Bills

Bill Summary (excerpted from the Congressional Research Services Summary):
Shown Here:
Passed House (09/19/2019)
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2020, and Health Extenders Act of 2019

This bill provides FY2020 continuing appropriations to federal agencies through November 21, 2019.

It is known as a continuing resolution (CR) and prevents a government shutdown that would otherwise occur when FY2020 begins on October 1, 2019, if the 12 regular appropriations bills that fund the federal government for FY2020 have not been enacted.

The CR funds most projects and activities at the FY2019 levels with several exceptions that provide funding flexibility and additional appropriations to various programs.

Additionally, the CR extends several programs that are scheduled to expire at the end of FY2019, including
• several health programs,
• the National Flood Insurance Program,
• the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program and related programs,
• several authorities related to immigration,
• the Calfed Bay-Delta Authorization Act,
• the Department of Education’s National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity,
• the Export-Import Bank of the United States, and
• the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom.

The bill also includes a provision that permits the Department of Agriculture to continue making payments to farmers affected by retaliatory tariffs by accelerating reimbursements to the Commodity Credit Corporation for certain net realized losses sustained in FY2019.

Freedom First Society Analysis: Note: H. Res. 568, the rule governing consideration of the main H.R. 4378 bill, prohibited amendments during one hour of authorized general “debate.”

The one hour of general debate was controlled by the Chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee, Rep. Nita M. Lowey (D-New York), and the Ranking [GOP] Member of the Appropriations Committee, Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas).

Although the majority of Republicans voted against the Continuing Resolution (76 yeas to 119 nays), not one of those opposing was given or accepted an opportunity to speak. So much for what is called a “debate. The one hour was divided among representatives, mostly appropriators, who argued in support of the Continuing Resolution. So the debate did nothing to inform the American people as to why so many of their representatives opposed the measure.

Shared Priorities?
In her opening “debate” remarks, Appropriations Chairwoman Nita Lowy (D-NY) claimed:

This legislation avoids controversial policy provisions that have slowed down the appropriations process and that, if included, would jeopardize passage….

At the same time, the CR contains provisions that reflect shared priorities, including allowing the Census Bureau to ramp up preparations for the 2020 decennial Census, extending funding for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative for another year, ensuring that FEMA disaster relief can be spent as quickly as needed to effectively respond to disasters, ensuring the Department of Agriculture can operate rural water and waste loan programs, and extending the National Flood Insurance Program and authorization for the Export-Import Bank. [Emphasis added.]

There were reasons why Congress didn’t make certain programs permanent, requiring them instead to be reviewed periodically and to expire if they no longer had support. Each of the programs set to expire (see Rep. Lowey’s list or the larger list in the CRS Summary above) should have been considered individually on its own merits. Instead, the entire group is extended here until November 21, 2019 with virtually no accountability. Yet some have limited support. We look next at one of the most glaring travesties.

Export-Import Bank
In recent years, the “Bank” had become the target of weak conservative opposition, which merely characterized the Bank as a “bad idea”, as “promoting corporate welfare,” or as “crony capitalism.” In reality, the Export-Import Bank has served the internationalist Conspiracy for decades as a workhorse, funding America’s enemies, including Communist China, and advancing internationalist objectives.

The previous day (9-18-19), The Hill reported why some of the Republicans may have opposed the bill:

House Democrats unexpectedly pulled the bill from rules consideration on Tuesday night over disagreements with Republicans about several issues, including how the extension dealt with health care and aid to farmers affected by the trade war with China.

Ignoring the Constitution
Regardless of the reason why individual representatives opposed the Continuing Resolution, our strong objection is that it was not designed to buy time to roll back unconstitutional spending. No such effort was underway.

Until there are plans to implement that critical rollback, no congressman should approve any significant appropriations measure. Otherwise, they are violating their oath of office to uphold the Constitution.

Appropriations Committee member David P. Joyce (R-Ohio) challenged this view: “Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, despite my disappointment that a continuing resolution is necessary at this point in time. The alternative is a government shutdown, which would only serve to hurt the American people by depriving them of critical services, not to mention wasting their money.” [Emphasis added.]

No, Rep. Joyce, there are other alternatives — they just lack majority support and a little advance commitment. We doubt that 119 of Rep. Joyce’s GOP colleagues wanted the government to shutdown. But many could not support out-of-control government as amplified by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019 (also opposed by a majority of the House GOP — 132 reps.). Their nay vote should be a signal to change course.

While most reps merely ignore the Constitution, some try to justify their support of unconstitutional government by claiming an alleged responsibility of Congress to maintain all government operations. No, Congress has the responsibility to determine which operations should be maintained, provided they are authorized by the Constitution. Consider this “debate” comment by Appropriations Committee member Jeff Fortenberry (R-Nebraska), a “necessary” supporter of the Continuing Resolution:

Mr. Speaker, as Ranking Member Granger noted, we find ourselves in a difficult position today, so we are deliberating a continuing resolution instead of passing full-year appropriations. It is important, though, that we follow our constitutional duty to maintain government operations.

The Compromise Scam
The ostensible virtue in bipartisan compromise is a destructive scam. The position that appropriation legislation has to be a compromise with socialists provides a sure road to our destruction.

The Founding Fathers gave the House the power of the purse so that an informed public could use its leverage with their elected representatives to give the federal government its marching orders.

Rather than consensus, good government now demands confrontation. Instead of seeking to make the socialists happy, our representatives should be using the power of the purse strategically to force cuts in unconstitutional spending.

Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Nita Lowey argued: “By extending these programs and government funding through November 21, this CR will allow additional time to negotiate our differences and enact responsible long-term funding for priorities that help make our country safer and stronger.” But her argument contains a serious error. Congress has no recent history of enacting “responsible long-term funding” and giving Congress more time will not change that failure.

Ranking Committee Member Kay Granger expressed similar thoughts: “I would much rather be here today in support of full appropriations bills, but I have confidence that, with more time, we will be able to come together to pass full-year appropriations bills that the President can sign into law.” But the President’s acceptance of the compromise should not be the standard for responsible legislating.

Appropriations Committee member Marci Kaptur (D-Ohio) also retailed the compromise myth: “Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this short-term resolution and demand our Republican colleagues get serious about reasonable expectations in a divided government. Let us compromise and let us govern as the people of the United States expect.”

We conclude with this example from Appropriations Committee member Henry Cuellar (D-Texas): “Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairwoman Lowey for her leadership and her expertise on the Appropriations Committee. I also thank my fellow Texan, Ms. Granger, for her work and her leadership on this. And I thank both of them for working in a bipartisan way because, again, in support of this continuing resolution, we are here to build consensus, find common ground, and keep government working for our people. We need to set aside partisanship and bias, and think about and vote for what is best for our country. This measure allows us to continue the conversation while we keep government open and functioning.”

Bill Summary (excerpted from the Congressional Research Services Summary):
Shown Here:
Passed House (09/19/2019)
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2020, and Health Extenders Act of 2019

This bill provides FY2020 continuing appropriations to federal agencies through November 21, 2019.

It is known as a continuing resolution (CR) and prevents a government shutdown that would otherwise occur when FY2020 begins on October 1, 2019, if the 12 regular appropriations bills that fund the federal government for FY2020 have not been enacted.

The CR funds most projects and activities at the FY2019 levels with several exceptions that provide funding flexibility and additional appropriations to various programs.

Additionally, the CR extends several programs that are scheduled to expire at the end of FY2019, including
• several health programs,
• the National Flood Insurance Program,
• the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program and related programs,
• several authorities related to immigration,
• the Calfed Bay-Delta Authorization Act,
• the Department of Education’s National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity,
• the Export-Import Bank of the United States, and
• the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom.

The bill also includes a provision that permits the Department of Agriculture to continue making payments to farmers affected by retaliatory tariffs by accelerating reimbursements to the Commodity Credit Corporation for certain net realized losses sustained in FY2019.

Freedom First Society Analysis: Note: H. Res. 568, the rule governing consideration of the main H.R. 4378 bill, prohibited amendments during one hour of authorized general “debate.”

The one hour of general debate was controlled by the Chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee, Rep. Nita M. Lowey (D-New York), and the Ranking [GOP] Member of the Appropriations Committee, Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas).

Although the majority of Republicans voted against the Continuing Resolution (76 yeas to 119 nays), not one of those opposing was given or accepted an opportunity to speak. So much for what is called a “debate. The one hour was divided among representatives, mostly appropriators, who argued in support of the Continuing Resolution. So the debate did nothing to inform the American people as to why so many of their representatives opposed the measure.

Shared Priorities?
In her opening “debate” remarks, Appropriations Chairwoman Nita Lowy (D-NY) claimed:

This legislation avoids controversial policy provisions that have slowed down the appropriations process and that, if included, would jeopardize passage….

At the same time, the CR contains provisions that reflect shared priorities, including allowing the Census Bureau to ramp up preparations for the 2020 decennial Census, extending funding for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative for another year, ensuring that FEMA disaster relief can be spent as quickly as needed to effectively respond to disasters, ensuring the Department of Agriculture can operate rural water and waste loan programs, and extending the National Flood Insurance Program and authorization for the Export-Import Bank. [Emphasis added.]

There were reasons why Congress didn’t make certain programs permanent, requiring them instead to be reviewed periodically and to expire if they no longer had support. Each of the programs set to expire (see Rep. Lowey’s list or the larger list in the CRS Summary above) should have been considered individually on its own merits. Instead, the entire group is extended here until November 21, 2019 with virtually no accountability. Yet some have limited support. We look next at one of the most glaring travesties.

Export-Import Bank
In recent years, the “Bank” had become the target of weak conservative opposition, which merely characterized the Bank as a “bad idea”, as “promoting corporate welfare,” or as “crony capitalism.” In reality, the Export-Import Bank has served the internationalist Conspiracy for decades as a workhorse, funding America’s enemies, including Communist China, and advancing internationalist objectives.

The previous day (9-18-19), The Hill reported why some of the Republicans may have opposed the bill:

House Democrats unexpectedly pulled the bill from rules consideration on Tuesday night over disagreements with Republicans about several issues, including how the extension dealt with health care and aid to farmers affected by the trade war with China.

Ignoring the Constitution
Regardless of the reason why individual representatives opposed the Continuing Resolution, our strong objection is that it was not designed to buy time to roll back unconstitutional spending. No such effort was underway.

Until there are plans to implement that critical rollback, no congressman should approve any significant appropriations measure. Otherwise, they are violating their oath of office to uphold the Constitution.

Appropriations Committee member David P. Joyce (R-Ohio) challenged this view: “Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, despite my disappointment that a continuing resolution is necessary at this point in time. The alternative is a government shutdown, which would only serve to hurt the American people by depriving them of critical services, not to mention wasting their money.” [Emphasis added.]

No, Rep. Joyce, there are other alternatives — they just lack majority support and a little advance commitment. We doubt that 119 of Rep. Joyce’s GOP colleagues wanted the government to shutdown. But many could not support out-of-control government as amplified by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019 (also opposed by a majority of the House GOP — 132 reps.). Their nay vote should be a signal to change course.

While most reps merely ignore the Constitution, some try to justify their support of unconstitutional government by claiming an alleged responsibility of Congress to maintain all government operations. No, Congress has the responsibility to determine which operations should be maintained, provided they are authorized by the Constitution. Consider this “debate” comment by Appropriations Committee member Jeff Fortenberry (R-Nebraska), a “necessary” supporter of the Continuing Resolution:

Mr. Speaker, as Ranking Member Granger noted, we find ourselves in a difficult position today, so we are deliberating a continuing resolution instead of passing full-year appropriations. It is important, though, that we follow our constitutional duty to maintain government operations.

The Compromise Scam
The ostensible virtue in bipartisan compromise is a destructive scam. The position that appropriation legislation has to be a compromise with socialists provides a sure road to our destruction.

The Founding Fathers gave the House the power of the purse so that an informed public could use its leverage with their elected representatives to give the federal government its marching orders.

Rather than consensus, good government now demands confrontation. Instead of seeking to make the socialists happy, our representatives should be using the power of the purse strategically to force cuts in unconstitutional spending.

Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Nita Lowey argued: “By extending these programs and government funding through November 21, this CR will allow additional time to negotiate our differences and enact responsible long-term funding for priorities that help make our country safer and stronger.” But her argument contains a serious error. Congress has no recent history of enacting “responsible long-term funding” and giving Congress more time will not change that failure.

Ranking Committee Member Kay Granger expressed similar thoughts: “I would much rather be here today in support of full appropriations bills, but I have confidence that, with more time, we will be able to come together to pass full-year appropriations bills that the President can sign into law.” But the President’s acceptance of the compromise should not be the standard for responsible legislating.

Appropriations Committee member Marci Kaptur (D-Ohio) also retailed the compromise myth: “Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this short-term resolution and demand our Republican colleagues get serious about reasonable expectations in a divided government. Let us compromise and let us govern as the people of the United States expect.”

We conclude with this example from Appropriations Committee member Henry Cuellar (D-Texas): “Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairwoman Lowey for her leadership and her expertise on the Appropriations Committee. I also thank my fellow Texan, Ms. Granger, for her work and her leadership on this. And I thank both of them for working in a bipartisan way because, again, in support of this continuing resolution, we are here to build consensus, find common ground, and keep government working for our people. We need to set aside partisanship and bias, and think about and vote for what is best for our country. This measure allows us to continue the conversation while we keep government open and functioning.”

Bill Summary (excerpted from the Congressional Research Services Summary): 

“Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019 

“This bill increases discretionary spending limits, suspends the debt limit, and modifies budget enforcement procedures.

“The bill increases the FY2020 and FY2021 discretionary spending limits for defense and nondefense spending. The bill also (1) specifies limits for Overseas Contingency Operations funding, which is exempt from discretionary spending limits; and (2) requires the FY2020 discretionary spending limits to be adjusted to accommodate specified funding for the 2020 Census.

“The bill suspends the public debt limit through July 31, 2021. On August 1, 2021, the limit will be increased to accommodate obligations issued during the suspension period.

Freedom First Society Analysis:  Testifying, before the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee on July 11, Fed Chairman Jerome Powell warned:

I think it’s essential that Congress raise the debt ceiling in a timely way, by which I mean in a way that allows the United States government to pay all of its bills when and as they’re due. That is essential.Any other outcome is unthinkable.  [Emphasis added.] —

We’re constantly told that it’s unthinkable for the government not to pay its debts on time.  But apparently it’s not unthinkable to spend beyond our means and incur ever-increasing debt we cannot afford.

It’s important to recognize the orchestrated media betrayal — the option of serious federal rollbacks is not allowed in the “public discussion.”  The public rarely hears from “experts” warning us that we must curb unconstitutional spending to avoid bankrupting the nation. Or explaining that eliminating such spending would lead to unprecedented national prosperity and even improved opportunity for the recipients of “unconstitutional” government welfare?

Although the media reported strong political opposition, the real problem— unconstitutional government was not mentioned.  If the federal government were limited by the Constitution, in normal times there would be no serious problem with deficits (and at current tax levels, there would be surpluses to begin retiring the national debt).

Instead, the public’s attention is channeled into minor issues, such as waste (inevitable at these levels of government) or just to lack of fiscal restraint/responsibility.   But, again, the real problem that must be grappled with is government doing what the Constitution prohibits it from doing.  (Note: If the Constitution doesn’t authorize the federal government to do it, then it’s prohibited, as emphasized by the 10th amendment.)

The Compromise Trap
The Insiders controlling the Establishment media would have us believe that bipartisan compromise is a necessary virtue.  But compromise among socialists is no path to freedom and prosperity.   Instead, an informed public must force the House to use its power of the purse to eliminate unconstitutional programs and spending.

This power is poorly recognized today.  James Madison, often recognized as the “father of the Constitution,” emphasized in Federalist No. 58 that a simple majority in the House alone has the power to bring government under control:

The House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they alone can propose the supplies requisite for the support of government.  They, in a word, hold the purse — that powerful instrument … [for reducing] … all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of government.  This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.

The House hasn’t exercised that authority in recent times because no simple majority has, or can acquire on its own, the desire and backbone to do so. Such a majority would have to stand up to the Conspiracy’s grip on the parties and withstand its dominating influence on public opinion.

Realistically, the necessary backbone must come from an informed, engaged electorate following new, principle-based leadership, provided through a new channel of communications.

Bankrupt Bipartisan Politics
Of particular urgency, we must wake up our fellow citizens to the reality that BOTH parties are happy to give us more of the poison, i.e., even greater unconstitutional spending, to address the debt ceiling crises:

[House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi spoke with [Treasury Secretary] Mnuchin twice on Thursday, and she said she’s “personally convinced” that Congress should act on the debt limit before the [July 26th] recess — only if accompanied bya deal to raise the austere discretionary spending caps for next year’s appropriations bills and possibly the following year’s. [Emphasis added] — Roll Call, 7-12-19

Of course, now that the caps are raised, appropriators will assume they have a green light to spend that much!

Indeed, both parties proclaim their partisanship while in reality negotiating to continue business as usual.  Phasing out fedgov’s massive unconstitutional spending is simply not on the negotiating table:

McConnell and Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) have stated consistently throughout the spring that they want to reach a two-year deal to put the appropriations process on stable footing and raise the debt limit beyond next year’s elections.  Shelby on Thursday said that is still his and McConnell’s preference….

“There’s no reason why we can’t do it all,” said Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vt.), the vice chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. “Why don’t we just sit down, pass the appropriations bills, pass the debt limit or do them all?” — The Hill, 7-12-19

Following House passage of the budget deal, The Hill (7-25-19) reported the support of GOP Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell: “Considering the circumstances of divided government, this is a good deal.”

The Principled Position
Those Congressmen seeking to act responsibly should set the example by refusing to vote for any increase in the debt ceiling unless coupled with a reliable commitment to phase out unconstitutional spending.  Of course, there is currently insufficient support in Congress for such a responsible move.  Members of Freedom First Society seek to change that climate.

In the meantime, representatives and senators should resist the claim of Congressional leaders that continuing business as usual is the only alternative to an unacceptable government shutdown and damaging credit default.  In fact, business as usual is the only alternative the leaders are offering, but that is the leaders’ fault.  The leaders should be forced to take responsibility for not offering alternatives that can be supported.

One Senator Who Spoke Out
Prior to the Senate vote on H.R. 3877 as introduced in the House, Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) took the opportunity to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.   Although we strongly disagree with his proposed amendment, which misdirects attention by requiring Congress to submit a dangerous balanced-budget amendment to the states, we are pleased to report the Senator’s criticism of big-government, in particular of big-government Republicans [Emphasis added]:

Madam President, some say it is irresponsible not to raise  the debt ceiling. Well, true fiscal conservatives say it is  irresponsible to raise the debt ceiling without any reform of our  profligate spending ways. To allow the debt ceiling to go up an  infinite amount — as much as Congress can possibly spend and borrow over  a nearly 2-year period — is fiscally irresponsible and has never been seen in our history. This may well be the most fiscally irresponsible thing we have done in the history of the United States….

What is irresponsible is a Congress that  believes it is Santa Claus and that it can be everything to everyone and that everything is free.   At least the Democrats are honest. The Democrats don’t care about  deficits, and they will tell you that to your face. The Democrats, in  fact, are falling all over themselves to propose more than $50 trillion in new spending in addition to the trillion-dollar annual deficits.  They want to add $50 trillion in spending.

Yet it is not just the Democrats. The Republicans are also guilty — at least the Big Government Republicans who will vote for this monstrous  addition of debt.  Many of the supporters of this debt deal ran around  their States for years and complained that President Obama was spending too much and borrowing too much. These same Republicans now — the whole  disingenuous lot of them — will wiggle their way to the front of the  spending trough to vote for as much or more debt than President Obama  ever added. Get this. All of those who said the debt was bad under President  Obama will today snuggle their way up, wiggle their way up to the  spending trough, and they will do exactly what they condemned under President Obama. Shame.  Shame on the politicians who have campaigned as conservatives but who have governed as big spenders.  

America, wake up. The two parties are often one. The two parties that  ostensibly fight are in reality one party of big spenders, separated only by where they want to spend the money.   The media reports of a lack of compromise. The opposite is true.  There is too much compromise, and the compromise is always more debt,  more porkbarrel spending, and more burden for our kids.

Freedom First Society:  In this episode of the eternal Freedom Fight it is a challenge to recognize adequate leadership.  Unfortunately, the libertarian Senator from Kentucky doesn’t offer it.   We are facing a Conspiracy for totalitarian power.  Ignoring that Conspiracy’s influence and agenda is a surefire prescription to defeat.

As with many politicians of the libertarian stripe, Senator Paul is excellent at railing against profligate spending, while he prefers to stay in the politically safe zone that ignores the real drivers of that spending.  But that spending won’t be stopped by superior debate or by appealing to Congress to come to its senses.

We are also disappointed that Senator Paul seems content to continue unconstitutional spending and programs as long as the budget balances.

Senator Paul continues:

Yet there is another path. There is another form of compromise. Instead of compromising to raise spending for guns and butter, we could  compromise to hold the line on all spending. Just a mere 2-percent cut  in spending would balance the budget over a 5-year period–1 or 2  pennies out of a dollar. You get to spend 98 percent of what you spent  last year, and we balance the budget. Yet that is never enough because  these people are not honest with you. They are not willing to hold the  line. They want more, more, more.

More spending, though, means more  debt, and that is what we are getting. So what I offer today is a compromise.   The right would have to deal with less military spending. The right says: Oh, we don’t have enough. Perhaps the mission is too big for the  budget. It isn’t a lack of money. We spend more money on the military  than the next 10 countries combined. We spend more money on the  military than all of Europe spends. It isn’t a lack of money; it is that the mission is too large. [Senator Paul weakly prefers to ignore the Internationalist agenda driving our involvement and accept the mission as presented to the public.]

Why do we have troops in 50 of 55  African countries? Why are we involved in every civil war on the globe? We need to question what our mission is. The left would have to accept  less welfare spending or at least hold the line and get 98 percent of  what it spent last year on welfare. The right would have to spend 98  percent of what it spent on the military last year. Guess what. We  would balance the budget.   My amendment is called cut, cap, and balance. When the balanced  budget is passed and sent to the States, when spending caps are in  place and when spending has been cut, then and only then would we raise  the debt ceiling. This is the only responsible way of dealing with  this. [We strongly disagree, as explained above.]

Bill Summary (excerpted from the Congressional Research Services Summary):
“Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019 

“This bill increases discretionary spending limits, suspends the debt limit, and modifies budget enforcement procedures.

“The bill increases the FY2020 and FY2021 discretionary spending limits for defense and nondefense spending. The bill also (1) specifies limits for Overseas Contingency Operations funding, which is exempt from discretionary spending limits; and (2) requires the FY2020 discretionary spending limits to be adjusted to accommodate specified funding for the 2020 Census.

“The bill suspends the public debt limit through July 31, 2021. On August 1, 2021, the limit will be increased to accommodate obligations issued during the suspension period.”

Freedom First Society Analysis:  Testifying, before the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee on July 11, Fed Chairman Jerome Powell warned:

I think it’s essential that Congress raise the debt ceiling in a timely way, by which I mean in a way that allows the United States government to pay all of its bills when and as they’re due. That is essential. Any other outcome is unthinkable.  [Emphasis added.] —

We’re constantly told that it’s unthinkable for the government not to pay its debts on time.  But apparently it’s not unthinkable to spend beyond our means and incur ever-increasing debt we cannot afford.

It’s important to recognize the orchestrated media betrayal — the option of serious federal rollbacks is not allowed in the “public discussion.”   The public rarely hears from “experts” warning us that we must curb unconstitutional spending to avoid bankrupting the nation.  Or explaining that eliminating such spending would lead to unprecedented national prosperity and even improved opportunity for the recipients of “unconstitutional” government welfare?

Although the media reported strong political opposition, the real problem— unconstitutional government was not mentioned. If the federal government were limited by the Constitution, in normal times there would be no serious problem with deficits (and at current tax levels, there would be surpluses to begin retiring the national debt).

Instead, the public’s attention is channeled into minor issues, such as waste (inevitable at these levels of government) or just to lack of fiscal restraint/responsibility.   But, again, the real problem that must be grappled with is government doing what the Constitution prohibits it from doing.  (Note: If the Constitution doesn’t authorize the federal government to do it, then it’s prohibited, as emphasized by the 10th amendment.)

The Compromise Trap
The Insiders controlling the Establishment media would have us believe that bipartisan compromise is a necessary virtue.  But compromise among socialists is no path to freedom and prosperity.   Instead, an informed public must force the House to use its power of the purse to eliminate unconstitutional programs and spending.

This power is poorly recognized today.  James Madison, often recognized as the “father of the Constitution,” emphasized in Federalist No. 58 that a simple majority in the House alone has the power to bring government under control:

The House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they alone can propose the supplies requisite for the support of government.  They, in a word, hold the purse — that powerful instrument … [for reducing] … all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of government.  This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.

The House hasn’t exercised that authority in recent times because no simple majority has, or can acquire on its own, the desire and backbone to do so. Such a majority would have to stand up to the Conspiracy’s grip on the parties and withstand its dominating influence on public opinion.

Realistically, the necessary backbone must come from an informed, engaged electorate following new, principle-based leadership, provided through a new channel of communications.

Bankrupt Bipartisan Politics
Of particular urgency, we must wake up our fellow citizens to the reality that BOTH parties are happy to give us more of the poison, i.e., even greater unconstitutional spending, to address the debt ceiling crises:

[House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi spoke with [Treasury Secretary] Mnuchin twice on Thursday, and she said she’s “personally convinced” that Congress should act on the debt limit before the [July 26th] recess — only if accompanied by a deal to raise the austere discretionary spending caps for next year’s appropriations bills and possibly the following year’s. [Emphasis added] — Roll Call, 7-12-19

Of course, now that the caps are raised, appropriators will assume they have a green light to spend that much!

Indeed, both parties proclaim their partisanship while in reality negotiating to continue business as usual.  Phasing out fedgov’s massive unconstitutional spending is simply not on the negotiating table:

McConnell and Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) have stated consistently throughout the spring that they want to reach a two-year deal to put the appropriations process on stable footing and raise the debt limit beyond next year’s elections.  Shelby on Thursday said that is still his and McConnell’s preference….

“There’s no reason why we can’t do it all,” said Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vt.), the vice chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. “Why don’t we just sit down, pass the appropriations bills, pass the debt limit or do them all?” — The Hill, 7-12-19

Following House passage of the budget deal, The Hill (7-25-19) reported the support of GOP Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell: “Considering the circumstances of divided government, this is a good deal.”

The Principled Position
Those Congressmen seeking to act responsibly should set the example by refusing to vote for any increase in the debt ceiling unless coupled with a reliable commitment to phase out unconstitutional spending.  Of course, there is currently insufficient support in Congress for such a responsible move.  Members of Freedom First Society seek to change that climate.

In the meantime, representatives should resist the claim of Congressional leaders that continuing business as usual is the only alternative to an unacceptable government shutdown and damaging credit default.  In fact, business as usual is the only alternative the leaders are offering, but that is the leaders’ fault. The leaders should be forced to take responsibility for not offering alternatives that can be supported.

As examples of unjustified pressure to go along, consider these statements made during the pseudo debates:

Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas), Ranking Member on the House Appropriations Committee: “Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3877. I am  proud to support this 2-year budget agreement, because the alternative, not having an agreement, is simply not an option.   I want all Members to understand the importance of this bill in front of us. This deal keeps our economy on solid ground because the United  States will avoid defaulting on our financial obligations….

“If this bill does not pass, the  impending cuts will have a devastating impact on our national security.  Our Constitution explicitly states that the Congress provides for the  common defense. If we don’t pass this bill, we have failed to live up  to our Constitutional responsibilities, and I am not willing to do  that.”

Freedom First Society:  The way to make Congress accountable to informed voters, rather than to the Establishment, is to organize grassroots pressure, amplified by booting the persistent big-spenders out.  The public must not just be informed.  It must act. It must give credible direction to Congress BETWEEN elections and then confirm that direction at election time.

Rep. Steve Womack (R-Arkansas),  Ranking Member of the House Budget Committee:  “Mr. Speaker, one of the most fundamental duties of Congress is to  fund the government.”

Rep. Adam Smith (D-Washington),  Chair of the House Armed Services Committee: “Mr. Speaker, it is crucially important that we pass this bill. The most fundamental responsibility of government is to fund the government and operate.”

Freedom First Society:  We hear this excuse expressed over and over.  The statement makes it sound as though Congress is supposed to fund the government out of their own pockets (that would be nice, if possible).

Unfortunately, the notion that Congress today is working in the interest of the American people is a fraud.   The majority of our representatives are spending whatever they think will buy them the votes to get reelected — constitutional limitations be damned!

From News Reports
With careful reading, the news reports of the Bipartisan Budget Act support some instructive observations:

President Trump announced the deal on Twitter on Monday, but has faced pressure from conservatives to disavow it. When compared to the potential spending cuts, the deal would add $320 billion to federal spending over two years….

But Democrats said that the deal was well-received during a morning caucus presentation by the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities on the legislation.

“We had a whole presentation from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities on how good this deal was, how far above expectations it was, what a great negotiator our Speaker is. No one stood up at all to oppose it,” said Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), a progressive who intends to vote for it. — The Hill (7-24-19) [Emphasis added.]

And just after the House vote, Roll Call (7-25-19) reported:

Conservatives have sharply criticized the deal, however, including two House factions that have been closely aligned with Trump, the Freedom Caucus and Republican Study Committee. Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy predicted most Republicans wouldn’t support the agreement, despite Trump’s backing.

“I don’t believe we’ll get half of our conference to support this,” the California Republican told reporters before the vote….

The legislation has been sharply criticized by outside conservative groups, who oppose its impact on deficits. Before the vote Thursday, FreedomWorks Vice President of Legislative Affairs Jason Pye called the agreement “ludicrous.”

“There’s no question — Republican leadership shamelessly supporting a budget-busting deal and using the false fear of military atrophy as their cover is dishonest to Americans and disrespectful to our armed forces,” Pye said in a statement. [Emphasis ours.]

Freedom First Society:   Note the report’s claim that outside conservative groups object to the deficits, likely true.  But, as noted above, this is false leadership.  The objection should be to continued unconstitutional programs.  Just one example is the Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD), founded as a cabinet level department in 1965 and as part of President Johnson’s Great Society assault on the Constitution.  The pressure to roll back these destructive usurpations has to come from an informed public.

And here’s a great example of how the public is being deceived with false leadership.  The Hill (7-25-19) included this in its report on the budget deal:

Budget hawks this time around railed against the two-year budget deal….

Leon Panetta, a Defense secretary under former President Obama who now co-chairs the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, called for a bipartisan commission to address the debt.

“Both sides this week so easily agreeing to fiscal defeat isn’t bipartisanship, it is broken governance,” he said….  [Emphasis ours.]

But calling Leon Panetta or the Committee he co-chairs a budget hawk  is extremely misleading.  A long-used tactic of the Conspiracy is to control both sides of issues to prevent serious support for a truly responsible path.  That seems to be the role of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Its board of directors include former members of Congress and the Executive Branch and even the Federal Reserve!

In addition, we object to the term “budget hawk,” making fiscal restraint sound like its just one flavor of interest.  Is it okay not to be a budget hawk, perhaps instead a “budget dove,” or merely uninterested in budget issues?  How about “honesty hawks,” or “law and order hawks”?

Constitutional Authority
Our objection to the “Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019,” is not that, of itself, the Act is unconstitutional.   We would agree that Congress has the authority to change previously set caps or debt ceilings.   It’s the clear unconstitutional intent of this first step that’s the problem.

The next step is appropriation to the higher caps levels and spending without regard to a debt ceiling.  Everyone understands that appropriators will assume they have a green light now to appropriate to the new levels, continuing unconstitutional spending as normal.

From the Congressional Record (7-25-19) — campaign statements masquerading as debate [Emphasis added.]:

Rep. Nita Lowey (D-New York), Chair of House Appropriations Committee:  “Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3877. For months, House Democrats have insisted on raising unworkable budget caps so Congress can responsibly fund our government and uphold  our commitments to American families…..  Instead of reckless cuts, Democrats were successful in securing the largest-ever increase in base funding above sequestration levels. With  these more reasonable budget caps, we can undertake an orderly  appropriations process to invest in critical domestic priorities for the people.”

Rep. Steve Scalise (R-Louisiana), Minority Whip:  “There are people that are running around right now trying to pit our Nation’s defense against balancing the Federal budget   Mr. Speaker, in fact, it is a false choice because if you zeroed out the entire Department of Defense’s budget, which I hope no one would  embrace, if you zeroed it out, you would still have a deficit. So,  clearly, it is not the Department of Defense that is the problem….

“So we have got to get back to solving the real problems with  deficits; and we all know where that is coming from, the mandatory side.”

Freedom First Society:  No, the real problem with deficits is the unconstitutional side, in both mandatory and discretionary spending, both of which are controlled by Congress.  It doesn’t matter where the constitutional discipline is first applied.  It’s the same, necessary discipline.  And eschewing that discipline for discretionary spending under the claim that the mandatory is a bigger problem just means avoiding the discipline to deal with either.  Note also that mandatory spending includes spending for so-called entitlements, some of which is partially supported by special taxation.

Rep. Adam Smith (D-Washington),  Chair of the House Armed Services Committee:  “Mr. Speaker, it is crucially important that we pass this bill….

“Now, it is absolutely true that the debt and the deficit are still a problem. I know there are many people out there who say that it is not.  I just don’t see how those numbers add up. You cannot continually spend  more money than you take in before it becomes a problem. We need to responsibly address that issue.”

Freedom First Society:  Yes, but responsibly addressing the issue requires that Congress not constantly kick the can down the road with the promise that some day, when it’s convenient, they’ll deal with the problem.  That day will never happen if the public allows current politics to prevail.

Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), member Committee on Appropriations:  “Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Bipartisan Budget  Deal of 2019. Like many of my colleagues, there are parts of the deal I  object to and parts I strongly support….

“I know many of my conservative friends are concerned about more  deficit spending and adding to our $22 trillion debt. I share that  concern, but we need to look at the full budget picture. Mandatory  spending, if you include interest on the debt, now consumes 72 percent  of the Federal budget.   National defense actually accounts for 15.6 percent of the budget.  That leaves only about 12 percent left in the pie. We cannot balance our budget on the back of 12 percent nondefense discretionary spending.  The math does not work….

“The bill before us is not perfect. That is the nature of compromise.

Freedom First Society:  Perhaps, but there are limits to acceptable compromise. Congressmen should not accept compromise on their oath to defend the Constitution, but they do so regularly.

Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), member Committee on Appropriations: “We will have to make hard choices as we work with the Senate to allocate these funds among the 12 subcommittee bills, but as an  appropriator, I intimately understand Congress’ top responsibility is  to keep the ship of state running, ensuring an open, funded, and fully  functional government of the United States.   I also know from experience that the full faith and credit of our government can never be questioned.

“Every one of our constituents  deserves this recognition from their elected Member, and this agreement moves Congress past the devastating threats imposed under the Budget Control Act of 2011. Thank goodness.  It avoids deep, automatic cuts that would devastate government’s ability to help the American people and meet our obligations to them, including the most vulnerable.”  

Freedom First Society:  Clearly, Representative Kaptur has a different vision for the role of the federal government than guided America’s Founders. The states did not create the federal government to provide welfare to their citizens.

Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas), Ranking Member of House Armed Services Committee:  “I know Members can find some excuse about what is in the bill they don’t like or what is not in the bill that they wish it were. Any sort of legislation that is a result of compromise between two parties, two Houses of Congress, two branches of government, is going to yield that  sort of result.

“But, Mr. Speaker, we cannot forget that the first function of government us to provide for the common defense; and the Nation and, especially, the  men and women who serve and their families depend upon us doing our job under the Constitution.   Article I, section 8 says it is our job to raise and support, provide and maintain. This bill helps us fulfill that responsibility, and it should be passed.”

Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Maryland), Majority Leader:  “But this agreement was made possible by virtue of, in my view, the fact that we passed 10 appropriations bills to fund 96 percent of the  government before the end of June. That hasn’t been done before.”

Freedom First Society:  Before Rep. Hoyer and House Democrats get too much praise for that “accomplishment,” it should be recognized that the 9 of the 10 bills were passed without a budget, in two minibuses with zero Republican support, and no expectation or prospect of becoming law.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Speaker of the House:  “Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman [Rep. John A. Yarmuth] for yielding, and I  thank him for his great work as the chair of the Budget Committee. He  knows better than all of us that our Federal budget should be a statement of our national values and that what is important to us as a Nation should be reflected in that budget….

“We are securing robust funding for crucial domestic priorities, as I  said. We have always insisted on parity in increases between defense and nondefense. We are pleased that our increase in the nondefense budget actually exceeds the parity number on defense by $10 billion  over the next 2 years.   We are pleased to be able to say that we have secured an increase of more than $100 billion in the budget cap for domestic priorities since the President took office.”

Freedom First Society:  Not surprisingly, Rep. Pelosi misrepresents the purpose for the federal government.  It was not created to care for the American people or to take the place of the State governments.  Most of the unconstitutional growth of government, and the opportunity for deceptive socialist power grabs, is on the nondefense side.

Rep. Steve Womack (R-Arkansas), Ranking Member of House Budget Committee and member of Appropriations Committee:  “While I support what we are doing today because I recognize the importance of getting chaos and uncertainty off the table for the  reasons already stated in this debate, I am disappointed that the  agreement was hammered out by basically four people, four plus one, the administration and four Members of the Congress referenced in Article  I, Section 8.   That is our job….

“Here we are today, relying on an agreement hammered out by leaders of both parties in both Chambers with a representative from the  administration. To me, Mr. Speaker, that flies in the face of what  Article I, Section 8 says it should be like.   Again, I hope and pray that, over time, once we put this issue behind  us, realizing that mandatory spending is growing at 10 times the rate  of discretionary spending, the very fight that we are having today on this floor, maybe we can get back to regular order, do some legitimate  budget process reform so Members like John Yarmuth and myself can  work together jointly to produce budgets, engage in debates on the  floor of the people’s House, and arrive at outcomes that probably we  are all going to agree has stuff in it we like and stuff in it we don’t  like.  That is the way the Framers intended this Chamber to be. I am hopeful that we will get there eventually.”

Freedom First Society:  Rep. Womack makes an important observation re the dominance of party leaders.  But his wishful thinking ignores reality — the reality of Insider control on behalf of a totalitarian agenda.  Moreover, Womack is flat wrong by implying that the Framers intended the House to govern the nation in a vacuum.  The Framers gave us the People’s House so that the people could control their government.  Wishful thinking won’t return control to the people, particularly to an informed people, where it needs to reside.

Rep. John A. Yarmuth (D-Kentucky), chair of the House Budget Committee and the official sponsor of H.R. 3877:  “The United States did not become an economic powerhouse and world  leader by accident. Throughout our history, we made strong investments in our people, our economy, and our security that have allowed us to  innovate and grow, while promoting broad-based economic opportunity.   This agreement will build on that legacy by raising the caps and  lifting the debt ceiling, allowing Congress to move our Nation forward without leaving our communities behind.”

Freedom First Society:  Such audacity is mindboggling.  The United States became an economic powerhouse because government was limited and the people were free to invest and innovate and do great things.  Government was not and cannot be the engine of our progress; more government undermines that engine — the accomplishments of a free people that can keep the fruits of their labors and invest those fruits, free of government interference.

Congressional Research Services Summary:

Shown Here:
Introduced in House (01/16/2019)

Raise the Wage Act

This bill amends the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to increase the federal minimum wage for regular employees over a 7-year period, for tipped employees, and for newly hired employees who are less than 20 years old.

The bill sets forth a schedule of annual increases in the federal minimum wage for individuals with disabilities. The Department of Labor shall no longer issue special certificates for the payment of subminimum wages to such individuals after the final wage increase under this bill for such individuals takes effect.

Labor shall provide, upon request, technical assistance and information to employers to: (1) help them transition their practices to comply with wage increases and other requirements under this bill for individuals with disabilities, and (2) ensure continuing employment opportunities for such individuals.

The bill eliminates the separate minimum wage requirements for tipped, newly hired, and disabled employees. After a specified period, these employees shall be paid the same minimum wage as regular employees.

Labor must publish any increase in the minimum wage in the Federal Register and on its website 60 days before it takes effect.

Freedom First Society Analysis:  The “Raise the Wage Act” was purely about helping Democrats seeking to get reelected.   The rhetoric supporting the bad-economics of minimum-wage legislation had worn thin since 2007 when the House last approved a hike to $7.25 in 2009.  But the politics have changed, helped along by Big Labor “pressure from below.”  It is a horrible indictment of the Democrats that the “Raise the Wage Act” came to the House floor with 205 co-sponsors.

However, before the Democratic-controlled House could pass even this posturing legislation, the caucus had to iron out differences between the new rash of “progressives” and so-called centrist Democrats.  According to The Hill (7-18-19):

Liberals won the battle for enacting a wage hike to $15 across the country, while centrists succeeded in lengthening the phase-in period from five to six years.

Minimum-wage legislation is designed to appeal to the unschooled, who don’t understand or respect the economic principles and principles of freedom being violated.  For example, a high government-mandated minimum wage particularly destroys job opportunities for young workers seeking to gain job experience, unskilled workers, and those seeking part-time work.

But with the “Raise the Wage Act,” campaigning liberals won out.  However, even a Democratic majority couldn’t stifle the reality of the Act’s negative economic impact. Also, according to The Hill (7-18-19):

A report from the Congressional Budget Office projected the hike would lift 1.3 million people out of poverty, but that it would also cost the U.S. 1.3 million jobs by 2024.

Unfortunately, such warnings did little to stifle the claims of those who wanted to convey the idea that government can ensure everyone a decent living through edict. The Hill continues:

Supporters of the wage hike said it will help not only struggling workers, but also the larger communities in which they live.

“When we put money in the pockets of workers, they will spend that money in their local economies,” said Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.), chairman of the House Education and Workforce Committee and lead sponsor of the bill. [Emphasis added.]

But Scott was not suggesting that representatives finance the increase out of their own pockets.  Unfortunately, Scott was not alone in claiming to bring gifts to the American people:

“The Raise the Wage Act gives up to 33 million Americans a long overdue raise — 33 million Americans — and lifts so many people out of poverty,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi said during a press conference on the measure Thursday just before the vote. — Roll Call (7-18-19)

Minimum-wage deception is particularly outrageous since it presents a false antidote to the poison of the many government actions that have lowered the American standard of living.  For example, federal “carrots and sticks” have pushed much of American manufacturing and heavy industry to relocate abroad.  Private enterprise would normally consider destination countries, such as Communist China, too risky for investment, were it not for federal guarantees and Export-Import Bank policies.

Capital flight reduces the demand for labor and the standard of living of many wage earners.  Federally mandated wages are no antidote. Unfortunately, socialist and International-socialist programs can use the force of government to create poverty and despair.

Bill Summary:  The Senate Republican Policy Committee [RPC] provided the following summary of S. 47 in a February 1, 2019 legislative notice:

“Executive Summary: The bill contains program and project authorizations, land conveyances and exchanges, special land designations, boundary modifications, and new management direction affecting public lands and waters around the country. The single largest authorization generating significant interest is a permanent authorization of the deposit provisions of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which primarily funds and supports acquisition of land by the federal government and a matching grant program to assist states in planning, acquiring lands, and developing facilities for outdoor recreation. Most LWCF funding comes from revenues generated from oil and gas leasing on the Outer Continental Shelf.”  [Emphasis added.]

Analysis:  The Senate RPC report continued:

“While S. 47 is comprised of many different bills, permanently authorizing the expired deposit provisions of the LWCF [Land and Water Conservation Fund] is arguably its single most significant aspect. Originally established in 1965, the LWCF funds land acquisition for outdoor recreation; a grant program to states to plan and develop outdoor recreational facilities; and programs with related purposes such as the Forest Legacy program and the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund….

“Opponents of permanent reauthorization generally object to acquisition of more land by the federal government and the need to maintain the lands the federal government already owns.”

Land and Water Conservation Fund [LWCF]

While other parts of S.47 expose the federal government as pursuing a revolutionary course below the public radar screen, we will focus our primary objection here based on its permanent authorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

To understand the driving agenda behind the Land and Water Conservation Fund it is well to consider the forces that propelled it into existence in 1964.  In a June 1975 article for American Opinion magazine, author-researcher Gary Allen described the disturbing origins of this program and its goals:

“[T]he purpose of the [Rockefeller] Thirteen-Thirteen syndicate is to plan and lobby for more collectivist control over the states and the people. Probably only one American in a thousand is even aware of the existence of this powerful and important lobby complex. In the Congressional Hearings, however, the names of the Thirteen-Thirteen fronts pop up again and again as backers of land-control bills. Among these are the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, the Council of State Governments, the National League of Cities, the National Conference of Mayors, and the National Association of Counties. All are Rockefeller-controlled enterprises.

“It was at the urging of these Rockefeller groups that Congress created the Outdoor Recreation Resource Review Commission in 1958. President Eisenhower, coincidentally, named Laurance S. Rockefeller chairman. On January 31, 1962, Rockefeller submitted a final report to President John F. Kennedy. It included these recommendations:

“Establishment of an over-all national recreation policy which would heavily emphasize coordination of federal, state, and private activity in the field of outdoor recreation;

“Creation of a federal bureau of Outdoor Recreation to serve as national coordinator of all such policy and planning;

“Establishment by Congress of a Land and Water Conservation Fund to finance federal purchases of private land for outdoor recreational purposes, and to subsidize state planning and state purchases of private land for outdoor recreation.” [Emphasis added.]

“The Rockefeller proposals were soon implemented. Writing in The Review Of The News for June 12, 1974, [former FBI official and Constitution expert] Dan Smoot noted:

“In April, 1962, President Kennedy created, by executive action, the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, and sent a message asking Congress to give the Bureau statutory authority and to authorize the other programs recommended by Rockefeller. In 1963, Congress by law ‘authorized’ the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, which Kennedy had already illegally set up; and in 1964, the Congress passed the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act.

“Propaganda about conservation and the need to establish ‘recreational areas’ easily deceived the public. After all, who wants to be against conservation and recreation?” [Emphasis added.]

However, as Allen pointed out land control is viewed by totalitarian planners as a route to people control:

“Modern land planning traces its origins back to Karl Marx. In the Communist Manifesto of 1848, you will recall, Marx cited ten steps necessary to the establishment of Communism. Step One was ‘abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.’ Step Seven called for public use of land ‘in accordance with a common plan.’…

“But ours is not a Communist state. Here, by law and tradition, a man’s home is his castle; his lands and properties his to do with as he chooses. Under our American Constitution, the right of the people to own and control property has been a historic check upon government power. Where the government owns or controls the land and the buildings on the land, the people may make no use of real property without government permits. Their property rights in their homes, farms, and businesses are thus abolished. Which is why land control is people control. Thus, land-use planning legislation proposing a common plan for the United States, as determined by federal, state, or local bureaucrats, would effectively accomplish the same results as the Soviet Constitution.

“All of this is not only admitted by the advocates of federal land-use regulation, but they boast of it. Russell Train, head of the Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.) [and member of the Establishment’s Council on Foreign Relations], was quoted by the New York Times of September 3, 1973, as observing: ‘In my opinion there is no way to avoid integral planning of land use with transportation, housing utilities, farm policy and so on.’ The very next day another ‘high federal official’ was cited by the Times as exploring the need for federal land control. He was quoted as saying: ‘It would be a miracle if 50 states, operating independently, gave us the exact distribution of farmland, industry, power plants, forests, and public beaches, not to mention population, that would best serve the overall national interest.’

“That is collectivist doubletalk, and Karl Marx couldn’t have put it better. The catch is, of course, that under federal land control the bureaucrats and their Establishment bosses will determine what is in the ‘national interest,’ just as they have with bussing, and racist Affirmative Action programs, and the thousand other little tyrannies to which we are being subjected. Control of land, as we said, is people control. Karl Marx knew that. Lenin knew that. Hitler knew that. And the Establishment Insiders using government to take control of America know it too. To control the people every totalitarian system must control not only its physical territory but the essential environment — and that means central land-use planning and control.”

Program Endorsements

Not surprisingly, “environmentalist” groups applaud the significance of the Land and Water Conservation  Fund in the S. 47 package.   For example, in its online national magazine for February 27, the Left-wing Sierra Club reported:

“On Tuesday, the House of Representatives passed the Natural Resources Management Act, the lands conservation bill that combines more than 100 pieces of legislation protecting 3-million-plus acres of land. The bill, which the Senate overwhelmingly passed two weeks ago, also classifies hundreds of miles of US rivers as wild, scenic, or recreational, and creates three new national monuments.

“The act is the culmination of four years of effort and a rare example of broad bipartisan deal-making. For environmentalists, and anyone who cares about public land, there’s a lot to be excited about….

“2) The Land and Water Conservation Fund has been permanently reauthorized.

“The Land and Water Conservation Fund may be the most important federal conservation program that you’ve never heard of. Established in 1964, it uses fees from offshore drilling to pay for onshore conservation programs. Since expiring in 2014, it’s been temporarily funded every few years. Last September, it expired again and was still waiting to be renewed. The popular bipartisan program has helped to preserve and protect outdoor spaces in all 50 states, allocating funds for everything from the park where your kid plays soccer to remote, untrammeled wilderness.” [Emphasis added.]

And on March 14, the environmentalist “Save Our Canyons.org” exclaimed:

“For a few weeks we’ve been celebrating the passage of the Natural Resources Management Act of 2019, and we expect to be celebrating its provisions for many years to come.  It is probably the most important environmental legislation in half a century….

“Many of the act’s creations are quite minor, in our opinion… But let’s start with some of the most important provisions of S.47.

“First, nationally, is the restoration of the expired Land and Water Conservation Fund. Also nationally, there is the Get Kids Outdoors piece, providing free access to fourth graders and their sponsors to National Parks….

“Nationally, there will be many pieces of new and expanded Wildernesses, totaling another 2/3 million acres, along with equivalent acreage of Recreation and Conservation Areas, largely withdrawn from mineral development.” [Emphasis added.]

Senate Support

Against the background Allen provides in his 1975 article, the eagerness of politicians to tout the recreational benefits of their S. 47 largesse takes on disturbing significance.  We’ll look at and comment on some of the Senate endorsements in the Congressional Record for 2-12-19.  [For House comments, please see our scoring of House Roll Call 95 on S. 47, 2-26-19.]

From the Congressional Record (2-12-19) [Emphasis added]:

Senator Cory Gardner (R-Colorado), member Senate Committee on Energy and National Resources: “Madam President, today we are making some great progress  on a bill that is very important to so many Members in this Chamber and particularly important to the American people — a public lands package that, in some cases, has taken years for these bills to process through  the Senate and hopefully are on their way to passage in the House and  to the President’s desk.  For 4 years, since being in the Senate, I have worked to permanently reauthorize the crown jewel of our conservation programs, and we are about to have that crown jewel success, permanent authorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund — the passage of the public lands bill….

“The Land and Water and Conservation Fund is used to help give access  to land that the American people already own, to enjoy, to benefit  from, to create economic opportunities, and, more importantly, to create the opportunity just to be in our amazing, wonderful outdoors.”

Freedom First Society:  Amazing what bipartisan gifts we receive from a caring Congress!  Now we have the “opportunity just to be in our amazing, wonderful outdoors.”

Senator Maria Cantwell (D-Washington), Ranking Member in previous Congress of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources:   “Madam President, I come to the floor to talk about S. 47 a bill I authored with Senator Murkowski. It is a package of public land issues that has been working its way through the Congress now for several years.   I would like to point out to people who may not be as familiar with the Interior side of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee’s work,  that the Interior side has a long history in our Nation. We decided a  long time ago that we needed to have oversight and management of our  public lands. S. 47 the legislation that is before us today, is a recognition that our climate is changing and that we need new tools to carry out new responsibilities as it relates to managing those public lands.

“We have had a big discussion here about whether we should return  public lands to oil and gas drilling, and this bill basically says no, we are going to make a bigger investment in our public lands….

“The Land and Water Conservation Fund has been a preeminent program  for access to public lands, but it had been threatened when Congress  allowed it to expire 3 years ago, then only having a temporary  reauthorization, and then failing again to reauthorize it last  September.   What we are doing here now is saying that this is a bipartisan issue,  that more than 60 Senators here in the Senate didn’t just see that we  needed to further adjust this program but we needed to save this  program. I emphasize this because I know my colleagues here in the Senate are going to go on to a larger discussion, which is to secure the funding that is set aside for the Land and Water Conservation Fund and how it is spent, and we are going to get into a conversation about  how we take care of our maintenance and the backlog at our national  parks. I definitely believe that the mandatory spending for LWCF should  be in a future budget, and I certainly believe we should do more to  take care of our backlog and maintenance at our national parks. So I  look forward to working with both sides of the aisle to push that  through the U.S. Senate.

“This legislation is amazing because there are some — particularly in  this administration — who want to use public lands to oil and gas drilling, but there is a bipartisan group here in the U.S. Senate who  has said: No, we want to put more focus on saving our public lands.  This legislation preserves over 1.3 million acres of new wilderness,  and 367 miles of wild and scenic rivers….

“I want to talk about how this bill invests in water. The water issues are like fire; they are not going to go away. The only question is going to be this: What kinds of tools do we give communities across the  West — and I should say probably throughout the United States — to deal  with the changing climate and the impacts of less and less water?”

Freedom First Society:  One obvious conclusion from the fact that it takes Congress years ostensibly to fix federeal programs is that Congress has enabled the federal government to grow beyond what it is able to manage.  In the above, Senator Cantwell presents the man-made climate change pretext for further government controls as a scientific given. It’s not!  Often, “the tools” fedgov should give the States are simply to get out of their way and quit implementing the radical agenda of those who would obstruct responsible forest management efforts.”

Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon):  “Mr. President, as a former chair of the Energy and Natural  Resources Committee, I have a pretty good sense of how complicated it  is to pull together a legislative package of public lands like the one this Senate is about to pass….

“This public lands bill may not be perfect, but it is a major  accomplishment. If you had told me, in a polarized political climate like the one we have today, that we could get a permanent authorization for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, I would have said, ‘No way.  Can’t happen,’ but now we have real protection for, as it is called,  LWCF.”

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.):  “Madam President, I rise today to voice my strong  support for the ‘Natural Resources Management Act,’ otherwise known  as the Public Lands Package.   I am a proud cosponsor of this package because it contains many  important priorities for California’s public lands, particularly the  ‘California Desert Protection and Recreation Act.’ That bill  represents the culmination of decades of collaborative efforts to  protect our desert that began in my very first year in the Senate.   The lands package also includes a bill I first introduced 10 years  ago to create California’s first National Heritage Area in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, as well as two bills to facilitate  smarter management of public lands and water infrastructure in our  local communities….

“Before I conclude, I would also like to thank Senator Murkowski for  including in the package a permanent reauthorization of the Land and  Water Conservation Fund.   In California alone, the Land and Water Conservation Fund has been  responsible for the creation or improvement of more than 1,000 parks  since 1965.   It has also helped to protect some of California’s most iconic  places, including the Lake Tahoe Basin, the California desert, Point  Reyes National Seashore, Headwaters Forest, the San Diego and Don  Edwards National Wildlife Refuges, and the national forests of the  Sierra Nevada.   Once again, I am proud to cosponsor and support this vitally  important and beneficial legislation, and I urge my colleagues to vote  for it.”

Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Chair of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources:  “Madam President, we are now down to the final minutes  of debate on S. 47, our Natural Resources Management Act…. “We  are looking forward to sending this to our colleagues on the House side  for their review and their support and, hopefully, shortly after that,  their ratification.   When we take a package that is over 100 bills from over 50 different  Senators and over 90 who have signed on as cosponsors, that  demonstrates something.”

Freedom First Society:  What it demonstrates is that America is in trouble and that we can’t count on political leadership to rescue us.

Bill Summary:  The Senate Republican Policy Committee [RPC] provided the following summary of S. 47 in a February 1, 2019 legislative notice:

“Executive Summary: The bill contains program and project authorizations, land conveyances and exchanges, special land designations, boundary modifications, and new management direction affecting public lands and waters around the country. The single largest authorization generating significant interest is a permanent authorization of the deposit provisions of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which primarily funds and supports acquisition of land by the federal government and a matching grant program to assist states in planning, acquiring lands, and developing facilities for outdoor recreation. Most LWCF funding comes from revenues generated from oil and gas leasing on the Outer Continental Shelf.”  [Emphasis added.]

Analysis:  The Senate RPC report continued:

“While S. 47 is comprised of many different bills, permanently authorizing the expired deposit provisions of the LWCF [Land and Water Conservation Fund] is arguably its single most significant aspect. Originally established in 1965, the LWCF funds land acquisition for outdoor recreation; a grant program to states to plan and develop outdoor recreational facilities; and programs with related purposes such as the Forest Legacy program and the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund….

“Opponents of permanent reauthorization generally object to acquisition of more land by the federal government and the need to maintain the lands the federal government already owns.”

Land and Water Conservation Fund [LWCF]

While other parts of S.47 expose the federal government as pursuing a revolutionary course below the public radar screen, we will focus our primary objection here based on its permanent authorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

To understand the driving agenda behind the Land and Water Conservation Fund it is well to consider the forces that propelled it into existence in 1964.  In a June 1975 article for American Opinion magazine, author-researcher Gary Allen described the disturbing origins of this program and its goals:

“[T]he purpose of the [Rockefeller] Thirteen-Thirteen syndicate is to plan and lobby for more collectivist control over the states and the people. Probably only one American in a thousand is even aware of the existence of this powerful and important lobby complex. In the Congressional Hearings, however, the names of the Thirteen-Thirteen fronts pop up again and again as backers of land-control bills. Among these are the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, the Council of State Governments, the National League of Cities, the National Conference of Mayors, and the National Association of Counties. All are Rockefeller-controlled enterprises.

“It was at the urging of these Rockefeller groups that Congress created the Outdoor Recreation Resource Review Commission in 1958. President Eisenhower, coincidentally, named Laurance S. Rockefeller chairman. On January 31, 1962, Rockefeller submitted a final report to President John F. Kennedy. It included these recommendations:

“Establishment of an over-all national recreation policy which would heavily emphasize coordination of federal, state, and private activity in the field of outdoor recreation;

“Creation of a federal bureau of Outdoor Recreation to serve as national coordinator of all such policy and planning;

“Establishment by Congress of a Land and Water Conservation Fund to finance federal purchases of private land for outdoor recreational purposes, and to subsidize state planning and state purchases of private land for outdoor recreation.” [Emphasis added.]

“The Rockefeller proposals were soon implemented. Writing in The Review Of The News for June 12, 1974, [former FBI official and Constitution expert] Dan Smoot noted:

“In April, 1962, President Kennedy created, by executive action, the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, and sent a message asking Congress to give the Bureau statutory authority and to authorize the other programs recommended by Rockefeller. In 1963, Congress by law ‘authorized’ the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, which Kennedy had already illegally set up; and in 1964, the Congress passed the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act.

“Propaganda about conservation and the need to establish ‘recreational areas’ easily deceived the public. After all, who wants to be against conservation and recreation?” [Emphasis added.]

However, as Allen pointed out land control is viewed by totalitarian planners as a route to people control:

“Modern land planning traces its origins back to Karl Marx. In the Communist Manifesto of 1848, you will recall, Marx cited ten steps necessary to the establishment of Communism. Step One was ‘abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.’ Step Seven called for public use of land ‘in accordance with a common plan.’…

“But ours is not a Communist state. Here, by law and tradition, a man’s home is his castle; his lands and properties his to do with as he chooses. Under our American Constitution, the right of the people to own and control property has been a historic check upon government power. Where the government owns or controls the land and the buildings on the land, the people may make no use of real property without government permits. Their property rights in their homes, farms, and businesses are thus abolished. Which is why land control is people control. Thus, land-use planning legislation proposing a common plan for the United States, as determined by federal, state, or local bureaucrats, would effectively accomplish the same results as the Soviet Constitution.

“All of this is not only admitted by the advocates of federal land-use regulation, but they boast of it. Russell Train, head of the Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.) [and member of the Establishment’s Council on Foreign Relations], was quoted by the New York Times of September 3, 1973, as observing: ‘In my opinion there is no way to avoid integral planning of land use with transportation, housing utilities, farm policy and so on.’ The very next day another ‘high federal official’ was cited by the Times as exploring the need for federal land control. He was quoted as saying: ‘It would be a miracle if 50 states, operating independently, gave us the exact distribution of farmland, industry, power plants, forests, and public beaches, not to mention population, that would best serve the overall national interest.’

“That is collectivist doubletalk, and Karl Marx couldn’t have put it better. The catch is, of course, that under federal land control the bureaucrats and their Establishment bosses will determine what is in the ‘national interest,’ just as they have with bussing, and racist Affirmative Action programs, and the thousand other little tyrannies to which we are being subjected. Control of land, as we said, is people control. Karl Marx knew that. Lenin knew that. Hitler knew that. And the Establishment Insiders using government to take control of America know it too. To control the people every totalitarian system must control not only its physical territory but the essential environment — and that means central land-use planning and control.”

Program Endorsements

Not surprisingly, “environmentalist” groups applaud the significance of the Land and Water Conservation  Fund in the S. 47 package.   For example, in its online national magazine for February 27, the Left-wing Sierra Club reported:

“On Tuesday, the House of Representatives passed the Natural Resources Management Act, the lands conservation bill that combines more than 100 pieces of legislation protecting 3-million-plus acres of land. The bill, which the Senate overwhelmingly passed two weeks ago, also classifies hundreds of miles of US rivers as wild, scenic, or recreational, and creates three new national monuments.

“The act is the culmination of four years of effort and a rare example of broad bipartisan deal-making. For environmentalists, and anyone who cares about public land, there’s a lot to be excited about….

“2) The Land and Water Conservation Fund has been permanently reauthorized.

“The Land and Water Conservation Fund may be the most important federal conservation program that you’ve never heard of. Established in 1964, it uses fees from offshore drilling to pay for onshore conservation programs. Since expiring in 2014, it’s been temporarily funded every few years. Last September, it expired again and was still waiting to be renewed. The popular bipartisan program has helped to preserve and protect outdoor spaces in all 50 states, allocating funds for everything from the park where your kid plays soccer to remote, untrammeled wilderness.” [Emphasis added.]

And on March 14, the environmentalist “Save Our Canyons.org” exclaimed:

“For a few weeks we’ve been celebrating the passage of the Natural Resources Management Act of 2019, and we expect to be celebrating its provisions for many years to come.  It is probably the most important environmental legislation in half a century….

“Many of the act’s creations are quite minor, in our opinion… But let’s start with some of the most important provisions of S.47.

“First, nationally, is the restoration of the expired Land and Water Conservation Fund. Also nationally, there is the Get Kids Outdoors piece, providing free access to fourth graders and their sponsors to National Parks….

“Nationally, there will be many pieces of new and expanded Wildernesses, totaling another 2/3 million acres, along with equivalent acreage of Recreation and Conservation Areas, largely withdrawn from mineral development.” [Emphasis added.]

Senate Support

Against the background Allen provides in his 1975 article, the eagerness of politicians to tout the recreational benefits of their S. 47 largesse takes on disturbing significance.  We’ll look at and comment on some of the Senate endorsements in the Congressional Record for 2-12-19.  [For House comments, please see our scoring of House Roll Call 95 on S. 47, 2-26-19.]

From the Congressional Record (2-12-19) [Emphasis added]:

Senator Cory Gardner (R-Colorado), member Senate Committee on Energy and National Resources: “Madam President, today we are making some great progress  on a bill that is very important to so many Members in this Chamber and particularly important to the American people — a public lands package that, in some cases, has taken years for these bills to process through  the Senate and hopefully are on their way to passage in the House and  to the President’s desk.  For 4 years, since being in the Senate, I have worked to permanently reauthorize the crown jewel of our conservation programs, and we are about to have that crown jewel success, permanent authorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund — the passage of the public lands bill….

“The Land and Water and Conservation Fund is used to help give access  to land that the American people already own, to enjoy, to benefit  from, to create economic opportunities, and, more importantly, to create the opportunity just to be in our amazing, wonderful outdoors.”

Freedom First Society:  Amazing what bipartisan gifts we receive from a caring Congress!  Now we have the “opportunity just to be in our amazing, wonderful outdoors.”

Senator Maria Cantwell (D-Washington), Ranking Member in previous Congress of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources:   “Madam President, I come to the floor to talk about S. 47 a bill I authored with Senator Murkowski. It is a package of public land issues that has been working its way through the Congress now for several years.   I would like to point out to people who may not be as familiar with the Interior side of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee’s work,  that the Interior side has a long history in our Nation. We decided a  long time ago that we needed to have oversight and management of our  public lands. S. 47 the legislation that is before us today, is a recognition that our climate is changing and that we need new tools to carry out new responsibilities as it relates to managing those public lands.

“We have had a big discussion here about whether we should return  public lands to oil and gas drilling, and this bill basically says no, we are going to make a bigger investment in our public lands….

“The Land and Water Conservation Fund has been a preeminent program  for access to public lands, but it had been threatened when Congress  allowed it to expire 3 years ago, then only having a temporary  reauthorization, and then failing again to reauthorize it last  September.   What we are doing here now is saying that this is a bipartisan issue,  that more than 60 Senators here in the Senate didn’t just see that we  needed to further adjust this program but we needed to save this  program. I emphasize this because I know my colleagues here in the Senate are going to go on to a larger discussion, which is to secure the funding that is set aside for the Land and Water Conservation Fund and how it is spent, and we are going to get into a conversation about  how we take care of our maintenance and the backlog at our national  parks. I definitely believe that the mandatory spending for LWCF should  be in a future budget, and I certainly believe we should do more to  take care of our backlog and maintenance at our national parks. So I  look forward to working with both sides of the aisle to push that  through the U.S. Senate.

“This legislation is amazing because there are some — particularly in  this administration — who want to use public lands to oil and gas drilling, but there is a bipartisan group here in the U.S. Senate who  has said: No, we want to put more focus on saving our public lands.  This legislation preserves over 1.3 million acres of new wilderness,  and 367 miles of wild and scenic rivers….

“I want to talk about how this bill invests in water. The water issues are like fire; they are not going to go away. The only question is going to be this: What kinds of tools do we give communities across the  West — and I should say probably throughout the United States — to deal  with the changing climate and the impacts of less and less water?”

Freedom First Society:  One obvious conclusion from the fact that it takes Congress years ostensibly to fix federeal programs is that Congress has enabled the federal government to grow beyond what it is able to manage.  In the above, Senator Cantwell presents the man-made climate change pretext for further government controls as a scientific given. It’s not!  Often, “the tools” fedgov should give the States are simply to get out of their way and quit implementing the radical agenda of those who would obstruct responsible forest management efforts.”

Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon):  “Mr. President, as a former chair of the Energy and Natural  Resources Committee, I have a pretty good sense of how complicated it  is to pull together a legislative package of public lands like the one this Senate is about to pass….

“This public lands bill may not be perfect, but it is a major  accomplishment. If you had told me, in a polarized political climate like the one we have today, that we could get a permanent authorization for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, I would have said, ‘No way.  Can’t happen,’ but now we have real protection for, as it is called,  LWCF.”

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.):  “Madam President, I rise today to voice my strong  support for the ‘Natural Resources Management Act,’ otherwise known  as the Public Lands Package.   I am a proud cosponsor of this package because it contains many  important priorities for California’s public lands, particularly the  ‘California Desert Protection and Recreation Act.’ That bill  represents the culmination of decades of collaborative efforts to  protect our desert that began in my very first year in the Senate.   The lands package also includes a bill I first introduced 10 years  ago to create California’s first National Heritage Area in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, as well as two bills to facilitate  smarter management of public lands and water infrastructure in our  local communities….

“Before I conclude, I would also like to thank Senator Murkowski for  including in the package a permanent reauthorization of the Land and  Water Conservation Fund.   In California alone, the Land and Water Conservation Fund has been  responsible for the creation or improvement of more than 1,000 parks  since 1965.   It has also helped to protect some of California’s most iconic  places, including the Lake Tahoe Basin, the California desert, Point  Reyes National Seashore, Headwaters Forest, the San Diego and Don  Edwards National Wildlife Refuges, and the national forests of the  Sierra Nevada.   Once again, I am proud to cosponsor and support this vitally  important and beneficial legislation, and I urge my colleagues to vote  for it.”

Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Chair of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources:  “Madam President, we are now down to the final minutes  of debate on S. 47, our Natural Resources Management Act…. “We  are looking forward to sending this to our colleagues on the House side  for their review and their support and, hopefully, shortly after that,  their ratification.   When we take a package that is over 100 bills from over 50 different  Senators and over 90 who have signed on as cosponsors, that  demonstrates something.”

Freedom First Society:  What it demonstrates is that America is in trouble and that we can’t count on political leadership to rescue us.

Bill Summary:  The Senate Republican Policy Committee [RPC] provided the following summary of S. 47 in a February 1, 2019 legislative notice:

“Executive Summary: The bill contains program and project authorizations, land conveyances and exchanges, special land designations, boundary modifications, and new management direction affecting public lands and waters around the country. The single largest authorization generating significant interest is a permanent authorization of the deposit provisions of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which primarily funds and supports acquisition of land by the federal government and a matching grant program to assist states in planning, acquiring lands, and developing facilities for outdoor recreation. Most LWCF funding comes from revenues generated from oil and gas leasing on the Outer Continental Shelf.”  [Emphasis added.]

Analysis:  The Senate RPC report continued:

“While S. 47 is comprised of many different bills, permanently authorizing the expired deposit provisions of the LWCF [Land and Water Conservation Fund] is arguably its single most significant aspect. Originally established in 1965, the LWCF funds land acquisition for outdoor recreation; a grant program to states to plan and develop outdoor recreational facilities; and programs with related purposes such as the Forest Legacy program and the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund….

“Opponents of permanent reauthorization generally object to acquisition of more land by the federal government and the need to maintain the lands the federal government already owns.”

Land and Water Conservation Fund [LWCF]

While other parts of S.47 expose the federal government as pursuing a revolutionary course below the public radar screen, we will focus our primary objection here based on its permanent authorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

To understand the driving agenda behind the Land and Water Conservation Fund it is well to consider the forces that propelled it into existence in 1964.  In a June 1975 article for American Opinion magazine, author-researcher Gary Allen described the disturbing origins of this program and its goals:

“[T]he purpose of the [Rockefeller] Thirteen-Thirteen syndicate is to plan and lobby for more collectivist control over the states and the people. Probably only one American in a thousand is even aware of the existence of this powerful and important lobby complex. In the Congressional Hearings, however, the names of the Thirteen-Thirteen fronts pop up again and again as backers of land-control bills. Among these are the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, the Council of State Governments, the National League of Cities, the National Conference of Mayors, and the National Association of Counties. All are Rockefeller-controlled enterprises.

“It was at the urging of these Rockefeller groups that Congress created the Outdoor Recreation Resource Review Commission in 1958. President Eisenhower, coincidentally, named Laurance S. Rockefeller chairman. On January 31, 1962, Rockefeller submitted a final report to President John F. Kennedy. It included these recommendations:

“Establishment of an over-all national recreation policy which would heavily emphasize coordination of federal, state, and private activity in the field of outdoor recreation;

“Creation of a federal bureau of Outdoor Recreation to serve as national coordinator of all such policy and planning;

“Establishment by Congress of a Land and Water Conservation Fund to finance federal purchases of private land for outdoor recreational purposes, and to subsidize state planning and state purchases of private land for outdoor recreation.” [Emphasis added.]

“The Rockefeller proposals were soon implemented. Writing in The Review Of The News for June 12, 1974, [former FBI official and Constitution expert] Dan Smoot noted:

“In April, 1962, President Kennedy created, by executive action, the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, and sent a message asking Congress to give the Bureau statutory authority and to authorize the other programs recommended by Rockefeller. In 1963, Congress by law ‘authorized’ the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, which Kennedy had already illegally set up; and in 1964, the Congress passed the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act.

“Propaganda about conservation and the need to establish ‘recreational areas’ easily deceived the public. After all, who wants to be against conservation and recreation?” [Emphasis added.]

However, as Allen pointed out land control is viewed by totalitarian planners as a route to people control:

“Modern land planning traces its origins back to Karl Marx. In the Communist Manifesto of 1848, you will recall, Marx cited ten steps necessary to the establishment of Communism. Step One was ‘abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.’ Step Seven called for public use of land ‘in accordance with a common plan.’…

“But ours is not a Communist state. Here, by law and tradition, a man’s home is his castle; his lands and properties his to do with as he chooses. Under our American Constitution, the right of the people to own and control property has been a historic check upon government power. Where the government owns or controls the land and the buildings on the land, the people may make no use of real property without government permits. Their property rights in their homes, farms, and businesses are thus abolished. Which is why land control is people control. Thus, land-use planning legislation proposing a common plan for the United States, as determined by federal, state, or local bureaucrats, would effectively accomplish the same results as the Soviet Constitution.

“All of this is not only admitted by the advocates of federal land-use regulation, but they boast of it. Russell Train, head of the Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.) [and member of the Establishment’s Council on Foreign Relations], was quoted by the New York Times of September 3, 1973, as observing: ‘In my opinion there is no way to avoid integral planning of land use with transportation, housing utilities, farm policy and so on.’ The very next day another ‘high federal official’ was cited by the Times as exploring the need for federal land control. He was quoted as saying: ‘It would be a miracle if 50 states, operating independently, gave us the exact distribution of farmland, industry, power plants, forests, and public beaches, not to mention population, that would best serve the overall national interest.’

“That is collectivist doubletalk, and Karl Marx couldn’t have put it better. The catch is, of course, that under federal land control the bureaucrats and their Establishment bosses will determine what is in the ‘national interest,’ just as they have with bussing, and racist Affirmative Action programs, and the thousand other little tyrannies to which we are being subjected. Control of land, as we said, is people control. Karl Marx knew that. Lenin knew that. Hitler knew that. And the Establishment Insiders using government to take control of America know it too. To control the people every totalitarian system must control not only its physical territory but the essential environment — and that means central land-use planning and control.”

Program Endorsements

Not surprisingly, “environmentalist” groups applaud the significance of the Land and Water Conservation  Fund in the S. 47 package.   For example, in its online national magazine for February 27, the Left-wing Sierra Club reported:

“On Tuesday, the House of Representatives passed the Natural Resources Management Act, the lands conservation bill that combines more than 100 pieces of legislation protecting 3-million-plus acres of land. The bill, which the Senate overwhelmingly passed two weeks ago, also classifies hundreds of miles of US rivers as wild, scenic, or recreational, and creates three new national monuments.

“The act is the culmination of four years of effort and a rare example of broad bipartisan deal-making. For environmentalists, and anyone who cares about public land, there’s a lot to be excited about….

“2) The Land and Water Conservation Fund has been permanently reauthorized.

“The Land and Water Conservation Fund may be the most important federal conservation program that you’ve never heard of. Established in 1964, it uses fees from offshore drilling to pay for onshore conservation programs. Since expiring in 2014, it’s been temporarily funded every few years. Last September, it expired again and was still waiting to be renewed. The popular bipartisan program has helped to preserve and protect outdoor spaces in all 50 states, allocating funds for everything from the park where your kid plays soccer to remote, untrammeled wilderness.” [Emphasis added.]

And on March 14, the environmentalist “Save Our Canyons.org” exclaimed:

“For a few weeks we’ve been celebrating the passage of the Natural Resources Management Act of 2019, and we expect to be celebrating its provisions for many years to come.  It is probably the most important environmental legislation in half a century….

“Many of the act’s creations are quite minor, in our opinion… But let’s start with some of the most important provisions of S.47.

“First, nationally, is the restoration of the expired Land and Water Conservation Fund. Also nationally, there is the Get Kids Outdoors piece, providing free access to fourth graders and their sponsors to National Parks….

“Nationally, there will be many pieces of new and expanded Wildernesses, totaling another 2/3 million acres, along with equivalent acreage of Recreation and Conservation Areas, largely withdrawn from mineral development.” [Emphasis added.]

Support in Congress

Against the background Allen provides in his 1975 article, the eagerness of politicians to tout the recreational benefits of their S. 47 largesse takes on disturbing significance.  We’ll look at and comment on some of the House endorsements in the Congressional Record for 2-26-19.  [For Senator comments, please see our scoring of Senate Vote 22 on S. 47, 2-12-19.]

Keep in mind that congressional “debates” these days largely consist of statements intended to further the campaigns of the measure’s supporters.  Opponents rarely are given (or seek) the opportunity to voice objections. Almost all representatives have decided their position in advance of the “debates” and often only show up on the House floor after there is a demand for a recorded vote.

From the Congressional Record (2-26-19) [Emphasis added]: 

Rep. Rob Bishop (R–Utah), Ranking Member of the Committee on National Resources:  “Mr. Speaker, when I became chairman of this committee, I vowed never  to do this kind of a package. I thought that each bill deserved to be  debated and to be moved as a standalone.   Basically, we in the House did that. Unfortunately, the Senate did  not, which is why there are at least 63 House-passed bills in this  package, 62 of which were passed on suspension, that have been sitting in the Senate, languishing for up to a year and a half.”

Freedom First Society:  Mr. Bishop is correct that “each bill deserved to be debated and to be moved as a standalone.”  One obvious conclusion is that Congress has enabled the federal government to grow beyond what it is able to manage.  But the Senate’s action doesn’t justify compromise here, just to get something done, particularly when huge poison pills are included in the package

Worthy of note: Senator Mike Lee (Mr. Bishop’s Republican colleague from Utah) took a different position on S. 47.  In a February 11th article for the Deseret News, titled “This bill is not the right move for Utah lands,” Senator Lee makes these points:

• The bill fails to reform federal land acquisition programs, and reauthorizes the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) which has not been implemented consistent with the original intention of the fund [FFS: ???].
• The bill adds new restrictions on land already under federal control and protection.
• The bill creates another 1.3 million acres of Wilderness in the West, over half [642,000 acres] in Utah.
• Wilderness designation limits far more activities than required to actually protect the land. 

Representative Raul Grijalva (D–Arizona), Chair of the Committee on National Resources: “I am particularly proud that this package will permanently authorize  the Land and Water Conservation Fund, a program that supports  recreation access and conservation in all 50 States.   LWCF works for the people at no direct cost to the taxpayer. It  enhances Americans’ enjoyment of public lands across this Nation. It is  time to guarantee the future of this very important program.   In addition to LWCF, the package would add over 1 million acres of  wilderness, designate new national monuments, and expand three national  parks, to name a few of the over 100 provisions.

Freedom First Society:  “No direct cost, perhaps.  But how about indirect cost?  There is no free lunch.   Why should offshore royalties from offshore oil and gas  leasing on the Outer Continental Shelf pay for this?  (The royalties could be used for something else.) And what about the tremendous burden on the federal government, including Congress, to administer the Fund?  Moreover, in the earlier debate over the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019, which became public law (see House Roll Call 87), Texas Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee touted the $435 million appropriated to the fund.

Rep. Debbie Dingell (D–Michigan), widow of the last Rep. John Dingell Jr.:  “The outstanding provisions in this bill will enshrine and safeguard  our Nation’s conservation legacy for decades to come. This begins with  permanent reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. It  should never have expired. Permanent reauthorization of LWCF will mean  this program and its important work can continue unimpeded for future generations. Almost 20 years ago, John Dingell led the first effort to permanently reauthorize it with his friends Don Young, George Miller, Billy Tauzin, and Chris John, a geographically and diverse group of leaders  who happened to like the outdoors and, yes, hunting and fishing…..

“Since 1965, LWCS has  provided over $3.9 billion for over 40,000 projects in every county  across this country, with every $1 invested returning $4 in economic  value.”

Freedom First Society:  How could Congress manage “over 40,000 projects in every county across this country”?  Our answer: It couldn’t.   America’s Founders never authorized the Federal Government to get involved in such local matters.  They limited the Federal Government’s authority and responsibility to a few essential areas with a Constitution.  Unfortunately, Americans are no longer demanding that Congress respect constitutional safeguard for our liberties on Congress.

Rep. Jeff Duncan (R–SC):  “Mr. Speaker, as the former chairman of the Congressional Sportsmen’s  Caucus and an avid outdoorsman, I rise today in support of S. 47, the  Natural Resources Management Act.   But let’s be clear. Where does most of the funding come from to fund  the Land and Water Conservation Fund?

“The Land and Water Conservation  Fund is overwhelmingly funded by royalties from offshore oil and gas  leasing on the Outer Continental Shelf. It is funded mostly from money  energy companies that produce fossil fuels pay the Federal Government.  Even though we are going to overwhelmingly, even with bipartisan  support, permanently reauthorize a program that has enjoyed success  since 1964, it will remain in jeopardy. Why? Because many of the  Democrats supporting this have also supported this asinine, illogical,  and scientifically unfounded proposal called the Green New Deal. A  shift under the Green New Deal away from oil and gas to complete  dependence on renewables, and you can kiss this fund good-bye.   How will they propose to pay for the Land and Water Conversation  Fund? I can assure you it won’t be from royalties generated by  renewable energy. It will be from higher taxes.”

Freedom First Society:  We applaud Rep. Duncan’s opposition to the Green New Deal.  However, America’s problem is far more than the revolutionary Left.  The much bigger problem is with Republicans who implement the Establishment’s programs while appearing to defend conservative values. Many like to deflect attention from their record by focusing attention on open socialists.

Bill Summary:  The Senate Republican Policy Committee [RPC] provided the following summary of S. 47 in a February 1, 2019 legislative notice:

“Executive Summary: The bill contains program and project authorizations, land conveyances and exchanges, special land designations, boundary modifications, and new management direction affecting public lands and waters around the country. The single largest authorization generating significant interest is a permanent authorization of the deposit provisions of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which primarily funds and supports acquisition of land by the federal government and a matching grant program to assist states in planning, acquiring lands, and developing facilities for outdoor recreation. Most LWCF funding comes from revenues generated from oil and gas leasing on the Outer Continental Shelf.”  [Emphasis added.]

Analysis:  The Senate RPC report continued:

“While S. 47 is comprised of many different bills, permanently authorizing the expired deposit provisions of the LWCF [Land and Water Conservation Fund] is arguably its single most significant aspect. Originally established in 1965, the LWCF funds land acquisition for outdoor recreation; a grant program to states to plan and develop outdoor recreational facilities; and programs with related purposes such as the Forest Legacy program and the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund….

“Opponents of permanent reauthorization generally object to acquisition of more land by the federal government and the need to maintain the lands the federal government already owns.”

Land and Water Conservation Fund [LWCF]

While other parts of S.47 expose the federal government as pursuing a revolutionary course below the public radar screen, we will focus our primary objection here based on its permanent authorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

To understand the driving agenda behind the Land and Water Conservation Fund it is well to consider the forces that propelled it into existence in 1964.  In a June 1975 article for American Opinion magazine, author-researcher Gary Allen described the disturbing origins of this program and its goals:

“[T]he purpose of the [Rockefeller] Thirteen-Thirteen syndicate is to plan and lobby for more collectivist control over the states and the people. Probably only one American in a thousand is even aware of the existence of this powerful and important lobby complex. In the Congressional Hearings, however, the names of the Thirteen-Thirteen fronts pop up again and again as backers of land-control bills. Among these are the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, the Council of State Governments, the National League of Cities, the National Conference of Mayors, and the National Association of Counties. All are Rockefeller-controlled enterprises.

“It was at the urging of these Rockefeller groups that Congress created the Outdoor Recreation Resource Review Commission in 1958. President Eisenhower, coincidentally, named Laurance S. Rockefeller chairman. On January 31, 1962, Rockefeller submitted a final report to President John F. Kennedy. It included these recommendations:

“Establishment of an over-all national recreation policy which would heavily emphasize coordination of federal, state, and private activity in the field of outdoor recreation;

“Creation of a federal bureau of Outdoor Recreation to serve as national coordinator of all such policy and planning;

“Establishment by Congress of a Land and Water Conservation Fund to finance federal purchases of private land for outdoor recreational purposes, and to subsidize state planning and state purchases of private land for outdoor recreation.” [Emphasis added.]

“The Rockefeller proposals were soon implemented. Writing in The Review Of The News for June 12, 1974, [former FBI official and Constitution expert] Dan Smoot noted:

“In April, 1962, President Kennedy created, by executive action, the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, and sent a message asking Congress to give the Bureau statutory authority and to authorize the other programs recommended by Rockefeller. In 1963, Congress by law ‘authorized’ the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, which Kennedy had already illegally set up; and in 1964, the Congress passed the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act.

“Propaganda about conservation and the need to establish ‘recreational areas’ easily deceived the public. After all, who wants to be against conservation and recreation?” [Emphasis added.]

However, as Allen pointed out land control is viewed by totalitarian planners as a route to people control:

“Modern land planning traces its origins back to Karl Marx. In the Communist Manifesto of 1848, you will recall, Marx cited ten steps necessary to the establishment of Communism. Step One was ‘abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.’ Step Seven called for public use of land ‘in accordance with a common plan.’…

“But ours is not a Communist state. Here, by law and tradition, a man’s home is his castle; his lands and properties his to do with as he chooses. Under our American Constitution, the right of the people to own and control property has been a historic check upon government power. Where the government owns or controls the land and the buildings on the land, the people may make no use of real property without government permits. Their property rights in their homes, farms, and businesses are thus abolished. Which is why land control is people control. Thus, land-use planning legislation proposing a common plan for the United States, as determined by federal, state, or local bureaucrats, would effectively accomplish the same results as the Soviet Constitution.

“All of this is not only admitted by the advocates of federal land-use regulation, but they boast of it. Russell Train, head of the Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.) [and member of the Establishment’s Council on Foreign Relations], was quoted by the New York Times of September 3, 1973, as observing: ‘In my opinion there is no way to avoid integral planning of land use with transportation, housing utilities, farm policy and so on.’ The very next day another ‘high federal official’ was cited by the Times as exploring the need for federal land control. He was quoted as saying: ‘It would be a miracle if 50 states, operating independently, gave us the exact distribution of farmland, industry, power plants, forests, and public beaches, not to mention population, that would best serve the overall national interest.’

“That is collectivist doubletalk, and Karl Marx couldn’t have put it better. The catch is, of course, that under federal land control the bureaucrats and their Establishment bosses will determine what is in the ‘national interest,’ just as they have with bussing, and racist Affirmative Action programs, and the thousand other little tyrannies to which we are being subjected. Control of land, as we said, is people control. Karl Marx knew that. Lenin knew that. Hitler knew that. And the Establishment Insiders using government to take control of America know it too. To control the people every totalitarian system must control not only its physical territory but the essential environment — and that means central land-use planning and control.”

Program Endorsements

Not surprisingly, “environmentalist” groups applaud the significance of the Land and Water Conservation  Fund in the S. 47 package.   For example, in its online national magazine for February 27, the Left-wing Sierra Club reported:

“On Tuesday, the House of Representatives passed the Natural Resources Management Act, the lands conservation bill that combines more than 100 pieces of legislation protecting 3-million-plus acres of land. The bill, which the Senate overwhelmingly passed two weeks ago, also classifies hundreds of miles of US rivers as wild, scenic, or recreational, and creates three new national monuments.

“The act is the culmination of four years of effort and a rare example of broad bipartisan deal-making. For environmentalists, and anyone who cares about public land, there’s a lot to be excited about….

“2) The Land and Water Conservation Fund has been permanently reauthorized.

“The Land and Water Conservation Fund may be the most important federal conservation program that you’ve never heard of. Established in 1964, it uses fees from offshore drilling to pay for onshore conservation programs. Since expiring in 2014, it’s been temporarily funded every few years. Last September, it expired again and was still waiting to be renewed. The popular bipartisan program has helped to preserve and protect outdoor spaces in all 50 states, allocating funds for everything from the park where your kid plays soccer to remote, untrammeled wilderness.” [Emphasis added.]

And on March 14, the environmentalist “Save Our Canyons.org” exclaimed:

“For a few weeks we’ve been celebrating the passage of the Natural Resources Management Act of 2019, and we expect to be celebrating its provisions for many years to come.  It is probably the most important environmental legislation in half a century….

“Many of the act’s creations are quite minor, in our opinion… But let’s start with some of the most important provisions of S.47.

“First, nationally, is the restoration of the expired Land and Water Conservation Fund. Also nationally, there is the Get Kids Outdoors piece, providing free access to fourth graders and their sponsors to National Parks….

“Nationally, there will be many pieces of new and expanded Wildernesses, totaling another 2/3 million acres, along with equivalent acreage of Recreation and Conservation Areas, largely withdrawn from mineral development.” [Emphasis added.]

Support in Congress

Against the background Allen provides in his 1975 article, the eagerness of politicians to tout the recreational benefits of their S. 47 largesse takes on disturbing significance.  We’ll look at and comment on some of the House endorsements in the Congressional Record for 2-26-19.  [For Senator comments, please see our scoring of Senate Vote 22 on S. 47, 2-12-19.]

Keep in mind that congressional “debates” these days largely consist of statements intended to further the campaigns of the measure’s supporters.  Opponents rarely are given (or seek) the opportunity to voice objections. Almost all representatives have decided their position in advance of the “debates” and often only show up on the House floor after there is a demand for a recorded vote.

From the Congressional Record (2-26-19) [Emphasis added]: 

Rep. Rob Bishop (R–Utah), Ranking Member of the Committee on National Resources:  “Mr. Speaker, when I became chairman of this committee, I vowed never  to do this kind of a package. I thought that each bill deserved to be  debated and to be moved as a standalone.   Basically, we in the House did that. Unfortunately, the Senate did  not, which is why there are at least 63 House-passed bills in this  package, 62 of which were passed on suspension, that have been sitting in the Senate, languishing for up to a year and a half.”

Freedom First Society:  Mr. Bishop is correct that “each bill deserved to be debated and to be moved as a standalone.”  One obvious conclusion is that Congress has enabled the federal government to grow beyond what it is able to manage.  But the Senate’s action doesn’t justify compromise here, just to get something done, particularly when huge poison pills are included in the package

Worthy of note: Senator Mike Lee (Mr. Bishop’s Republican colleague from Utah) took a different position on S. 47.  In a February 11th article for the Deseret News, titled “This bill is not the right move for Utah lands,” Senator Lee makes these points:

• The bill fails to reform federal land acquisition programs, and reauthorizes the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) which has not been implemented consistent with the original intention of the fund [FFS: ???].
• The bill adds new restrictions on land already under federal control and protection.
• The bill creates another 1.3 million acres of Wilderness in the West, over half [642,000 acres] in Utah.
• Wilderness designation limits far more activities than required to actually protect the land. 

Representative Raul Grijalva (D–Arizona), Chair of the Committee on National Resources: “I am particularly proud that this package will permanently authorize  the Land and Water Conservation Fund, a program that supports  recreation access and conservation in all 50 States.   LWCF works for the people at no direct cost to the taxpayer. It  enhances Americans’ enjoyment of public lands across this Nation. It is  time to guarantee the future of this very important program.   In addition to LWCF, the package would add over 1 million acres of  wilderness, designate new national monuments, and expand three national  parks, to name a few of the over 100 provisions.

Freedom First Society:  “No direct cost, perhaps.  But how about indirect cost?  There is no free lunch.   Why should offshore royalties from offshore oil and gas  leasing on the Outer Continental Shelf pay for this?  (The royalties could be used for something else.) And what about the tremendous burden on the federal government, including Congress, to administer the Fund?  Moreover, in the earlier debate over the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019, which became public law (see House Roll Call 87), Texas Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee touted the $435 million appropriated to the fund.

Rep. Debbie Dingell (D–Michigan), widow of the last Rep. John Dingell Jr.:  “The outstanding provisions in this bill will enshrine and safeguard  our Nation’s conservation legacy for decades to come. This begins with  permanent reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. It  should never have expired. Permanent reauthorization of LWCF will mean  this program and its important work can continue unimpeded for future generations. Almost 20 years ago, John Dingell led the first effort to permanently reauthorize it with his friends Don Young, George Miller, Billy Tauzin, and Chris John, a geographically and diverse group of leaders  who happened to like the outdoors and, yes, hunting and fishing…..

“Since 1965, LWCS has  provided over $3.9 billion for over 40,000 projects in every county  across this country, with every $1 invested returning $4 in economic  value.”

Freedom First Society:  How could Congress manage “over 40,000 projects in every county across this country”?  Our answer: It couldn’t.   America’s Founders never authorized the Federal Government to get involved in such local matters.  They limited the Federal Government’s authority and responsibility to a few essential areas with a Constitution.  Unfortunately, Americans are no longer demanding that Congress respect constitutional safeguard for our liberties on Congress.

Rep. Jeff Duncan (R–SC):  “Mr. Speaker, as the former chairman of the Congressional Sportsmen’s  Caucus and an avid outdoorsman, I rise today in support of S. 47, the  Natural Resources Management Act.   But let’s be clear. Where does most of the funding come from to fund  the Land and Water Conservation Fund?

“The Land and Water Conservation  Fund is overwhelmingly funded by royalties from offshore oil and gas  leasing on the Outer Continental Shelf. It is funded mostly from money  energy companies that produce fossil fuels pay the Federal Government.  Even though we are going to overwhelmingly, even with bipartisan  support, permanently reauthorize a program that has enjoyed success  since 1964, it will remain in jeopardy. Why? Because many of the  Democrats supporting this have also supported this asinine, illogical,  and scientifically unfounded proposal called the Green New Deal. A  shift under the Green New Deal away from oil and gas to complete  dependence on renewables, and you can kiss this fund good-bye.   How will they propose to pay for the Land and Water Conversation  Fund? I can assure you it won’t be from royalties generated by  renewable energy. It will be from higher taxes.”

Freedom First Society:  We applaud Rep. Duncan’s opposition to the Green New Deal.  However, America’s problem is far more than the revolutionary Left.  The much bigger problem is with Republicans who implement the Establishment’s programs while appearing to defend conservative values. Many like to deflect attention from their record by focusing attention on open socialists.

Bill Summary:  The Congressional Research Service (CRS) prepared this summary of H.R. 1122, as introduced in the House:

“This bill authorizes the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to implement a mobility demonstration program to enable public housing agencies (PHAs) to administer housing-choice rental-assistance vouchers in a manner designed to (1) encourage low-income families receiving such assistance to move to lower-poverty areas, and (2) expand access to opportunity areas.

“HUD shall require PHAs applying to participate in the program to submit a specified Regional Housing Mobility Plan.”

Analysis:  H.R. 1122 attempts to help those living in public housing in poverty areas move to better environments.  But what we really have here is another case of socialists creating the poison and the antidote in the same laboratory. Let’s look at some background.

“Great Society” Background
In 1964, President Johnson started his administration by launching a massive program of federal spending to build what he termed the “Great Society.”   The Great Society would greatly encourage state and individual dependence on Washington.

The rubber-stamp Democratic Congress gave the President practically everything he asked for, setting new records in deficit spending.   And government became the biggest growth area in the nation.  By 1966 “one worker in six [was] employed by federal, state, or local government, compared with one in seven in 1955, and one in nine back in 1948.”

And those figures did not include workers in private industry who owed their jobs to government spending or to those who depended on the government for welfare and benefit income.  Of course, huge federal borrowing was required to finance this federal “generosity.”

President Johnson also launched his “War on Poverty.” Rather than a war on poverty, the president’s proposal amounted to a war of poverty.  Despite a half-century of federal war on poverty programs and public housing, poverty is now worse than ever.   That should be no surprise as socialism doesn’t fix poverty, it just spreads it around.

But the Great Society would do even more damage through its assault on the Constitution.  When the Department of Housing and Urban Development was created in 1966, the Arizona Republic protested:

“Nowhere does the U.S. Constitution give the federal government any control over urban affairs….

“Scarcely a week passes but some city or county department head goes from Phoenix to Washington to get the answer to a problem which, a few years ago, would have been solved in city hall or the court house.”

Norman Thomas, the Socialist Party leader, declared that he did not need to run for president in 1964, because Lyndon Johnson was carrying out his program.  Regarding the Johnson “War on Poverty” program, Thomas declared:  “I ought to rejoice and I do. I rub my eyes in amazement and surprise. His war on poverty is a Socialistic approach and may be the major issue of the 1964 campaign.”

Today, there are approximately 1.2 million low-income households living in public housing units, managed by some 3,300 housing agencies. The agencies are funded by the Housing and Urban Development Department.

Promotion of H.R. 1122
H.R. 1122 is championed by Rep. Maxine Waters (see below), one of the most left-wing Democrats in Congress.  As Rep. Waters explains: “This is a bipartisan proposal that was included in HUD budget requests under the Obama administration.”

What should alarm many conservatives is how many Republicans embrace this entrenched business-as-usual socialism.

From the Congressional Record (3-11-19) [Emphasis added]:

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), Chair, Financial Services Committee:  “Mr. Speaker, rigorous studies have demonstrated that giving a low-income family an opportunity to move to a lower-poverty neighborhood  can have a profound impact, particularly for children….

“Unfortunately, families with housing choice vouchers who want to move to a better neighborhood can face significant challenges, particularly if it involves moving from one public housing agency jurisdiction to another….

“Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1122 would help reduce barriers to mobility by establishing a demonstration program that would enable and incentivize public housing agencies to come together to come up with a regional plan to increase mobility across their jurisdictions.

“This is a bipartisan proposal that was included in HUD budget requests under the Obama administration. Further, $25 million in  funding for this demonstration was included in fiscal year 2019 funding bill for HUD programs [see our analysis of H.J.Res. 31, House Roll Call 87], and a version of this bill passed the House last Congress 368 to 19.   This demonstration will not only provide thousands of families with  opportunities to move to better neighborhoods, but it will also lay the foundation for how successful outcomes can be replicated at a larger scale across the country.”

Freedom First Society: The problem Rep. Waters wants the federal government to solve (the difficulty in “moving from one public housing jurisdiction to another”) is the result of fed-gov’s support for public housing.

Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Missouri), member, Financial Services Committee: “And let us not forget that location also affects adults in many ways, such as access to jobs, the cost of getting to work, the feasibility of  balancing child care responsibilities with work schedules, and other  basic goods and services.  Voucher mobility is key to enabling families with children to move to safer neighborhoods with less poverty, thereby enhancing their chances of long-term health and success.”

Freedom First Society:  Here Rep. Luetkemeyer illustrates the lack of respect for constitutional limits among Republicans.  America’s Founding Fathers would have been appalled at the notion that the federal government should concern itself with such matters as “balancing child care responsibilities with work schedules.”

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, (D-Missouri), member, Financial Services Committee: “Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation is particularly  significant to me. I lived in public housing for 5 years. I saw what  the possibilities were there. I saw people who did not make it, and I  saw people who did make it.  The one thing that I found difficult to accept was the fact that if you lived in public housing, almost every rule made was designed, unintentionally, to keep you in public housing….

“The essence of this bill was passed as a part of the appropriations  package that was signed into law earlier this year [see our analysis of H.J.Res. 31, House Roll Call 87]. It promotes housing mobility for individuals who rely on housing vouchers….

“There is something contagious about working around only poor people.  If you live in a neighborhood and all you see are people who are struggling, it is easy to come to the conclusion that that is the way  life is: that you are just supposed to struggle and that you are just supposed to barely make it. If you don’t see the signs of people who  are making progress — people who are achieving — you might come to the conclusion that achievement is beyond one’s reach….

“This bill removes barriers by providing families with the tools to  navigate a move from one neighborhood to another. H.R. 1122 will allow more families to thrive by increasing their access to higher performing  schools, employment opportunities, fresh and affordably priced foods, and safe playgrounds.”

Freedom First Society:  Rep. Cleaver’s story would seem to be an admission against interest — an indictment of the failure of both the federal government’s “war on poverty” and its public housing programs.