During consideration of the bill (S. 139) reauthorizing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), Representative Justin Amash (R-Mich.) introduced an amendment to end NSA collection of communications data that is neither to nor from an approved foreign target, but rather communications “about” a foreign target entirely between American citizens. It would prohibit the FBI and intelligence agencies from searching the NSA database for information on U.S. citizens without first obtaining a warrant, except in certain circumstances. The amendment would also end “reverse targeting,” in which an American citizen communicating with a foreign target is also subject to surveillance.

The House rejected Amash’s amendment on January 11, 2018 by a vote of 183 to 233 (Roll Call 14). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because this amendment is an attempt to limit NSA surveillance of U.S. citizens. Warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens is unconstitutional, and NSA surveillance certainly falls under this category. Amash’s amendment would require the FBI to obtain a warrant, rather than merely FISA Court approval, in order to access the NSA’s database.

This bill (S. 139) would reauthorize for six years, through 2023, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which governs electronic surveillance of foreign terrorism suspects. The bill would require the development of procedures for searching the NSA database that would protect the Fourth Amendment-guaranteed rights of U.S. citizens, while allowing the FBI to access information with an order from the secret FISA Court, in certain cases.

The House passed S. 139 on January 11, 2018 by a vote of 256 to 164 (Roll Call 16). We have assigned pluses to the nays because FISA, while supposedly put in place to gather intelligence on foreign targets, has been used to spy on U.S. citizens. The bill does provide provisions to, ostensibly, protect the privacy of U.S. citizens, but given the track record of intelligence agencies, it is unlikely that they would actually follow these rules. The FISA Court gives a green light to just about any surveillance request that comes its way, and FISA-approved NSA warrantless surveillance of American citizens has become common knowledge.

The World Bank Accountability Act (H.R. 3326) would authorize $3.29 billion in U.S. contributions to the World Bank’s International Development Association, which discharges concessional loans known as “credits” and economic grants to the world’s poorest and most underdeveloped countries.

The House passed H.R. 3326 on January 17, 2018 by a vote of 237 to 184 (Roll Call 24). We have assigned pluses to the nays because authorizing such funds to the WTO’s IDA is foreign aid, which is a form of international welfare and completely unconstitutional, and most World Bank “aid” further enriches plutocrats in Third World countries, at the expense of the poor.

The STOP School Violence Act of 2018 (H.R. 4909) would authorize $75 million a year through fiscal year 2028 for the Justice Department’s Secure Our Schools grant program. SOS is a grant program of the Justice Department’s Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, which has been instrumental in laying the foundations for nationalizing local police by providing federal “assistance” in the form of funds, equipment, training, and development of guidelines to local law-enforcement agencies.

In a podcast interview with Conservative Review, Representative Thomas Massie (RKy.) said the “STOP School Violence Act was bad enough for nationalizing defense of our schools,” but he further revealed, “There is money in that bill that is going to go to gun control groups. It literally says in there you can give it to the 501-C3s, and then it also says in there it can’t go to train anybody on gun safety. It’s got to go for all the liberal sort of agendas.”

The House passed H.R. 4909 on March 14, 2018 by a vote of 407 to 10 (Roll Call 106). We have assigned pluses to the nays because school safety is not a proper function of the federal government, and no action the federal government has ever taken would actually make schools safe. School safety should be addressed at the local level. Furthermore, the nationalizing of local police and school security, as well as any other gun-control measures contained in the bill, are all strictly unconstitutional.

This bill (H.R. 1625) would provide $1.3 trillion in discretionary appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2018 for federal government operations and services. This represents an overall increase in discretionary spending of 12 percent over the 2017 level. The big winner was the Department of Defense, with an increase of 10 percent over last year’s appropriations. Democrat negotiators on this bill successfully fought off many Republican riders, such as a rider that would have permitted the Trump administration to withdraw the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule. Pro-life Republicans were saddened to learn that the omnibus bill continues the more than $500 million in taxpayer dollars Planned Parenthood receives each year.

The House passed the omnibus spending bill on March 22, 2018 by a vote of 256 to 167 (Roll Call 127). We have assigned pluses to the nays because with this omnibus bill, members of Congress are failing to address their fiscally and constitutionally irresponsible budgeting and appropriating process that is currently yielding annual federal deficits measured in the hundreds of billions of dollars, as well as minimizing their accountability to the voters by combining all discretionary federal spending for fiscal 2018 into one gigantic “take it or leave it” bill.

During consideration of the farm bill (H.R. 2), Representative Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) introduced an amendment that would have phased out agricultural crop subsidies by fiscal year 2030.

The House rejected McClintock’s amendment on May 17, 2018 by a vote of 34 to 380 (Roll Call 194). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because no warrant for the appropriation of crop subsidies is found in the Constitution, and subsidies disrupt the free market economy.

During consideration of the farm bill (H.R. 2), Representative Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) introduced an amendment to prohibit federal interference in the interstate transportation of unpasteurized milk and milk products between states that allow for the distribution of such products for direct human consumption.

The House rejected Massie’s amendment on May 18, 2018 by a vote of 79 to 331 (Roll Call 201). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the U.S. Constitution does not give the federal government any authority over what foods a person chooses to consume. In other words, it is illegal for the federal government to make raw milk illegal. While the federal government does have authority to “regulate Commerce … among the several States,” there is no reason for federal interference in a scenario such as this, where a product is legally sold in each of the states in question. Massie’s amendment would have limited federal overreach and should have been supported.

During consideration of the farm bill (H.R. 2), Representative Jim Banks (R-Ind.) introduced an amendment to repeal the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2015 “Waters of the United States” rule. On the floor of the House, Banks called this rule “the poster child of government overreach during the Obama administration,” noting that it gives “unelected bureaucrats at the EPA the power to broadly interpret what is a navigable waterway” under the Clean Water Act — so broadly that “even a puddle in a farm’s drainage ditch could be subjected to Federal regulation.”

The House adopted Banks’ amendment on May 18, 2018 by a vote of 238 to 173 (Roll Call 203). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because both federal water regulations and the EPA are unconstitutional, and if the rule were allowed to stand, activities such as farming and real estate development would be greatly hampered, since farmers and developers would be subject to increased unconstitutional permit requirements and fines concerning their treatment of almost any body of water, no matter how small.

This bill (S. 204) would allow patients with life-threatening diseases or conditions who are not participating in clinical trials to seek access to experimental and investigational drugs directly from a drug manufacturer, without approval by the Food and Drug Administration. It would require that in order for the patient to be eligible, the patient must first try all approved treatment options and be unable to participate in a clinical trial. Only drugs that have completed phase 1 clinical trials, that have not been approved or licensed for any use, and that are currently under an active FDA application or are undergoing clinical trials would be eligible for use under the bill’s provisions.

The House passed S. 204 on May 22, 2018 by a vote of 250 to 169 (Roll Call 214). We have assigned pluses to the yeas because the federal government, under the Constitution, has not been given authority over what medical procedures U.S. citizens choose to engage in. If a person wants to try an “unapproved” treatment, he should be able to do so with no interference from the government. In fact, since the Constitution gives the federal government no authority whatsoever over any aspect of healthcare, the FDA should not even exist. Any law that lessens government overreach into the personal medical decisions of citizens is a step in the right direction.

This bill (H.R. 3) would cut nearly $15 billion from previously approved, unspent spending, including $7 billion from the Children’s Health Insurance Program and $4.3 billion from the Department of Energy’s Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program.

The House passed H.R. 3 on June 7, 2018 by a vote of 210 to 206 (Roll Call 243). We have assigned pluses to the yeas not only because the spending falls outside the scope of constitutionally authorized federal powers, but also because the federal government needs to start reining in ballooning federal spending (and debt) somewhere in order to avert fiscal disaster. The cuts in this bill comprise only a fraction of one percent of total federal spending, and according to the Congressional Budget Office, most of the funding targeted by the bill would not be spent anyway. Yet modest cuts are better than none at all.