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 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 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.

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.

During consideration of the bill to repeal the authorizations for the use of military force against Iraq (S. 316), Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) introduced an amendment that would require any convention or agreement about pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response reached by either the World Health Assembly or the International Negotiating Body of the World Health Organization (WHO) to be deemed as “a treaty that is subject to the requirements of article II, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States,” according to the text of the amendment.

The Senate rejected Johnson’s amendment on March 28, 2023 by a vote of 47 to 49 (Roll Call 71). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because in recent decades both the Executive Branch and Congress have regularly skirted the constitutional requirement in Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution that treaties have to be made with the “Advice and Consent of the Senate … provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.” Instead of recognizing agreements as treaties, they unconstitutionally designate them as “executive agreements,” thereby enabling the president and Congress to avoid seeking the advice and consent of the Senate and pass them by a simple majority of the House and Senate, rather than the more rigorous threshold of two-thirds of the senators present.

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.

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. 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. 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.

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 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 (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.

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.

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.

The Increasing Opportunity and Success for Children and Parents Through Evidence-Based Home Visiting Act (H.R. 2824) would authorize $400 million a year through 2022 for the Maternal, Infant and Early Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV) Program, which was created under ObamaCare. Under ObamaCare, the MIECHV Program is intended as a wellness and prevention program for homes in poor communities and is to serve as the basis for developing and implementing a national strategy. MIECHV mandates home visits by nurses and other workers to test both the children and parents in order to make improvements in the following extensive list of areas: prenatal; maternal; newborn health; child health and development; children’s cognitive, language, social, emotional, and physical development; parenting skills; school readiness; child academic achievement; reduction in crime; reduction in domestic violence; improvements in family economic self sufficiency; and more.

The House passed H.R. 2824 on September 26, 2017 by a vote of 214 to 209 (Roll Call 537). We have assigned pluses to the nays because going into homes to check up on the physical, emotional, and economic “wellness” of families not only goes way beyond the few and defined federal powers authorized by the Constitution, but also is part of a dangerous trend of government further interjecting itself into the family.

During consideration of the healthcare bill (H.R. 1628), Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) introduced an amendment that would have expired the expansion of Medicaid and certain taxes created under ObamaCare, prohibited healthcare plans that provide abortion coverage from qualifying for certain tax credits, banned federal funding of abortion, and repealed the individual and employer mandates created under ObamaCare.

The Senate rejected Paul’s amendment on July 26, 2017 by a vote of 45 to 55 (Roll Call 169). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because government should not subsidize the killing of innocent human life, and also because Senator Paul’s amendment would have repealed extensive portions of the unconstitutional ObamaCare law.

Rather than voting to repeal ObamaCare, the House voted instead to retain much of ObamaCare under the guise of "repeal and replace." The legislation (H.R. 1628), known as the American Health Care Act (AHCA), was strongly backed by President Trump and the Republican congressional leadership. Consequently most Republicans voted for the bill, but 20 voted against it. Liberty-minded Representative Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) noted that the AHCA entailed "replacing mandates, subsidies and penalties with mandates, subsidies and penalties." Another Republican lawmaker, Representative Andy Biggs (Ariz.), while "applaud[ing] all the hard work of the House Freedom Caucus, which has made every effort ... to improve this legislation," nonetheless concluded that the "final bill ... does not meet the promises I made to my constituents." Biggs added, "I remain committed to a full repeal of ObamaCare."

The House passed H.R. 1628 on May 4, 2017 by a vote 217 to 213 (Roll Call 256). We have assigned pluses to the nays because ObamaCare should be repealed, not replaced with a Republican variant of unconstitutional government healthcare that more liberty-minded lawmakers have referred to as "ObamaCare Lite" and "ObamaCare 2.0." Admittedly, the Democrats who voted against this GOP alternative have gotten "pluses" on this for the wrong reasons (they do not want to move away from the ObamaCare brand and in many cases want even more socialized medicine), but the Republicans who voted against the bill based on principle as opposed to partisanship are to be applauded.

The final version (conference report) of H.R. 1 would create a prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients. Beginning in 2006, prescription coverage would be available to seniors through private insurers for a monthly premium estimated at $35. There would be a $250 annual deductible, then 75 percent of drug costs up to $2,250 would be reimbursed. Drug costs greater than $2,250 would not be covered until out-of-pocket expenses exceeded $3,600, after which 95 percent of drug costs would be reimbursed. Low-income recipients would receive more subsidies than other seniors by paying lower premiums, having smaller deductibles, and making lower co-payments for each prescription. The total cost of the new prescription drug benefit would be limited to the $400 billion that Congress had budgeted earlier this year for the first 10 years of this new entitlement program.

The Senate adopted the conference report on H.R. 1 on November 25, 2003 by a vote of 54 to 44 (Roll Call 459). We have assigned pluses to the nays because this landmark legislation establishes a major new, unconstitutional entitlement program.

The final version (conference report) of H.R. 1 would create a prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients. Beginning in 2006, prescription coverage would be available to seniors through private insurers for a monthly premium estimated at $35. There would be a $250 annual deductible, then 75 percent of drug costs up to $2,250 would be reimbursed. Drug costs greater than $2,250 would not be covered until out-of-pocket expenses exceeded $3,600, after which 95 percent of drug costs would be reimbursed. Low-income recipients would receive more subsidies than other seniors by paying lower premiums, having smaller deductibles, and making lower co-payments for each prescription. The total cost of the new prescription drug benefit would be limited to the $400 billion that Congress had budgeted earlier this year for the first 10 years of this new entitlement program.

The House adopted the conference report on H.R. 1 on November 22, 2003 by a vote of 220 to 215 (Roll Call 669). We have assigned pluses to the nays because this landmark legislation establishes a major new unconstitutional entitlement program.