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 “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 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.