Congressional Votes

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.

Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) made a motion to proceed to Senate Concurrent Resolution 22, a budget resolution he introduced. On the Senate floor, Paul pleaded, “This year, the United States will spend $6.7 trillion while bringing in about $4.7 trillion. That is $2 trillion more being spent than what is coming in…. Next year, it is going to be even worse. The budget that was passed in the spring said we would spend $6.3 trillion next year, but it turns out it is going to be $7.2 trillion next year.” Of his resolution, Paul said, “My budget, … the Six Penny Plan budget, cuts 6 percent of all spending to rebalance in just 5 years.”

The Senate rejected Paul’s motion on September 16, 2025 by a vote of 36 to 62 (Roll Call 521). We have assigned pluses to the yeas not only because most government 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 in order to avert future fiscal disaster. Although six percent may not seem like much, modest cuts are still better than none at all.

During consideration of the fiscal 2026 military-construction and agriculture appropriations bill (H.R. 3944), Senator John Kennedy (R-La.) offered an amendment to reduce discretionary spending in the agriculture appropriations component of the bill by two percent across the board. This would not affect SNAP and EBT food stamps, which are funded as mandatory spending.

The Senate rejected Kennedy’s amendment on August 1, 2025 by a vote of 14 to 81 (Roll Call 476). 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.

During consideration of the fiscal 2026 defense appropriations bill (H.R. 4016), Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) offered an amendment stating: “None of the funds made available by this Act may be used for assistance to Ukraine.”

The House rejected Greene’s amendment on July 18, 2025 by a vote of 76 to 353 (Roll Call 209). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the United States should not be interjecting itself into the Russia-Ukraine war by providing aid to one of the combatants, and should instead follow a noninterventionist foreign policy that puts America first. Moreover, Congress has not declared war as required by the Constitution for military activity.

During consideration of the fiscal 2026 defense appropriations bill (H.R. 4016), Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) offered an amendment to strike the language in the bill authorizing $118 million for overseas humanitarian, disaster, and civic aid programs.

The House rejected Greene's amendment on July 18, 2025 by a vote of 63 to 365 (Roll Call 204). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because foreign aid, not being one of the enumerated powers granted to the federal government by the Constitution, is unconstitutional. Also, as Greene pointed out on the House floor, "The American people are $37 trillion in debt. The Department of Defense's mission is to deter war and ensure our Nation's security. That is their mission, and that is exactly what their funding should be for."

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.

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.

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.

During consideration of a budget resolution to establish “the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2025” (House Concurrent Resolution 14), Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) offered an amendment to reduce the increase in the national debt limit in the bill from $4 trillion to $500 billion. The debt limit is the maximum amount the federal government is allowed to borrow.

The Senate rejected Paul’s amendment on April 4, 2025 by a vote of 5 to 94 (Roll Call 179). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because Congress should cut spending rather than raise the national debt limit, which was $36.1 trillion at the time of this vote. Of course, though raising the debt limit $500 billion is better than raising it $4 trillion, it should not be raised at all. In fact, by restoring constitutional government, spending would be reduced to the point that the U.S. government once again could operate on a surplus and the national debt would be reduced.

During consideration of a continuing appropriations bill to fund the federal government through the end of fiscal 2025 (H.R. 1968), Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) offered an amendment to reduce funding levels for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). A press release from Paul’s office after the vote explained that the amendment would have codified “Secretary of State Rubio and DOGE’s cuts to foreign aid” and would have cut “most of the waste, fraud, and abuse that has plagued USAID for decades.”

The Senate rejected Paul’s amendment on March 14, 2024 by a vote of 27 to 73 (Roll Call 132). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because foreign aid, not being one of the enumerated powers granted to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution, is unconstitutional. In fact, foreign aid should be not just reduced, but eliminated entirely.

During consideration of a budget resolution “setting forth the congressional budget for the United States government for fiscal year 2025” (Senate Concurrent Resolution 7), Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) submitted an amendment to have House and Senate committees recommend changes in law within their jurisdictions that would collectively reduce the deficit by approximately $1.4 trillion through fiscal 2034.

The Senate rejected Paul’s amendment on February 21, 2025 by a vote of 24 to 76 (Roll Call 77). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because trillion-dollar annual deficits and the ballooning national debt are not sustainable. For fiscal year 2024 alone, which ended on September 30, 2024, the federal deficit was $1.8 trillion, which was added to the national debt. Most of the spending fueling runaway deficits and debt is unconstitutional. Paul’s defeated amendment fell far short of the cuts needed to eliminate deficit spending, but it would at least have been a step in the right direction.

H.R. 10545, also dubbed the “American Relief Act,” would extend funding for federal-government operations at current levels through March 14, 2025, thereby averting a partial government shutdown that would otherwise have begun on December 21, 2024. The bill would also provide $110 billion for disaster aid, including $30.8 billion for farm losses, among other provisions. It does not include, however, a two-year suspension of the debt limit that was in an earlier version under a different bill number (H.R. 10515). Ironically, President-elect Donald Trump wanted the debt-limit suspension in the bill, but Democrats did not — the latter preferring to raise or suspend the debt limit under Trump’s (not Biden’s) watch.

The Senate passed (and thus cleared for the president to sign) the stop-gap funding bill on December 21, 2024 by a vote of 85 to 11 (Roll Call 339). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the misnamed American Relief Act will continue the Washington spendathon, thereby continuing to run up government debt without providing any relief. Instead of kicking the can further down the road, Congress must cut spending now, not later.

H.R. 10545, also dubbed the "American Relief Act," would extend funding for federal-government operations at current levels through March 14, 2025, thereby averting a partial government shutdown that would otherwise have begun on December 21, 2024. The bill would also provide $110 billion for disaster aid, including $30.8 billion for farm losses, among other provisions. It does not include, however, a two-year suspension of the debt limit that was in an earlier version under a different bill number (H.R. 10515). Ironically, President-elect Donald Trump wanted the debt-limit suspension in the bill, but Democrats did not — the latter preferring to raise or suspend the debt limit under Trump's (not Biden's) watch.

Representative Tom Cole (R-Okla.) moved to suspend the rules and pass the stop-gap funding bill. His motion was agreed to on December 20, 2024 by a vote of 366 to 34 (Roll Call 517). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the misnamed American Relief Act will continue the Washington spendathon, thereby continuing to run up government debt without providing any relief. Instead of kicking the can further down the road, Congress must cut spending now, not later.

During consideration of the fiscal 2025 State Department and foreign operations appropriations bill (H.R. 8771), Representative Tom Tiffany (R-Wis.) offered an amendment to prohibit funds in the bill from being “used to pay any United States contribution to the United Nations or any affiliated agency of the United Nations.” This would have eliminated all U.S. contributions to the UN and its affiliate agencies.

The House rejected Tiffany’s amendment on June 27, 2024 by a vote of 149 to 259 (Roll Call 320). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the Constitution does not authorize Congress or the president to enter the United States into global-governance bodies such as the United Nations, which undermines U.S. independence. Short of terminating U.S. membership in the UN — which Congress ought to do — Congress should not send a single penny to the nascent world-government body.

During consideration of the fiscal 2025 State Department and foreign operations appropriations bill (H.R. 8771), Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) offered an amendment to prohibit funds in the bill from being used for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), completely defunding it. In fiscal 2023, USAID’s budget was more than $50 billion. The agency is primarily responsible for sending billions of taxpayer dollars to foreign governments each year in the form of foreign civilian aid, development assistance, and myriad other relief programs.

The House rejected Greene’s amendment on June 27, 2024 by a vote of 81 to 331 (Roll Call 308). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because USAID is an unconstitutional agency. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution neither grants Congress the power to send financial aid to foreign countries nor empowers the president to do so.

Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) made a motion to pass H.R. 815, which would provide a total of $95.3 billion in “emergency” aid for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. The bill’s provisions include $60.8 billion for Ukraine (part of this funding is for replenishing U.S. stockpiles of military equipment already provided to Ukraine), $26.4 billion for Israel, and $8.1 billion for Taiwan and other U.S. allies in the region.

The Senate agreed to Schumer’s motion on April 23, 2024 by a vote of 79 to 18 (Roll Call 154). We have assigned pluses to the nays because foreign aid, not being one of the enumerated powers granted to the federal government in the Constitution, is unconstitutional, and the United States should follow a noninterventionist policy and avoid becoming embroiled in foreign quarrels.

The “Ukraine Security Supplemental Appropriations Act” (H.R. 8035) would provide $60.8 billion for security assistance to Ukraine and replenishing U.S. stockpiles of military equipment already provided to Ukraine.

The House passed H.R. 8035 on April 20, 2024 by a vote of 311 to 112 (Roll Call 151). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the United States should not interfere in the war in Ukraine by providing aid to one of the combatants. Congress has not declared war, as required by the U.S. Constitution to go to war, and foreign aid, not being one of the powers delegated to the federal government, is unconstitutional. Moreover, the United States should pursue a sound foreign policy of noninterventionism, based on U.S. national interests and the intent of the Founding Fathers.

H.R. 2882, the “Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024,” would appropriate $1.2 trillion in total funding for fiscal 2024. Among other provisions, it would provide $825 billion for the Department of Defense; $224.7 billion for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education; $89.8 billion for the Department of Homeland Security; and $58.3 billion for the Department of State. Furthermore, H.R. 2882 would provide $300 million for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative and $500 million for Israel defense assistance; extend the National Flood Insurance Program through September 30, 2024; and prohibit funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency through fiscal 2025.

The Senate passed H.R. 2882 on March 23, 2024 by a vote of 74 to 24 (Roll Call 114). We have assigned pluses to the nays because of the many unconstitutional agencies and programs that it would fund, including funding for our further entanglement in the Ukraine-Russia and Israel-Hamas conflicts without a congressional declaration of war, and because this reckless spending is yielding record increases in the national debt.

During consideration of a consolidated appropriations bill (H.R. 2882), Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) made a motion to refer the bill back to committee with instructions to amend it to reduce its overall funding by five percent, excluding funding for the Department of Defense and border security.

The Senate rejected Paul’s amendment on March 23, 2024 by a vote of 34 to 63 (Roll Call 106). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because reining in government spending ought to be an urgent priority given that the national debt recently surpassed $36 trillion. Members of Congress must also take more drastic and immediate action to eliminate all spending that is not specifically authorized by Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Their ongoing failure to do so is contributing to the erosion and decline of the American Republic.

Representative Kay Granger (R-Texas) made a motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 2882, the “Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024,” which would appropriate $1.2 trillion in total funding for fiscal 2024. Among other provisions, it would provide $825 billion for the Department of Defense; $224.7 billion for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education; $89.8 billion for the Department of Homeland Security; and $58.3 billion for the Department of State. Furthermore, H.R. 2882 would provide $300 million for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative and $500 million for Israel defense assistance; extend the National Flood Insurance Program through September 30, 2024; and prohibit funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency through fiscal 2025.

The House agreed to Granger’s motion on March 22, 2024 by a vote of 286 to 134 (Roll Call 102). We have assigned pluses to the nays because of the many unconstitutional agencies and programs that it would fund, because it funds our further entanglement in the Ukraine-Russia and Israel-Hamas conflicts without a congressional declaration of war, and because this reckless spending is yielding record increases in the national debt.

Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) made a motion to pass H.R. 4366, the “Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024,” which would appropriate $467.5 billion in federal funding for fiscal 2024. Among other provisions, it would provide $307.8 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs; $103 billion for federal transportation and housing programs; $50 billion for the Department of Energy; $38.6 billion for the Department of the Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency; $37.5 billion for the Department of Justice; $26.3 billion for the Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration; and $24.9 billion for NASA.

The Senate agreed to Schumer’s motion on March 8, 2024 by a vote of 75 to 22 (Roll Call 84). We have assigned pluses to the nays because most of the spending would go to federal government departments, agencies, and programs that have no authorization or basis in the Constitution. Furthermore, this reckless spending is currently yielding high inflation and record increases in the national debt.

Representative Kay Granger (R-Texas) made a motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 4366, the “Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024,” which would appropriate $467.5 billion in federal funding for fiscal 2024. Among other provisions, it would provide $307.8 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs; $103 billion for federal transportation and housing programs; $50 billion for the Department of Energy; $38.6 billion for the Department of the Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency; $37.5 billion for the Department of Justice; $26.3 billion for the Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration; and $24.9 billion for NASA.

The House agreed to Granger’s motion on March 6, 2024 by a vote of 339 to 85 (Roll Call 64). We have assigned pluses to the nays because most of the spending would go to federal government departments, agencies, and programs that have no authorization or basis in the Constitution. Furthermore, this reckless spending is currently yielding high inflation and record increases in the national debt.

During consideration of the Further Continuing Appropriations and Other Extensions Act (H.R. 6363), Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) offered an amendment to reduce funding in the bill by 15 percent, except for the Department of Defense, military construction, and the Department of Veterans Affairs, and to rescind $30 billion in enforcement funds provided to the Internal Revenue Service.

The Senate rejected Paul’s amendment on November 15, 2023 by a vote of 32 to 65 (Roll Call 311). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because reining in government spending ought to be an urgent priority given that about 80 percent of the current federal bureaucracy is unconstitutional and the national debt recently surpassed $33 trillion. Members of Congress must also be willing to take more drastic and immediate action to eliminate all spending that is not specifically authorized by Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Their ongoing failure to do so is contributing to the erosion and decline of the American Republic.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 (H.R. 4366) would provide roughly $279 billion in total discretionary spending for three of the 12 fiscal 2024 appropriations bills. This includes funding for Defense Department military construction projects; the Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Agriculture, Food and Drug Administration, Department of Transportation, and Department of Housing and Urban Development; and various other government agencies.

The Senate passed H.R. 4366 on November 1, 2023 by a vote of 82 to 15 (Roll Call 284). We have assigned pluses to the nays because, with the exception of the Department of Defense, none of these federal departments or agencies is authorized by the Constitution. Furthermore, in light of a $33.9 trillion national debt and a $1.7 trillion budget deficit, this appropriations bill is fiscally irresponsible.

Representative Kay Granger (R-Texas) made a motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 5860, the “Continuing Appropriations Act, 2024 and Other Extensions Act,” which would appropriate federal government funding at fiscal 2023 levels from October 1, 2023 through November 17, 2023. Additionally, it would appropriate $16 billion in disaster relief for fiscal 2024 and extend federal authorization for multiple programs, including certain Medicare, Medicaid, and Federal Aviation Administration programs. Notably, the bill does not include funding for Ukraine.

The House agreed to Granger’s motion on September 30, 2023 by a vote of 335 to 91 (Roll Call 513). We have assigned pluses to the nays because Congress needs to cut spending to avoid fiscal disaster. Additionally, Congress’ inability to promptly pass a 2024 budget, instead using a continuing appropriations bill that funds the federal government at bloated fiscal 2023 levels, illustrates the breakdown of the federal budgeting process.

H.R. 5860, the “Continuing Appropriations Act, 2024 and Other Extensions Act,” would appropriate federal government funding at fiscal 2023 levels from October 1, 2023 through November 17, 2023. Additionally, it would appropriate $16 billion in disaster relief for fiscal 2024 and extend federal authorization for multiple programs, including certain Medicare, Medicaid, and Federal Aviation Administration programs. Notably, the bill does not include funding for Ukraine.

The Senate passed H.R. 5860 on September 30, 2023 by a vote of 88 to 9 (Roll Call 247). We have assigned pluses to the nays because Congress needs to cut spending to avoid fiscal disaster. Additionally, Congress’ inability to promptly pass a 2024 budget, instead using a continuing appropriations bill that funds the federal government at bloated fiscal 2023 levels, illustrates the breakdown of the federal budgeting process.

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.R. 3746, titled the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, would suspend the debt limit through January 1, 2025 and create caps on “discretionary” spending for fiscal years 2024 and 2025. In fiscal 2024, defense spending would increase three percent, to $886.4 billion, and nondefense spending would decrease five percent, to $703.7 billion; both limits would increase by one percent for fiscal 2025. Among multiple other provisions, H.R. 3746 would provide $44.8 billion for the veterans’ toxic exposure fund and $22 billion for a Commerce Department fund, rescind $27.7 billion in unspent federal Covid-related funds, rescind $1.4 billion of the $79.3 billion provided in 2022 for IRS enforcement, enact time limits on environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act, and raises the age of SNAP work requirements for able-bodied individuals to 55 while exempting certain other groups. Furthermore, the bill requires discretionary spending to decrease by one percent if Congress fails to enact on-time appropriations legislation for fiscal years 2024 and 2025. In an April 28, 2023 op-ed opposing a previous iteration of the bill, Representative Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) stated, “Going off the cliff at the Republicans’ 60-mph or the Democrats’ 80-mph results in the same thing: A horrific crash.”

The Senate passed H.R. 3746 on June 1, 2023 by a vote of 63 to 36 (Roll Call 146). We have assigned pluses to the nays because continuing reckless spending and debt accumulation will result in economic catastrophe, and most federal spending is for programs not authorized by the Constitution.

During consideration of the bipartisan debt-limit deal (H.R. 3746), Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) offered a substitute amendment to increase the debt limit by $500 billion (rather than suspend the limit through January 1, 2025) and limit federal outlays to $4.8 trillion for fiscal 2024, decreasing this limit annually by five percent through fiscal 2028, at $3.9 trillion. Among other provisions, Paul’s amendment would require the Office of Management and Budget to report annually whether actual outlays exceeded these limits and, if so, require the president to issue a sequestration order to cut spending by the same amount as the excess spending.

The Senate rejected Paul’s amendment on June 1, 2023 by a vote of 21 to 75 (Roll Call 136). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because runaway, deficit-laden federal spending, most of which is unconstitutional, must be brought under control, and Paul’s proposal would have been a step in the right direction.

H.R. 3746, titled the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, would suspend the debt limit through January 1, 2025 and create caps on “discretionary” spending for fiscal years 2024 and 2025. In fiscal 2024, defense spending would increase three percent, to $886.4 billion, and nondefense spending would decrease five percent, to $703.7 billion; both limits would increase by one percent for fiscal 2025. Among multiple other provisions, H.R. 3746 would provide $44.8 billion for the veterans’ toxic exposure fund and $22 billion for a Commerce Department fund, rescind $27.7 billion in unspent federal Covid-related funds, rescind $1.4 billion of the $79.3 billion provided in 2022 for IRS enforcement, enact time limits on environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act, and raises the age of SNAP work requirements for able-bodied individuals to 55 while exempting certain other groups. Furthermore, the bill requires discretionary spending to decrease by one percent if Congress fails to enact on-time appropriations legislation for fiscal years 2024 and 2025. In an April 28, 2023 op-ed opposing a previous iteration of the bill, Representative Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) stated, “Going off the cliff at the Republicans’ 60-mph or the Democrats’ 80-mph results in the same thing: A horrific crash.”

The House passed H.R. 3746 on May 31, 2023 by a vote of 314 to 117 (Roll Call 243). We have assigned pluses to the nays because continuing reckless spending and debt accumulation will result in economic catastrophe, and most federal spending is for programs not authorized by the Constitution.

S. 870 would authorize $95 million annually through fiscal 2030 for the U.S. Fire Administration, increasing the agency’s funding levels by 24 percent. Among other provisions, S. 870 would authorize $3.4 million to create standards for assessing new firefighting technologies, reauthorize through fiscal 2030 two Federal Emergency Management Agency grant programs assisting local fire departments, and ban Chinese entities from receiving any of these funds.

The Senate passed S. 870 on April 20, 2023 by a vote of 95 to 2 (Roll Call 94). We have assigned pluses to the nays because Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution does not authorize any federal spending for firefighting. Furthermore, the strings that come attached to grants for local fire departments move the United States closer to federalizing firefighting.

H.R. 2617 would authorize $1.6 trillion for regular fiscal 2023 discretionary federal spending and another $100 billion for a wide variety of other legislation (nearly $47 billion for aid to Ukraine and roughly $38 billion for U.S. natural disasters) that was tacked onto the bill in last-minute negotiations by congressional leaders. Looking at the big picture, this bill minimizes congressional accountability to the voters by combining the 2023 spending approval for 15 Cabinet departments and eight federal agencies into only one bill. On top of that, the federal budget deficit for 2023 is expected to be one trillion dollars.

The House passed H.R. 2617 on December 23, 2022 by a vote of 225 to 201 (Roll Call 549). We have assigned pluses to the nays because passage of this largely unconstitutional bill in the context of a projected $1 trillion 2023 federal budget deficit reveals a high degree of fiscal irresponsibility and unaccountability to the voters by Congress. This Omnibus 2023 spending bill should have been punted by this “lame duck” session of Congress into the next Congress, where it would have been subject to revision by the members selected by the voters on November 8, 2022.

H.R. 2617 would authorize $1.6 trillion for regular fiscal 2023 discretionary federal spending and another $100 billion for a wide variety of other legislation (nearly $47 billion for aid to Ukraine and roughly $38 billion for U.S. natural disasters) that was tacked onto the bill in last-minute negotiations by congressional leaders. Looking at the big picture, this bill minimizes congressional accountability to the voters by combining the 2023 spending approval for 15 Cabinet departments and eight federal agencies into only one bill. On top of that, the federal budget deficit for 2023 is expected to be one trillion dollars.

The Senate passed H.R. 2617 on December 22, 2022 by a vote of 68 to 29 (Roll Call 421). We have assigned pluses to the nays because passage of this largely unconstitutional bill in the context of a projected $1 trillion 2023 federal budget deficit reveals a high degree of fiscal irresponsibility and unaccountability to the voters by Congress. This Omnibus 2023 spending bill should have been punted by this “lame duck” session of Congress into the next Congress, where it would have been subject to revision by the members selected by the voters on November 8, 2022.

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 a veterans healthcare bill (S. 3373), Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) offered an amendment to offset the cost of a Veterans’ Benefits for Toxic Exposure bill by prohibiting USAID from distributing foreign-aid funds, other than to Israel, for 10 years. Paul defended his proposition with examples of USAID waste, including a $50 million “Visit Tunisia” program and a $37 million project designed to get “Filipinos back to school.”

The Senate rejected Paul’s amendment on August 2, 2022 by a vote of 7 to 90 (Roll Call 277). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the United States cannot afford to give aid to the rest of the world (in fact, the United States must borrow the money it gives away, since it is operating in the red), and there is no constitutional authorization to do so.

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.

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. This omnibus spending bill was voted on in two portions (Roll Calls 65 and 66). The provisions in the second portion to be voted on (Roll Call 66) included approximately $600 billion to fund the Departments of Agriculture, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Labor, State (for “foreign operations”), Transportation, and Treasury, as well as the EPA, NIH, HUD, SNAP (food stamp program), etc.

The House passed the second portion of H.R. 2471 on March 9, 2022 by a vote of 260 to 171 (Roll Call 66). We have assigned pluses to the nays because most of the spending would go to federal government departments, agencies, and programs that have no authorization or basis in the Constitution. Furthermore, this reckless spending is currently yielding record-high inflation, most visible in the current rising grocery prices.

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. This omnibus spending bill was voted on in two portions (Roll Calls 65 and 66). The provisions in the first portion to be voted on (Roll Call 65) included $728.5 billion for the Department of Defense, $81.1 billion for the Department of Homeland Security, and $75.8 billion for the Commerce Department. Included within this spending was $600 million for security cooperation with Ukraine and other Eastern European nations, $23.9 billion for FEMA, $3.9 billion in grants for state and local law-enforcement agencies, and $13.6 billion in assistance to Ukraine.

The House passed the first portion of H.R. 2471 on March 9, 2022 by a vote of 361 to 69 (Roll Call 65). We have assigned pluses to the nays because of the many unconstitutional agencies and programs that it would fund, because it funds our further entanglement in the Ukraine-Russia conflict without a congressional declaration of war, and because this reckless spending is already yielding record-high inflation.

This House amendment to S. 610 would delay multiple planned Medicare payment reductions and policy proposals. Most significantly, the bill included a provision to expedite consideration of a proposal to increase the debt limit, including by limiting debate time, prohibiting the consideration of amendments, and bypassing the filibuster for passage. (Five days later, the Senate used the provisions of this amendment to S. 610 to pass a $2.5 trillion increase in the debt limit.)

The Senate agreed to the House amendment to S. 610 on December 9, 2021 by a vote of 59 to 35 (Roll Call 491). We have assigned pluses to the nays because continuing reckless spending and debt accumulation will result in economic catastrophe, and most federal spending is for programs not authorized by the Constitution.

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.

H.R. 3684 would spend $1.2 trillion altogether, with $550 billion being new spending. Among numerous other provisions, H.R. 3684 would spend $110 billion on roads and bridges, $66 billion on rail projects, $65 billion on broadband, $62 billion on Energy Department programs, $55 billion on water infrastructure, $39 billion on public transportation, $25 billion on airports, and $7.5 billion on electric-vehicle charging stations. The bill also mandates that states create carbon-reduction programs subject to federal approval, creates a mileage-tax pilot program, and defines “gender identity” as a protected class.

The House passed H.R. 3684 on November 5, 2021 by a vote of 228 to 206 (Roll Call 369). 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 $2.77 trillion in fiscal 2021. Moreover, virtually all of the bill’s provisions fall outside the Constitution’s specified powers.

The Budget Resolution for fiscal 2022 (Senate Concurrent Resolution 14) sets budgetary levels that Congress uses as a guide for its spending bills. The resolution proposes federal outlays of $4.7 trillion, revenues of $3.4 trillion, and a deficit of $1.3 trillion in fiscal 2022. Trillion-dollar deficits are projected for each succeeding year through fiscal 2031, and the public debt is projected to increase from less than $30 trillion at the time of this vote to more than $45 trillion by 2031.

The Senate passed the Budget Resolution on August 11, 2021 by a vote of 50 to 49 (Roll Call 357). We have assigned pluses to the nays because continuing the reckless spending and debt accumulation will result in economic catastrophe, and most federal spending is for programs not authorized by the Constitution.

During consideration of the Budget Resolution for fiscal 2022 (Senate Concurrent Resolution 14), Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) offered a substitute amendment that would replace the budgetary levels in the resolution with new budgetary levels that would gradually reduce the deficit in order to achieve a budget surplus in fiscal 2026. “Five years ago, I offered a similar amendment,” Paul noted. “Had my amendment been adopted, today the budget would be balanced. Instead, we continued to borrow money, money we don’t have, and now our debt is rapidly approaching $30 trillion.”

The Senate rejected Paul’s alternative amendment to balance the budget on August 10, 2021 by a vote of 28 to 71 (Roll Call 338). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because continuing the federal spending spree will ultimately result in fiscal disaster, and most of the spending in the budget is for programs not authorized by the Constitution’s enumerated powers.

H.R. 3684 would spend $1.2 trillion altogether, with $550 billion being new spending. Among numerous other provisions, H.R. 3684 would spend $110 billion on roads and bridges, $66 billion on rail projects, $65 billion on broadband, $62 billion on Energy Department programs, $55 billion on water infrastructure, $39 billion on public transportation, $25 billion on airports, and $7.5 billion on electric vehicle-charging stations. The bill also mandates that states create carbon-reduction programs subject to federal approval, creates a mileage-tax pilot program, requires car companies to equip all vehicles with “advanced alcohol monitoring systems,” and defines “gender identity” as a protected class.

The Senate passed H.R. 3684 on August 10, 2021 by a vote of 69 to 30 (Roll Call 314). 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 $2.77 trillion in fiscal 2021. Moreover, virtually all of the bill’s provisions fall outside the Constitution’s specified powers.

This bill (H.R. 4373) would provide $62.2 billion for the State Department, foreign operations, and related programs for fiscal 2022, a 12-percent increase over the amount appropriated for the previous fiscal year. Loaded with foreign aid, the bill’s provisions include $29.6 billion for bilateral economic assistance, $9 billion for international security assistance, and $4 billion for multilateral assistance. It also includes $3 billion to address climate change and other environmental issues, including a multilateral Green Climate Fund.

The House passed H.R. 4373 on July 28, 2021 by a vote of 217 to 212 (Roll Call 243). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the United States cannot afford to give aid to the rest of the world (in fact, the United States must borrow the money it gives away, since it is operating in the red), and there is no constitutional authorization to do so.

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.

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.

During consideration of the Budget Resolution for fiscal 2021 (S. Con. Res. 5), Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) offered a substitute amendment, which he called the “Three Penny Plan Budget.” According to a press release from his senate office, “Dr. Paul’s plan requires that for every on-budget dollar the federal government spends in Fiscal Year 2021, it spends three pennies fewer each year for the next five years.” This would have reduced spending by $67.4 billion in fiscal 2022 alone, and by a total of $7.2 trillion over 10 years.

The Senate rejected Paul’s substitute amendment on February 4, 2021 by a vote of 29 to 71 (Roll Call 31). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because runaway, deficit-laden federal spending, most of which is unconstitutional, must be brought under control, and Paul’s proposal would have been a step in the right direction.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 (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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 omnibus appropriations bill (H.R. 3354), Representative Salud Carbajal (D-Calif.) introduced an amendment to prohibit funds to process any application for a drilling permit that would authorize use of hydraulic fracturing or acid well stimulation treatment in the Pacific outer continental shelf.

The House rejected Carbajal’s amendment on September 8, 2017 by a vote of 177 to 230 (Roll Call 483). We have assigned pluses to the nays 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 create, potentially, millions of jobs.

During consideration of the omnibus appropriations bill (H.R. 3354), Representative Ted Yoho (R-Fla.) introduced an amendment to prohibit the use of funds for making contributions to various United Nations human rights agencies, including the United Nations Human Rights Council, the United Nations Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. 

The House rejected Yoho’s amendment on September 7, 2017 by a vote of 199 to 212 (Roll Call 470). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because taxpayer money should not go to fund any agencies of the United Nations, especially those led by communist, Marxist, or radical Islamic regimes, which are some of the world’s biggest offenders of human rights.

This bill (H.R. 3180) would authorize classified amounts of funding through fiscal 2018 for 16 U.S. intelligence agencies and intelligence-related activities, including the Office of the National Intelligence Director, the CIA, and the National Security Agency. The bill would also require the director of national intelligence to submit to Congress multiple reports regarding Russia’s campaigns directed at foreign elections and its efforts related to cyber influence, including an assessment of Russian influence conducted during the three years prior to the bill’s enactment.

The House passed H.R. 3180 on July 28, 2017 by a vote of 380 to 35 (Roll Call 437). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the very idea of Congress authorizing classified amounts of spending is unconstitutional, as well as frightening. Furthermore, some of the agencies that this “classified” spending is funding are themselves engaged in unconstitutional activities, such as spying on and gathering data from U.S. citizens without a warrant. While assessing (dubious) Russian influence in U.S. politics is an acceptable use of federal funds, much of this bill’s spending is unconstitutional and should be rejected.

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.

This bill (H.R. 10) would overhaul financial industry regulations and repeal many provisions of the 2010 Dodd-Frank law. Additionally, the bill would change the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau into an executive-branch agency funded by annual appropriations.

The House passed H.R. 10 on June 8, 2017 by a vote of 233 to 186 (Roll Call 299). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because regulation of the financial industry is not a responsibility, nor one of the enumerated powers, of the federal government. While allegedly put in place to protect consumers from irresponsible Wall Street tycoons and prevent a repeat of the 2008 financial crisis, Dodd-Frank has, in reality, negatively affected small community banks and credit unions with its heavy regulatory burden. While this bill does not represent a complete exit of the federal government from the financial industry, it is a step in the right direction.

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 Consolidated Appropriations Act or omnibus bill (H.R. 244) would provide $1.16 trillion in discretionary appropriations through September 30, 2017 for the following federal departments and agencies: Agriculture, Commerce-Justice-Science, Defense, Energy-Water, Financial Services, Homeland Security, Interior-Environment, Labor-HHS-Education, Legislative, State-Foreign Operations, Transportation-HUD, and various U.S. intelligence agencies.

The Senate agreed to the omnibus appropriations bill on May 4, 2017 by a vote of 79 to 18 (Roll Call 121). We have assigned pluses to the nays because with this fiscal 2017 omnibus appropriations bill, Congress is failing to address its fiscally and constitutionally irresponsible budgeting and appropriating process that is currently yielding annual federal deficits measured in the hundreds of billions of dollars that contribute directly to the dramatic growth of our nearly $20 trillion national debt.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act or omnibus bill (H.R. 244) would provide $1.16 trillion in discretionary appropriations through September 30, 2017 for the following federal departments and agencies: $20.9 billion for Agriculture, $56.6 billion for Commerce-Justice-Science, $593 billion for Defense, $37.8 billion for Energy-Water, $21.5 billion for Financial Services, $42.4 billion for Homeland Security, $32.2 billion for Interior-Environment, $161 billion for Labor-HHS-Education, $4.4 billion for Legislative, $53.1 billion for State-Foreign Operations, and $57.7 billion for Transportation-HUD. The measure would also authorize classified amounts of funding for various U.S. intelligence agencies.

The House agreed to the omnibus appropriations bill on May 3, 2017 by a vote of 309 to 118 (Roll Call 249). We have assigned pluses to the nays because with this fiscal 2017 omnibus appropriations bill, Congress is failing to address its fiscally and constitutionally irresponsible budgeting and appropriating process that is currently yielding annual federal deficits measured in the hundreds of billions of dollars that contribute directly to the dramatic growth of our nearly $20 trillion national debt.

During consideration of the congressional budget for fiscal 2017 (Senate Concurrent Resolution 3), Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) offered an amendment to prevent the reduction of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid benefits; an increase of the retirement age; or privatizing Social Security.

The Senate did not vote directly on Sanders' amendment but on a motion to waive all applicable sections of the budget law with respect to a point of order against Sanders' amendment. The Senate rejected this motion on January 10, 2017 by a vote of 49 to 49. (Roll Call 6; a three-fifths majority of the entire Senate -- 60 votes -- was needed to waive the applicable sections of the budget law). We have assigned pluses to the nays because the rapid projected growth in future spending for these programs under current law is unsustainable due to both the declining ratio between workers and Social Security recipients, and also the fact that people are living longer. Plus, there is no constitutional authorization for these programs. Those who genuinely want to help the needy should recognize that the best way to do it is to phase out government social-welfare programs in favor of private alternatives.

During consideration of the congressional budget for fiscal 2017 (Senate Concurrent Resolution 3) on January 4, 2017, Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) pointed out in a speech on the Senate floor that this proposed budget would add nearly $10 trillion to our national debt over the next 10 years without ever balancing the budget. He added: "I'm not for it. That's not why I ran for office. It's not why I'm here. It's not why I spend time away from my family and from my medical practice. It's because debt is consuming our country." Paul went on to introduce a substitute amendment that would balance the budget by 2024.

The Senate rejected Paul's substitute amendment on January 9, 2017 by a vote of 14 to 83 (Roll Call 3). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because fiscal responsibility is an excellent first step toward constitutional responsibility.

This legislation (House Joint Resolution 47) would increase the national debt limit, also known as the federal debt limit, to $8.97 trillion, a $781 billion increase in what the federal government is allowed to borrow.

The Senate adopted the measure to increase the national debt limit on March 16, 2006 by a vote of 52-48 (Roll Call 54). We have assigned pluses to the nays because raising the public debt limit by $781 billion facilitates a steady increase of gross fiscal irresponsibility.

During consideration of a bill to overhaul the regulation of government-sponsored enterprises, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) offered this amendment to "eliminate the ability of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Bank Board to borrow from the Treasury." During floor debate on his amendment, Paul stated, "I hope my colleagues join me in protecting taxpayers from having to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when the housing bubble bursts."

The House rejected Paul's amendment on October 26, 2005 by a vote of 47-371 (Roll Call 544). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because Paul's amendment would (in Paul's words) seek to end a "massive unconstitutional and immoral" transfer of income from working Americans to government-sponsored enterprises.

This resolution (House Concurrent Resolution 393) would establish broad spending and revenue targets over the next five years. It calls for $871.3 billion in "discretionary" spending (including $50 billion for supplemental funding of operations in Iraq) and another $1.5 trillion in "mandatory" spending for fiscal 2005. Based on these targets, the "mandatory" spending portion of the budget would increase by 5 percent over last year, and the total budget -- a whopping $2.4 trillion -- would increase by 3 percent.

This resolution projects that the budget deficit would be cut significantly by fiscal 2009 (from $376.8 billion in fiscal 2005 to $234 billion in fiscal 2009); however, according to a Congressional Quarterly Fact Sheet, "Budget Resolution for FY 2005," these projected deficits are deceptively low due to an accounting sleight-of-hand whereby "these deficits are calculated by using the surpluses in the Social Security trust funds to offset spending on other programs. If these Social Security surpluses are not counted, the projected deficits in each fiscal year would be $550.7 billion in FY 2005 and $471.8 billion in FY 2009."

The House adopted this resolution on March 25, 2004 by a vote of 215 to 212 (Roll Call 92). We have assigned pluses to the nays because this budget perpetuates the fiscally irresponsible, largely unconstitutional federal spending with its attendant record-breaking deficits of recent years.

This resolution (Senate Concurrent Resolution 95) would establish broad spending and revenue targets over the next five years. It calls for $851 billion in "discretionary" spending (including $30 billion for supplemental funding of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan) and another $1.5 trillion in "mandatory" spending for fiscal 2005. Based on these targets, the "mandatory" spending portion of the budget would increase by 5 percent over last year, and the total budget -- a whopping $2.4 trillion -- would increase by 3 percent.

The Senate adopted S. Con. Res. 95 on March 12, 2004 by a vote of 51 to 45 (Roll Call 58). We have assigned pluses to the nays because this budget perpetuates the fiscally irresponsible, largely unconstitutional federal spending with its attendant record-breaking deficits of recent years.

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.

This amendment to H.R. 1950 (Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005) by Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) stated that "none of the funds authorized ... by this Act may be obligated or expended to pay any United States contribution to the United Nations or any affiliated agency of the United Nations."

The House rejected this amendment to H.R. 1950 on July 15, 2003 by a vote of 74 to 350 (Roll Call 364). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because blocking the funding for the United Nations in this bill would be a first step toward getting our nation out of the UN and fully restoring our national sovereignty.

This bill (S. 2578) would increase the public debt limit by $450 billion for a new ceiling of $6.4 trillion on the National Debt. The supposed need for increasing the debt ceiling by $450 billion demonstrates that the federal government is still on a trajectory of out-of-control spending. Instead of raising the legal limit on what the federal government may borrow, Congress should cut spending.

The House passed S. 2578 on June 27, 2002 by a vote of 215 to 214 (Roll Call 279). We have assigned pluses to the nays.

This bill (S. 2578) would increase the legal limit on the national debt by $450 billion, from $5.95 trillion to $6.4 trillion.

The Senate passed S. 2578 on June 11, 2002 by a vote of 68 to 29 (Roll Call 148). We have assigned pluses to the nays.

The final version (conference report) of H.R. 1 would overhaul education proposals to increase school accountability and reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) for six years. This bill would require states to test students in reading and math in grades three through eight annually, provide new accountability measures for schools that fail to make adequate yearly progress, and give schools greater flexibility to spend federal funds. It would include about $26.3 billion for federal elementary and secondary education programs and $13.5 billion for Title I programs for disadvantaged children in fiscal 2002. According to Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas): "H.R. I will lead to de facto, if not de jure, national testing.... Under the United States Constitution, the federal government has no authority to hold states 'accountable' for their education performance. In the free society envisioned by the founders, schools are held accountable to parents, not federal bureaucrats...."

The Senate adopted the conference report on December 18, 2001 by a vote of 87 to 10 (Roll Call 371). We have assigned pluses to the nays.

The final version (conference report) of H.R. 1 would overhaul education proposals to increase school accountability and reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) for six years. This bill would require states to test students in reading and math in grades three through eight annually, provide new accountability measures for schools that fail to make adequate yearly progress, and give schools greater flexibility to spend federal funds. It would include about $26.3 billion for federal elementary and secondary education programs and $13.5 billion for Title I programs for disadvantaged children in fiscal 2002.

The House adopted the conference report on H.R. 1 on December 13, 2001 by a vote of 381 to 41 (Roll Call 497). We have assigned pluses to the nays.

This bill would abolish the tax code, excepting Social Security and Medicare provisions, by December 31, 2004. The bill recommends that Congress provide a replacement tax code by July 4, 2004. Representative John Linder (R-GA), who argued for the abolition of the tax code on the House floor, pointed out: "if we had sat down at the beginning ... and asked ourselves how could we build a tax system that would punish people for earning and working hard, a system that would be obstructive of capital formation, we could not have done a better job."

The bill to abolish the tax code, H.R. 4199, passed on April 13, 2000 by a vote of 229-187 (Roll Call 127). We have assigned pluses to the yeas.

This $385 billion monstrosity constitutes a complete sellout of conservative principles to the demands of the welfare-staters at the White House. This measure would fund five regular annual appropriations bills (District of Columbia, Labor/HHS/Education, Foreign Operations, Commerce/Justice/State/Judiciary, and Interior), often at higher levels than were originally requested by the Clinton administration.

The Health and Human Services Department -- the key welfare agency of the federal government -- received an 11.4 percent increase in funding, more than Mr. Clinton originally requested. The Department of Education received a 6.8 percent increase in funding, also more than Mr. Clinton originally sought. Foreign aid spending was also funded at a higher level than originally sought by the President. President Clinton's federal teacher hiring initiative was granted $1.325 billion, the COPS program of federally paid law enforcement officers was awarded $595 million, and alleged "arrears" payments to the United Nations were authorized to the tune of $926 million.

Some Republicans falsely sold the bill to conservatives on the grounds that it contained a strong pro-life provision in the foreign aid section. But the bill allows President Clinton to waive the provision, a prohibition against funding international family-planning organizations, if he is willing to subtract a mere $12.5 million penalty from the $385 million population control budget. (Subsequently, this is exactly what Mr. Clinton did.)

The final version of this bill, H.R. 3194, was adopted by the Senate on November 19, 1999 by a vote of 74-24 (Roll Call 374). We have assigned pluses to the nays.

This $385 billion monstrosity constitutes a complete sellout of conservative principles to the demands of the welfare-staters at the White House. This measure would fund five regular annual appropriations bills (District of Columbia, Labor/HHS/Education, Foreign Operations, Commerce/Justice/State/Judiciary, and Interior), often at higher levels than were originally requested by the Clinton administration.

The Health and Human Services Department -- the key welfare agency of the federal government -- received an 11.4 percent increase in funding, more than Mr. Clinton originally requested. The Department of Education received a 6.8 percent increase in funding, also more than Mr. Clinton originally sought. Foreign aid spending was also funded at a higher level than originally sought by the President. President Clinton's federal teacher hiring initiative was granted $1.325 billion, the COPS program of federally paid law enforcement officers was awarded $595 million, and alleged "arrears" payments to the United Nations were authorized to the tune of $926 million.

Some Republicans falsely sold the bill to conservatives on the grounds that it contained a strong pro-life provision in the foreign aid section. But the bill allows President Clinton to waive the provision, a prohibition against funding international family-planning organizations, if he is willing to subtract a mere $12.5 million penalty from the $385 million population control budget. (Subsequently, this is exactly what Mr. Clinton did.)

The measure, H.R. 3194, was adopted by the House on November 18, 1999 by a vote of 296-135 (Roll Call 610). We have assigned pluses to the nays.