Bills

CRS Summary: (Still showing legislative vehicle)

Freedom First Society Analysis:  Almost entirely ignored by the media was the contribution of the package to the nation’s more than $31-trillion national debt.  Senator Rick Scott (R-Florida) protested the contribution in an op-ed for the Tampa Bay Times:

“America’s national debt is $31 trillion and growing. When are we going to be so fed up that we decide this isn’t sustainable? When we get to $35, $40 or $45 trillion in debt? Too many Democrats and Republicans in Washington are happy to close their eyes, plug their ears and pass another reckless, multi-trillion dollar spending bill we can’t afford.”

         And Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) protested the irresponsible Congress on Twitter (12-21-22): “If there are people in Congress who do care, who do really care about those struggling with the burden of inflation, the best way is to quit digging the hole deeper. Quit adding to the debt and begin to balance our budget.”

         We suspect that there are few in Congress “who do really care about those struggling with the burden of inflation.”  Moreover, the goal shouldn’t be to “quit adding to the debt.”  Instead, the debt must be rolled back by slashing unconstitutional spending and departments.

The Establishment’s Hill (12-22-22) reported: “A large group of Senate Republicans ended up voting for the final package, but many of them expressed frustration that they had to vote on all the spending bills balled up in one package with only a couple of days to review the 4,155-page omnibus.

“‘The process is a complete disaster,’ said retiring Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), who voted against the legislation.”

The Daily Signal (12-20-22) reported the comments of several who echoed that sentiment. Here are comments from Mike Braun (R-Indiana), who sits on the Senate Committee on Appropriations:

I’m an appropriator, and I can’t think of one conversation that we’ve had jointly among appropriators about what this end product was going to be. So, it’s done basically with leadership and the two lead appropriators, that’d be [Sen. Richard] Shelby and [Sen. Patrick] Leahy, and I think it’s done so purposely so that it’s not a participatory approach.

In a statement emailed to The Daily Signal, Rep. Jason Smith, R-Mo., the ranking member of the House Budget Committee, complained:

Nearly three months since the end of the fiscal year and Democrats—with full control of the House, Senate, and the White House—have failed to do the bare minimum of funding government. Now, with less than a week until Christmas, Washington Democrats have unveiled a massive $1.82 trillion bill that increases base discretionary spending by 9%, on top of the 7% increase they rammed through last year.

Braun, along with Republican Sens. Rick Scott of Florida, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Mike Lee of Utah, and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, held a press conference that afternoon. During the conference, Paul asked:

I brought with me the omni[bus spending bill]—4,155 pages. When was it produced? In the dead of the night. One-thirty in the morning when it was released. Now, people argue that it’s conservatives’ fault. You don’t have the Christmas spirit. Somehow you’re holding up government. Well, whose job is it to produce this?

The people in charge of spending. The people in charge of both of the parties. When did they know that this would be necessary? Well, it’s in the law. Sept. 30. You got nine months, almost 10 months to produce a plan, to have a spending plan.

The Kentucky Republican added:

They weren’t ready on Sept. 30, so they voted themselves 90 more days. They weren’t ready last week either. So they voted themselves another week. And now we have it at 1:30 in the morning this morning. But what’s the clamor? The clamor’s to vote. Vote now. Let’s get it done. Why are you standing in the way of spending?

Well, the real question is this: What is more dangerous? What is more dangerous to the country? $1.1 trillion in new debt. Or as Republican leadership likes to say, ‘Oh, but it’s a win, it’s a big win. We’re getting $45 billion for the military.’ So which is more important? Which threatens the country more? Are we at risk for being invaded by a foreign power if we don’t put $45 billion into the military? Or are we more at risk by adding to a $31 trillion debt?

Paul continued, “I think the greatest risk to our national security is our debt. The process stinks.”

Senator Mike Lee compared the length of the omnibus bill to reading the Bible, noting that it was “4,155 pages long:”

The Bible is a long book and it’s 1,200 pages long. And so going through this, reading through this, which the Bible is actually interesting and full of stories that you can follow, much more interesting than this. I mean, even when you get into the depths of Habakkuk, you’re not dealing with stuff like this.

But you’d have to read, to get through the same amount of text, you’d have to read the Bible three and a half times during that same period and be able to comprehend it. And unlike the Bible, this stuff can’t be really read on its face and understood. It takes cross-referencing to understand all of that.

CRS Summary: (Still showing legislative vehicle)

Freedom First Society Analysis:  Almost entirely ignored by the media was the contribution of the package to the nation’s more than $31-trillion national debt.  Senator Rick Scott (R-Florida) protested the contribution in an op-ed for the Tampa Bay Times:

“America’s national debt is $31 trillion and growing. When are we going to be so fed up that we decide this isn’t sustainable? When we get to $35, $40 or $45 trillion in debt? Too many Democrats and Republicans in Washington are happy to close their eyes, plug their ears and pass another reckless, multi-trillion dollar spending bill we can’t afford.”

         And Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) protested the irresponsible Congress on Twitter (12-21-22): “If there are people in Congress who do care, who do really care about those struggling with the burden of inflation, the best way is to quit digging the hole deeper. Quit adding to the debt and begin to balance our budget.”

         We suspect that there are few in Congress “who do really care about those struggling with the burden of inflation.”  Moreover, the goal shouldn’t be to “quit adding to the debt.”  Instead, the debt must be rolled back by slashing unconstitutional spending and departments.

The Establishment’s Hill (12-22-22) reported: “A large group of Senate Republicans ended up voting for the final package, but many of them expressed frustration that they had to vote on all the spending bills balled up in one package with only a couple of days to review the 4,155-page omnibus.

“‘The process is a complete disaster,’ said retiring Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), who voted against the legislation.”

The Daily Signal (12-20-22) reported the comments of several who echoed that sentiment. Here are comments from Mike Braun (R-Indiana), who sits on the Senate Committee on Appropriations:

I’m an appropriator, and I can’t think of one conversation that we’ve had jointly among appropriators about what this end product was going to be. So, it’s done basically with leadership and the two lead appropriators, that’d be [Sen. Richard] Shelby and [Sen. Patrick] Leahy, and I think it’s done so purposely so that it’s not a participatory approach.

In a statement emailed to The Daily Signal, Rep. Jason Smith, R-Mo., the ranking member of the House Budget Committee, complained:

Nearly three months since the end of the fiscal year and Democrats—with full control of the House, Senate, and the White House—have failed to do the bare minimum of funding government. Now, with less than a week until Christmas, Washington Democrats have unveiled a massive $1.82 trillion bill that increases base discretionary spending by 9%, on top of the 7% increase they rammed through last year.

Braun, along with Republican Sens. Rick Scott of Florida, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Mike Lee of Utah, and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, held a press conference that afternoon. During the conference, Paul asked:

I brought with me the omni[bus spending bill]—4,155 pages. When was it produced? In the dead of the night. One-thirty in the morning when it was released. Now, people argue that it’s conservatives’ fault. You don’t have the Christmas spirit. Somehow you’re holding up government. Well, whose job is it to produce this?

The people in charge of spending. The people in charge of both of the parties. When did they know that this would be necessary? Well, it’s in the law. Sept. 30. You got nine months, almost 10 months to produce a plan, to have a spending plan.

The Kentucky Republican added:

They weren’t ready on Sept. 30, so they voted themselves 90 more days. They weren’t ready last week either. So they voted themselves another week. And now we have it at 1:30 in the morning this morning. But what’s the clamor? The clamor’s to vote. Vote now. Let’s get it done. Why are you standing in the way of spending?

Well, the real question is this: What is more dangerous? What is more dangerous to the country? $1.1 trillion in new debt. Or as Republican leadership likes to say, ‘Oh, but it’s a win, it’s a big win. We’re getting $45 billion for the military.’ So which is more important? Which threatens the country more? Are we at risk for being invaded by a foreign power if we don’t put $45 billion into the military? Or are we more at risk by adding to a $31 trillion debt?

Paul continued, “I think the greatest risk to our national security is our debt. The process stinks.”

Senator Mike Lee compared the length of the omnibus bill to reading the Bible, noting that it was “4,155 pages long:”

The Bible is a long book and it’s 1,200 pages long. And so going through this, reading through this, which the Bible is actually interesting and full of stories that you can follow, much more interesting than this. I mean, even when you get into the depths of Habakkuk, you’re not dealing with stuff like this.

But you’d have to read, to get through the same amount of text, you’d have to read the Bible three and a half times during that same period and be able to comprehend it. And unlike the Bible, this stuff can’t be really read on its face and understood. It takes cross-referencing to understand all of that.

CRS Summary:  (Still shows legislative vehicle.)

Freedom First Society Analysis:  House Appropriations Chair Rosa DeLauro touted the package in her floor remarks: “These bills tackle our nation’s toughest crises — they help lower the cost of living for hardworking families and the middle class, create better-paying jobs, and protect our communities and our national security.”  Of course, our Constitution doesn’t authorize the federal government to “create better paying jobs.” Also lowering “the cost of living” is also a joke, as raising the Fed-financed debt does just the opposite.

         Ranking House Appropriations member Kay Granger (R-Texas) did not participate in the negotiations with the other three appropriators.  But she later protested the resulting package:

“She said it was too large, especially after Democrats increased domestic spending outside of the normal appropriations process through their pandemic aid and climate, health and tax laws.

“Rather than ‘reflecting the economic realities we face,’ the package instead ‘bails out the administration for many of their self-inflicted wounds, like the border crisis and the energy crisis,’ Granger said during debate. ‘The excess spending on nondefense programs in this bill is just too much to gain my support.’” — Roll Call, 12-23-22

Almost entirely ignored by the media was the contribution of the package to the nation’s more than $31-trillion national debt.  Senator Rick Scott (R-Florida) protested the contribution in an op-ed for the Tampa Bay Times:

“America’s national debt is $31 trillion and growing. When are we going to be so fed up that we decide this isn’t sustainable? When we get to $35, $40 or $45 trillion in debt? Too many Democrats and Republicans in Washington are happy to close their eyes, plug their ears and pass another reckless, multi-trillion dollar spending bill we can’t afford.”

         And Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) protested the irresponsible Congress on Twitter (12-21-22): “If there are people in Congress who do care, who do really care about those struggling with the burden of inflation, the best way is to quit digging the hole deeper. Quit adding to the debt and begin to balance our budget.”

         We suspect that there are few in Congress “who do really care about those struggling with the burden of inflation.”  Moreover, the goal shouldn’t be to “quit adding to the debt.”  Instead, the debt must be rolled back  by slashing unconstitutional spending and departments.

Congressional Research Services Summary: 

Shown Here:
Public Law (12/13/2022)

Respect for Marriage Act

This act provides statutory authority for same-sex and interracial marriages.

Specifically, the act replaces provisions that define, for purposes of federal law, marriage as between a man and a woman and spouse as a person of the opposite sex with provisions that recognize any marriage between two individuals that is valid under state law. (The Supreme Court held that the current provisions were unconstitutional in United States v. Windsor in 2013.)

The act also replaces provisions that do not require states to recognize same-sex marriages from other states with provisions that prohibit the denial of full faith and credit or any right or claim relating to out-of-state marriages on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin. (The Supreme Court held that state laws barring same-sex marriages were unconstitutional in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015; the Court held that state laws barring interracial marriages were unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia in 1967.) The act allows the Department of Justice to bring a civil action and establishes a private right of action for violations.

The act does not (1) affect religious liberties or conscience protections that are available under the Constitution or federal law, (2) require religious organizations to provide goods or services to formally recognize or celebrate a marriage, (3) affect any benefits or rights that do not arise from a marriage, or (4) recognize under federal law any marriage between more than two individuals.

 

Analysis:  Proponents of this now public law regularly tell us that this is only a first step toward full equality for gays and their total acceptance in the marketplace.  But their real agenda is revolution.  And that work will not be completed until a totalitarian world government has total control  and freedom is eliminated.

We are also experiencing the strategy of Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci and his disciples, who pointed out that the way for Communism to come to power in the more advanced countries was not by violent takeover but by subverting their institutions.

In his testimony before the Senate, Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) summarized what was wrong with this law:

 On the one hand, there’s no existing threat to same-sex marriage. It is and will remain legal nationwide regardless of the outcome of this legislation before us, the Respect for Marriage Act.

On the other hand, we have current, real, sustained ongoing assaults on religious freedom. How we proceed today will do nothing to the status quo of same-sex marriage in this country.  It’s legal and will remain legal regardless of the outcome of this legislation.

It will, however, if enacted, have profound consequences for people of faith….

If accepting grants and licenses from the government makes you an actor under color of law, then many of our religious charities and schools will be threatened by this legislation, which relies on that un-narrowed, undefined phrase. Either the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops can cease operating according to its religious tenets or abandon its God-given mission to care for the refugee.

In at least three other cases, religious child care service agencies deemed to be acting under color of law are being shut out of foster care and adoption. These religious ministries can either abandon and cease to act according to their convictions, their religious convictions about marriage, or they can abandon the orphan. This nation and our orphans rely on these charities….

My [failed] amendment prevents the Internal Revenue Service, among other things, from revoking the tax-exempt status of these charities and organizations simply because they act according to their beliefs about the divine purpose of marriage.

 

Congressional Research Services Summary: 

Shown Here:
Public Law (12/13/2022)

Respect for Marriage Act

This act provides statutory authority for same-sex and interracial marriages.

Specifically, the act replaces provisions that define, for purposes of federal law, marriage as between a man and a woman and spouse as a person of the opposite sex with provisions that recognize any marriage between two individuals that is valid under state law. (The Supreme Court held that the current provisions were unconstitutional in United States v. Windsor in 2013.)

The act also replaces provisions that do not require states to recognize same-sex marriages from other states with provisions that prohibit the denial of full faith and credit or any right or claim relating to out-of-state marriages on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin. (The Supreme Court held that state laws barring same-sex marriages were unconstitutional in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015; the Court held that state laws barring interracial marriages were unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia in 1967.) The act allows the Department of Justice to bring a civil action and establishes a private right of action for violations.

The act does not (1) affect religious liberties or conscience protections that are available under the Constitution or federal law, (2) require religious organizations to provide goods or services to formally recognize or celebrate a marriage, (3) affect any benefits or rights that do not arise from a marriage, or (4) recognize under federal law any marriage between more than two individuals.

 

Analysis:  Proponents of this now public law regularly tell us that this is only a first step toward full equality for gays and their total acceptance in the marketplace.  But their real agenda is revolution.  And that work will not be completed until a totalitarian world government has total control  and freedom is eliminated.

We are also experiencing the strategy of Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci and his disciples, who pointed out that the way for Communism to come to power in the more advanced countries was not by violent takeover but by subverting their institutions.

In his testimony before the Senate, Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) summarized what was wrong with this law:

 On the one hand, there’s no existing threat to same-sex marriage. It is and will remain legal nationwide regardless of the outcome of this legislation before us, the Respect for Marriage Act.

On the other hand, we have current, real, sustained ongoing assaults on religious freedom. How we proceed today will do nothing to the status quo of same-sex marriage in this country.  It’s legal and will remain legal regardless of the outcome of this legislation.

It will, however, if enacted, have profound consequences for people of faith….

If accepting grants and licenses from the government makes you an actor under color of law, then many of our religious charities and schools will be threatened by this legislation, which relies on that un-narrowed, undefined phrase. Either the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops can cease operating according to its religious tenets or abandon its God-given mission to care for the refugee.

In at least three other cases, religious child care service agencies deemed to be acting under color of law are being shut out of foster care and adoption. These religious ministries can either abandon and cease to act according to their convictions, their religious convictions about marriage, or they can abandon the orphan. This nation and our orphans rely on these charities….

My [failed] amendment prevents the Internal Revenue Service, among other things, from revoking the tax-exempt status of these charities and organizations simply because they act according to their beliefs about the divine purpose of marriage.

 

Congressional Research Services Summary: 

Shown Here:
Public Law (12/13/2022)

Respect for Marriage Act

This act provides statutory authority for same-sex and interracial marriages.

Specifically, the act replaces provisions that define, for purposes of federal law, marriage as between a man and a woman and spouse as a person of the opposite sex with provisions that recognize any marriage between two individuals that is valid under state law. (The Supreme Court held that the current provisions were unconstitutional in United States v. Windsor in 2013.)

The act also replaces provisions that do not require states to recognize same-sex marriages from other states with provisions that prohibit the denial of full faith and credit or any right or claim relating to out-of-state marriages on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin. (The Supreme Court held that state laws barring same-sex marriages were unconstitutional in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015; the Court held that state laws barring interracial marriages were unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia in 1967.) The act allows the Department of Justice to bring a civil action and establishes a private right of action for violations.

The act does not (1) affect religious liberties or conscience protections that are available under the Constitution or federal law, (2) require religious organizations to provide goods or services to formally recognize or celebrate a marriage, (3) affect any benefits or rights that do not arise from a marriage, or (4) recognize under federal law any marriage between more than two individuals.

 

Analysis:  Proponents of this now public law regularly tell us that this is only a first step toward full equality for gays and their total acceptance in the marketplace.  But their real agenda is revolution.  And that work will not be completed until a totalitarian world government has total control  and freedom is eliminated. 

We are also experiencing the strategy of Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci and his disciples, who pointed out that the way for Communism to come to power in the more advanced countries was not by violent takeover but by subverting their institutions.

For the rest of our analysis, we draw from the opposition recorded in the Congressional Record (12-8-22) [Emphasis added]: 

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), ranking member Committee on the Judiciary:

“Mr. Speaker, the Democrats want Americans to believe that the Supreme Court at any moment–in fact, the chairman just referenced this–at any moment could step in and overturn its opinions in Obergefell and Loving. It is just not true. The Supreme Court is not poised to overturn its opinions in either of those decisions….

“After the House last considered this bill in July, the Senate was forced to make significant changes to the bill. Unfortunately, those changes do not go far enough in protecting religious liberty.

“For example, the Senate amendment does not protect a private entity that is determined to be a State actor as a result of the services they provide on behalf of a government. These entities could be adoption agencies, shelters, or other service providers operated by a religious organization under contract with a city or State.”

Rep. Robert B. Aderholt (R-Alabama), member House Appropriations Committee:

“Madam Speaker, I am in strong opposition of H.R. 8404, the so-called Respect for Marriage Act.

“I remain steadfast in my longstanding belief that marriage, as has been the tradition in this nation and around the world, is between one man and one woman.

“To my colleagues who may be swayed by the inadequate attempts made in the Senate to increase religious protections in this flawed piece of legislation: The changes simply do not do enough to protect those that could face the harmful effects of this bill….

“‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .’”

“In passing this bill, our government IS making a law that prohibits the free exercise of religion. These are not just words. They are fundamental to our country and who we are as a people.”

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Missouri), member House Armed Service Committee:

“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to adamantly oppose H.R. 8404, the disrespect for marriage act. This unnecessary and misguided legislation not only disrespects the importance of traditional marriage for the health of a family, but also disrespects people and organizations of faith who have the constitutional right to carry out their mission in accordance with their most deeply held beliefs….

“Let’s be clear: Obergefell is not in danger, but people and institutions of faith are.

“This bill only serves to further demonize biblical values by establishing a private right of action against organizations who believe in natural marriage, opening the floodgates for predatory lawsuits against people of faith. The bill’s only purpose is to hand the Federal Government a legal bludgeoning tool to drive people of faith out of the public square and to silence anyone who dissents.

“Sadly, the Senate rejected three amendments that would have eliminated the private right of action and prevented the government from infringing on the freedom of religion.”

Rep. Bob Good (R-Virginia), member House Education and Labor Committee:

“Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the so-called Respect for Marriage Act. Honestly, this bill should be called the disrespect for marriage act.

“This bill certainly disrespects God’s definition of marriage, a definition that has served His creation well for more than 5,000 years of recorded history. And His definition is the only one that really matters….  “The fact is that traditional, biblical marriage is the foundation of a strong society and a strong culture.

“I will say it once again: almost everything that plagues our society is a failure to follow God’s design for marriage, morality, and the family. The perfect, omniscient, and immutable God knows what He is doing….

“Perhaps even worse, this bill eliminates all religious freedom protections for churches or other faith-based organizations and requires everyone to participate in and recognize gay marriage….

“It is simply designed to undermine marriage as a union between one man and one woman. God’s perfect design is, indeed, marriage between one man and one woman for life, and it doesn’t matter what you think or what I think. That is what the Bible says.

“This proposal is yet another Democrat attempt to undermine the fundamental values which formed our Nation and continue to hold our country together: recognition of the institution of marriage as between one man and one woman and respect for the freedom to operate according to your sincerely held religious beliefs.

“The legislation we are considering today is a sobering indication of the erosion of the moral values that made this Nation great….

“All great nations in societies fall from within. With Democrats threatening all sense of values and decency and family today by sexualizing kids in school, redefining sex and gender, and trans-surgery and mutilation of minors, it makes no sense for any Republican to support their efforts to codify their views on marriage.”

Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Michigan), member House Education and Labor Committee:

“The bill betrays our country’s commitment to the fundamental right of religious liberty by depriving religious and faith-based organizations of their tax-exempt status and depriving individual people of faith of being able to carry out fully their faith without repercussions. Licenses and government contracts are also put at risk here with this legislation.”

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), ranking member Committee on the Judiciary:

“Mr. Speaker, I would just first say, the previous speaker talked about being out of step with the American people.

“Are you kidding me?

“The Democrats are the party who think men can use women’s restrooms; the Democrats are the party who think boys can participate in girls’ sports; the Democrats are the party who think you can take the life of an unborn child right up until their birthday; and the Democrats are the party who actually had a witness in committee who said that she thought men could get pregnant.

“And we are the ones who are out of step?

“You have got to be kidding me.”

Congressional Research Services Summary: 

Shown Here:
Public Law (12/13/2022)

Respect for Marriage Act

This act provides statutory authority for same-sex and interracial marriages.

Specifically, the act replaces provisions that define, for purposes of federal law, marriage as between a man and a woman and spouse as a person of the opposite sex with provisions that recognize any marriage between two individuals that is valid under state law. (The Supreme Court held that the current provisions were unconstitutional in United States v. Windsor in 2013.)

The act also replaces provisions that do not require states to recognize same-sex marriages from other states with provisions that prohibit the denial of full faith and credit or any right or claim relating to out-of-state marriages on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin. (The Supreme Court held that state laws barring same-sex marriages were unconstitutional in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015; the Court held that state laws barring interracial marriages were unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia in 1967.) The act allows the Department of Justice to bring a civil action and establishes a private right of action for violations.

The act does not (1) affect religious liberties or conscience protections that are available under the Constitution or federal law, (2) require religious organizations to provide goods or services to formally recognize or celebrate a marriage, (3) affect any benefits or rights that do not arise from a marriage, or (4) recognize under federal law any marriage between more than two individuals.

 

Analysis:  Proponents of this now public law regularly tell us that this is only a first step toward full equality for gays and their total acceptance in the marketplace.  But their real agenda is revolution.  And that work will not be completed until a totalitarian world government has total control  and freedom is eliminated. 

We are also experiencing the strategy of Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci and his disciples, who pointed out that the way for Communism to come to power in the more advanced countries was not by violent takeover but by subverting their institutions.

For the rest of our analysis, we draw from the opposition recorded in the Congressional Record (12-8-22) [Emphasis added]: 

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), ranking member Committee on the Judiciary:

“Mr. Speaker, the Democrats want Americans to believe that the Supreme Court at any moment–in fact, the chairman just referenced this–at any moment could step in and overturn its opinions in Obergefell and Loving. It is just not true. The Supreme Court is not poised to overturn its opinions in either of those decisions….

“After the House last considered this bill in July, the Senate was forced to make significant changes to the bill. Unfortunately, those changes do not go far enough in protecting religious liberty.

“For example, the Senate amendment does not protect a private entity that is determined to be a State actor as a result of the services they provide on behalf of a government. These entities could be adoption agencies, shelters, or other service providers operated by a religious organization under contract with a city or State.”

Rep. Robert B. Aderholt (R-Alabama), member House Appropriations Committee:

“Madam Speaker, I am in strong opposition of H.R. 8404, the so-called Respect for Marriage Act.

“I remain steadfast in my longstanding belief that marriage, as has been the tradition in this nation and around the world, is between one man and one woman.

“To my colleagues who may be swayed by the inadequate attempts made in the Senate to increase religious protections in this flawed piece of legislation: The changes simply do not do enough to protect those that could face the harmful effects of this bill….

“‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .’”

“In passing this bill, our government IS making a law that prohibits the free exercise of religion. These are not just words. They are fundamental to our country and who we are as a people.”

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Missouri), member House Armed Service Committee:

“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to adamantly oppose H.R. 8404, the disrespect for marriage act. This unnecessary and misguided legislation not only disrespects the importance of traditional marriage for the health of a family, but also disrespects people and organizations of faith who have the constitutional right to carry out their mission in accordance with their most deeply held beliefs….

“Let’s be clear: Obergefell is not in danger, but people and institutions of faith are.

“This bill only serves to further demonize biblical values by establishing a private right of action against organizations who believe in natural marriage, opening the floodgates for predatory lawsuits against people of faith. The bill’s only purpose is to hand the Federal Government a legal bludgeoning tool to drive people of faith out of the public square and to silence anyone who dissents.

“Sadly, the Senate rejected three amendments that would have eliminated the private right of action and prevented the government from infringing on the freedom of religion.”

Rep. Bob Good (R-Virginia), member House Education and Labor Committee:

“Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the so-called Respect for Marriage Act. Honestly, this bill should be called the disrespect for marriage act.

“This bill certainly disrespects God’s definition of marriage, a definition that has served His creation well for more than 5,000 years of recorded history. And His definition is the only one that really matters….  “The fact is that traditional, biblical marriage is the foundation of a strong society and a strong culture.

“I will say it once again: almost everything that plagues our society is a failure to follow God’s design for marriage, morality, and the family. The perfect, omniscient, and immutable God knows what He is doing….

“Perhaps even worse, this bill eliminates all religious freedom protections for churches or other faith-based organizations and requires everyone to participate in and recognize gay marriage….

“It is simply designed to undermine marriage as a union between one man and one woman. God’s perfect design is, indeed, marriage between one man and one woman for life, and it doesn’t matter what you think or what I think. That is what the Bible says.

“This proposal is yet another Democrat attempt to undermine the fundamental values which formed our Nation and continue to hold our country together: recognition of the institution of marriage as between one man and one woman and respect for the freedom to operate according to your sincerely held religious beliefs.

“The legislation we are considering today is a sobering indication of the erosion of the moral values that made this Nation great….

“All great nations in societies fall from within. With Democrats threatening all sense of values and decency and family today by sexualizing kids in school, redefining sex and gender, and trans-surgery and mutilation of minors, it makes no sense for any Republican to support their efforts to codify their views on marriage.”

Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Michigan), member House Education and Labor Committee:

“The bill betrays our country’s commitment to the fundamental right of religious liberty by depriving religious and faith-based organizations of their tax-exempt status and depriving individual people of faith of being able to carry out fully their faith without repercussions. Licenses and government contracts are also put at risk here with this legislation.”

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), ranking member Committee on the Judiciary:

“Mr. Speaker, I would just first say, the previous speaker talked about being out of step with the American people.

“Are you kidding me?

“The Democrats are the party who think men can use women’s restrooms; the Democrats are the party who think boys can participate in girls’ sports; the Democrats are the party who think you can take the life of an unborn child right up until their birthday; and the Democrats are the party who actually had a witness in committee who said that she thought men could get pregnant.

“And we are the ones who are out of step?

“You have got to be kidding me.”

Bill Summary: In addition to the 11-week Continuing Resolution, H.R. 6833 included the Affordable Insulin vehicle, $12.3 billion for Ukraine military and economic aid, $1.8 billion in emergency funds to care for migrant border-crossers, and $1 billion to help low-income households with winter heating bills.

The measure also extended a variety of programs for the duration of the CR.

CRS Summary for old H.R. 6833 vehicle: 

Shown Here:
Passed House (03/31/2022)

Affordable Insulin Now Act

This bill limits cost-sharing for insulin under private health insurance and the Medicare prescription drug benefit.

Specifically, the bill caps cost-sharing under private health insurance for a month’s supply of selected insulin products at $35 or 25% of a plan’s negotiated price (after any price concessions), whichever is less, beginning in 2023.

The bill caps cost-sharing under the Medicare prescription drug benefit for a month’s supply of covered insulin products at $35 beginning in 2023.

Currently, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is testing a voluntary model under the Medicare prescription drug benefit (the Part D Senior Savings Model) in which the copayment for a month’s supply of insulin is capped at $35 through participating plans. The model is set to expire on December 31, 2025.

The bill also (1) further delays implementation of regulations relating to the treatment of certain Medicare prescription drug benefit rebates from drug manufacturers for purposes of federal anti-kickback laws, and (2) increases funding for the Medicare Improvement Fund.

FFS Analysis:  Proponents of the Continuing Resolution would argue that it’s only 11 weeks to buy more time to finish the full year appropriation bills.  We would point out that it completely ignores the urgency to begin rolling back unconstitutional programs and spending.  It also sets the stage for a massive omnibus spending bill to finish off the appropriations year.

No one should seek to shut down the government, but responsible reps should insist on accompanying plans to return to constitutionally authorized government to get their vote. If enough reps would refuse business as usual there would be enough to begin the rollback that might justify a future CR. But major changes in Congress and pressure from an informed, determined electorate would be necessary for that to happen.

We conclude with just one excerpt from debates recorded in the Congressional Record (9-30-22):

Representative Kay Granger (R-Texas), ranking members of the House Appropriations Committee:

“I rise today in opposition to the Senate amendment to H.R. 6833, a short- term continuing resolution extending government funding through December 16. I oppose this CR for several reasons.

“First, we should be here addressing the border crisis, the energy crisis, and the inflation crisis. This bill does nothing to fix any of these issues. In fact, this bill actually bails out the Biden administration for their failures and provides additional appropriations to put a Band-Aid on some of these problems for a few more months….

“Second, it is unfortunate this bill will be rushed through the House today with just hours to spare to avoid a government shutdown. The American people continue to wonder why Congress can’t get its job done until the very last minute and why we don’t have more time to review legislation.”

Bill Summary: In addition to the 11-week Continuing Resolution, H.R. 6833 included the Affordable Insulin vehicle, $12.3 billion for Ukraine military and economic aid, $1.8 billion in emergency funds to care for migrant border-crossers, and $1 billion to help low-income households with winter heating bills.

The measure also extended a variety of programs for the duration of the CR.

CRS Summary for old H.R. 6833 vehicle: 

Shown Here:
Passed House (03/31/2022)

Affordable Insulin Now Act

This bill limits cost-sharing for insulin under private health insurance and the Medicare prescription drug benefit.

Specifically, the bill caps cost-sharing under private health insurance for a month’s supply of selected insulin products at $35 or 25% of a plan’s negotiated price (after any price concessions), whichever is less, beginning in 2023.

The bill caps cost-sharing under the Medicare prescription drug benefit for a month’s supply of covered insulin products at $35 beginning in 2023.

Currently, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is testing a voluntary model under the Medicare prescription drug benefit (the Part D Senior Savings Model) in which the copayment for a month’s supply of insulin is capped at $35 through participating plans. The model is set to expire on December 31, 2025.

The bill also (1) further delays implementation of regulations relating to the treatment of certain Medicare prescription drug benefit rebates from drug manufacturers for purposes of federal anti-kickback laws, and (2) increases funding for the Medicare Improvement Fund.

Freedom First Society Analysis:  Proponents of the Continuing Resolution would argue that it’s only 11 weeks to buy more time to finish the full-year appropriation bills.  We would counter that the argument completely ignores the urgency to begin rolling back unconstitutional programs and spending.  It also sets the stage for a massive omnibus spending bill to finish off the appropriations year.

No one should seek to shut down the government, but responsible reps should insist on accompanying plans to return to constitutionally authorized government to get their vote. If enough reps would refuse business as usual there would be enough to begin the rollback that might justify a future CR. But major changes in Congress and pressure from an informed, determined electorate would be necessary for that to happen.

Bill Summary: In addition to the 11-week Continuing Resolution, H.R. 6833 included the Affordable Insulin vehicle, $12.3 billion for Ukraine military and economic aid, $1.8 billion in emergency funds to care for migrant border-crossers, and $1 billion to help low-income households with winter heating bills.

The measure also extended a variety of programs for the duration of the CR.

CRS Summary for old H.R. 6833 vehicle: 

Shown Here:
Passed House (03/31/2022)

Affordable Insulin Now Act

This bill limits cost-sharing for insulin under private health insurance and the Medicare prescription drug benefit.

Specifically, the bill caps cost-sharing under private health insurance for a month’s supply of selected insulin products at $35 or 25% of a plan’s negotiated price (after any price concessions), whichever is less, beginning in 2023.

The bill caps cost-sharing under the Medicare prescription drug benefit for a month’s supply of covered insulin products at $35 beginning in 2023.

Currently, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is testing a voluntary model under the Medicare prescription drug benefit (the Part D Senior Savings Model) in which the copayment for a month’s supply of insulin is capped at $35 through participating plans. The model is set to expire on December 31, 2025.

The bill also (1) further delays implementation of regulations relating to the treatment of certain Medicare prescription drug benefit rebates from drug manufacturers for purposes of federal anti-kickback laws, and (2) increases funding for the Medicare Improvement Fund.

Freedom First Society Analysis:  Proponents of the Continuing Resolution would argue that it’s only 11 weeks to buy more time to finish the full-year appropriation bills.  We would counter that the argument completely ignores the urgency to begin rolling back unconstitutional programs and spending.  It also sets the stage for a massive omnibus spending bill to finish off the appropriations year.

No one should seek to shut down the government, but responsible reps should insist on accompanying plans to return to constitutionally authorized government to get their vote. If enough reps would refuse business as usual there would be enough to begin the rollback that might justify a future CR. But major changes in Congress and pressure from an informed, determined electorate would be necessary for that to happen.