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

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

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

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

The bill would make it easier for an employee or employees who allege wage discrimination to sue their employer while also making it nearly impossible for employers to defend their practices. Most importantly, not only does it do this at no benefit to the women it purports to be for, but actually does it at their expense, by harming job creators who offer the variety of jobs that women enjoy choice within.

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

The bill would require the Trump administration to develop a plan for the United States to meet the carbon emissions reductions agreed to by the Obama administration under the non-binding Paris Agreement. Meeting these reductions would lead to increased electricity costs, reduced gross domestic product (GDP), and fewer jobs.

The Protecting Americans With Preexisting Conditions Act, contrary to its short title, would do nothing to protect Americans with preexisting conditions and would instead only make it more difficult for Americans both with and without preexisting conditions to have the choices they need to get the best health insurance and subsequently to get the best quality of healthcare for themselves. In October of last year, the Trump Administration issued guidance to allow states increased flexibility for some provisions of Obamacare through the use of its Section 1332 waivers. This guidance, called the “State Relief and Empowerment Waivers,” did not allow for waiverability of the Title I regulation in Obamacare that deals with mandated coverage for individuals with pre-existing conditions, as the law does not allow for this. The guidance did, however, open up the ability of states to increase competition and choice within their insurance markets. It expanded the definition of health insurance coverage and allowed states to direct Obamacare’s tax credit subsidies towards health insurance plans that do not cover the full scope of Obamacare’s requirements, including short-term, limited duration insurance plans and association health plans. This move, quite simply, allows those who benefit more from a less comprehensive plan to choose such a plan, without affecting individuals with pre-existing conditions and the coverage they need at all, should they not benefit from such plans.

The Supplemental Appropriations Act is a modified and worsened version of another supplemental appropriations bill, H.R. 268, that passed the House in January. H.R. 2157 spends close to 50 percent more than H.R. 268 despite, again, no new funds being requested for these disasters. Because it will be brought to the floor as an emergency supplemental, the spending in it is also exempt from the Budget Control Act discretionary spending caps. H.R. 2157 would also ramp up agriculture subsidies that already distort the market and amount to no better than other defunct welfare programs. With $22 trillion of national debt and more being added with each passing day, we need to be spending more, not less. At the very least, we need to fully and honestly offset any new federal spending with further spending cuts. Additionally, the rule governing H.R. 2157 would extend the National Flood Insurance Program through the end of the year without any reforms, which conservatives have been rightfully fighting for the past seemingly infinite number of reauthorizations.

Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) has circulated a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) for signers. The letter expresses strong opposition to another deal to bust the discretionary spending caps. As part of our effort to defeat a discretionary spending caps deal, FreedomWorks is key voting the signatories to the letter.

The Senate amendment to H.R. 2157 would provide for $19.1 billion in disaster relief funds for wildfires, hurricanes, and flooding, as well as for Puerto Rico. This bill, which has been heavily negotiated for months, is nothing that any Republican should support. It appropriates too much money -- more money than previously-passed versions of the legislation -- when there is already more than $29 billion of disaster relief money still unspent. Furthermore, it will be voted on with only hours’ notice without any members having truly read through the lengthy legislation to understand what is in it. This is unacceptable. Instead of continuing this abhorrent process for passing bills, Congress needs to change the way it approaches disaster relief spending. When we as a nation are $22 trillion in debt as we are now, the last thing we need to be doing is appropriating money that we don’t have, to causes that we don’t fully understand, in an unlimited manner.

Sponsored by Rep. Bill Foster (D-Ill.), this amendment would strike Section 510 of the Labor-HHS Appropriations bill which currently prohibits HHS from spending any federal dollars to promulgate or adopt a national patient identifier.

Sponsored by Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.), this amendment would prohibit the funds made available by this Act from being used to implement, administer or enforce the Trump administration's short-term, limited duration insurance rule. While short-term, limited duration health plans are no fix to Obamacare, they are a step in the right direction in expanding consumer choice and access to plans that are not governed by Obamacare’s harmful Title I regulations.

Sponsored by Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.), this amendment reduces spending for each amount in Division A by 14 percent. This reduction would be consistent with spending levels under the Budget Control Act of 2011.

Sponsored by Rep. Mark Walker (R-N.C.), this amendment eliminates $23.9 billion in funding for the bilateral economic assistance and independent agency programs within the Department of State. This amendment would, over a ten year period, fully offset the enormous disaster relief package that was fully un-offset when it passed the House last week. It cuts enough to both pay for the cost of the bill ($19.1 billion) as well as the assumed interest on the debt ($5.87 billion) that the bill created.

Sponsored by Rep. Gary Palmer (R-Ala.), this amendment strikes the paragraph that prevents the U.S. from withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement and strikes the paragraph that allows for payments for the agreement. Virtually none of the signers of the Paris Agreement have met their emissions reduction targets, while in the same period the United States has led the world in greenhouse gas emissions reduction. We should continue to let the market, not intergovernmental agreements, lead the way in reducing emissions.

Sponsored by Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.), this amendment would reduce spending for each amount in Division D, except those amounts made available to the Department of Defense, by 14 percent. We should note that while this amendment is on the right track, it would be even better if it did not exclude those amounts made available to the Department of Defense from its cuts. No department should be exempt from close scrutiny, and the Department of Defense, like most other agencies, has proven to be one rampant with waste and excessive, unnecessary spending. With the national debt looming as our greatest national security threat, it is in the best interest of the military itself to pare back on Pentagon spending.

"Sponsored by Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.), this amendment would limit the warrantless collection of Americans’ communications under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Passed in January 2018, the FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act was the exact opposite of reform. It continued the backdoor search loophole, through which the communications of Americans may be collected and unconstitutionally searched by the FBI, with an utterly meaningless “warrant requirement.” The caveats created by this purported “warrant requirement” are an end-run around the Fourth Amendment. The FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act provided a path for the National Security Agency (NSA) to restart the practice of “abouts” collection. This means if a U.S. person mentions a potential surveillance target in a communication, the NSA can collect it, regardless of whether or not the U.S. person was communicating with anyone associated with the target. When the NSA was forced to end “abouts” collection, a federal judge on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) wrote that the practice raised “a very serious Fourth Amendment issue.” The judge also criticized the NSA for “an institutional lack of candor” for failing to disclose rule violations."

Sponsored by Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.), this amendment reduces spending for each amount in Division E by 14 percent. This reduction would be consistent with spending levels under the Budget Control Act of 2011. FreedomWorks will continue to review amendments to H.R. 2740 and, hopefully, send only one more key vote notice if additional amendments are made in order.

Sponsored by Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.), this amendment reduces spending for each amount in Division A by 14 percent. This reduction would be consistent with spending levels under the Budget Control Act of 2011.

Sponsored by Rep. Lauren Underwood (D-Ill.), this amendment would prevent the Department of Justice from using funds to litigate any case in which the constitutionality or enforceability of any provision of Obamacare is in question. Obviously, this amendment is aimed at the Department of Justice’s participation in Texas v. United States. This case is pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Oral arguments will be heard in July.

Sponsored by Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.), this amendment reduces spending for each amount in Division B by 14 percent. This reduction would be consistent with spending levels under the Budget Control Act of 2011.

Sponsored by Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.), this amendment would prohibit the use of funds for the Obama-era EPA’s Clean Power Plan. According to the Heritage Foundation, the Clean Power Plan would have created an annual shortfall of 300,000 jobs, a loss of $2.5 trillion in GDP, and $7,000 in lost income per person.

Sponsored by Rep. Jody Hice (R-Ga.), this amendment would reduce the amounts appropriated in Division C by 23.6 percent, unless a specific amount is required by law. This reduction would match the President’s budget request for FY 2020.

Sponsored by Rep. Mike Bost (R-Ill.), this amendment would prohibit the use of funds from contravening an executive order to “buy American.” This amendment comes at a time when protectionism has at least somewhat diminished the benefits of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Indeed, a recent study by the National Taxpayers Union Foundation found that the tariffs imposed since 2017 represent the third largest tax hike since World War II. The study also found that if all threatened tariffs are imposed “the combined result will be far and away the largest tax increase in the post-war era in real dollar terms.” This amendment may not be about tariffs, but it’s the same protectionist sentiment.

Sponsored by Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), this amendment would prohibit unauthorized military force in or against Iran.

Introduced by Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.), the Raise the Wage Act, H.R. 582, would increase the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour over five years. A more appropriate short title for H.R. 582 would be the “Guaranteed Unemployment for Low-Skill and Entry-Level Workers Act.” According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2.1 percent of hourly workers earn the federal minimum wage, with 47.1 percent of those being between the ages of 16 and 24. Generally, these are young and low-skill individuals who need to develop job skills while in high school or college before a career. The Raise the Wage Act would put in place a significant barrier for these young and low-skill individuals who are seeking to enter the workforce. The Raise the Wage Act would gradually increase the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour over five years and, after the five-year phase-in, require the Secretary of Labor to annually determine a percentage increase based on the percent increase of the median hourly wages of all employees. The bill would also phase-out the federal $2.13 minimum wage for tipped workers. This particular aspect of the proposed legislation was even too far for Washington, D.C. Restaurants in the District opposed Initiative 77 because this ballot initiative applied the $15 minimum wage requirement to tipped workers. Although the initiative was approved by voters, the Council of the District of Columbia repealed the initiative in October 2018 because of the negative impact it would have on the District’s restaurant industry. The end result of this bill would be reduced employment and reduced hours, as well as higher prices for virtually all consumer products. Low-skill and entry-level workers will ultimately take most of the hit.

The so-called "Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019," which would be more appropriately named the "Generational Theft Act," will increase the discretionary spending caps by more $320 billion over two fiscal years and suspend the debt limit through July 31, 2021. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), discretionary spending would be $1.119 trillion in FY 2020 and $1.145 trillion in FY 2021. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019 would increase discretionary spending to $1.290 trillion in FY 2020 and $1.298 trillion in FY 2021. In total, this is a more than $320 billion spending increase over two fiscal years. Additionally, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019 also includes $156.5 billion over two fiscal years for overseas contingency operations (OCO), which is used by Congress to bypass the discretionary spending caps. Prior to this budget deal, the CBO projected that the budget deficit would be $892 billion for FY 2020 and $962 billion in FY 2021. The discretionary spending levels in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019 guarantee a return to $1 trillion budget deficits. Making matters worse, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019 suspends the debt limit through July 31, 2021, providing the Department of the Treasury with a virtual blank check to borrow, accumulating more debt that future generations will have to shoulder. This deal on the discretionary spending caps is nothing short of a surrender by Republican “leadership” in the House and Senate and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin. Of course, we’ll be told that spending cuts will be on the agenda when Republicans get control of Congress again. Sadly, those promises never seem to come to pass. After all, Republican “leadership” and rank-and-file members don’t have any intention of governing by the limited government rhetoric on which they campaign. Instead, these Republicans vote with Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) for higher spending and more debt.

The Continuing Appropriations Act, H.R. 4378, would fund the federal government through November 21, 2019. The continued practice of governance by CR merely sets up another showdown where Congress will be pushed into enacting a massive last-second spending binge before they can go home for the holidays. It will continue spending at near-record deficit levels, while simultaneously including a host of program reauthorizations that ought to have been considered, and potentially amended, on their own. This spending continues at a level that will shortly lead us back to trillion-dollar annual deficits, while the national debt limit remains suspended through 2021, granting the federal government a blank check to tax future generations through spending money it does not possess.

The Corporate Transparency Act, H.R. 2513, is framed as legislation that would crack down on fraudulent shell companies and money laundering, but the bill would actually do little to do this, instead simply creating five new federal crimes for paperwork violations for all companies in America, unduly burdening perfectly legitimate businesses. Additionally, the bill may have long-term privacy implications.

This CR continues to kick the can down the road on the congressional appropriations process and highlights just how dysfunctional Congress is when it comes to funding the government. Additionally, the CR extends certain nutritional programs (including Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) as well as various health provisions including Medicaid and Medicare, repeals rescission of highway funding that were set to be rescinded in 2020, and temporarily reauthorizes Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act.

This proposal would implement a government price fixing scheme based on drug prices in foreign nations. Under the Pelosi Plan, drug prices would be capped at 120 percent of prices in a basket of six nations, chosen on a seemingly arbitrary basis. Not only would this be a tacit admission that command-and-control, single-payer systems are somehow more effective, it would begin the process of importing the same inefficiencies of those systems to the U.S. We cannot afford drug shortages, longer wait times, and less innovation.

Together, the FY 2020 spending bills, H.R. 1865 and H.R. 1158, total nearly $1.4 trillion in spending that flies far above the caps that Congress set for itself less than a decade ago meant to at least restrain spending. This has been continually ignored and voted away by members too afraid to practice the fiscal responsibility they preach and sell to voters on the campaign trail. Many of those same members will, unfortunately, vote for these packages as well. As we have now surpassed $23 trillion in national debt, there is already a mounting price to pay for Washington’s reckless fiscal “policy,” if it can be called that. The “policy” of both parties seems to be simply spending more and more without regard to the debt drag that this creates in our economy, let alone the fiscal crisis that slowly but surely will consume our country should we continue down this path.

Together, the FY 2020 spending bills, H.R. 1865 and H.R. 1158, total nearly $1.4 trillion in spending that flies far above the caps that Congress set for itself less than a decade ago meant to at least restrain spending. This has been continually ignored and voted away by members too afraid to practice the fiscal responsibility they preach and sell to voters on the campaign trail. Many of those same members will, unfortunately, vote for these packages as well. As we have now surpassed $23 trillion in national debt, there is already a mounting price to pay for Washington’s reckless fiscal “policy,” if it can be called that. The “policy” of both parties seems to be simply spending more and more without regard to the debt drag that this creates in our economy, let alone the fiscal crisis that slowly but surely will consume our country should we continue down this path.

Article I of the H.Res. 755 is the "abuse of power" allegation against President Trump. The impeachment proceeding against President Trump was unprecedented and unfair. The impeachment proceeding was a sham and has been the goal of House Democrats since President Trump took office.

Article I of the H.Res. 755 is the "obstruction of Congress" allegation against President Trump. The impeachment proceeding against President Trump was unprecedented and unfair. The impeachment proceeding was a sham and has been the goal of House Democrats since President Trump took office.

Despite some tweaks to the original text produced by the House Select Committee on Intelligence, the FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act continues to represent an assault on the Fourth Amendment. The Bill of Rights is a cornerstone of our constitutional republic, and crucial to defending the civil liberties of all American citizens. FISA has caused damage to the Fourth Amendment for years, and now is a critical time to support genuine reform, such as the USA RIGHTS Act. The revised version of the FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act remains the exact opposite of reform, and it is worse than current law. The bill would continue the backdoor search, with an utterly meaningless “warrant requirement.” The caveats proposed to this purported “warrant requirement” are an end-run around the Fourth Amendment. The bill provides a path for the National Security Agency (NSA) to restart the practice of “abouts” collection. This means if a U.S. person mentions a potential surveillance target in a communication, the NSA can collect it, regardless of whether or not the U.S. person was communicating with anyone associated with the target. When the NSA was forced to end “abouts” collection, a judge on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) wrote that the practice raised “a very serious Fourth Amendment issue.” The judge also criticized the NSA for “an institutional lack of candor” for failing to disclose rule violations.

Reps. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) and Ted Budd (R-N.C.) have spearheaded a letter that urges House Republican leaders to hold a public vote to reinstate earmarks, should the House Republican Conference move forward on the tone-deaf notion of reinstating earmarks. Put simply, there must be a public and transparent process, including a recorded vote. The American public has a right to know which members are voting to reopen the favor factory by bringing back this currency of corruption. (Signers updated as of February 14, 2018.)

The Schumer-McConnell spending deal, the Bipartisan Budget Act, is the worst-case scenario for fiscal conservatives under a Democratic president and Democrat-controlled Congress, but it is happening under a Republican president and Republican Congress. This is reckless spending, and a massive tax hike on future generations, made under the guise of “bipartisan negotiations.” This is deceitful, aggressive overspending by those elected to protect taxpayers. Leaving Americans with higher budget deficits likely over $1 trillion, and a national debt that will balloon to over $21 trillion, is no way to govern, and its weight falls squarely on the shoulders of taxpayers. This deal makes clear that Republicans only care about deficits and out-of-control federal spending under a Democratic president. With a Republican president and Republican control of the House and Senate, there is no other conclusion that one can possibly draw.

The Walters amendment would establish that Section 230 of the CDA does not impair or limit actions taken against internet service providers for sex trafficking cases in which an internet service provider “knowingly assist[s], support[s], or facilitat[es]” a violation of sex trafficking laws. For something that sounds reasonable, it is quite the opposite. The inclusion of an overbroad “knowledge” standard has been abused again and again in other areas, such as copyright law, and will undoubtedly be abused in this case. Even if passed, there is strong reason to believe that the law would be ineffective, and even counterproductive. The abusable “knowledge” standard actually will actually have the opposite of its intended effect -- disincentivizing those already working proactively to monitor content online to stop sex trafficking, by opening up their practices to legal liabilities.

H.Res. 796 is the rule governing the Consolidated Appropriations Act. The underlying bill is a consolidated appropriations bill packed with unrelated legislative items that Congress has not been able to pass. We oppose the rule governing the underlying bill because of the process by which leadership wrote the bill. The process by which this omnibus has been written was awful. After taking the gavel on October 29, 2015, Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said, “When we rush to pass a bill that a lot of us don't understand, we are not doing our job.” In a separate speech a week later, on November 5, Speaker Ryan said, “[T]the way I am trying to do this job is the way that I always thought it should have been done, and that is to make this a more open process so that every citizen in this country, through their elected representatives, has an opportunity to make a difference.” This omnibus was written behind closed doors, with few privy to what exactly was going in it. The bill is also more than a week behind schedule. Originally, it was supposed to be released the week of March 12, with a vote by the end of the week. That didn’t happen. Leadership hoped to vote on the bill Wednesday of this week, but last second negotiations have continued to delay the release of the bill. Now, because of the delays to pack this bill with items unrelated to appropriations, leadership plans to waive the “three-day” rule – Rule XXI, Clause II of the Rules of the House of Representatives – which requires that bills and resolutions be available for parts of three calendar days. Members and their staff will have less than 24 hours to review the 2,232-page omnibus before they are expected to vote on the bill. What’s more, the rule governing the omnibus prevents amendments from being offered from the floor. This has been an all too common theme for legislation brought to the floor. Because this bill spends nearly $1.3 trillion, a more open, deliberative process is needed. Leadership may argue that there isn’t enough time to vote on amendments, but they have only themselves to blame for the time constraints. This is legislative malpractice, and it simply can’t continue.

Process aside, the spending levels appropriated in the bill are nothing short of fiscally disastrous. In February, Congress passed the Bipartisan Budget Act, H.R. 1892. This two-year budget agreement blew through the spending caps by nearly four times more than the 2013 two-year budget deal and nearly five times more than the 2015 two-year budget deal. This omnibus is an extension of the Bipartisan Budget Act. It appropriates discretionary spending at $1.291 trillion – $700 billion for defense and $591 billion for nondefense – which is $143 billion above the spending levels, or caps, established by the Budget Control Act for discretionary spending levels.

The amendment, sponsored by Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.), would strike section 451 of the bill, which authorizes the Essential Air Service (EAS). The original purpose of EAS was to be a small program dedicated to ensuring rural communities had access to some form of air service after the airline deregulation of the 1970s. However, it has since ballooned into a wasteful program that costs taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars every year. Most of the money EAS spends subsidizes rural airports that service fewer than 30 passengers per day. This despite the fact that, according to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 99.95 percent of people live within 120 miles of an airport. The EAS is no longer serving its purpose and is wasting taxpayer money to fund an initiative for which there is no longer any legitimate demand. Repealing section 451 would save the taxpayers $1 billion over the next five years.

The passage of this CRA would do nothing to change the prohibition against discrimination in the Equal Credit Opportunity Act that the guidance cites. It would simply roll back the gross regulatory overreach of the CFPB in claiming for itself -- behind closed doors and a screen of smoke -- a power that Congress, in the law that created the CFPB, explicitly banned the CFPB from having. As Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) said prior to the Senate vote, the CFPB “had to work its magic to find a way to regulate auto dealers.” Good governing is done through accountable and transparent processes, not magic.

Sponsored by Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) and a group of nine other bipartisan legislators, this amendment reforms U.S. sugar policy. Raw sugar in the U.S. currently costs 84 percent more than it does on the world market. This is because of almost Soviet levels of government controls placed on the domestic sugar market that limits imports and production. This increases prices on consumers and makes it difficult for candy companies to maintain operations in America. The sugar modernization amendment is a long overdue reversal of this disturbing, protectionist trend.

Sponsored by Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), and Jared Polis (D-Colo.), this amendment prevents federal officials from interfering with the sales and transportation of unpasteurized milk across state lines. This ensures that nothing will get in the way of people who want fresh, unpasteurized milk, and those farmers who want to sell it to them.

Sponsored by Reps. Jim Banks (R-Ind.), Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), and a coalition of over a dozen other lawmakers, this amendment repeals the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Clean Water Rule, which loosely defines “waters of the United States.” This rule violated private citizens’ property rights by giving the EPA authority to regulate waterways as small as a ditch in someone’s backyard. Repeal of this rule would be a victory for individual liberty.

This bill would allow terminally ill patients to have access to potentially life-saving drugs when no other alternatives exist. It would ensure Americans, currently hampered by the bureaucracy of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), have the most fundamental right of all: to fight to save their own lives.

The bill would provide targeted relief in the banking industry from onerous regulatory overreach into the financial sector created by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, commonly known as “Dodd-Frank.” Having passed the Senate already, passage in the House would send the bill directly to President Trump’s desk to provide regulatory relief from this onerous law, affecting millions of Americans.

Approving this initial $15 billion rescissions request in full -- pulling back funds sitting in useless accounts that can only otherwise be used to spend more in the future -- is a task that conservatives in Congress should wholeheartedly endorse. It is one of few opportunities to exercise any semblance of fiscal discipline. It is only one small step towards actually tackling Washington’s out-of-control spending addiction, but it represents a chance to begin this fight.

This amendment, sponsored by Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), would eliminate funding for the Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy (ARPA-E), as requested in President Trump’s budget proposal both this year and last year. As the administration has explained, ARPA-E overlaps with research and development being carried out that should be done by the private sector and is therefore not only unnecessary, but wasteful.

This amendment, sponsored by Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), would provide for a 1 percent cut across the board to the bill’s spending levels, exempting certain accounts, like the Capitol Police.

Sponsored by Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), this amendment would reduce the total amount of appropriations made available by $1.5 billion to match the fiscal year 2018 enacted level. Increasingly high spending levels appropriated by Congress year after year have buried our country in unsustainable debt. This amendment would realize the fact that our country needs to spend less and certainly cannot afford to spend any more than it did in fiscal year 2018.

Sponsored by Reps. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) and Scott Perry (R-Pa.), this amendment would prohibit the use of funding for the enforcement of the EPA’s Methane Rule. The EPA estimates the annual cost of the Methane Rule at $520 million.

Sponsored by Rep. Jody Hice (R-Ga.), this amendment would ensure that no funds would be available to the Environmental Justice Small Grants made by the Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ). These funds have been misused to fund projects that should be left to state and local leadership, and that are unrelated to the organization’s mission. If enacted, the Hice amendment will save taxpayers $70 million over the next ten years.

Sponsored by Reps. Gary Palmer (R-Ala.), Mark Walker (R-N.C.), and Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), this amendment would prohibit the use of funds from being used to implement the District of Columbia's recently passed Health Insurance Requirement Amendment Act.

Sponsored by Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), this amendment would prohibit the use of funds to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) from being used to administer ObamaCare’s Multi-State Plan (MSP) Program. Section 1334 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires that OPM contract at least two national health insurance plans, one of which is statutorily required to be contracted with a nonprofit entity. The MSP Program was included in ObamaCare when the so-called “public option” proved politically untenable. The MSP Program could be used as a vehicle for a public option.

Carbon taxes, like all government interventions in the economy, reward certain individuals and industries at the expense of everyone else. Independent studies into the potential impact of such a tax reveal that American families would have to pay higher electricity and fuel costs, and could lead to higher prices in other areas of the economy. This burden would be borne disproportionately by lower and middle income families, those who can least afford to do so.

The Defense, Labor, and Health and Human Services (HHS) minibus, H.R. 6157 spends profligately on programs included in the minibus and includes a short-term continuing resolution (CR) for remaining appropriations bills into fiscal year 2019. This CR is an extension of the excessive spending agreed to under the Bipartisan Budget Act, which was passed by Congress in February and spent nearly $300 billion more than the previously established spending caps meant to control the rate of spending growth. H.R. 6157 is more of the same profligate spending resulting from a broken budget process and members unwilling to stand up for their campaign promises of shrinking government and reducing spending.

The Protecting Family and Small Business Tax Cuts Act makes permanent the individual and pass-through business tax reforms under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which was signed into law in December 2017.

Given our current out-of-control government spending, American taxpayers cannot afford to continue to use billions of dollars to prop up failing agri-businesses. The subsidies programs, as bloated and wasteful as they are now, will increase in cost by over one billion over the next ten years. This is inexcusable given our crushing national debt.

The First Step Act would reform the federal criminal justice system to make our communities safer by reducing crime and focusing limited resources on the most dangerous offenders. By increasing access to and instituting incentives for inmate participation in recidivism reduction programming and by modestly modifying some sentencing laws, the First Step Act would provide much-needed changes to the federal criminal justice system. The bill would reform four areas of sentencing law by reforming 18 U.S.C. 924(c) stacking to clarify that enhancements for second and subsequent offenses are used only on those who are true recidivists, by tailoring 21 U.S.C. 841 to modify mandatory minimum sentence enhancements and those who they may apply to, by applying the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 retroactively, and by expanding the existing federal safety valve for judges sentencing individuals with little to no criminal history.

If passed, this petition would pave the way for the return of the Obama administration’s heavy-handed Internet regulations, which were overturned by the Restoring Internet Freedom Order. FreedomWorks will key vote the signers of this petition, treating signatures as an anti-freedom position for the purposes of our 2018 Congressional Scorecard.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Small Business Health Fairness Act, H.R. 1101, sponsored by Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Texas), would allow small businesses to join together through association health plans (AHPs) to provide employees with more affordable health insurance coverage. ObamaCare has caused the cost of health insurance coverage to rise, making it difficult for small businesses to continue offering health insurance coverage to employees. The Small Business Health Fairness Act would help level the playing field for small businesses, which don’t have the negotiating power of larger firms and exemptions under Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), and lower administrative costs related to health insurance.

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

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

The Financial CHOICE Act would eliminate the job-killing regulations that Dodd-Frank has instituted, rein in the CFPB, increase penalties for financial institutions who engage in illicit practices, and provide other reforms necessary to address the issues that earlier “well intentioned” legislation instituted. While we are disappointed and frustrated that language in the bill that would have repealed the Durbin amendment was removed by the House Rules Committee, if passed, the Financial CHOICE Act will open up the market in the financial sector that would help create jobs and invite new businesses. This will drive compliance costs down, increase the number of banks that will be created, and provide the necessary oversight to the federal government.

Sponsored by Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif,), the amendment would strike the proposed prohibition against another round of Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC). A 2013 report by the conservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI) estimated that the first four rounds of BRAC save approximately $8 billion annually. The 2005 BRAC is saving nearly $4 billion annually.

Sponsored by Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), the amendment would require that Secretary of Labor conduct determinations for the prevailing wage for defense-related construction projects. Currently, the Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division uses survey data that is unreliable and inflates the prevailing wage. The amendment would lower the cost of defense-related construction projects, saving taxpayers money.

This resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) would cancel the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) arbitration rule. The CFPB’s arbitration rule is a giveaway to trial lawyers. The rule ostensibly bans contractual arbitration clauses related to consumer financial products offered by banks and other financial sector firms. This severely limits consumers’ ability to enter into arbitration during disputes. Trbitration is an easier and quicker process for consumers to resolve issues, but lawyers don’t make much money from this process. The rule, however, will encourage trial lawyers to pursue more class-action lawsuits, which take longer and result in smaller payouts to consumers.

Sponsored by Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.), this amendment would eliminate the CBO’s Budget Analysis Division. The amendment transfers the authority of the division to the Director of the CBO.

Sponsored by Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), this amendment would make a 1 percent across the board rescission to Division D of H.R. 3219 – the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.

For the better part of a decade, congressional Republicans pledged to repeal ObamaCare. Between 2011 and 2015, the House passed legislation to fully repeal ObamaCare on four separate occasions before eventually using reconciliation for partial repeal. Roughly 18 months ago, the House passed the Restoring Americans' Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act, H.R. 3762, with only three Republican defections. The bill repealed as much of ObamaCare as possible under the rules of reconciliation, including the tax and cost sharing subsidies, Medicaid expansion, and the taxes that came with the law. The bill would have reduced the federal budget deficit by $516 billion over ten years. House Republicans must continue to work diligently to repeal ObamaCare. With the American health insurance system facing so many problems because of ObamaCare – among which are skyrocketing premiums and fewer choices in the non-group market – Republicans can’t give up. A discharge petition is a legislative tool that requires the signatures of 218 members of the House to immediately bring a bill to the floor for a vote.

Sponsored by Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.), this amendment would reduce funding for the Essential Air Service program by $150 million and transfer the savings to the Spending Reduction Account. The Essential Air Service subsidizes flights to small communities in the United States and its territories. These flights, however, are often half full or mostly empty, within driving distance, and heavily subsidized.

Sponsored by Rep. Ted Budd (R-N.C.), this amendment would eliminate a planned $900 million earmark for an upgrade of an Amtrak rail line between Newark, New Jersey and New York City. Supposedly, the House has a moratorium on earmarks. Yet, this would be one of the largest ever included in an appropriations package. This amendment would redirect $474 million to deficit reduction and $400 million to New Starts Account.

Sponsored by Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.), this amendment would defund Amtrak, a federally funded passenger railroad service. Amtrak routinely loses money, failing to cover its operating costs through fares paid by passengers. This amendment would save $1.1 billion.

Sponsored by Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), this amendment would cut funding for the Environmental Protection Administration’s (EPA) Environmental Programs and Management Account by $10.234 million and redirect the savings to the EPA’s Spending Reduction Account.

As amended by the Senate, H.R. 601 would increase the debt limit and fund the federal government through December 8 without any spending or regulatory reforms. There are no guarantees that the situation will be any different when Congress revisits the issue in December. We have reached a critical point. At a time when grassroots conservative engagement is essential to pass priorities like fundamental tax reform, the administration and a Republican-controlled Congress are playing right into the hands of leftists like Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi. A debt limit increase without any spending or regulatory reforms would only further anger grassroots conservatives, risking their support for other priorities.

Sponsored by Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), this amendment would make a 1 percent across the board rescission to Division A, which authorizes appropriations for Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies.

Sponsored by Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), this amendment would reduce the appropriation to the EPA for FY 2018 by $1.869 billion.

Sponsored by Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-Wis.), this amendment would reduce the funding for the National Labor Relations Board (NRLB) by $99 million and transfer the savings to the Spending Reduction Account.

Sponsored by Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), this amendment would make a 1 percent across the board rescission to Division F, which authorizes appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies.

The Republican Study Committee’s (RSC) FY 2018 budget, introduced as an amendment by Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.), would reduce federal spending by more than $10 trillion over the ten-year budget window, bringing the budget into balance in FY 2023. The RSC’s budget would repeal ObamaCare and enact other patient-centered health insurance reforms, make Social Security and Medicare solvent, and reform federal welfare programs. It also promotes free trade, regulatory reform, and other free market, limited government principles. The current text of H.Con.Res. 71 and the McClintock amendment include language that allows the House Ways and Means Committee to produce legislation to reform the tax code. Riddled with loopholes and special interest deductions, America’s tax code has become far too complex. According to the Tax Foundation, Americans spent 8.9 billion hours and $409 billion complying with the more than 74,000-page tax code.

No one disagrees with the need for assistance for areas recently impacted by disasters. Nevertheless, the concern with the Additional Supplement Appropriations for Disaster Relief Requirements Act is that Congress is spending money without any spending offsets. In fact, the manner by which the bill will be brought to the House floor for consideration prohibits amendments that could offset the $36.5 billion appropriated. Currently, the national debt is $20.4 trillion. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the projected budget deficit for FY 2017 and FY is $804 billion and $855 billion, respectively. Congress is only a few years away from the $1+ trillion deficits that Republicans frequently and rightly criticized under President Barack Obama. Long-term projections are even more ominous from a budgetary perspective. Sadly, Congress is once again avoiding difficult choices at the expense of future generations.

The budget resolution contains reconciliation instructions that allow the House Ways and Means Committee to produce legislation for fundamental tax reform. It has been more than 30 years since Congress passed fundamental tax reform. Since that time, the tax code has become riddled with carve-outs that benefit politically connected special interests. Today, there are more than 74,000 pages in the tax code. According to the Tax Foundation, Americans spent 8.9 billion hours and $409 billion on tax compliance in 2016. Congress has a generational opportunity to reform the tax code by consolidating and lowering tax rates, broadening the tax base, and promoting job creation and international competitiveness for American businesses. This will make the tax code fairer and simplify the filing process, allowing the vast majority of Americans to file their taxes on a postcard.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act lowers individual rates for the vast majority of taxpayers. In addition, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act nearly doubles the standard deduction, meaning Americans keep more of their hard-earned money, and doubles the child tax credit from $1,000 to $2,000. This bill also provides relief by doubling the exemption amount from the unfair death tax. Pass-through business owners, who file their taxes on their individual tax return, will be able to take a 20 percent deduction. This lowers the tax burden currently faced by pass-through businesses, which, according to the Tax Foundation, employ 70 million people, and promotes fairness. America’s business community will also see added growth as a result of the policy changes in this bill. The corporate tax rate will be lowered substantially from 35 percent to 21 percent, making American businesses more globally competitive and allowing them the resources they need to innovate and create jobs. It also eliminates confusion and complexity so job creators can focus on building their company and hiring working Americans. This bill also repeals the harmful ObamaCare individual mandate, a coercive tax on Americans. It’s estimated that 80 percent of households subject to this tax earn less than $50,000 per year. This is an unnecessary hardship being placed on working Americans. The federal government should not punish individuals who cannot afford ObamaCare’s costly health insurance plans or decide it is not the best course for them.

House Republicans have long championed fiscal responsibility and opposed deficit spending. Unfortunately, this measure runs contrary to both of those promises, and would have devastating effects to our economy. Additionally, there is little accountability to ensure that the funds appropriated will be effectively used. The bill provides a staggering $81 billion dollars for disaster relief with absolutely no offsetting cuts in other areas. This is the largest request for a single disaster relief package in United States history. Congress must make corresponding, necessary cuts to ensure that if this relief package is necessary, our economy is not adversely impacted as a result. In addition, this amount of money is excessive and wasteful. It is nearly double the $44 billion that the White House initially requested. It is also substantially larger than each of the standalone disaster relief packages that were passed after Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy, $60 billion and $50.6 billion, respectively. This is not to mention that this new disaster relief bill comes in addition to the $52 billion already spent this year on Hurricanes Irma, Maria, and on wildfire relief.

This vote was to override President Barack Obama's veto of the Restoring Americans' Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act, which would have repealed ObamaCare through reconciliation.

The Common Sense Nutrition Disclosure Act relaxed FDA regulations that required business owners who own 20 or more restaurants to provide calorie information on their menus. This is costly one-size-fits-all regulation, made possible by ObamaCare, that will cost business owners $1 billion.

The Email Privacy Act would amend the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA) to protect the privacy of email communications by requiring a warrant to access emails and other covered electronic communications by American citizens that are in the custody of a service provider and more than 180 days old. H.R. 699 passed the House Judiciary Committee by a unanimous vote. This legislation is an important step in protecting the Fourth Amendment rights of Americans against unreasonable searches and seizures and updating our laws for the 21st Century.

This legislation is an important step in protecting the First Amendment rights of Americans against harassment and coercion from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Introduced by Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Ill.), this bill stops the IRS from collecting and releasing information about donors to tax-exempt organizations, which would chill political speech. The legislation would protect the free speech of donors to nonprofit organizations by modifying IRS disclosure requirements of information such as donor names and addresses. Under H.R. 5053, tax-exempt organizations are required to report only information on donors who contribute $5,000 or more and who are either an officer of the organization or one of its five highest paid employees.

H. Amdt. 1194 offered by Rep. Mark Sanford (R-S.C.), to H.R. 5293, to the Department of Defense Appropriations Act 2017, would retain the U.S. military’s current practice of providing cash stipend to recruits, allowing them to pick the footwear of their personal preference. The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), passed by the House and Senate in May, changed current practice regarding footwear by including a “buy American” requirement, replacing the current cash allowance. This new language is a de facto earmark because it benefits one company: New Balance. The Department of Defense has concluded that the new language in the NDAA “would directly lead to a higher recruit injury rate at basic training,” The amendment would undo the New Balance provision, and halt an egregious example of crony capitalism that will cost taxpayers over $300 million and keeps this provision from coming into effect by not backing it.

H. Amdt. 1204 offered by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), to H.R. 5293, to the Department of Defense Appropriations Act 2017, protects the Fourth Amendment rights of Americans from unauthorized searches and seizures of property. The bill in its current form requires the National Security Agency and other intelligence agencies to follow due process and obtain a warrant to collect the communications of American citizens. Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was written to only allow the government to collect the communications of foreigners, but a large quantity of American communications are bundled in during the process. By prohibiting backdoor spying, this measure represents a step forward in the battle to ensure privacy and security in the face of unconstitutional surveillance. The amendment also prohibits government agencies from requesting that U.S. companies build security vulnerabilities into their hardware or software in order to make it easier for the government to access them

H. Amdt. 1243 offered by Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.)) which “reduces the salary of the IRS Commissioner to $0 annually from date of enactment through January 20, 2017;”

H. Amdt. 1249 offered by Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) which “prohibits funds the use of funds to pay a performance bonus to any senior IRS employee

H. Amdt. 1245 by Rep. Sean Duffy (R-Wis.) which “prohibits funds from being used to implement, administer, or enforce a new regulatory action of $100 million or more;”

The Anti-terrorism Information Sharing Is Strength Act expands Section 314 of the USA PATRIOT Act to a host of domestic crimes that have nothing to do with terrorism. The bill also surrenders more rulemaking authority to the Treasury Department at a time when the regulatory state is out of control.

This bill modifies the scope of judicial review of agency actions to authorize courts reviewing agency actions to decide de novo (without giving deference to the agency's interpretation) all relevant questions of law, including the interpretation of constitutional and statutory provisions, and rules made by agencies.

H. Amdt.1346 offered by Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) which “reduces Appropriations made in this Act for the Environmental Protection Agency by 17 percent.” The cost of EPA’s Clean Power Plan to Pennsylvania consumers would be shifted back to the EPA under this statement

H. Amdt. 1342 offered by Rep. Gary Palmer (R-Ala.) which “ensures that none of the funds made available by this Act may be used for the Environmental Protection Agency’s Criminal Enforcement Division.” The cost and extent of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Criminal Enforcement Division are addressed by this amendment

H. Amdt. 1330 offered by Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) which “ensures that no funds appropriated by this Act can be used to implement, administer, or enforce Davis-Bacon prevailing rate wage requirements.”

In March 2015, the DOJ restricted the use of civil asset forfeiture in cases where structuring -- in which a bank account holder makes frequent deposits below $10,000 -- is the only offense suspected. Civil asset forfeiture is a pernicious form of government overreach by which federal agencies can seize cash or property without ever arresting, charging or prosecuting someone of a crime. The Clyde-Hirsch-Sowers RESPECT Act codified this administrative change.

The continuing resolution through December 9, 2016 triggers a lame duck session of Congress, which is designed to bolster the failed Beltway practice of legislating at the expense of the American taxpayers instead of for them. The CR will continue this pattern of irresponsible spending by forcing a new spending measure to be considered in a lame duck when the current session of Congress is wrapping up and members are at their least accountable.

The motion to refer was a procedural move made by Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) to block H.Res. 828 from consideration on the floor of the House. The motion sent the resolution to the House Judiciary Committee, effectively killing it in the 114th Congress. In September, FreedomWorks reserved the right to key vote against any motion that would prevent the resolution consideration. The commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is appointed to a five-year term. John Koskinen took office in December 2013, meaning that he could, theoretically, continue to hold his current post in the next administration.

While this bill may have good intentions, there should not be federal intervention. The bill does not properly limit the rulemaking authority of the DOJ, and rather, opens shortens the amount of time available to examine and debate the content. “Federal standards must respect the ‘civil rights and liberties’ of people being tracked, including their Fourth Amendment rights. Data collected must be used ‘solely for the purpose of preventing injury or death.’” We cannot risk civil liberties or allow our privacies to be ignored.

This amendment by Rep. Tom McClintock would completely end the federal subsidies for Amtrak. In spite of billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, Amtrak has continued to run an inefficient service that racks up massive annual losses, and should not continue being propped up by the government.

This bill would fully repeal the federal estate tax, better known to most as the "death tax". Not only does the death tax represent double (or more) taxation of an individual's property and belongings, it can also destroy individually owned family farms and small businesses.

While this bill is intended to make information sharing on cyber threats easier, it also sacrifices many privacy protections in the process. The bill fails to ensure that companies and government agencies are not sharing personally identifiable information when they report cyber attacks. Worse, the bill requires that cyber threat information be shared with the NSA. Although well-intentioned, the privacy loopholes in this bill turn in from a "cybersecurity" bill to a "cybersurveillance" bill.

This amendment by Rep. Tom McClintock would eliminate the Department of Energy funding for the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and Fossil Energy programs, and would sharply reduce funding for nuclear energy programs. Removing these market-distorting subsidies would save nearly $3 billion.

Currently, the NSA and FBI can access the electronic communications of U.S. citizens collected without a specific warrant under section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. This amendment by Reps. Massie and Lofgren would defund those activities. It would also prevent the NSA from requesting that security vulnerabilities be built into private products.

This bill would delay the EPA from implementing their economically devastating new greenhouse gas emissions rule for existing power plants. If implemented, this rule would cause many coal-fired power plants to shut down, dramatically increasing energy costs for millions of Americans.

This amendment by Rep. Zeldin would greatly strengthen current prohibitions against coercing states to adopt national educational standards. Specifically, it prohibits the Secretary of Education from conditioning any grant money or waivers upon states keeping Common Core or any other specific national curriculum standards.

This amendment by Rep. Polis (introduced for Rep. Meng) would establish grants to entice states to subsidize early childhood education (Head Start) programs. This would entail an effective federalization of pre-K education at taxpayer expense. Not only does the federal government have no place centralizing yet another aspect of education, repeated studies have shown that Head Start and similar pre-K education programs are ineffective.

As written, H.R. 6 would create nearly $2 billion per year in new mandatory spending (not subject to budget caps). This amendment by Rep. Brat would force Congress to account for the new spending under the Budget Control Act caps and therefore to find equivalent cuts elsewhere.

This bill, entitled the “REINS Act”, would require a vote in Congress on any “major” regulation (over $100 million in economic impact) issued by the executive branch before it could be enforced on the American people. The REINS Act would thus restore much of Congress' lawmaking authority that it has ceded to the executive branch over the past century.

In an uncommon move, 218 Members of the House of Representatives signed a discharge petition regarding H.R. 597 - a bill to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank of the United States. This successful petition bypasses the House Committee on Finance, in which the bill had been stalled, bringing the bill straight to the House floor. The Export-Import bank serves as a taxpayer-backed conduit for corporate welfare, and should be left expired. Only signers of the petition are scored for this vote.

This amendment by Rep. Justin Amash would remove the section of the bill that would provide $500 million in new spending for the Maritime Security Fleet program. This new spending, while a relatively small amount was quietly added into the bill without any vote, ignoring the amendment and committee process. This spending represents a shallow attempt to court a narrow special interest group to gain votes for the bill - essentially violating the House ban on earmarks.

This bill would reauthorize the U.S. Export-Import Bank through 2019. The Ex-Im Bank's loans and guarantees distort trade markets, and mostly flow to a small number of immense, politically connected corporations. Congress allowed the Ex-Im Bank's charter to expire in June, and this 80-year-old corporate welfare program should stay closed.

This bill was the vehicle for the budget agreement that will spend $80 billion beyond the Budget Control Act caps over two years, along with $16 billion in new defense spending that doesn't count towards the caps. The supposed offsets to this spending are mostly either gimmicks or long-term, while the new deficit spending is immediate. The bill also suspends the debt ceiling through March of 2017, effectively giving the government a blank check for that period.

This amendment by Rep. Steve King would effectively prevent Davis-Bacon wage controls from applying to the infrastructure projects funded by this highway funding bill. These onerous wage requirement were designed to shut out competition with unions for federal contracts, and end up costing taxpayers huge sums of money.

This resolution invokes the Congressional Act to disapprove of the recent EPA rule that greatly increases emissions restrictions on existing coal-fired power plants. This tremendously destructive regulation would greatly increase energy costs in the many states which rely heavily upon coal-fired power plants for their electricity. These cost increases damage overall economic growth, and in particular lower the standard of living of lower-income earners.

This resolution invokes the Congressional Act to disapprove of the recent EPA rule that greatly increases emissions restrictions on any future coal-fired power plants. This rule tightens emissions standards to the point where it will likely not be economically feasible to build new coal-fired electric plants, crippling one of the most abundant and cost-effective sources of energy in America.

This amendment by Rep. Joe Barton would finally lift the decades-old ban on exporting U.S. crude oil. This would allow the U.S. to take better advantage of our recent major surge in oil production, creating thousands of new jobs and boosting economic growth in the process.

This bill would renew federal highway funding to states for a period of five years. However, it does not solve the structural deficit within the Highway Trust Fund, doesn't eliminate the wasteful spending that takes away from funding roads, and doesn't offset that spending in any real way. Furthermore, this bill contains a reauthorization of the expired Export-Import Bank, in order to prevent having a standalone vote on renewing such a direct corporate welfare fund.

This omnibus appropriations bills for Fiscal Year 2016 funds former Speaker Boehner's budget-busting deal to the tune of $50 billion above the budget caps for 2016. It contains several very troubling legislative riders a well, including more funding for the IMF, and a massive new cybersecurity information sharing program that violates consumers' privacy and due process. It also fails to include most of the amendments from the appropriations process that would have defunded key, harmful federal regulations.