months under the Obama administration to increase enrollment in ObamaCare. The Trump administration sought to restore the original definition of “short-term” to up to one year. S.J. Res. 63, sponsored by left-wing Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), seeks to stop this Trump administration “deregulation.”

The Senate rejected S. J. Res. 63 on October 10, 2018 by a vote of 50 to 50 (Roll Call 226). We have assigned pluses to the nays because easing federal regulations is always a good thing, especially in this case since the federal government has no constitutional authority to regulate health insurance in the first place. If people want to purchase “short-term” insurance that has less coverage, but is much more affordable, they should be allowed to do so. The federal government should stay out of healthcare, period.

This bill (H.R. 302) would reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration though fiscal year 2023, with annual authorizations for federal aviation programs increasing from $10.2 billion in fiscal 2018 to $11.6 billion in fiscal 2023. It also eases restrictions on FAA regulation of drones, authorizes the federal Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and includes $1.7 billion for Hurricane Florence disaster relief.

The Senate passed the bill on October 3, 2018 by a vote of 93 to 6 (Roll Call 220). We have assigned pluses to the nays because of the bill’s unconstitutional federal overreach in both aviation and disaster relief. One example of this overreach is the TSA, which is known for groping and violating air travelers in the name of providing security. Instead of relying on an inefficient federal bureaucracy, security should be provided by the airlines, which have a vested interest in keeping their customers safe. Another area the feds should stay out of is the regulation of private-sector drones, which instead should be managed by local ordinances or (at most) state laws. And the market, not the feds, should determine such issues as the dimensions of seats on passenger airliners. Regarding disaster relief, this should be handled by private charitable efforts, not the federal government.

This bill (H.R. 6760) would make permanent tax cuts for individuals in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 that were set to expire at the end of 2025, including lowered tax rates, increased standard deductions (from $13,000 to $24,000 for joint filers), and an increased child tax credit (from $1,000 to $2,000).

The House passed H.R. 6760 on September 28, 2018 by a vote of 220 to 191 (Roll Call 414). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because tax cuts keep money in the hands of those who earned it and can spur economic growth. Unfortunately, however, neither the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act nor this new legislation addresses runaway federal spending, which needs to be reined in via other legislation.

This bill (H.R. 6), as amended by the House, would expand Medicare and Medicaid to cover medication-assisted treatment for substance abuse and would place new requirements on states regarding Medicaid drug review and utilization requirements. It would appropriate $15 million annually, from fiscal 2019 through fiscal 2023, to support the establishment or operation of public-health laboratories to detect synthetic opioids. The House amendment to the Senate-amended bill would allow Medicaid patients with opioid- or cocaine-abuse problems to stay for up to 30 days per year in certain treatment facilities with more than 16 beds.

The House agreed to an amendment to the Senate-amended version of H.R. 6 on September 28, 2018 by a vote of 393 to 8 (Roll Call 415). We have assigned pluses to the nays because Medicare and Medicaid are both unconstitutional programs. The U.S. Constitution gives no authority to the federal government to pay people’s medical expenses, no matter how poor or disabled they are. Such assistance should be handled by states, charity, or the free market. Any expansion of Medicare or Medicaid, which is what this bill authorizes, should be voted against.

This bill (H.R. 6157) would provide $855.1 billion in discretionary funding for fiscal 2019, including $674.4 billion for the Defense Department (including $67.9 billion in overseas contingency operations, i.e., Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.), $ 90.3 billion for the Health and Human Services Department, $71.4 billion for the Education Department, $12.1 billion for the Labor Department, and continuing appropriations for all of the remaining federal government departments not explicitly funded by this bill until December 7, 2018.

The House adopted the final version of the bill (the conference report) on September 26, 2018 by a vote of 361 to 61 (Roll Call 405). We have assigned pluses to the nays because social-welfare spending falls outside the enumerated powers of the federal government, and lumping multiple appropriations bills into one mega bill reduces lawmakers’ accountability to their constituents. Moreover, even though defense spending is constitutional, the “defense” budget is bloated with funding for overseas military operations that have not contributed to the defense of our own country.

This bill (H.R. 302) would reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration though fiscal year 2023, with annual authorizations for federal aviation programs increasing from $10.2 billion in fiscal 2018 to $11.6 billion in fiscal 2023. It also eases restrictions on FAA regulation of drones, authorizes the federal Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and includes $1.7 billion for Hurricane Florence disaster relief.

The House passed the bill on September 26, 2018 by a vote of 398 to 23 (Roll Call 407). We have assigned pluses to the nays because of the bill’s unconstitutional federal overreach in both aviation and disaster relief. One example of this overreach is the TSA, which is known for groping and violating air travelers in the name of providing security. Instead of relying on an inefficient federal bureaucracy, security should be provided by the airlines, which have a vested interest in keeping their customers safe. Another area the feds should stay out of is the regulation of private-sector drones, which instead should be managed by local ordinances or (at most) state laws. And the market, not the feds, should determine such issues as the dimensions of seats on passenger airliners. Regarding disaster relief, this should be handled by private charitable efforts, not the federal government.

This bill (H.R. 6157) would provide $855.1 billion in discretionary funding for fiscal 2019, including $674.4 billion for the Defense Department (including $67.9 billion in overseas contingency operations, i.e., Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.), $90.3 billion for the Health and Human Services Department, $71.4 billion for the Education Department, $12.1 billion for the Labor Department, and continuing appropriations for all of the remaining federal government departments not explicitly funded by this bill until December 7, 2018.

The Senate adopted the final version of the bill (the conference report) on September 18, 2018 by a vote of 93 to 7 (Roll Call 212). We have assigned pluses to the nays because social-welfare spending falls outside the enumerated powers of the federal government, and lumping multiple appropriations bills into one mega-bill reduces lawmakers’ accountability to their constituents. Moreover, even though defense spending is constitutional, the “defense” budget is bloated with funding for overseas military operations that have not contributed to the defense of our own country.

This bill (H.R. 6) would modify Medicare and Medicaid in relation to opioid abuse. It would authorize $500 million annually, for fiscal 2019 through fiscal 2021, for opioid-response grants to states and tribes. It would authorize $10 million annually, for fiscal 2019 through fiscal 2023, for the establishment and operation of opioid recovery centers. It would also authorize the creation of an Office of National Drug Control Policy and require a study on Medicaid drug review and utilization requirements. A Senate amendment to the bill would remove provisions allowing Medicaid reimbursements for residential substance-abuse facilities.

The Senate passed H.R. 6 on September 17, 2018 by a vote of 99 to 1 (Roll Call 210). We have assigned pluses to the nay because Medicare and Medicaid are both unconstitutional programs. The U.S. Constitution gives no authority to the federal government to pay people’s medical expenses, no matter how poor or disabled they are. Such assistance should be handled by states, charity, or the free market. Any expansion of Medicare or Medicaid, which is what this bill authorizes, should be voted against.

During consideration of the appropriations bill for Health and Human Services and other federal departments including Defense (H.R. 6157), Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.), introduced an amendment to prohibit federal funding of Planned Parenthood.

The Senate rejected Senator Paul’s amendment on August 23, 2018 by a vote of 45 to 48 (Roll Call 191). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because Planned Parenthood is the nation’s largest abortion provider, and government should not subsidize the killing of innocent human life. Moreover, under the Constitution, the federal government should not be subsidizing any private entity in the marketplace.

This bill (H.R. 6147) would provide $154.2 billion in discretionary funding for fiscal 2019 to various departments and agencies, including $35.9 billion for the Interior Department, the EPA, and related agencies; $23.7 billion for the Treasury Department; $23.2 billion for the Agriculture Department and related agencies; and $71.4 billion for the departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and related agencies.

The Senate passed H.R. 6147 on August 1, 2018 by a vote of 92 to 6 (Roll Call 180). We have assigned pluses to the nays because much of the spending falls outside the federal government’s constitutionally delegated powers. The unconstitutional spending includes federal social-welfare programs such as food and farm subsidies and housing subsidies (under HUD). Also, lumping multiple appropriations bills together, as opposed to voting on them separately, reduces lawmakers’ accountability.

This bill (S. 1182) would extend the authorization of the National Flood Insurance Program through November 30, 2018.

The House passed S. 1182 on July 25, 2018 by a vote of 366 to 52 (Roll Call 373). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the Constitution does not give the federal government authority to get into the insurance business. Having the federal government as an insurer essentially subsidizes risky behavior, such as building in flood-, fire-, and earthquake-prone areas, and forces the taxpayer to pick up the tab. Insurance policies for natural disasters should be offered by private insurers, with the market setting the rates for such coverage.

During consideration of the Interior, Environment, Financial Services, and General Government Appropriations Act for 2019 (H.R. 6147), Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) introduced an amendment to cut funding in each of the bill’s divisions by 11.39 percent. The purpose (in the words of the amendment) is “to reduce the amounts appropriated to comply with the spending limits under the Budget Control Act of 2011.”

The Senate rejected Paul’s amendment on July 25, 2018 by a vote of 25 to 74 (Roll Call 171). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the federal government needs to start reining in climbing federal spending (and deficits) somewhere in order to avert fiscal disaster.

This bill (H.R. 184) would fully repeal, after December 31, 2019, the 2.3-percent excise tax on domestic sales of medical devices. The “medical device tax” was put in place as part of the Affordable Care Act to help cover some of the program’s costs.

The House passed H.R. 184 on July 24, 2018 by a vote of 283 to 132 (Roll Call 372). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because, while implementing an excise tax in itself is not an unconstitutional action of the federal government, this particular excise tax was put in place to help pay for an unconstitutional program — the Affordable Care Act, aka ObamaCare. Repealing part of the funding for such an unconstitutional federal healthcare program is a good thing and should be supported.

This measure (House Concurrent Resolution 119) would express the sense of Congress “that a carbon tax would be detrimental to American families and businesses, and is not in the best interest of the United States.” During debate on the floor of the House, Representative Steve Scalise (R-La.) discussed how a carbon tax would raise and increase costs for families. He pointed out: “There would be an increase by an estimated $1,900 per family on the cost of things that they buy all across this country.”

The House adopted H. Con. Res. 119 on July 19, 2018 by a vote of 229 to 180 (Roll Call 363). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because Congress has no constitutional authority to limit the use of certain sources of energy, such as carbon-based fuels, by selectively imposing taxes on them.

This amendment to H.R. 6147, introduced by Representative Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.), would prohibit appropriated funds of the Fiscal 2019 Interior Environment and Financial Services Appropriations Package from being used to enforce the EPA’s “Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emissions Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources” rule, also known as the “methane rule.” According to the Congressional Record for July 18, 2018, Representative Mullin said the following: “This amendment would prohibit funds from enforcing the Obama administration EPA methane rule. This rule is currently facing litigation uncertainty, and Congress must act to block this job-killing regulation estimated to cost our economy $530 million annually. While oil and gas production has increased more than 25 percent since 2005, related methane emissions have actually decreased almost 40 percent during the same time period.”

The House passed this amendment to H.R. 6147 on July 18, 2018 by a vote of 215 to 194 (Roll Call 346). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to regulate the environment in general, let alone regulate methane emissions that accompany oil and natural gas production, processing, and distribution.

During consideration of the Defense authorization bill (H.R. 5515), Senator Jack Reed (D-R.I.) moved that Senate members in the House-Senate conference committee insist that the final version of the bill reaffirm the commitment of the United States to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) military alliance. Under the North Atlantic Treaty establishing NATO, member nations “agree that an armed attack against one or more of them … shall be considered an attack against them all.”

The Senate agreed to Reed’s motion on July 10, 2018 by a vote of 97 to 2 (Roll Call 149). We have assigned pluses to the nays not only because the United States should stay clear of entangling alliances such as NATO, but also because the NATO provision that obligates the United States to go to war if any member of NATO is attacked undermines the provision in the U.S. Constitution that assigns to Congress the power to declare war.

This bill (H.R. 2) would reauthorize and extend federal farm and nutrition programs through fiscal 2023, including crop subsidies, conservation, rural development and agricultural trade programs, and the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (aka food stamps). The Congressional Budget Office estimates that direct spending on agricultural and nutrition programs under this bill would total $867 billion over 10 years. And according to an article in The Hill entitled “Once again, the farm bill is stuffed with food stamps” (May 14, 2018), “roughly 80 percent of the [Farm] bill’s annual budget is earmarked for food stamps.” This bill would also reauthorize a whole variety of other agricultural and nutritional programs, as well as allow industrial hemp to be grown in the United States, subject to strict state regulation.

The Senate passed H.R. 2 on June 28, 2018 by a vote of 86 to 11 (Roll Call 143). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to subsidize food or agriculture. Moreover, food subsidies have done little to lift people out of poverty, and farm subsidies have caused market distortions as the government essentially picks winners and losers in the food production industry.

During consideration of a minibus appropriations bill (H.R. 5895), Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) introduced an amendment to repeal the EPA’s 2015 “Waters of the United States” rule, which allows federal bureaucrats to broadly interpret the meaning of “navigable waters” under the Clean Water Act. This rule, Lee opined on the Senate floor, “effectively dramatically expanded the jurisdiction of the Federal Government over land in the United States, in some instances saying that if a plot of land is wet some of the time, some of the year, during any particular year, you can be subject to massive fines totaling millions of dollars if you do anything on that land, subject to the arbitrary determinations of Federal bureaucrats.”

The Senate tabled (killed) Lee’s amendment on June 21, 2018 by a vote of 62 to 34 (Roll Call 138). We have assigned pluses to the nays because both federal water regulations and the EPA are unconstitutional, and if the rule were allowed to stand, activities such as farming and real estate development would be greatly hampered, since farmers and developers would be subject to increased unconstitutional permit requirements and fines concerning their treatment of almost any body of water, no matter how small.

This bill (H.R. 3) would cut nearly $15 billion from previously approved, unspent funding, including $7 billion from the Children’s Health Insurance Program and $4.3 billion from the Department of Energy’s Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program.

The Senate rejected a motion to discharge H.R. 3 from the Senate Budget Committee (so that it could be considered by the full Senate) on June 20, 2018 by a vote of 48 to 50 (Roll Call 134). We have assigned pluses to the yeas not only because the spending falls outside the scope of constitutionally authorized federal powers, but also because the federal government needs to start reining in ballooning federal spending (and debt) somewhere in order to avert fiscal disaster. The cuts in this bill comprise only a fraction of one percent of total federal spending, and according to the Congressional Budget Office, most of the unspent funding targeted by the bill would not be spent anyway. Yet modest cuts are better than none at all.

During consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 5515), Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) introduced the Due Process Guarantee Act amendment to uphold the right to due process for U.S. citizens and permanent residents on American soil. “This amendment … simply says that if you are a U.S. citizen or a lawful permanent resident, you may not be indefinitely detained on U.S. soil without trial, without charge, without access to a jury or to counsel,” Lee said on the Senate floor. His amendment would negate language in the fiscal year 2012 NDAA that purportedly authorizes the U.S. military to indefinitely detain American citizens accused of being terrorists, without habeas corpus and without being tried and found guilty in a court of law.

The Senate rejected a motion to table (kill) Lee’s amendment on June 13, 2018 by a vote of 30 to 68 (Roll Call 122). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the war on terror must not be allowed to destroy constitutionally guaranteed legal protections.

This bill (H.R. 3) would cut nearly $15 billion from previously approved, unspent spending, including $7 billion from the Children’s Health Insurance Program and $4.3 billion from the Department of Energy’s Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program.

The House passed H.R. 3 on June 7, 2018 by a vote of 210 to 206 (Roll Call 243). We have assigned pluses to the yeas not only because the spending falls outside the scope of constitutionally authorized federal powers, but also because the federal government needs to start reining in ballooning federal spending (and debt) somewhere in order to avert fiscal disaster. The cuts in this bill comprise only a fraction of one percent of total federal spending, and according to the Congressional Budget Office, most of the funding targeted by the bill would not be spent anyway. Yet modest cuts are better than none at all.

This bill (H.R. 3249) would establish a Project Safe Neighborhoods Block Grant Program within the Office of Justice Programs at the Department of Justice to foster and improve existing partnerships between local, state, and federal law-enforcement agencies to create safer neighborhoods through sustained reductions in violent crimes. It would authorize $50 million a year in each of the fiscal years from 2019 through 2021.

The House concurred with the Senate version of H.R. 3249 on June 6, 2018 by a vote of 394 to 13 (Roll Call 239). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the federal government is not authorized by the Constitution to partner with, train, or subsidize state or local law-enforcement agencies. Our continued existence as a free people under the Constitution depends on the continued independence of our local police from federal and state control.

This bill (S. 204) would allow patients with life-threatening diseases or conditions who are not participating in clinical trials to seek access to experimental and investigational drugs directly from a drug manufacturer, without approval by the Food and Drug Administration. It would require that in order for the patient to be eligible, the patient must first try all approved treatment options and be unable to participate in a clinical trial. Only drugs that have completed phase 1 clinical trials, that have not been approved or licensed for any use, and that are currently under an active FDA application or are undergoing clinical trials would be eligible for use under the bill’s provisions.

The House passed S. 204 on May 22, 2018 by a vote of 250 to 169 (Roll Call 214). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the federal government, under the Constitution, has not been given authority over what medical procedures U.S. citizens choose to engage in. If a person wants to try an “unapproved” treatment, he should be able to do so with no interference from the government. In fact, since the Constitution gives the federal government no authority whatsoever over any aspect of healthcare, the FDA should not even exist. Any law that lessens government overreach into the personal medical decisions of citizens is a step in the right direction.

During consideration of the farm bill (H.R. 2), Representative Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) introduced an amendment to prohibit federal interference in the interstate transportation of unpasteurized milk and milk products between states that allow for the distribution of such products for direct human consumption.

The House rejected Massie’s amendment on May 18, 2018 by a vote of 79 to 331 (Roll Call 201). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the U.S. Constitution does not give the federal government any authority over what foods a person chooses to consume. In other words, it is illegal for the federal government to make raw milk illegal. While the federal government does have authority to “regulate Commerce … among the several States,” there is no reason for federal interference in a scenario such as this, where a product is legally sold in each of the states in question. Massie’s amendment would have limited federal overreach and should have been supported.

During consideration of the farm bill (H.R. 2), Representative Jim Banks (R-Ind.) introduced an amendment to repeal the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2015 “Waters of the United States” rule. On the floor of the House, Banks called this rule “the poster child of government overreach during the Obama administration,” noting that it gives “unelected bureaucrats at the EPA the power to broadly interpret what is a navigable waterway” under the Clean Water Act — so broadly that “even a puddle in a farm’s drainage ditch could be subjected to Federal regulation.”

The House adopted Banks’ amendment on May 18, 2018 by a vote of 238 to 173 (Roll Call 203). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because both federal water regulations and the EPA are unconstitutional, and if the rule were allowed to stand, activities such as farming and real estate development would be greatly hampered, since farmers and developers would be subject to increased unconstitutional permit requirements and fines concerning their treatment of almost any body of water, no matter how small.

During consideration of the farm bill (H.R. 2), Representative Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) introduced an amendment that would have phased out agricultural crop subsidies by fiscal year 2030.

The House rejected McClintock’s amendment on May 17, 2018 by a vote of 34 to 380 (Roll Call 194). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because no warrant for the appropriation of crop subsidies is found in the Constitution, and subsidies disrupt the free market economy.

This bill (Senate Joint Resolution 52) would nullify and disapprove of the new Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rule that seeks to deregulate the Internet. In 2015, as a result of fears that providers would “throttle” customers’ Internet connections and charge higher rates for certain times and/or services, the Obama-era FCC imposed common-carrier mandates on broadband Internet service providers, essentially regulating the Internet as a public utility. The Trump FCC under Chairman Ajit Pai overturned this rule, allowing the Internet to be more or less unregulated as it had been before the rule.

The Senate passed Senate Joint Resolution 52 on May 16, 2018 by a vote of 52 to 47 (Roll Call 97). We have assigned pluses to the nays because regulation of the Internet is not a proper function of the federal government under the Constitution. The new FCC rule under Commissioner Pai was more of a hands-off approach to the Internet, allowing service providers to set their own rules. This is the correct approach, as any provider “throttling” service or overcharging customers will lose business to more competitive providers in a free market setting. Government, in scenarios such as these, will nearly always cause more problems than it claims to attempt to solve. Case in point: Regulations are not always applied equally, as under the Obama FCC rule some sites were forced to “play fair,” while some of the big guys, such as Netflix and Google, could still set their own rules.

This bill (H.R. 1625) would provide $1.3 trillion in discretionary appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2018 for federal government operations and services. This represents an overall increase in discretionary spending of 12 percent over the 2017 level. The big winner was the Department of Defense, with an increase of 10 percent over last year’s appropriations. (See House Vote 25 for more information.)

The Senate passed the omnibus spending bill on March 23, 2018 by a vote of 65 to 32 (Roll Call 63). We have assigned pluses to the nays because with this omnibus bill, members of Congress are failing to address their fiscally and constitutionally irresponsible budgeting and appropriating process that is currently yielding annual federal deficits measured in the hundreds of billions of dollars, as well as minimizing their accountability to the voters by combining all discretionary federal spending for fiscal 2018 into one gigantic “take it or leave it” bill.

This bill (H.R. 1625) would provide $1.3 trillion in discretionary appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2018 for federal government operations and services. This represents an overall increase in discretionary spending of 12 percent over the 2017 level. The big winner was the Department of Defense, with an increase of 10 percent over last year’s appropriations. Democrat negotiators on this bill successfully fought off many Republican riders, such as a rider that would have permitted the Trump administration to withdraw the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule. Pro-life Republicans were saddened to learn that the omnibus bill continues the more than $500 million in taxpayer dollars Planned Parenthood receives each year.

The House passed the omnibus spending bill on March 22, 2018 by a vote of 256 to 167 (Roll Call 127). We have assigned pluses to the nays because with this omnibus bill, members of Congress are failing to address their fiscally and constitutionally irresponsible budgeting and appropriating process that is currently yielding annual federal deficits measured in the hundreds of billions of dollars, as well as minimizing their accountability to the voters by combining all discretionary federal spending for fiscal 2018 into one gigantic “take it or leave it” bill.

This resolution (Senate Joint Res. 54), according to the text, would “direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities in the Republic of Yemen that have not been authorized by Congress.”

The Senate agreed to table (kill) a motion to discharge this resolution from the Foreign Relations Committee (so that it could be considered by the full Senate) on March 20, 2018 by vote of 55 to 44 (Roll Call 58). We have assigned pluses to the nays because only Congress is vested with the power to declare war. A foreign military intervention is an act of war, and Congress has not authorized any intervention or war in Yemen. Nor should Congress do so, since the civil war in Yemen does not threaten the United States.

The STOP School Violence Act of 2018 (H.R. 4909) would authorize $75 million a year through fiscal year 2028 for the Justice Department’s Secure Our Schools grant program. SOS is a grant program of the Justice Department’s Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, which has been instrumental in laying the foundations for nationalizing local police by providing federal “assistance” in the form of funds, equipment, training, and development of guidelines to local law-enforcement agencies.

In a podcast interview with Conservative Review, Representative Thomas Massie (RKy.) said the “STOP School Violence Act was bad enough for nationalizing defense of our schools,” but he further revealed, “There is money in that bill that is going to go to gun control groups. It literally says in there you can give it to the 501-C3s, and then it also says in there it can’t go to train anybody on gun safety. It’s got to go for all the liberal sort of agendas.”

The House passed H.R. 4909 on March 14, 2018 by a vote of 407 to 10 (Roll Call 106). We have assigned pluses to the nays because school safety is not a proper function of the federal government, and no action the federal government has ever taken would actually make schools safe. School safety should be addressed at the local level. Furthermore, the nationalizing of local police and school security, as well as any other gun-control measures contained in the bill, are all strictly unconstitutional.

During consideration of the immigration bill (H.R. 2579), Senator Pat Toomey (R-Penn.) introduced an amendment to prohibit the disbursement of federal development grants to cities, states, or other political subdivisions that harbor or provide sanctuary for illegal immigrants.

The Senate did not vote directly on Toomey’s amendment, but on a motion to invoke cloture (and thus limit debate) so the amendment could come up for a vote. The motion to invoke cloture was rejected on February 15, 2018 by a vote of 54 to 45 (Roll Call 34; a three-fifths majority of the entire Senate is required to invoke cloture). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the flood of illegal immigrants into the United States has risen to the level of an invasion swamping our Republic, and political entities that provide sanctuary to illegal aliens in contravention of federal immigration laws should not expect to do so while receiving federal aid.

This bill (S. 139) would reauthorize for six years, through 2023, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which governs electronic surveillance of foreign terrorism suspects. The bill would require the development of procedures for searching the NSA database that would protect the Fourth Amendment-guaranteed rights of U.S. citizens, while allowing the FBI to access information with an order from the secret FISA Court, in certain cases.

The Senate passed S. 139 on January 18, 2018 by a vote of 65 to 34 (Roll Call 12). We have assigned pluses to the nays because FISA, while supposedly put in place to gather intelligence on foreign targets, has been used to spy on U.S. citizens. While the bill does provide provisions to, ostensibly, protect the privacy of U.S. citizens, given the track record of intelligence agencies, it is unlikely that they would actually follow these rules. The FISA Court gives a green light to just about any surveillance request that comes its way, and FISA-approved NSA warrantless surveillance of American citizens has become common knowledge.

The World Bank Accountability Act (H.R. 3326) would authorize $3.29 billion in U.S. contributions to the World Bank’s International Development Association, which discharges concessional loans known as “credits” and economic grants to the world’s poorest and most underdeveloped countries.

The House passed H.R. 3326 on January 17, 2018 by a vote of 237 to 184 (Roll Call 24). We have assigned pluses to the nays because authorizing such funds to the WTO’s IDA is foreign aid, which is a form of international welfare and completely unconstitutional, and most World Bank “aid” further enriches plutocrats in Third World countries, at the expense of the poor.

During consideration of the bill (S. 139) reauthorizing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), Representative Justin Amash (R-Mich.) introduced an amendment to end NSA collection of communications data that is neither to nor from an approved foreign target, but rather communications “about” a foreign target entirely between American citizens. It would prohibit the FBI and intelligence agencies from searching the NSA database for information on U.S. citizens without first obtaining a warrant, except in certain circumstances. The amendment would also end “reverse targeting,” in which an American citizen communicating with a foreign target is also subject to surveillance.

The House rejected Amash’s amendment on January 11, 2018 by a vote of 183 to 233 (Roll Call 14). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because this amendment is an attempt to limit NSA surveillance of U.S. citizens. Warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens is unconstitutional, and NSA surveillance certainly falls under this category. Amash’s amendment would require the FBI to obtain a warrant, rather than merely FISA Court approval, in order to access the NSA’s database.

This bill (S. 139) would reauthorize for six years, through 2023, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which governs electronic surveillance of foreign terrorism suspects. The bill would require the development of procedures for searching the NSA database that would protect the Fourth Amendment-guaranteed rights of U.S. citizens, while allowing the FBI to access information with an order from the secret FISA Court, in certain cases.

The House passed S. 139 on January 11, 2018 by a vote of 256 to 164 (Roll Call 16). We have assigned pluses to the nays because FISA, while supposedly put in place to gather intelligence on foreign targets, has been used to spy on U.S. citizens. The bill does provide provisions to, ostensibly, protect the privacy of U.S. citizens, but given the track record of intelligence agencies, it is unlikely that they would actually follow these rules. The FISA Court gives a green light to just about any surveillance request that comes its way, and FISA-approved NSA warrantless surveillance of American citizens has become common knowledge.

This bill, known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (H.R. 1), would slash the corporate income tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent, cut individual income-tax rates through 2025, and effectively eliminate the tax penalty on Americans who do not purchase health insurance by reducing the penalty amount to zero. The latter was a cornerstone of the 2010 ObamaCare legislation.

The House agreed to the final version of H.R. 1 on December 20, 2017 by a vote of 224 to 201 (Roll Call 699), after which the bill was sent to President Trump for his signature. We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the tax cuts in this bill will keep more money in the hands of American businesses and consumers, where it can be invested into the economy, thus spurring economic growth. Unfortunately, however, the bill does not address federal spending, which needs to be reined in via other legislation.

This bill, known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (H.R. 1), would slash the corporate income-tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent, cut individual income-tax rates through 2025, and effectively eliminate the tax penalty on Americans who do not purchase health insurance by reducing the penalty amount to zero. The latter was a cornerstone of the 2010 ObamaCare legislation.

The Senate passed the final version of H.R. 1 on December 20, 2017 by a vote of 51 to 48 (Roll Call 323). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the tax cuts in this bill will keep more money in the hands of American businesses and consumers, where it can be invested into the economy, thus spurring economic growth. Unfortunately, however, the bill does not address federal spending, which needs to be reined in via other legislation.

The Protecting Seniors’ Access to Medicare Act (H.R. 849) would repeal the provisions of ObamaCare providing for the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), otherwise known as the “death panel.” In a statement applauding the passage of H.R. 849, David O. Barbe, president of the American Medical Association (AMA), said, “IPAB puts significant health care payment and policy decisions in the hands of an independent body with far too little accountability. Its cost-cutting targets would lead to short-sighted strategies that would threaten access to care for millions of Medicare patients across the country.”

The House passed H.R. 849 on November 2, 2017 by a vote of 307 to 111 (Roll Call 604). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to interfere in healthcare, let alone ration it by deciding who should and should not receive medical care.

This bill (H.R. 2266) would make available $36.5 billion in emergency supplemental funding for fiscal 2018 to partially cover the costs of responding to multiple natural disasters, including hurricanes and wildfires. It would include $18.7 billion for the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Disaster Relief Fund and would cancel $16 billion of the Treasury debt incurred by FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program.

The Senate agreed to pass H.R. 2266 on October 24, 2017 by a vote of 82 to 17 (Roll Call 248). We have assigned pluses to the nays because federal involvement in natural disaster relief is not only unconstitutional, but also wasteful, inefficient, ineffective, and often harmful, as The New American has pointed out numerous times. Federal intervention into natural disaster recovery efforts typically makes matters worse for those who are afflicted by the disaster, as federal bureaucrats are often ill-informed of the needs of those affected and attempt to take control of relief efforts away from state and local organizations that better understand the situation. Disaster relief is much better handled by states, counties, and local communities, coupled with volunteer efforts from across the country. As it stands now, most disaster relief work is already done by private entities.

During consideration of the budget resolution (House Concurrent Resolution 71), Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) introduced an amendment to cut $43 billion in budget authority in fiscal 2018. Senator Paul remarked on October 17, 2017, “I want a big, big very bold tax cut. I’m for the bigger the better. And I will settle for less than I want. But I do want the biggest. And I will agitate to make sure that everybody across-the-board gets a tax cut… I can’t get a Republican to sign on, because they give lip service to smaller government, but they’re afraid of their shadow. And not a damn one of them really are for cutting spending.”

The Senate rejected Paul’s amendment on October 19, 2017 by a vote of 5 to 95 (Roll Call 236). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because federal spending, much of which is unconstitutional, is out of control and needs to be reined in. While a $43 billion budget cut is small in comparison to the trillion-dollar-plus budgets in recent years, it is a symbolic act that should be applauded.

During consideration of the budget resolution (House Concurrent Resolution 71), Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) introduced an amendment to authorize $20.6 billion in new spending for healthcare programs, including Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program, for fiscal 2018.

The Senate rejected Sanders’ amendment on October 18, 2017 by a vote of 47 to 51 (Roll Call 221). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the U.S. Constitution does not authorize the federal government to get involved in healthcare, and all government meddling causes more healthcare problems, such as rising healthcare costs.