The legislation would spend another $12.1 billion for disaster relief for areas affected by Hurricane Florence, Hurricane Michael, wildfires, and other recent natural disasters without any offsets for the new spending.

The Federal Civilian Workforce Pay Raise Fairness Act gives civilian workers a 2.6 percent pay increase, retroactive to the beginning of 2019, without any offsets. Congress cannot continue to spend money it doesn't have when facing a projected budget deficit of nearly $900 in FY 2019 and a $22 trillion national debt.

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. Mark Green (R-Tenn.), reiterates that freedom of speech is a fundamental right. This is not a controversial amendment, but it conflicts with House Democrats' H.R. 1, which seeks to restrict speech in an unprecedented way.

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. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Mo.), this amendment would ensure that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available to any Federal department or agency by this Act may be used to make assessed or voluntary contributions on behalf of the United States to or for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, or the Green Climate Fund.

Sponsored by Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), this amendment prohibits funds from being used for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

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. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.), this amendment prohibits the use of funds from being used to promulgate any regulation or guidance related to the “social cost of carbon” based on analyses provided by the Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon. The social cost of carbon measures carbon emissions in dollars and may be used to determine a costly tax on carbon emissions.

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

Sponsored by Reps. Anthony Brindisi (D-N.Y.) and David McKinley (R-W.Va.), this amendment would reinstate the protectionist Berry Amendment, which requires the Department of Defense to domestically source stainless steel flatware, and would also add a “dinner ware” domestic sourcing requirement.

Sponsored by Reps. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) and Justin Amash (I-Mich.), this amendment would prohibit funds from being used to transfer any defense articles or services to Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates under the emergency authority of the Arms Export Control Act that circumvents congressional review.

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

Sponsored by Reps. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) and Justin Amash (I-Mich.), this amendment would repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.

The Raise the Wage Act 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.”

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.