Back during the government shutdown of 2013 voters had a higher opinion of maladies such as toenail fungus and hemorrhoids than of Congress, with just 8% approving of the latter in a poll.

The good news is, that’s doubled in just 11 years to 16% last month.

Well, not so good news.

Perhaps the problem, other than the partisan infighting, is that people see Congress as failing utterly to solve America’s actual problems, while seeming to create new ones.

That can always change if elected representatives dig in and work together on real-life issues – something Missouri Sen. Eric Schmitt is diving into during the transition to the next Donald Trump administration.

Working across the aisle, Schmitt and Democrat Sen. Amy Klobuchar this week filed the National Plan for Epilepsy Act to bring awareness, coordination and national focus to the spectrum of brain disorders that result in “recurring and unprovoked seizures,” his office says.

It’s not a small matter: epilepsy affects some 3 million adults and 456,000 children, Schmitt’s office reports.

It’s an intensely personal issue for Schmitt, whose son is afflicted.

“My son, Stephen, was my inspiration to run for office, and since then, I’ve been a staunch advocate for making life better for those with disabilities,” Schmitt has written on social media.

“Stephen still has seizures nearly every day,” Schmitt told The Heartlander Thursday. “I’m around a lot of families who’ve been impacted, and so, to the extent we can help deliver better outcomes for people, I think that’s a good thing.”

The bill, patterned off the National Plan to End Parkinson’s Act signed into law last summer, requires the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services “to perform an assessment of progress every year in how epilepsy-related programs are operating and coordinating with each other, and also give recommendations on improvements,” Schmitt’s office explains.

It also creates an advisory council of sufferers, caregivers, health providers, researchers and nonprofit officials to raise public awareness of epilepsy.

“I think there just needs to be a more coordinated approach, whether it’s research or resources that are available,” Schmitt says.

Are there other diseases Congress can focus on ending, perhaps using funds currently going toward war?

“Absolutely,” says, arguing that’s part of the public’s frustration with Washington – “including, by the way, Joe Biden’s going to forgive billions of dollars’ worth of loans to Ukraine and now he’s trying to escalate that war. 

“The American people are very interested in us focusing on America first. And we do have real threats in the world. They’re in China. I think Europe needs to step up. But there’s a lot of savings that can be had. 

“I think that if you ask the question, ‘Would you like to have your trillions back from some of the failed decisions over the last 20 years?’ the American people would say yes. 

“There are more things that we can do, as relates to brain diseases and those kind of genetic conditions that affect the brain. It’s sort of the last frontier. We know a lot about other organs. There’s still more work to do, but the brain is very complex and the strides that we can make over the next decade could ease the suffering of a lot of people.”

Another frustration for voters is the Biden administration’s online censorship of conservatives – which Schmitt was on the ground floor of fighting against, having filed the landmark Missouri v. Biden free speech lawsuit while attorney general of Missouri, along with the Louisiana AG.

Although the lawsuit was ultimately picked up and spit back out by the U.S. Supreme Court for what it said was a lack of standing to sue among the plaintiffs, Schmitt said the lawsuit is technically still alive – and private citizens who were part of the lawsuit may yet be able to show their right to sue.

Now, Schmitt plans to file the Public Safety Free Speech Act, which would codify first responders’ rights to political free speech. The bill would specifically protect emergency workers’ right to expressing opinions on:

• The delivery of public safety services
• Compensation or benefits
• Working conditions or scheduling, specifically highlighting the provision of personal protective equipment, work tools and equipment, or work vehicles
• Employer’s policies or procedures
• Political and religious opinions.

“First responders have been fired or suspended for simple actions like providing comments at city council meetings, writing letters to the editor in newspapers, or being politically active, even while off-dut,” Schmitt’s office explains. “First responders often challenge these penalties in courts but are denied justice.”

“This,” Schmitt tells The Heartlander, “is another way of making sure we protect law enforcement, firefighters – our first responders’ ability to have a yard sign in their front yard, for crying out loud. I mean, this is America. There’s no way they should be restricted from doing it. They are. 

“I just think the First Amendment is the beating heart of our Constitution. There’s a reason why it was the first sort of explicit protection in our Constitution, and this [bill] goes a long way in making sure that men and women who sacrifice a lot for us can speak their mind.”

What changes does Schmitt foresee in the free speech area under Republican rule? 

“Well, I think we’ve got to go after and defang these agencies that have been weaponized against the American people. They coordinated and colluded to silence conservatives. And it just can’t be acceptable in the United States of America.  

“I’ve got some legislation that would essentially hold individuals in these bureaucracies accountable. Citizens could sue them individually for suppressing their free speech rights. I think that’s one way to get at it. 

“Section 230 ought to be on the table if you’re violating the First Amendment.”

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 protects online platforms such as social media sites from legal liability for other people’s content. But at the same time, some platforms have abused that protection by censoring content with which they disagree – sometimes at the behest of the government, which is unconstitutional.

Despite its rejection by the Supreme Court, Schmitt says Biden v. Missouri has already changed the free speech landscape.

“I think the most important takeaway from that case was exposing all of this,” Schmitt says. “And I do think you saw, even in this election cycle, these agencies really kind of pulled back from their aggressive efforts to censor speech. I think that’s one positive outcome.  

“But I think part of President Trump’s agenda here is getting cabinet secretaries in place who share his vision – and part of that is getting rid of people who think it’s their job and these agencies’ [job] to censor Americans. 

“I look forward to working with those cabinet secretaries if there’s anything we can do. But some of this is just going to have to happen from the inside – having reform-minded people who are in charge of these agencies and changing the culture.”