Bills

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.

Bill Summary: H.R. 276 directs the Secretary of Education to establish the “Recognizing Inspiring School Employees (RISE) Award Program” recognizing excellence exhibited by classified school employees providing services to students in prekindergarten through high school.

The term “classified school employee” means an employee of a State or of any political subdivision of a State, or an employee of a nonprofit entity, who works in any grade from prekindergarten through high school in any of the following occupational specialties:  (A) Paraprofessional, including paraeducator services.  (B) Clerical and administrative services. (C) Transportation services.  (D) Food and nutrition services. (E) Custodial and maintenance services. (F) Security services. (G) Health and student services.  (H) Technical services. (I) Skilled trades.

The Secretary of Education shall  solicit nominations of classified school employees from the  occupational specialties described from the  Governor of each State. The Governor of the State shall consider nominations submitted by  the following: (i) Local educational agencies.  (ii) School administrators. (iii) Professional associations. (iv) Labor organizations.  (v) Educational service agencies. (vi) Nonprofit entities. (vii) Parents and students. (viii) Any other group determined appropriate by the Secretary.

Each such nomination shall contain, at a minimum demonstrations of excellence in the following areas:  (A) Work performance.  (B) School and community involvement.  (C) Leadership and commitment.  (D) Local support. (E) Enhancement of classified school employees’ image in the community and schools.

Analysis:   While many classified school employees undoubtedly deserve recognition for their efforts, a federal program is improper. In particular, the proposal supports the ongoing accumulation of unconstitutional power in Washington.

America’s founding fathers would be appalled at such a perversion of federal responsibility and authority.  They recognized a real need for a federal government.  But they also recognized the danger in empowering such a government.  So they attempted to limit the federal government’s authority by enumerating its powers in a Constitution and providing checks and balances to discourage usurpation of authority.

Involvement in educating the next generation of citizens is not one of those authorized powers.  At one time that was widely understood.  Then concern over the Soviet’s successful launch of Sputnik in October 1957 allowed the federal government to get involved.  Congress responded the following year by passing the “National Defense and Education Act,” ostensibly to help catch up with the Soviets in the technology race.

The Subversive Goal of Education Control

Federal involvement has since expanded to the point where federal deep pockets now impose a Leftist “political correctness” on educational institutions nationwide.

Revolutionaries have long sought to have government take control of the education of our youth, away from parents, as a means to transform society. In 1932, U.S. Communist Party leader William Z. Foster wrote:

“The schools, colleges, and universities will be coordinated and grouped under the National Department of Education and its State and local branches. The schools will be revolutionized, being cleansed of religious, patriotic and other features of the bourgeois ideology.”

Insiders at the Council on Foreign Relations have also long sought to centralize government control of education in Washington (see Masters of Deception, Chapter 13).

Bill Summary: H.R. 276 directs the Secretary of Education to establish the “Recognizing Inspiring School Employees (RISE) Award Program” recognizing excellence exhibited by classified school employees providing services to students in prekindergarten through high school.

The term “classified school employee” means an employee of a State or of any political subdivision of a State, or an employee of a nonprofit entity, who works in any grade from prekindergarten through high school in any of the following occupational specialties:  (A) Paraprofessional, including paraeducator services.  (B) Clerical and administrative services. (C) Transportation services.  (D) Food and nutrition services. (E) Custodial and maintenance services. (F) Security services. (G) Health and student services.  (H) Technical services. (I) Skilled trades.

The Secretary of Education shall  solicit nominations of classified school employees from the  occupational specialties described from the  Governor of each State. The Governor of the State shall consider nominations submitted by  the following: (i) Local educational agencies.  (ii) School administrators. (iii) Professional associations. (iv) Labor organizations.  (v) Educational service agencies. (vi) Nonprofit entities. (vii) Parents and students. (viii) Any other group determined appropriate by the Secretary.

Each such nomination shall contain, at a minimum demonstrations of excellence in the following areas:  (A) Work performance.  (B) School and community involvement.  (C) Leadership and commitment.  (D) Local support. (E) Enhancement of classified school employees’ image in the community and schools.

Analysis:   While many classified school employees undoubtedly deserve recognition for their efforts, a federal program is improper. In particular, the proposal supports the ongoing accumulation of unconstitutional power in Washington.

America’s founding fathers would be appalled at such a perversion of federal responsibility and authority.  They recognized a real need for a federal government.  But they also recognized the danger in empowering such a government.  So they attempted to limit the federal government’s authority by enumerating its powers in a Constitution and providing checks and balances to discourage usurpation of authority.

Involvement in educating the next generation of citizens is not one of those authorized powers.  At one time that was widely understood.  Then concern over the Soviet’s successful launch of Sputnik in October 1957 allowed the federal government to get involved.  Congress responded the following year by passing the “National Defense and Education Act,” ostensibly to help catch up with the Soviets in the technology race.

The Subversive Goal of Education Control

Federal involvement has since expanded to the point where federal deep pockets now impose a Leftist “political correctness” on educational institutions nationwide.

Revolutionaries have long sought to have government take control of the education of our youth, away from parents, as a means to transform society. In 1932, U.S. Communist Party leader William Z. Foster wrote:

“The schools, colleges, and universities will be coordinated and grouped under the National Department of Education and its State and local branches. The schools will be revolutionized, being cleansed of religious, patriotic and other features of the bourgeois ideology.”

Insiders at the Council on Foreign Relations have also long sought to centralize government control of education in Washington (see Masters of Deception, Chapter 13).

Bill Summary:   H.R. 287, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2019, is one of the 12 regular annual appropriations bills. The text is almost identical to the version passed by the Senate last September.  Click here to read the Congressional Research Services Summary.

Analysis:  H.R. 287 would fund one of the 12 regular annual appropriations bills, which includes the unconstitutional Housing and Urban Development Department.  The House Democratic Leaders proposed this particular Senate-passed version ostensibly to put pressure on (or make it easier for) the Senate to approve it.  In reality the move was designed to bolster their claim that the partial government shutdown belonged to President Trump and his demand to fund a border wall.

However, our scorecard addresses a much bigger issue — out of control unconstitutional federal spending and programs that must be reversed in order truly to make America great again and protect our freedom.  Not surprisingly, none of the speakers from either Party in the debate over H.R. 287 mentioned this issue.

A Democratic-controlled Congress created the Cabinet-level Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD) in 1965, as part of President Johnson’s Great Society.  HUD would provide funds for urban renewal of cities and open the door for federal rent assistance to low-income families.

When the Department of Housing and Urban Development was created, 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.”

Despite this obvious unconstitutional overreach by the federal government, there has been no attempt by subsequent Congresses to reverse it. We seek to change that.

We do not score the Republicans on this one, as many merely objected that H.R. 287 did not include the increases and supportive unconstitutional tweaks passed by the House last year.

For example, consider these arguments (in the Congressional Record) by GOP Representative Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Florida), Ranking Republican on this Appropriations Subcommittee: “Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill….

“This bill is, frankly, absurd because it takes a Senate product, ignoring all — all — of the House Members’ priorities. It is jamming it through this body without a single opportunity to amend or improve or change this bill in any way.   Not one House Member has had one priority put in this bill because  there are no amendments allowed in this process.  Again, this ploy will not work. The Senate has no plans of taking up this legislation. And, again, this is deja vu all over again….

“Again, our majority is asking us, all of us here in this Chamber, to reject all of the hard work and all of the  priorities of every House Member, Republican or Democrat….

“This bill, unfortunately, falls far short on our charge to do the best  that we can with the revenue, the taxpayer money….

“Let me give you a few examples.   In our bill last year, we included $50 million in new funding for a  program that we call mobility vouchers. These vouchers are targeted at  families with children, to enable them to move to neighborhoods with greater economic opportunity, and this initiative has strong bipartisan support from the authorizers and strong support from the advocates for  the poor. The Senate bill does not include any funds, zero funds, for this program. The House also included significantly more funding for new vouchers for people with disabilities. This program helps families across the  country that struggle to take care of severely disabled relatives, and  it also serves, by the way, so many veterans with disabilities. We  provided $390 million for this program.   For tens of thousands of new vouchers, this bill before us, frankly, falls short there as well, by $236 million, and adds no new vouchers.   You see, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say that every year, when I was  chairman, I also worked to ensure that there was adequate funding for Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS, or HOPWA.This program has  a record of saving lives, reducing disease transmissions, and  protecting communities. I am so proud of that. We provided $393 million  in our bill to ensure that there was no reduction, no cut to housing  services for this vulnerable population.   The Senate, unfortunately, again, falls severely short, $375 million.  This will result in 1,700 people losing their housing, which will put  communities at risk….

“This is an area the Senate was counting on the House to fix, to fix their low  funding levels. But, you see, Mr. Speaker, we don’t have the  opportunity because of this stunt that we are witnessing here today.   Finally, we included $150 million for Choice Neighborhoods, which is  a program that provides much-needed neighborhood rehabilitation — revitalization grants, I should say. This has such strong bipartisan  support in the House. The Senate did not prioritize it as much as we  did, and they only provided $100 million.   So I look forward to advancing a bill that protects this, all of  these issues, and other important priorities for our House Members.”

Bill Summary:  The House-Senate Conference Report set appropriations for the seven remaining appropriations bills through the end of the 2019 fiscal year (ending September 30, 2019), including Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration; Commerce, Justice, Science; Financial Services and General Government; Homeland Security; Interior and Environment; State and Foreign Operations; and Transportation, Housing and Urban Development.

Analysis:  Of primary concern  with this consolidated funding bill is the lack of any concern by leaders in either party over the lack of spending restraint.  And certainly there is no demand that unconstitutional federal programs and departments be phased out — the real route to making America great again. Instead, appropriators tout all of the great things, often unconstitutional, they are doing with our tax money.  For more spending detail, please see our analysis of the House vote – Roll Call 87.

Although most Democratic lawmakers claim to support border enforcement, many also insist that there is no real immigration or border problem other than inhumane treatment by the Trump administration of those seeking asylum. Their claims don’t withstand scrutiny.

There is a very real open borders movement, driven by the Establishment, dating back decades and supported by politicians from both parties.  Recall the July 2, 2001 Wall Street Journal editorial “Open NAFTA Borders? Why Not?”:

“Reformist Mexican President Vicente Fox raises eyebrows with his suggestion that over a decade or two NAFTA should evolve into something like the European Union, with open borders for not only goods and investment but also people. He can rest assured that there is one voice north of the Rio Grande that supports his vision. To wit, this newspaper.”

As Vicente Fox suggests, NAFTA was much more than a trade agreement. Following the pattern of their successful deception leading to the EU, Internationalists used trade promotion as a ploy to create the NAFTA steppingstone to regional government and open borders. And President Trump’s USMCA upgrade to NAFTA continues that agenda.   For more, please see our January 25, 2018 post, “Immigration Betrayal!”

Throughout the House and Senate “debates” on this bipartisan, bicameral compromise, congressmen repeatedly hammered the public with the theme that compromise (with socialists) is the American way (echoed also by the Establishment media).   But there are limits to acceptable compromise.

Although 16 senators voted against the resolution, none rose to voice their objection during the brief structured Senate “debate” on the measure.

From the Congressional Record (2-24-19) [Emphasis added]:

Senator Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vermont):  “Mr. President, as someone who has been here for some  period of time, I was glad to see Republicans and Democrats, both in  the House and the Senate, come together in the past few weeks, especially this week.  We ignored the distractions and tweetstorms coming from the White  House. We reached an agreement to fund our government and make responsible investments for the American people.  Not one of us — none of the final four who did the negotiations,  sitting in that room, felt that this was an agreement that any one of us would have individually written.   There are things in this bill that I support and things I disagree with, but that could be said by all four of us, Republicans and  Democrats. You try to find as much common ground as you can. Everybody had to give something, but we ended up with a bipartisan compromise. We  had to deal with facts that are based on reality, not rhetoric based on  political fantasy.

“Democrats have always supported border security, but we support smart  border security, targeted strategies that address the real problems facing us at our southwest border. That is what we tried to accomplish here. We stood together. We rejected the toxic and hate-filled  immigration tweets coming from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.  The agreement does not fund President Trump’s wasteful wall….

“It does not fund President  Trump’s requested deportation force, and it rejects the unjustified and dramatic increase in the detention bed levels the President would have used to enforce his extreme immigration policy.

“But just as important as what this agreement rejects is what we were  able to accomplish.   We invested hundreds of millions of dollars in new technology to stop the flow of illegal drugs through our ports of entry. All Republicans and all Democrats supported that. We provide funds to hire more judges to address the immigration backlog in our country.

“We provide more than  half a billion dollars to support Central American countries, addressing the root causes of undocumented migration. We included $400 million to improve medical care and address the humanitarian concerns  at the border. Every one of us has seen enough of what is going on there; we are trying to show that America — the greatest Nation on Earth, also the wealthiest and the most humanitarian — will address it.   This is what a compromise looks like. This is how the American people  expect our government to function — not by tweets but by reasonable, reality-based compromise.

“Unfortunately, often lost in this debate over border security were  the more than 800,000 public servants and their families who were held  hostage by the Trump shutdown for weeks. They once again lived in fear  and uncertainty that their next paycheck may not come because the President chose to use them as hostages. This agreement ensures that these public servants remain on the job doing the important work of the American people through the end of the fiscal year, and also all those who are not on a government payroll but support all our different Agencies that were involved in this. They weren’t paid either.

“This agreement funds nine Federal Departments. Keep in mind — it is  not just the borders; it is nine Federal Departments and their related Agencies. I will give a couple of examples. It increases funding for the Environmental Protection Agency. It supports our national parks. It rejects the anti-science know-nothingism of the administration by supporting research and our dedicated scientists.

“This is extremely important to me because Senator Crapo and I wrote the last Violence Against Women authorization. We wrote the expansion of that law. Our bill today provides the highest funding level ever for the Office on Violence Against Women to support programs that prevent domestic violence. It also provides more than half a billion dollars to  combat the opioid crisis. In my earlier career, I saw too many deaths  because of the violence against women. I saw too many deaths of young  people from drug overdoses, and the numbers have only dramatically  increased from the days when I was a prosecutor. Supporting the Violence Against Women Act brought Republicans and Democrats together.

“The agreement invests in rural America, secures our interests abroad,  rebuilds our highways, and supports public housing.”

Freedom First Society:  We single out here just three of our many objections to Senator Leahy’s comments:

• “Undocumented migration” is a dishonorable euphemism intended to make criminal acts seem acceptable. The real “root causes of undocumented migration” — damaging U.S. policies — are rarely discussed and never addressed: For example, the socialist welfare magnet has long encouraged illegal immigration, while more recent acceptance of radical court decisions have invited even more illegal immigration.  Also, Internationalists in our government have regularly supported socialist governments to the south and attacked those leaders, such as Pinochet of Chile and Anastosio Somoza of Nicaragua, who wished to follow the American way.  Even earlier, Internationalists helped Castro to power in Cuba, from which position he instigated socialist revolution throughout Latin America.  Thus, U.S. Internationalists have ensured that much of Latin America remained mired in poverty.

• “It rejects the anti-science know-nothingism of the administration.” Here we see at work the principle Adolf Hiltler presented in his 1925 Mein Kampf:  “If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself.”

The political parties don’t differ over their acceptance of honest science.  They differ to the extent they are willing to use a bogus alarm as a pretext for an Internationalist power grab.  That bogus alarm is the claim, based on computer models designed to support the claim, that man-made carbon dioxide is causing catastrophic global warming. Eminent climate scientists, such as Richard Lindzen, formerly of MIT, dispute the claim (see his lecture entitled “Global Warmng for the Two Cultures” and our post: “UN Climate-Change Hysteria”). But the arguments of these scientists receive scant media attention.

Many Democrats and some Republicans embrace the pretext. Unfortunately, very few congressmen are willing to stand up to the heavily financed propaganda re climate change and expose its subversive driving agenda.

• “Our bill today provides the highest funding level ever for the Office on Violence Against Women to support programs that prevent domestic violence.” The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to concern itself with domestic violence — an involvement that would have astonished the framers.  However, we also point out the liberal role in creating the poison and the antidote in the same laboratory.   Liberals have constantly sought to undermine our culture of traditional religion as the basis for morality with a predictable disintegration of civilized codes.  And FBI profilers have found that some of the worst perpetrators of violence against women developed their sickness while raised without the role models of a traditional family.

Senator Charles E. Schumer (D-New York), Minority Leader:  “The agreement will provide smart border security, increasing support  for technologies at our ports of entry. It will not fund the  President’s expensive, ineffective wall. It will provide desperately  needed humanitarian assistance — medical support, transportation, food, and clothing — for children and families in detention. It will provide funding to our neighbors in Central America to fight the actual root causes of migration— the violent gangs and drug cartels.

“In short, it represents a fair compromise that includes priorities  from both sides of the aisle. I expect the legislation will pass this  Chamber with a significant bipartisan majority, pass the House, and be  sent to the President with plenty of time to avoid a government  shutdown tomorrow at midnight.

“There is word that the President will declare a national emergency. I hope he won’t. That would be a very wrong thing to do. Leader Pelosi and I will be responding to that in short order, but before that, I  just want to say that in order to reach this point, in order to attain  this bipartisan compromise, 800,000 public servants were forced to  suffer without pay for over a month as President Trump put the country  through a completely unnecessary shutdown that snarled airports, delayed loans for farmers and small businesses, trashed our national  parks, and took billions of dollars out of our economy.   We still need to address the plight of government contractors who still have not been made whole. Regrettably, we were unable to include that in the agreement, but we are going to keep working and fighting  for Senator Smith’s proposal to ensure our contractors are made whole again.

“The Senate was in the very same position just before Christmas, with  a deal in hand, when the President reversed himself and engineered the  longest shutdown in American history. After all of the pain of the shutdown caused by President Trump, we are basically right back where we started, with nearly the same parameters of a bipartisan agreement we were ready to pass around Christmas. Leader Pelosi and I, for  instance, offered the President $1.37 billion for border security with the same language that would have prohibited the wall then as is in the agreement now.

“Let this be a lesson. Government shutdowns don’t work. I hope President Trump has learned that lesson once and for all. I hope we never go down the road to shutdowns again. The American people suffer and very little is accomplished.  President Trump should sign this bill ASAP.   I yield the floor.”

Freedom First Society: Senator Schumer goes even further that Senator Leahy by claiming that “the actual root causes of migration” are “the violent gangs and drug cartels.”  He conveniently omits mentioning the two major causes, for which Congress and the Internationalists in our government are responsible, which we identified above.

Senator Schumer also has the audacity to place the entire blame for the shutdown on President Trump, while refusing to admit that political considerations were responsible for the Democrats’ refusal to compromise re a few measly billion for the border wall.

Senator Richard C. Shelby (R-Alabama), Chairman Senate Committee on Appropriations:  “Mr. President, I will be brief.   First of all, I thank Senator Leahy, the vice chairman of the Appropriations Committee, who worked diligently for the past year to get to where we are today in a bipartisan way and also, recently, in the conference committee, which we thought last week had broken down. I also thank Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, and Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader. I thank everybody else who has contributed to get us to this point.  Nothing is perfect, but we think this is a good bill for the American  people. It opens up all of the government — the 25 percent that we had  not addressed.   The conference report includes a robust and comprehensive investment in border security, providing funding for personnel, technology, and  infrastructure that is critical to keeping our nation secure and our people safe. Critically, the bill provides nearly $1,400,000,000 to further construction of a barrier along the southwest border.

Bill Summary:  The House-Senate Conference Report sets appropriations for the seven remaining appropriations bills through the end of the 2019 fiscal year (ending September 30, 2019), including Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration; Commerce, Justice, Science; Financial Services and General Government; Homeland Security; Interior and Environment; State and Foreign Operations; and Transportation, Housing and Urban Development.

Analysis:  With the Consolidated Appropriations Act, Congress supported and expanded unconstitutional spending.  As usual, the appropriators brag about all the good projects they are funding without mentioning where that funding really comes from — taxpayers.  Many congressmen speak as though the money they are spending comes out of their own pockets.  For example, according to Colorado Rep. Ed Perlmutter: “Providing funding for the Federal Government is one of our most basic responsibilities here in the Congress.”

No, the basic responsibility is not to feed the beast, but to put the beast on a diet.  In short, the job of Congress is to restrain federal spending to what is really necessary and constitutional.  Deplorably, the floor “debates” also ignore the burden federal spending imposes on growth, investment, and higher paying jobs in the private sector.

Despite the fact that 109 Republicans voted nay (compared to 87 yea), Representative Scott Perry (R-Pennsylvania) was the only Republican given an opportunity (or who took the opportunity) during the “debate” on the measure to voice his objection:

“Mr. Speaker, this is bad policy following bad process — an 1100-plus- page bill dropped at midnight last night, and we are acting like we can’t walk and chew gum at the same time. We are acting like we can’t keep our Federal Government open and fix our border situation….

“At least, if nothing else, we should do no harm. Let’s not make the situation worse.  Mr. Speaker, this bill provides amnesty for anyone in a household of an unaccompanied minor, and it protects the people who have smuggled those children into the United States and encourages them to do that even more. And even more than that, once they are here, we cut $700 million out of ICE, and we reduced their bed space. So there are less people  looking for those people who are here illegally.   Then when we find the criminals, when they have committed some crime and we find them, we can’t even keep them. We have to release them back into our communities. Mr. Speaker, city councils are now deciding where we secure our border. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time and urge a ‘no’ vote.”

Unfortunately, Representative Perry’s assessment reflects the reality of the betrayal buried in this compromise agreement.  Daniel Horowitz, senior editor for Conservative Review, explained the damage in greater detail in his “5 insane provisions in the amnesty omnibus bill.”

The other big topic discussed in the debates over this consolidated spending was the impact of the 35-day partial government shutdown on 800,000 furloughed employees and the American people.  Although we would agree that little positive was accomplished by this shutdown, we doubt that most Americans noticed.

Clearly politics were involved on the Democratic side. Democrats didn’t want to hand President Trump a perceived victory, and they successfully carried their message that it was the President’s insistence on $5.7 billion for a border wall that was responsible for the shutdown.   Republicans disagreed, but their argument didn’t carry.  For example, Oklahoma Rep. Tom Cole presented the following argument during the debate:

“Now, of course, we have a little bit different view of how that  shutdown came about. It is worth noting for the record that the House actually did vote to fund the government and produced a bill in December that the President said he would sign and a majority of the  United States Senate actually favored.   But the Senate gets to set its own rules. They could reach a number of 60, but the Democratic minority chose not to do that.”

It was also clear that Democratic leaders wanted to preserve their “open borders” image with their constituents.  Given the size of the entire package and the negative impact alleged by many, the $5.7 billion was peanuts, and the opposition, when the unproductive spending in the total package was so much greater, was pure posturing.

The Open Borders Movement

Although most Democratic lawmakers claim to support border enforcement, many also insist that there is no real immigration or border problem other than the inhumane treatment of those seeking asylum by the Trump administration.  Their claims don’t withstand scrutiny.

There is a very real open borders movement, driven by the Establishment, dating back decades and supported by politicians from both parties. The Establishment, such as the Ford Foundation, has promoted massive uncontrolled immigration and sought to prevent it from assimilating, as a clear means to bring about socialist revolution.

Books have been written and organizations formed to address the need for immigration  reform.  But Establishment pressure has prevailed.  Recall the July 2, 2001 Wall Street Journal editorial “Open NAFTA Borders? Why Not?”:

“Reformist Mexican President Vicente Fox raises eyebrows with his suggestion that over a decade or two NAFTA should evolve into something like the European Union, with open borders for not only goods and investment but also people. He can rest assured that there is one voice north of the Rio Grande that supports his vision. To wit, this newspaper.”

As Vicente Fox suggests, NAFTA was much more than a trade agreement. Trade promotion, as with the EU, was just an Internationalist pretext for the creation of regional government and open borders. And President Trump’s USMCA upgrade to NAFTA continues that agenda.   For more, please see our January 25, 2018 post, “Immigration Betrayal!”

The Proper Course

If a majority of representatives, backed by informed constituents, were truly determined to roll back unconstitutional spending, the House could still use its power of the purse without letting the big-spending socialists gain the upper hand.  The essential tactic is for the House to vote on the 12 appropriations bills independently (regular order) and then insist that the Senate deal with each.

We agree with Kentucky Representative Thomas Massie, who voted against a May 2017 omnibus spending package.  After the vote, he explained what could be done, if informed voters supplied Congress with the needed backbone:

“House Leadership and the media have led the public to believe that passing one giant omnibus every year, at the last minute, is a legitimate way to fund the government and that anything else will result in a total government shutdown. Both are false. We should write, debate, amend, and pass 12 separate appropriations bills as the law prescribes, so that if any one bill fails to pass, only 1/12th of the Federal government shuts down.”

And even when not in the majority, the principled course for a Congressman is to vote no on bills where there is no effort to roll back stifling unconstitutional spending, and in particular to insist on regular order by voting no on all consolidated spending bills.

For your enlightenment and reading displeasure, we provide here, and frequently comment on, examples of how congressmen from both parties are marching to a radical drummer.

From the Congressional Record (2-14-19) [Emphasis added]:

Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-Colorado), Committee on Rules:  “The conference report in front of us today is by no means perfect,  but it represents a compromise between Democrats and Republicans and  between the House and the Senate.   There are many programs well funded by this bill…. This legislation provides $17 billion in funding for new infrastructure investments in roads, bridges, transit, and housing, and the bill blocks attempts by the White House to hamstring the EPA and other agencies from protecting our environment.

“Importantly, the bill overrides the President’s decision to freeze  Federal employee pay this year. Instead, it provides a 1.9 percent pay  raise for all Federal employees.  This conference agreement also makes smart investments in border security by investing $755 million in infrastructure and technology at ports of entry, additional funds to hire customs agents, $563 million for immigration judges to reduce the backlog, and humanitarian aid for Central American countries and along our border to those who need the help.”

Freedom First Society:  Throughout the “debate” on this bipartisan, bicameral compromise, congressmen repeatedly hammered the public with the theme that compromise (with socialists) is the American way (echoed also by the Establishment media).  But there are limits to acceptable compromise.  Moreover, the Constitution provides the House, if a simple majority were really responding to informed constituent pressure, the means to impose its “power of the purse” to roll back unconstitutional government.

During the “debate” we are also repeatedly told that high America ideals demand that we take care of those less fortunate seeking asylum.  But the misleading claim ignores the causes of the massive wave. We cite two significant omissions:

• Our policies, such as the welfare magnet, have long encouraged illegal immigration and those policies have become worse; and
• Internationalists in our government have regularly supported socialist governments to the south and attacked those leaders, such as Pinochet of Chile and Anastosio Somoza of Nicaragua, who wished to follow the American way. Thus we have made it difficult for much of Latin America to prosper. That subversive intervention must be stopped.

Moreover, for America to promote high ideals, we must have the means and the public support to do so.  This means rejecting socialist revolution (supported by uncontrolled immigration) and preserving our nation’s independence.

Rep. Tom Cole (R-Oklahoma), Ranking Republican on Rules Committee and Vice Ranking Republican on Appropriations Committee:  “I think I can speak for all of us here in this body when I say that government shutdowns are bad for the American people, bad for government, and bad policy, and we should all strive to never let them happen again….

“But today we are poised to finish our work, and though the road may  have been difficult, I think Members should look back on this process and commend themselves for what they have accomplished.   Last September, we finalized and passed into law 5 of the 12 funding  bills, an accomplishment we had not matched in over 20 years. Those five, which included the two largest bills — Defense and Labor, Health  and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies — covered approximately 75 percent of all Federal discretionary spending. Prior to the end of the FY 2018 year, the House also passed four  additional spending bills, which we then moved to conference with the Senate.   Indeed, of the seven outstanding spending bills, six of them were negotiated with the Senate and have been ready to be moved for final passage for quite some time. The sticking point has been the final bill  on that for Homeland Security, which vexed Members for some time. But  though we did not reach a deal on Homeland Security quickly, we did  eventually reach a deal.   Today, I am pleased to be standing with my colleagues to bring up seven bipartisan, bicameral, fully negotiated and conferenced spending  bills that are ready to be passed and sent to the President’s desk for  signature….

“We have a Democratic  House, we have a Republican Senate, and we have a Republican President.   Everything that we are going to accomplish in the next 18 months for the American people will have to be a compromise where we work  together. I actually think this is a good first step in starting that  process….

“I look forward to beginning that process here tonight by working together to pass a bill the Senate has already passed in an overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion and that the President has said he will sign, and I  assume that he certainly will….

“But at the end of the day, we have come together and given the American people what they deserve, and that is a fully funded, operational government, and we have resolved our differences in conference.”

Freedom First Society:  More important than avoiding government shutdowns is for the House to use its power of the purse to begin rolling back unconstitutional programs. The House should cut back, rather than temporarily shuttering, unconstitutional government. Realistically, however, such an agenda must be imposed on Congress by informed constituents.

Rep. Norma J. Torres (D-Calif.), Rules and Appropriations Committees:  “Madam Speaker … today I rise in support of the conference  report. I want to congratulate the conferees, and specifically,  Chairman Lowey, Ranking Member Granger, and the other conferees for  their hard work, for coming together, and spending so much time to  ensure that we have a bill moving forward that opens up our government.   This is a bipartisan statement about who we are as a country. This was a fight to reclaim the country that welcomed me as a little girl  from Guatemala, to make sure that this country welcomes other children who come here fleeing violence and poverty.”

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), Committee on the Budget, vice-chair of Congressional Progressive Caucus:  “We are protecting the environment in my own State: the Bentsen-Rio  Grande Valley State Park, the National Butterfly Center, the Santa Ana  National Wildlife Refuge, places where I have gone and people are  pleading: Don’t put fences there. We brought down the number of ICE detention beds from 49,000-50,000 to 40,000, and, of course, we have provided, as I have indicated, and fought for facilities that deal with those children and women that are  coming across: $415 million for enhanced medical support; transportation; food; clothing for migrants in detention, particularly  children; and $30.5 million for family case management.   As my good friend said, we brought up the alternative detention from  82,000 to 100,000….

“Finally, of course, in the justice area, we have given money for Byrne grants; Community Oriented Policing Services, sexual assault kits and DNA, Second Chance Act programs, and we funded NASA….

“ICE — we have to realize, there must be due process and justice. It is  unfortunate that this administration’s treatment of immigrants is unconscionable and inhumane. We can do better and we will do better….

“Madam Speaker, coming from a border state, I am very pleased that this legislation does not provide the President the billions of dollars he demanded for a wasteful, ineffective, and immoral concrete wall.   In fact, it rejects the President’s demand for $5.7 billion for his  wall and provides instead $1.375 billion for physical barriers with  language specifying that new fencing is limited to currently deployed  designs–ruling out the President’s border wall proposal.  My constituents and other Texans will be gratified to learn that this  legislation specifically prohibits construction on sensitive  environmental areas such as the Bentsen-Rio State Park, the National  Butterfly Center, the Santa Ana Wildlife Refuge, La Lomita Historical  Park, and the Lower Rio Grande Wildlife Refuge between Brownsville, TX,  and the Gulf of Mexico.   I also strongly approve that the legislation provides a path to a  reduction in ICE detention beds from 49,057 today to 40,520 at the end  of the fiscal year, bringing the number of detention beds back to the  level of average daily population funded in the FY18 omnibus bill.   This reduction in ICE detention beds, combined with Democratic  control of the Appropriations Committee and new biannual inspections of  detention facilities, will provide a check on the Trump  Administration’s out-of-control deportation policy that targets law-abiding families instead of focusing on deporting violent criminals;  The agreement before also provides funding a more humane immigration  system with $415 million for enhanced medical support, transportation, food and clothing for migrants in detention, particularly children and  families; $30.5 million for family case management; an expansion in  Alternatives to Detention participants from 82,000 to 100,000; and a  prohibition on ICE using information collected by HHS from sponsors of  migrant children for removal and deportation purposes….

“The agreement provides more than $3 billion for state and local law enforcement to keep communities safe, including by addressing the opioid crisis, closing sexual assault kit backlogs and hiring more  police officers.   Madam Speaker, all Members should celebrate the fact that the  agreement provides more than $17 billion in funding for new infrastructure investments to improve our roads, bridges, highways,  railways and mass transit.   Another reason why I strongly support the legislation before us is  because it restores and increases investments in job-creating  initiatives for economic and business development, including for  minority and women-owned businesses, that the Trump Administration  tried to eliminate or reduce drastically.   Madam Speaker, the bipartisan agreement before us rejects the Trump  Administration’s attacks on the environment by blocking the  Administration’s deep cuts to initiatives to protect clean water, clean  air and public lands and it invests more than $9 billion in the EPA and  Land and Water Conservation Fund.   The agreement reinforces and strengthens America’s global leadership by rejecting the Trump Administration’s radical cuts and securing $9.1  billion in security assistance for allies, including $3.03 billion for Israel, $5.7 billion for PEPFAR and $1.7 billion for the Food for Peace program….

Expands the Alternatives to Detention program from 82,000 to 100,000.   Provides $30.5 million for ATD family case management, which improves  compliance with immigration court obligations by helping families’  access community-based support for basic housing, healthcare, legal, and educational needs….

“$3.1 billion for grants to help States, communities, citizens, and  nonprofit organizations, with every grant being at or above the FY 2018  level, including $277 million for training, exercises, and education  for our Nation’s first responders and emergency managers….

“$6.075 billion in discretionary funding for Special Supplemental  Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), which is $100  million below the FY 2018 enacted level and $325 million above the  President’s budget request.   $73.477 billion for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP),  which will fully fund the program in 2019.   $23.141 billion for Child Nutrition Programs, which will fully fund  the program in 2019.   International Programs: $1.716 billion for Food for Peace and  $210.255 million for the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education  and Child Nutrition Program.   Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is funded at $3.08 billion in  discretionary funding for the FDA, an increase of $269 million.   Census Bureau — $3.82 billion, an increase of more than $1 billion above FY 2018 and $20.9 million above the President’s budget request,  to enable the Bureau to effectively prepare for a thorough, accurate,  and cost-effective 2020 Decennial Census….

“Grants to State and Local Law Enforcement — $3.02 billion:   1. $423.5 million for Byrne JAG;   2. $303.5 million for the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS)  Program;   3. $178 million to address sexual assault kit and other DNA evidence backlogs;   4. $87.5 million for Second Chance Act programs;   5. $347 million for grant programs to address the opioid crisis;   6. $100 million for the STOP School Violence Act;   7. $497.5 million for Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) programs; and  8. $75 million for grants to improve the NICS firearms background  check system.   National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)–$21.5 billion, an increase of $763.9 million above the FY 2018 enacted level and $1.6  billion above the President’s budget request.   $1.93 billion for Earth science, an increase of $10 million above the FY 2018 enacted level and $146.8 million above the President’s budget  request, to enable better scientific information about the Earth and its changing climate….

“U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) — $1.37 billion in  total funding for the operating expenses of USAID, which is $25 million  above the FY 2018 enacted level and $258 million above the President’s  budget request.   Global Health Programs — $3.1 billion, including $575 million for  family planning programs, $302 million to fight tuberculosis, $145  million for nutrition programs, $755 million to combat malaria, and  $290 million for GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance.   Development Assistance — $3 billion for Development Assistance.   Economic Support Fund (ESF) — $3.7 billion in total funding for  Economic Support Funds, which is $251 million less than the FY 2018  enacted level.   Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Assistance — $7.8 billion, which is $173 million above the FY 2018 enacted level and $1.46 billion above  the President’s budget request.  International Disaster Assistance (IDA) — $4.4 billion, which is $100  million above the FY 2018 enacted level and $828 million above the  President’s budget request.   Refugee Assistance — $3.4 billion, which is $73 million above the FY 2018 enacted level and $632 million above the President’s budget  request.  Multilateral Assistance — $1.86 billion to meet U.S. commitments to  multilateral organizations and international financial institutions,  which is equal to the FY 2018 enacted level and $440 million above the  President’s budget request.   Peace Corps — $410 million, $500,000 above the FY 2018 enacted level  and $14 million above the President’s budget request.  Millennium Challenge Corporation — $905 million, which is equal to the  FY 2018 enacted level and $105 million above the President’s budget request….

“Public and Indian Housing (PIH) — $31 billion, an increase of $6.4  billion above the President’s budget request.  Tenant-Based Rental Assistance is funded at $20.3 billion, adequate  to renew all existing vouchers.   Public Housing Capital Fund is funded at $2.8 billion and the Choice  Neighborhoods Initiative is funded at $150 million-both programs will  revitalize our nation’s public housing stock.   A mobility voucher demonstration program is funded at $25 million.   Community Planning and Development (CPD) — $7.7 billion, an increase  of $29 million above the FY 2018 enacted level and $5 billion above the  President’s budget request.   Homeless Assistance Grants are funded at $2.6 billion.  Community Development Block Grants are funded at $3.4 billion.  The HOME program is funded at $1.3 billion.   Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS is funded at $393  million.   Housing Programs are funded $12.7 billion, an increase of $726  million above the President’s budget request.   $61 million is for the renovation and construction of housing units  for the elderly and $30 million is for new housing units for persons  with disabilities.   Project-Based Rental Assistance is fully-funded at $11.7 billion.  Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity is funded at $65.3 million, equal  to the FY 2018 enacted level and $3 million above the President’s  budget request.   Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes is slated to receive $279 million, an increase of $49 million above the FY 2018 enacted  level and $134 million above the President’s budget request.

“Madam Speaker, the collateral damage caused by the Trump Shutdown was  substantial, long lasting, and unnecessary because it could have been  avoided had the President not reneged on his promise to sign the  continuing resolution passed by the Senate unanimously on December 19,  2018.   Instead, the President callously shut down the government for 35  days, furloughing 800,000 civil servants and forcing nearly half that many to work  without pay, which cost the national economy more than $11 billion in lost productivity and economic output.  Because the President broke his promise, frontline federal employees, including law enforcement and public safety personnel, worked without  pay from December 22 through January 25, 2019….

“Madam Speaker, shutting down the Government of the United States, or  any portion thereof, is not an acceptable tactic or strategy for resolving differences regarding policy, funding levels, or governing  philosophy.  It should never happen again.  Given the damage mercilessly inflicted on the American people and the  economy by the Trump Shutdown, Congress has a fiduciary duty to the American people to ensure the continued, uninterrupted operations of the Government of the United States and its services.   And that begins with an overwhelming majority vote in support of H.J. Res. 31.”

Freedom First Society:  The above much-shortened excerpt listing federal expenditures should provide an inkling of the incredible unconstitutional involvement of today’s federal government and why we have a $22 trillion national debt.  Clearly Representative Jackson Lee (joined by most of her colleagues) has no respect for the limits on what the federal government is authorized to do, which our Founding Fathers spelled out in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

Rep. Nita Lowey (D-New York), Chair House Committee on Appropriations:  “Mr. Speaker, the bill before us would prevent another government  shutdown by completing the remaining appropriation bills for fiscal year 2019. It represents what is possible in a strong democratic process when we work hard to reach agreement that puts politics aside and puts the American people first.  This bipartisan compromise rejects the President’s irresponsible budget cuts and, instead, invests in priorities that will strengthen our families, communities, and economy.”

Freedom First Society:  “Puts politics aside and puts the American people first”?  It’s difficult to respond politely to such audacious distortion.

Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas), Ranking Republican on Appropriations Committee:  “I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 31, a bipartisan plan to fund  the Department of Homeland Security and the remaining appropriations  bills for fiscal year 2019….

“It also does not include any limits on ICE enforcement actions that could cause dangerous criminals to be released into our country. The agreement prevents another unnecessary shutdown by including funding for the remaining unfunded appropriations bills: Agriculture;  Commerce, Justice, Science; Financial Services and General Government; Interior; State and Foreign Operations; and Transportation, Housing and  Urban Development.   By voting for these bills today and funding these vital areas of the  Federal Government, we will secure America and our allies, promote  economic prosperity, protect human life, promote the health and safety  of all Americans, and make vital investments in our Nation’s  infrastructure.   Mr. Speaker, it would take hours to go through all the bipartisan  provisions included in this bill….”

Freedom First Society:  “It does not include any limits on ICE enforcement actions that could cause dangerous criminals to be released into our country”: What an indictment of the Democratic negotiators that Republicans consider this a plus in the agreement!

Rep. Lucille Royball-Allard (D-Calif.), Committee on Appropriations, member Congressional Progressive Caucus:  “The negotiations on the DH funding bill were among the hardest I have  experienced to date. Although we did not win every battle, we won many.   We prevented new funding for immigration enforcement field personnel….

“We held firm on a provision to prevent ICE from using information from the Office of Refugee Resettlement to detain and remove sponsors of unaccompanied children….

“While I am not happy with the outcome on border fencing, we did limit  funding for border fencing to only $1.375 billion, no higher than last  year. We also won protections for several ecologically sensitive areas  in Texas. And we secured hundreds of millions of dollars for  humanitarian efforts to ensure migrants who spend time in CBP custody are appropriately cared for.   Our bill also has large investments in equipment to detect drugs and  other contraband at our ports of entry, where the real threat lies….

“Compared to the current detention bed level, we significantly reduced  the funding available for ICE detention beds for the rest of this fiscal year.”

Rep. Harold Rogers (R-Kentucky), Committee on Appropriations:  “Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, but first, I want to congratulate our committee’s distinguished chair and ranking member on their masterful work in shepherding this compromise to the floor….

“Mr. Speaker, we have a crisis at our southern border, period. There  is no denying that our Nation’s security is threatened by the seemingly  unending flow of drugs that find their way into nearly every American  community, as well as the violence of the brutal cartels that profit  from this trade.   Where does it take place? On that border. So we do have a problem. It is an emergency. President Trump is absolutely correct that we can’t allow this ruthless criminality to continue unchecked….

“In addition to the security crisis, there is also a very real  humanitarian crisis that we simply can’t ignore. Thousands of  vulnerable women and children are seeking a better, safer life in the confines of this country. It is not the American way to turn our backs on these people, and that is precisely why we have processes under Federal law to facilitate legal entry into our country.”

Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), Committee on Appropriations:  “The conferees worked together to make sure that we seek an acceptable funding solution for the different sides we  have.   Now, what do we have here? It is a matter of vision. There are some people who see the border as a crisis, and I respectfully disagree with  them….

“On the border, we don’t believe in open borders. We want to see smart  border security, and I think that is what this bill does.”

Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Florida), Committee on Appropriations:  “Mr. Speaker, I am also proud of the housing portion of this bill.  This meets our commitments to help the most vulnerable among us with  decent, affordable housing. This is a good bill, Mr. Speaker, particularly if you care about our veterans, our disabled, and our elderly.

“This bill also includes funding to rebuild urban, suburban, and rural communities with block grant funding that goes directly to the local decisionmakers and to the local communities.

“Mr. Speaker, I urge a ‘yes’ vote on what I believe is a bill that will create jobs, rebuild our communities, secure our future, and, yes, stop the gridlock.”

Freedom First Society:  It’s amazing what you can do when you have deep pockets, supported by the income tax and a central bank to finance deficits. These federal usurpations have caused the states to become subservient to the federal government instead of the other way around as originally designed. America’s Founders understood the importance of keeping government at the lowest effective level.

Rep. David E. Price (D-North Carolina), Chairman of the Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and Related  Agencies Subcommittee: “Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference agreement — bipartisan and bicameral — averting a second reckless Trump shutdown. This legislation represents the best possible deal to responsibly  fund our government and secure our border, while holding true to our values as Americans. This agreement denies the President billions of dollars for an unnecessary wall. It includes a number of provisions to hold the  administration accountable. And it boosts funding for humanitarian support for migrants, alternatives to detention, and family case  management.   The bipartisan agreement also includes six additional appropriations bills beyond Homeland Security. For example, the Transportation-HUD  bill, on which Chairman Diaz-Balart and I worked cooperatively for many  months, is included in this package.   It increases the Trump budget for infrastructure by $23 billion, and  it includes investments that were totally eliminated in the Trump  budget: community development block grants, the HOME program, New Starts for transit, and the BUILD program. All these are made whole,  having been, of course, eliminated in that earlier Trump budget. These six bills were all caught up in the Trump shutdown. They are  now salvaged by this agreement. The deal is not perfect. We know that.  But it represents the best way to reject the President’s outrageous  border demand, keep our government open, and address our pressing national needs.   Mr. Speaker, let’s send this bill to the President’s desk. Then let’s  fight to overturn this phony ‘national emergency.’”

Rep. Michael K. Simpson (R-Idaho), Committee on Appropriations:  “Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Let’s put the  2019 appropriations behind us so that we can move on to 2020.”

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), Committee on Appropriations and a conferee:  “This legislation, of course, Mr. Speaker, is not perfect. It is not the bill that I would have written or chosen. And, yes, I have serious  concerns with several of the provisions, which I will discuss.  But let me tell you, this bill will keep the government open. It will  prevent another shutdown, which caused so much misery for Federal workers and their families. And it provides funding for humanitarian  assistance, which is desperately needed at the border.   Once more, the package of bills includes funding increases for six other spending bills, including housing for people living with AIDS, transportation grants for low-income communities, increased funding for homelessness, and Section 8 vouchers….

“With this bill, Democrats held the line, Mr.  Speaker, in denying the President $5.7 billion in funding for an unnecessary concrete wall. Instead, it includes $1.3 billion in border fencing only. And it includes strong language to protect sensitive locations….

“Not only did we secure $415 million in this bill for humanitarian relief, including for enhanced medical support, transportation, and food at our border, but we got many, many programs and funding for alternatives to detention.”

Rep. Charles J. Fleischmann (R-Tennessee), Committee on Appropriations:  “Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in support of this joint  resolution….

“And I have been privileged to serve, Mr. Speaker, as the ranking member, the highest Republican, on the House  Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee.   Where were we? From time to time, in our great Republic, we hit a blip; we have a problem; we run into a difficulty. We did that in this shutdown. This was a very odd situation. We had actually passed five  appropriations bills, and seven were left remaining.

“Mr. Speaker, that put us in a very awkward situation where there was  a partial government shutdown. I heard the rhetoric on both sides of  the aisle, and I know it was sincere, but it hurt. It hurt our country, and it hurt workers.

“But we reopened the government. In the interim, Members of the House from both parties and Members of  the Senate from both parties came together and convened. There was a  wide, wide difference of opinion on that first day. I heard it. I was in that room. Everyone was acting in good faith, strong-held convictions.

“A lot of naysayers and skeptics and cynics said we weren’t going to get there, but we owed it to the American people to get there. And, Mr.  Speaker, we got there.   We didn’t get there with a bill that I would have drawn. My bill, candidly, would look more like the bill that President Trump would have wanted: more money for border security and more money for ICE. But we  came up with an agreement that the vast majority of Americans could  support and the vast majority of Members in both Houses could support.

“But, Mr. Speaker, I have been in this Chamber for 8 years. I saw us come together and work together. My colleagues on both sides of the  aisle, sometimes our differences are bipartisan, sometimes our  differences are bicameral. Today, we are going to come together as Americans and pass this bill.   It is not a great bill, but it is a good bill. It represents compromise, and it will, I believe, restore the faith of the American people, not only in our institutions, but in our great Republic.   We can be proud that we came together when they said ‘can’t’ and we  said ‘can.’’   So I will vow to continue, as we work forward, to work with Ms. Roybal-Allard, a very fine lady. We view the world sometimes differently; sometimes we view it in a very similar light.

“But as we go into 2020 and we fall under the draconian Budget Control Act, the dreaded sequester, we will have to address that. We will have a debt ceiling vote.   The American people need to know our work will not be easier; it will be harder. But let our resolve be to do the work of the American people, as we have done today and we will do in the future.   May God bless the United States of America.”

Freedom First Society:  As an 8-year member of Congress, Rep. Fleischmann must be naive if he doesn’t recognize the deceptive rhetoric camouflaging revolutionary agendas at work in the background.

Since there is so little respect for the Constitution in Congress, a welcome comfort is the respect paid to “the draconian Budget Control Act, the  dreaded sequester” and also to the debt ceiling.

Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.), Vice Chair Appropriations Committee and a conferee:  “It has been 3 weeks, colleagues, since the end of the longest  shutdown in American history — 35 days–where we saw friends and  neighbors who hurt, where this body didn’t do enough to push back against a shutdown that hurt our communities and hurt individuals  throughout this country.   This is a compromise bill, and we are here today to reflect that good  will and that good faith effort of Democrats and Republicans negotiating together to find compromise….

“This bill works to improve the only true crisis that we have at our southern border, which is the humanitarian crisis….

“This bill also unlocks the other appropriations bills that will fund the Environmental Protection Agency, make investments in the Census,  and make investments in transportation. What this bill will not do is this bill will not fund the President’s wall from sea to shining sea, a wall that he said Mexico would pay for.”

Rep. Jose E. Serrano (D-New York), Chairman of the Commerce, Justice, Science Subcommittee:  “Mr. Speaker, this bill — Commerce, Justice, Science — comes in at $71.5 billion, which is $1.6 billion above 2018.   One of the highlights of the bill is that it restores many programs that had been zeroed out by the administration, including the Legal Services Corporation, which comes in at over $368 million.  NOAA gets extra money for climate research, and we put in $368 million for opioid epidemic issues. The President wanted $336 million; we came in at $368 million.

“To me, the greatest accomplishment in this particular part of the bill is $1 billion for the Census, to continue to work on the Census. This is a major victory, and we thank the other side for agreeing that  this is something that has to be done and something that is important  for all of us.”

Rep. Sanford D. Bishop, Jr. (D-Georgia), chairman of the Agriculture Subcommittee:  “This bill is good but not perfect. It makes significant investments in rural development; it includes language setting aside funding for persistent poverty counties; it has a modest increase for the Farm Production and Conservation mission area; and domestic nutrition programs are all well-funded. On the international side, the bill provides good funding for Food for Peace and the McGovern-Dole Program. Finally, FDA gets $3 billion, including significant investments to fight the opioid epidemic.”

Freedom First Society: And again, this representative takes pride in spending without regard to constitutional limitations.  The public needs to understand both the danger of allowing the federal government to do anything it claims is somehow beneficial and the current big-government agenda of both parties in Congress.

Rep. John H. Rutherford (R-Florida), Committee on Appropriations:  “Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the compromise appropriations  package that includes major wins for our national security and our  economic success….

“Now, this is not the bill that I would have written, and this is  probably not the bill that any of my colleagues on the other side of  the aisle would have written, but we have all finally found a  compromise that Congress can pass and the President has indicated he will sign into law.

Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minnesota), Chair of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee:  “Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this conference committee report. The Interior and Environment section provides $35.6 billion, which is $300 million more than fiscal year  2018 enacted.   We made critical investments in this legislation in Indian Country, environmental protection, public land management, and the arts. The Environmental Protection Agency is funded at $8.8 billion. This funding will enhance the EPA’s ability to protect human health and the health of our environment

“We worked in a bipartisan way to increase funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and the Humanities….

“Funding for Indian Country is over $1 billion more than the  President’s budget, and we did it in our committee’s nonpartisan way.”

Freedom First Society:  “Critical investments in the arts”?  The unconstitutional National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities has long been exposed for subsidizing radical and even vulgar art. Yet it survives with bipartisan support, as it supports revolutionary goals and is not opposed by an aroused and informed public.  Moreover, to invest you have to reduce elsewhere. No mention is made of what the taxpayer and private sector have to give up.  Yet with all this profligate unconstitutional spending, Democrats direct the focus of their indignation on a border wall.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Florida), Chair of the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Subcommittee:  “Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this bipartisan agreement which, while  not perfect, keeps our government open and funds many essential,  crucial needs. It also passes sound policy, like one preventing our government from using asylum-seeking children to be used as bait to  arrest immigrants seeking to sponsor them.  I urge all Members to vote for this important compromise. However, I cannot stay silent on the President’s threat to declare a national emergency to pay for his boondoggle of a border wall. This lawless end-run around Congress is a craven act built on lies and distraction.”

Freedom First Society: Next are a few comments from the only dissenting Democrat permitted time to voice opposition to the agreement.  (Note: Rashida Tlaib is one of the freshmen Reps who, along with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, are members of the Democratic Socialists of America).  You can see here why we did not score the Democrats for their vote on this measure, as some voted against it for what we consider the wrong reason and not because unconstitutional spending is out of control.

Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Michigan):  “Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Conference  Report to Accompany H.J. Res. 31. Our country used to celebrate being a nation of immigrants, one that  protected the most vulnerable and those fleeing from violence and  persecution. We are, after all, home to the American Dream. Increasingly, though, this country’s policies have become a nightmare  for immigrant families, adults, and children.   People, including children, have died under our custody, and immigrants and refugees are being targeted, detained and deported with  little oversight or accountability, and with no regard for keeping  families together. DHS, specifically it’s enforcement methods and  immigration policy is out of alignment with our American values, and  instead of increasing its funding to separate families and cage  children, we must step back and conduct an audit of DHS funding and  policies, with an eye towards decreasing its budget and ending the  militarization of our immigration system. More importantly, we need an  audit of our morality as a country. Our true test is how we treat the most vulnerable amongst  us, including our neighbors seeking a better life….

“The Conference Report also provides $1.375 billion for wall construction, a complete waste of resources that makes us no safer but  perpetuates environmental degradation and dehumanizes border communities….

“I cannot in good conscious vote for this DHS funding bill. On behalf  of my immigrant neighbors, I must reject hateful policies and rhetoric by the Trump Administration. I am committed to working toward a just  border, a welcoming country, and a comprehensive immigration system that respects the humanity and dignity of people while inspiring people  to live up to the best of our country’s ideals.”

 

Bill Summary:  As of January 28, 2019, the Congressional Research Service had yet to summarize the now Public Law.  However, here are a couple of excerpts from the published text:

“SEC. 2. FINDINGS.  Congress finds the following: (1) Because women make up the majority of the world’s poor and gender inequalities prevail in incomes, wages, access to finance, ownership of assets, and control over the allocation  of resources, women’s entrepreneurship and economic empowerment is important to achieve inclusive economic growth at all levels of society.  (2) Research shows that when women exert greater influence over household finances, economic outcomes for families improve, and childhood survival rates, food security, and educational attainment increase. Women also tend to place a greater emphasis on household savings which improves family financial resiliency.  (3) A 2016 report by the McKinsey Global Institute estimated that achieving global gender parity in economic activity could add as much as $28,000,000,000,000 to annual global gross domestic product by 2025….

“SEC. 3. ACTIONS TO IMPROVE THE INTERNATIONAL GENDER POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL  DEVELOPMENT. … (b) International Development Cooperation Policy. — It shall be the international development cooperation policy of the United States — (1) to reduce gender disparities with respect to economic,  social, political, educational, and cultural resources, wealth, opportunities, and services; (2) to strive to eliminate gender-based violence and mitigate its harmful effects on individuals and communities including through efforts to develop standards and capacity to reduce gender-based violence in the workplace and other places where women work; (3) to support activities that secure private property rights and land tenure for women in developing countries, including — (A) legal frameworks that give women equal rights to own, register, use, profit from, and inherit land and property;  (B) improving legal literacy to enable women to exercise the rights described in subparagraph (A); and (C) improving the capacity of law enforcement and community leaders to enforce such rights; (4) to increase the capability of women and girls to fully exercise their rights, determine their life outcomes, assume leadership roles, and influence decision-making in households, communities, and societies; ….”

Freedom First Society Analysis:  S. 3247 is the senate version of H.R. 5480, introduced by Rep. Ed Royce (R-Calif.), Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and passed by the House on July 17, 2018.  In advocating for passage of S. 3247, Rep. Royce stated:  “[S. 3247] is an important bipartisan, bicameral bill that would expand women’s access to finance and inclusion in the formal economy in emerging markets around this globe.”

His Democratic counterpart on the Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Eliot Engel of New York, agreed: “This is a bipartisan  bill that aims to empower women economically by targeting United States development assistance to women-owned small-and medium-sized  businesses.”

Although representing a portion of conservative Orange County, California, retiring Ed Royce was one of the most liberal Republicans in the House.  Liberal Democrat Eliot took time during his endorsement of S. 3247 to pay homage to the retiring Committee chairman:

The gentleman from California (Mr. Royce)  has served as the chairman for 6 years. I can tell you that there is no  better role model than Ed Royce. The bipartisan work we have done  together has really made a difference in people’s lives all around the globe.   Mr. Royce has been a chairman extraordinaire. We have always operated  under the premise that, when it comes to foreign policy, partisanship  should stop at the water’s edge. And that is what we have really tried  to do.  I want all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to know that I  could not be more effusive in praise of the chairman, the gentleman  from California. It has been an honor and a pleasure serving with the  gentleman and being his friend. I cannot think of anyone doing a better  job than he has done for the past 6 years. I hope he will come back and visit.  Whenever I have a question to think about what I will do as chairman  in the next Congress, I would think about what my friend, Ed Royce, would do. Then I know I can’t go wrong.   [Emphasis added.]

The Real Nature of U.S. Foreign Aid
In a June 19, 1989 article, “Bleeding Us Dry,” conservative analyst Robert W. Lee wrote [Emphasis added]:

The exact cost to taxpayers of foreign aid handouts since 1946 is unknown (and probably unknowable)….

Moreover, foreign aid has consistently had the opposite effect of that promised by its advocates. It has invariably increased the power and resources of recipient governments (compared with the private sector) and thus the power of government over societies. It has strengthened the fallacies that improvement in one’s fortunes depends on the wealth of outsiders and that a society can progress from poverty to prosperity without economic effort and achievement. It has obstructed rather than enhanced development, and made recipients more, not less, dependent on the United States. As acknowledged by a study released this year by the Agency for International Development (the chief administrator of our foreign aid programs): “All too often, dependency has won out over development. Only a handful of countries that started receiving U.S assistance in the 1950s and 1960s has ever graduated from dependent status.”

Mr. Lee continued by quoting constitutional authority Dan Smoot on the record of foreign aid (Note: Smoot, retired from the FBI, wrote the pioneering exposé, The Invisible Government):

Our tax money has subsidized communist regimes which are sworn enemies of our nation; it has supported nations which, though not controlled by communists, are inimical to the United States and seething with hatred and resentment of Americans. We have financed wars between nations which would not have had the capacity to fight each other without our help; and, in the process, we have made the warring nations hate us because of the aid we give their enemies. Our foreign aid has financed social upheavals and communist-socialist revolutions throughout Latin America and Africa, bringing to power political regimes whose policies are based on hatred of the United States. Our aid has built and subsidized foreign industries which are now underselling American industries. The foreign giveaway programs have piled up our national debt, dissipated our monetary gold reserve, inflated our living costs, debased our currency.

There no reason to believe that the Internationalists driving America’s foreign policy shifted their aims in the subsequent years.

Bill Summary:  As of January 28, 2019, the Congressional Research Service had yet to summarize the now Public Law.  However, here are a couple of excerpts from the published text:

“SEC. 2. FINDINGS.  Congress finds the following: (1) Because women make up the majority of the world’s poor and gender inequalities prevail in incomes, wages, access to finance, ownership of assets, and control over the allocation  of resources, women’s entrepreneurship and economic empowerment is important to achieve inclusive economic growth at all levels of society.  (2) Research shows that when women exert greater influence over household finances, economic outcomes for families improve, and childhood survival rates, food security, and educational attainment increase. Women also tend to place a greater emphasis on household savings which improves family financial resiliency.  (3) A 2016 report by the McKinsey Global Institute estimated that achieving global gender parity in economic activity could add as much as $28,000,000,000,000 to annual global gross domestic product by 2025….

“SEC. 3. ACTIONS TO IMPROVE THE INTERNATIONAL GENDER POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL  DEVELOPMENT. … (b) International Development Cooperation Policy. — It shall be the international development cooperation policy of the United States — (1) to reduce gender disparities with respect to economic,  social, political, educational, and cultural resources, wealth, opportunities, and services; (2) to strive to eliminate gender-based violence and mitigate its harmful effects on individuals and communities including through efforts to develop standards and capacity to reduce gender-based violence in the workplace and other places where women work; (3) to support activities that secure private property rights and land tenure for women in developing countries, including — (A) legal frameworks that give women equal rights to own, register, use, profit from, and inherit land and property;  (B) improving legal literacy to enable women to exercise the rights described in subparagraph (A); and (C) improving the capacity of law enforcement and community leaders to enforce such rights; (4) to increase the capability of women and girls to fully exercise their rights, determine their life outcomes, assume leadership roles, and influence decision-making in households, communities, and societies; ….”

Freedom First Society Analysis:  S. 3247 is the senate version of H.R. 5480, introduced by Rep. Ed Royce (R-Calif.), Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and passed by the House on July 17, 2018.  In advocating for passage of S. 3247, Rep. Royce stated:  “[S. 3247] is an important bipartisan, bicameral bill that would expand women’s access to finance and inclusion in the formal economy in emerging markets around this globe.”

His Democratic counterpart on the Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Eliot Engel of New York, agreed: “This is a bipartisan  bill that aims to empower women economically by targeting United States development assistance to women-owned small-and medium-sized  businesses.”

Although representing a portion of conservative Orange County, California, retiring Ed Royce was one of the most liberal Republicans in the House.  Liberal Democrat Eliot took time during his endorsement of S. 3247 to pay homage to the retiring Committee chairman:

The gentleman from California (Mr. Royce)  has served as the chairman for 6 years. I can tell you that there is no  better role model than Ed Royce. The bipartisan work we have done  together has really made a difference in people’s lives all around the globe.   Mr. Royce has been a chairman extraordinaire. We have always operated  under the premise that, when it comes to foreign policy, partisanship  should stop at the water’s edge. And that is what we have really tried  to do.  I want all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to know that I  could not be more effusive in praise of the chairman, the gentleman  from California. It has been an honor and a pleasure serving with the  gentleman and being his friend. I cannot think of anyone doing a better  job than he has done for the past 6 years. I hope he will come back and visit.  Whenever I have a question to think about what I will do as chairman  in the next Congress, I would think about what my friend, Ed Royce, would do. Then I know I can’t go wrong.   [Emphasis added.]

The Real Nature of U.S. Foreign Aid
In a June 19, 1989 article, “Bleeding Us Dry,” conservative analyst Robert W. Lee wrote [Emphasis added]:

The exact cost to taxpayers of foreign aid handouts since 1946 is unknown (and probably unknowable)….

Moreover, foreign aid has consistently had the opposite effect of that promised by its advocates. It has invariably increased the power and resources of recipient governments (compared with the private sector) and thus the power of government over societies. It has strengthened the fallacies that improvement in one’s fortunes depends on the wealth of outsiders and that a society can progress from poverty to prosperity without economic effort and achievement. It has obstructed rather than enhanced development, and made recipients more, not less, dependent on the United States. As acknowledged by a study released this year by the Agency for International Development (the chief administrator of our foreign aid programs): “All too often, dependency has won out over development. Only a handful of countries that started receiving U.S assistance in the 1950s and 1960s has ever graduated from dependent status.”

Mr. Lee continued by quoting constitutional authority Dan Smoot on the record of foreign aid (Note: Smoot, retired from the FBI, wrote the pioneering exposé, The Invisible Government):

Our tax money has subsidized communist regimes which are sworn enemies of our nation; it has supported nations which, though not controlled by communists, are inimical to the United States and seething with hatred and resentment of Americans. We have financed wars between nations which would not have had the capacity to fight each other without our help; and, in the process, we have made the warring nations hate us because of the aid we give their enemies. Our foreign aid has financed social upheavals and communist-socialist revolutions throughout Latin America and Africa, bringing to power political regimes whose policies are based on hatred of the United States. Our aid has built and subsidized foreign industries which are now underselling American industries. The foreign giveaway programs have piled up our national debt, dissipated our monetary gold reserve, inflated our living costs, debased our currency.

There no reason to believe that the Internationalists driving America’s foreign policy shifted their aims in the subsequent years.

Bill Summary:   Every five years, Congress tasks itself with renewing something informally called the “Farm Bill,” which defines policies and authorizes programs for the Department of Agriculture.  While originally dealing with agricultural price supports and crop production, the mission of the Department of Agriculture has expanded greatly. The authorization now includes federal welfare in the form of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly “food stamps,” provided to more than 40 million Americans, as well as selected crop support welfare for some farmers.

From the Congressional Research Service Summary: “This bill (commonly known as the farm bill) reauthorizes through FY2023 and modifies Department of Agriculture (USDA) programs that address: commodity support, conservation, trade and international food aid, nutrition assistance, farm credit, rural development, research and extension activities, forestry, horticulture, and crop insurance.”

According to Wikipedia (12-18): “Approximately 80% of the USDA’s $141 billion budget goes to the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) program. The largest component of the FNS budget is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly known as the Food Stamp program), which is the cornerstone of USDA’s nutrition assistance.”

Analysis:   See also our analysis of H.R. 2 as originally passed by the House (House Roll Call 284, 6-21-18) and the Senate replacement (Senate Vote 143, 6-28-18).  This subsequent House-Senate conference version was passed with bipartisan (i.e., Democrat) support.  No Democratic Senators voted against the measure.  In the House, only three Democrats opposed the measure, while a whopping 44 Republicans, ignored by their GOP House leadership, voted no.

Farm Bill History

The original “Farm Bill” known as the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) was a creature of the FDR administration.  David Eugene Conrad, author of The Forgotten Farmersstated: “The real authors of the farm bill, despite the pretext of the farm leaders’ conference, were [FDR’s Secretary of Agriculture Henry] Wallace, [Columbia University professor] Rexford Tugwell, and Mordecai Ezekiel…. Also consulted were George Peek [who became the program’s first administrator], Henry Morgenthau [soon FDR’s Secretary of the Treasury], General Hugh Johnson and [Wall Street financier] Bernard Baruch.”

After quitting his post in frustration, George Peek complained about the Insider architects of these farm policies: “they admired everything Russian…. To them Russia was the promised land and the sooner the United States became like Russia, the better for everyone.”

Several months prior to signing “reluctantly” the 1985 Farm Bill (officially, the “Food Security Act of 1985), President Reagan argued: “If spending more money on agriculture would solve the problem, we would have solved it by now.”

In the November, 1989 newsletter published by the free market Ludwig von Mises Institute, James Bovard argued:

“The key to understanding American agricultural policy is to realize that the vast majority of the 400 farm products produced in America receive no federal handouts. There is no fundamental difference between subsidized and unsubsidized crops — only a difference in campaign contributions to congressmen by different farm lobbies.”

Excerpts from Congressional Record (12-11-18) [Emphasis added]:

Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan), Ranking (Democrat) Member of the Senate Agriculture Committee: “The final farm bill reflects a hard-fought bipartisan agreement on a 5-year bill to strengthen the diversity of American agricultureand the 16 million jobs it supports….

“Now more than ever, we need to be broadening the diversity of American agriculture, and that is exactly what the farm bill does. Our  farm bill continues to support the wide variety of farms all across America — big farms, small farms, ranchers, urban, rural. We provide new permanent support to keep this progress going, which I think is really  important.   We invest in the bright future of agriculture by helping new and  beginning farmers, including young people and our returning veterans,  who are playing a greater role in agriculture in Michigan, as well as  across the country.   New investments in international trade promotionwill help farmers  sell their products abroad….

“We said no to harmful changes that would take away food from families. Instead, we will increase program integrity and job training to be able to make sure that things are working as they should and that  every dollar is used as it should be. Instead, we will connect participants with healthy food through strong investments in farmers markets and nutrition incentives.”

Senator Pat Roberts (R-Kansas), Chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee: “Mr. President, I thank my colleague for her remarks and associate myself with those remarks. I rise today as the Senate considers the conference report on an issue that is critically important to our Nation — the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, the farm bill….

“We have worked to maintain as many priorities for as many Members as possible….

“The bill focuses on program integrity — program integrity, and  commonsense investments to strengthen our nutrition programs to ensure  the long-term success of those in need of assistance. With trade and market uncertainty, to say the least, it provides certainty for our  trade promotion and research programs.  Feeding an increasing global population is not simply an agriculture challenge; it is a national security challenge. This means we need to grow more, raise more with fewer resources. That will take investments in research, new technology, lines of credit, and proper risk  management. It takes the government providing tools and then getting out of the producer’s way.”

Freedom First Society:  Today, collectivist arguments dominate the so-called debates in Congress.  Unfortunately, much of the public accepts those arguments since it is no longer schooled in the principles that made our country great and the wisdom of our Founding Fathers in crafting a limited federal government.   A major objective of Freedom First Society is to provide organizational leadership to recreate public understanding of both the burden of a massive federal government and the danger to our freedom of increasing dependence on a developing “national” government for the necessities of life.

Bill Summary:   Every five years, Congress tasks itself with renewing something informally called the “Farm Bill,” which defines policies and authorizes programs for the Department of Agriculture.  While originally dealing with agricultural price supports and crop production, the mission of the Department of Agriculture has expanded greatly. The authorization now includes federal welfare in the form of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly “food stamps,” provided to more than 40 million Americans, as well as selected crop support welfare for some farmers.

From the Congressional Research Service Summary: “This bill (commonly known as the farm bill) reauthorizes through FY2023 and modifies Department of Agriculture (USDA) programs that address: commodity support, conservation, trade and international food aid, nutrition assistance, farm credit, rural development, research and extension activities, forestry, horticulture, and crop insurance.”

According to Wikipedia (12-18): “Approximately 80% of the USDA’s $141 billion budget goes to the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) program. The largest component of the FNS budget is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly known as the Food Stamp program), which is the cornerstone of USDA’s nutrition assistance.”

Analysis:   See also our analysis of H.R. 2 as originally passed by the House (House Roll Call 284, 6-21-18) and the Senate replacement (Senate Vote 143, 6-28-18).  This subsequent House-Senate conference version was passed with bipartisan (i.e., Democrat) support.  No Democratic Senators voted against the measure.  In the House, only three Democrats opposed the measure, while a whopping 44 Republicans, ignored by their GOP House leadership, voted no.

Farm Bill History

The original “Farm Bill” known as the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) was a creature of the FDR administration.  David Eugene Conrad, author of The Forgotten Farmersstated: “The real authors of the farm bill, despite the pretext of the farm leaders’ conference, were [FDR’s Secretary of Agriculture Henry] Wallace, [Columbia University professor] Rexford Tugwell, and Mordecai Ezekiel…. Also consulted were George Peek [who became the program’s first administrator], Henry Morgenthau [soon FDR’s Secretary of the Treasury], General Hugh Johnson and [Wall Street financier] Bernard Baruch.”

After quitting his post in frustration, George Peek complained about the Insider architects of these farm policies: “they admired everything Russian…. To them Russia was the promised land and the sooner the United States became like Russia, the better for everyone.”

Several months prior to signing “reluctantly” the 1985 Farm Bill (officially, the “Food Security Act of 1985), President Reagan argued: “If spending more money on agriculture would solve the problem, we would have solved it by now.”

In the November, 1989 newsletter published by the free market Ludwig von Mises Institute, James Bovard argued:

“The key to understanding American agricultural policy is to realize that the vast majority of the 400 farm products produced in America receive no federal handouts. There is no fundamental difference between subsidized and unsubsidized crops — only a difference in campaign contributions to congressmen by different farm lobbies.”

Excerpts from Congressional Record (12-11-18) [Emphasis added]:

Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan), Ranking (Democrat) Member of the Senate Agriculture Committee: “The final farm bill reflects a hard-fought bipartisan agreement on a 5-year bill to strengthen the diversity of American agricultureand the 16 million jobs it supports….

“Now more than ever, we need to be broadening the diversity of American agriculture, and that is exactly what the farm bill does. Our  farm bill continues to support the wide variety of farms all across America — big farms, small farms, ranchers, urban, rural. We provide new permanent support to keep this progress going, which I think is really  important.   We invest in the bright future of agriculture by helping new and  beginning farmers, including young people and our returning veterans,  who are playing a greater role in agriculture in Michigan, as well as  across the country.   New investments in international trade promotionwill help farmers  sell their products abroad….

“We said no to harmful changes that would take away food from families. Instead, we will increase program integrity and job training to be able to make sure that things are working as they should and that  every dollar is used as it should be. Instead, we will connect participants with healthy food through strong investments in farmers markets and nutrition incentives.”

Senator Pat Roberts (R-Kansas), Chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee: “Mr. President, I thank my colleague for her remarks and associate myself with those remarks. I rise today as the Senate considers the conference report on an issue that is critically important to our Nation — the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, the farm bill….

“We have worked to maintain as many priorities for as many Members as possible….

“The bill focuses on program integrity — program integrity, and  commonsense investments to strengthen our nutrition programs to ensure  the long-term success of those in need of assistance. With trade and market uncertainty, to say the least, it provides certainty for our  trade promotion and research programs.  Feeding an increasing global population is not simply an agriculture challenge; it is a national security challenge. This means we need to grow more, raise more with fewer resources. That will take investments in research, new technology, lines of credit, and proper risk  management. It takes the government providing tools and then getting out of the producer’s way.”

Freedom First Society:  Today, collectivist arguments dominate the so-called debates in Congress.  Unfortunately, much of the public accepts those arguments since it is no longer schooled in the principles that made our country great and the wisdom of our Founding Fathers in crafting a limited federal government.   A major objective of Freedom First Society is to provide organizational leadership to recreate public understanding of both the burden of a massive federal government and the danger to our freedom of increasing dependence on a developing “national” government for the necessities of life.