Bill Summary:  

DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2019 

Title I—Military Personnel
Title II—Operation and Maintenance
Title III—Procurement
Title IV—Research, Development, Test and Evaluation
Title V—Revolving and Management Funds
Title VI—Other Department of Defense Programs
Title VII—Related Agencies
Title VIII—General Provisions
Title IX—Overseas Contingency Operations

DIVISION B—DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2019

Title I—Department of Labor
Title II—Department of Health and Human Services
Title III—Department of Education
Title IV—Related Agencies
Title V—General Provisions

DIVISION C—CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2019

Sec. 105:  Unless otherwise provided for in this Act or in the applicable appropriations Act for fiscal year 2019, appropriations and funds made available and authority granted pursuant to this Act shall be available until whichever of the following first occurs:

(1) the enactment into law of an appropriation for any project or activity provided for in this Act;

(2) the enactment into law of the applicable appropriations Act for fiscal year 2019 without any provision for such project or activity; or

(3) December 7, 2018.

Analysis:  Our analysis of the House-Senate compromise measure makes three objections:

1. Collectivism is Alive and Well in Both Parties
Leadership of both parties promote the idea that their principal job is to spend money in a timely manner and that the American taxpayer is counting on Congress to do so.   The appropriators often make it sound as though they are paying for these appropriations out of their own pockets.

Moreover, they tout all of the ostensible good things government can do on our behalf (collectivism), while completely ignoring the damage to middle class opportunity from a bloated out-of-control government.  Yet this unrestrained spending on unconstitutional programs threatens to bankrupt our nation and cost us our freedom.

The breakthrough American principle of constitutionally limited government is totally foreign to congressional appropriators. Those readers familiar with the U.S. Constitution will see below that representatives are boasting of federal involvement in numerous areas where there is simply no constitutional authorization, nor should there be.

2. Bipartisan Compromise Should Not Be Extolled As a Virtue
Legislative leaders and the Establishment media constantly seek to convince the public that political compromise is a necessary virtue.  But the real interests of the American people, and the unborn in particular, are not party to the compromise.

Congressmen should not compromise on fundamental principles, such as their oath to defend the Constitution.  And some don’t.  Instead, if there were a sufficient faction in the House committed to restoring limited government according to the Constitution, that faction should use the House’s “power of the purse” to play hardball with the socialists in the Senate. (And true regular order, funding parts of the government separately, is necessary in order to play hardball and take the sting out of the modern socialist threat of a total government shutdown.)

Responsible congressmen should vote on principle, even if they are not currently in the majority.  Unless some stake out the principled position, as a few are doing (see Scorecard), there is no hope of becoming the majority and averting disaster.

Note:  Those who extoll compromise are often employing a double standard.  Here, there is no compromise on so-called “Poison pills” — attempts to address significant policy problems by attaching them to appropriation measures.  But appropriators deemed it okay to compromise on the Constitution!

3. They Compromised to the Left
The House-Senate “compromise” boosting spending for unconstitutional programs brought the big-government Democrats on board. Conservative Republicans, including some constitutionalists, were left out in the cold by “their” leadership.

House Debates (from the Congressional Record, 9-26-18) [Emphasis added.]:
We support the above three objections with excerpts from the floor “debates” (as reported in the Congressional Record).  (Note: some of the remarks are from the preceding debate over the rule governing consideration.)

However, we must also point out that the so-called House and Senate debates were not debates at all.  This is often the case today.   Although there was opposition in both the House and Senate to the conference agreement, only in the Senate did one opponent of the measure (Senator Mike Lee of Utah, see Senate Vote 212) take the podium to give his reasons for opposition.  The “debate” time was divided almost exclusively between leading Republican and Democrat appropriators who embraced the House-Senate, Democrat-Republican “compromise.’

Representative Tom Cole (R-Oklahoma, Chairman, Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies: “[Passage of this appropriations minibus] represents the first time in more than 10 years that Congress  will send more than one final appropriations bill to the President for  signature before the beginning of the fiscal year. In years past, we  have relied strongly on omnibus spending bills to fund the government;  but now, with the hard work done on both sides of the aisle and in both Houses of Congress, we are returning to regular order and completing spending work through the normal legislative process.”

Freedom First Society: Passage of a minibus is not regular order (individual votes on each of the 12 regular appropriations measures).  The primary reason that the leadership combines appropriation measures into a minibus, rather than allowing votes on each individual measure, is to provide protective coloration so that congressmen can support the bad with the good.

Rep. Cole continues: “Mr. Speaker, as I have so often said on this floor, the primary obligation of the Congress is to fund the American Government and keep  it open and operating…. In passing this bill, we will provide crucial funding for services across broad areas of the government and fulfill our promises to the American people: to patients, to communities, to business owners, to  the military, and to Americans of all stripes.

“The House is already familiar with this bill from when it was passed  in June, and this conference version, agreed to with the Senate, has not substantially changed with respect to Defense. However, it now  reflects the combined priorities of the Members of both sides of the  aisle and in both the House and the Senate….

“Mr. Speaker, in the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education  title, the conference report appropriates $178 billion, a $1 billion  increase over fiscal year 2018.   As the conference knows, I am fortunate to chair the Labor, Health  and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, and I am  very pleased with the results of this year’s bill. We were able to  increase the budget of the National Institutes of Health by $2 billion  to $39 billion, thus ensuring that we will be able to direct  significant new dollars to medical research, tackling vexing health problems like Alzheimer’s disease, cancer, and the opioid crisis.   Indeed, across the entire bill, we are putting more than $6.6 billion  into the fight against the opioid crisis. We are putting $7.9 billion  into the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to make sure that  we will have the resources available to battle emerging public health  emergencies and fight infectious disease.

“We did all of this while also  ensuring that popular programs like Meals on Wheels, which provides  meals for our vulnerable senior citizens, can continue to be funded at  current levels.   In the other areas of the Labor-HHS title, we have provided $12.1 billion for the Department of Labor, including $3.5 billion for job  training, $1.7 billion for Job Corps….

“We provided $71 billion to the Department of Education. This includes  $12.4 billion for IDEA special education grants to States. We also  funded TRIO at $1.06 million and GEAR UP at $360 million, both substantial increases. These programs are near and dear to my heart personally and help  first-generation college students succeed.   We increased the maximum Pell grant award to $6,195, and we provided $1.9 billion for career, technical, and adult education programs.

“We  included significant funding for our youngest Americans, including  $10.1 billion for Head Start, $5.3 billion for childcare and development block grants, and $250 million for early childhood  programs.

“Finally, Mr. Speaker, this bill also includes a provision acting as a  continuing resolution, extending some portions of government funding  out to December 7. This extension, while not ideal, gives the  Appropriations Committee and both Houses of Congress time to come to an  agreement on legislation funding the remaining areas of our government.  Such an extension fulfills our primary obligation as legislators, which  is to fund the government and keep it open and operating.

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a brief look at what we have  accomplished and put these bills in context.   Last week, the President signed into law the first package of three bills for fiscal year 2019, covering Energy and Water, Military  Construction and Veteran Affairs, and the Legislative Branch titles.  These bills covered just over 11 percent of total discretionary  spending.  Today’s bill, which covers the Defense and Labor, Health and Human  Services, and Education titles, will produce the vast majority of  discretionary spending, just short of 65 percent of the total discretionary spending for fiscal year 2019.

“What is left in the remaining seven titles amounts to just shy of 24 percent of  discretionary spending.   We may need to do a short-term continuing resolution for part of the  government, but with these bills today, what we will have accomplished is sending over 75 percent of the total discretionary spending to the President for his signature into law before the start of the new fiscal year. That is an amazing accomplishment, one that has not happened in  Congress in over a decade. Indeed, this is the first time  in more than  10 years that the Department of Defense will have its full annual  funding enacted before the start of the fiscal year. This is the first  time in 22 years that the Departments of Labor, Health and Human  Services, Education, and Related Agencies will have been funded before  the beginning of the fiscal year….

“This  bill, Mr. Speaker, is a return to regular order, and we should all be  proud of what we have achieved. It also represents a compromise between the two parties in this body and between this body and our counterpart  on the other side of the Capitol Rotunda.”

Representative Norma Torres (D-California):  “H.R. 6157, the second minibus to keep the government open in fiscal  year 2019, is an example of how this body can still work together to  reach a bipartisan consensus when we take politics out of the picture.   Perhaps more important than what is included in the minibus is what  is not included. This minibus rejects the proposed cuts to healthcare  programs, job training, education, and access to healthcare that were  in President Trump’s budget proposal….

“In addition, let me make this clear: nothing in this legislation will  pay for one foot of the President’s border wall. I hope President Trump  joins this Congress and listens to the majority of the American people  who don’t want to fund this wall. This Congress has repeatedly rejected  funding for his misguided wall, and it is about time the President gave  up on such a foolish waste of taxpayer dollars while our bridges,  freeways, and streets are crumbling beneath us.”

Representative Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-New Jersey), Chairman, Committee on Appropriations:  “Mr. Speaker, it is my honor this afternoon to present the conference  report for H.R. 6157.  This conference report provides full-year funding  for the Department of Defense and for the Department of Labor, Health  and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies. It also includes a  continuing resolution through December 7, 2018, for Federal Government  programs and agencies not covered by the enacted appropriations  legislation….

“The  Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies  Appropriations bill provides $178 billion for programs that protect the  health, education, and labor standards that all Americans deserve.   Funding is directed to programs that have wide national benefit, in  particular, the National Institutes of Health, which receives a $2  billion increase to bolster its lifesaving research.  Notably, funding to fight the opioid abuse epidemic receives historic  funding levels, totaling $6.6 billion. This will support treatment, prevention, research, and other efforts to end this national crisis.   Another top priority is increased funding to keep our children safe in schools. This includes funding for mental health and other  protective measures.   Lastly, the Labor-HHS bill invests in our future, creating economic  opportunity and helping students get ahead and be part of a well- trained 21st century workforce….

“Upon enactment of this legislation, Congress will have provided full- year funding for three-quarters of the Federal Government, but there is  more work to be done on the remaining appropriations bills.  Mr. Speaker, this legislation is yet another step forward to our goal  of returning to what we call regular order and fully funding the  Federal Government for the fiscal year.”

Rep. Nita Lowey (D-New York ), the Ranking Democratic Member of the House Appropriations Committee: “Mr. Speaker, I join Chairman Frelinghuysen in strong support of this  bipartisan legislation. The Defense and Labor-HHS-Education bills carry  out some of Congress’ most important constitutional responsibilities.  We should all be pleased that we have completed our work on these bills  on time.  This conference report provides ample resources for our armed  services and strengthens military readiness….

“Turning to the Labor-HHS-Education division, I am pleased that  Congress has resoundingly rejected President Trump’s budget and restored $10 billion in proposed cuts that would have hurt working  families. Instead, we have won increased funding for a number of  important priorities.   This bill boosts biomedical research at the National Institutes of Health, expands opioid abuse treatment and prevention programs, and launches new initiatives for maternal and child health.   The bill increases funding for Head Start, childcare, and after school programs on which working families rely. It lifts the maximum  Pell grant to help more students access postsecondary education, and it  invests in the 21st century workforce with more support for registered  apprenticeships and career and technical education….

“Just as important is what this bill does not include: the unnecessary  partisan riders that caused House Democrats to oppose the Labor-HHS- Education bill in the Appropriations Committee.”

Representative Rosa DeLauro (D-Connecticut), ranking Democrat on the Labor-HHS, Education Subcommittee:  “The Labor-HHS funding bill for 2019 makes important investments in  health, education, and in our families. It is a $1 billion increase over 2018, leaving us to deliberate $178.1 billion. Especially when I view that the Trump administration is pursuing the fundamental hollowing out of our Federal agencies, we secured critical investments  in Democratic priorities that boost the middle class.

“First, let me talk about health. This bill includes an increase of $2  billion for NIH research. It also includes increases across the Centers  for Disease Control and Prevention, the Health Resources and Services Administration, particularly to address health threats to pregnant  women and babies.   We also secured increases for our country’s youngest children and their families, including an increase of $50 million for childcare and  $200 million for Head Start, including $50 million more for Early Head Start.   Turning to education, we won an increase for after-school programs and a raise in the maximum Pell grant, $100 for $6,195, to help  students afford the rising cost of a college degree….

“So, from health, to childcare, to education, we achieved several  great wins for the American people.   Importantly, the bill before us maintains the bipartisan amendments  that House Democrats introduced to condemn the administration’s policy  of separating families, to demand a reunification plan, and to ensure  that HHS upholds the highest standards of care for children in our  custody.  I am proud of what we included. I am also proud of what we kept out.  We held the line and kept out harmful ideological riders that would have sabotaged the Affordable Care Act, undermined women’s health, and  overturned the Flores settlement to allow the administration to keep  kids in cages indefinitely.”

Representative Debbie Wasserman-Schulz (D-Florida), ranking Democrat on the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies  Subcommittee:  “I am proud to say this bill retains my language protecting access to lifesaving mammograms, particularly for women between 40 and 50 years  old, and provides $5 million for my ongoing initiative, the Breast  Cancer Education and Awareness Requires Learning Young Act, or the  EARLY Act, which will continue to help increase the quality and  quantity of life for young women with breast cancer.  The bill increases funding for the Centers for Disease Control and  Prevention by $125 million and funds programs that fight the spread of  the Zika virus, as well as combats the use of tobacco.  It also provides vital funding that will benefit seniors, and it  includes $5 million to help Holocaust survivors and their families.”

Representative Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas):  “But, most importantly, my constituents are suffering from a lack of healthcare because of the undermining of the Affordable Care Act that we are still fighting for. So I am very grateful for the $39.1 billion  for the National Institutes of Health; $4.4 billion for programs that  respond to the opioid crisis; $7.9 billion for the Centers for Disease  Control, and, of course, what is so important to our constituents in  Houston and Texas is that our community health centers that are our  first line of defense to those who don’t have healthcare; $678 million  for a maternal and child health block grant — we have some of the  largest numbers of maternal death in Houston among African American  women; $10 billion for Head Start; and then specifically I want to talk  about the unaccompanied children, $1.3 billion, but I am grateful for  the language that demands of this administration to tell us who is  there that has not been reunited with their families, and then the  12,000 that are in the jurisdiction of HHS.”

Representative Barbara Lee (D-California), senior member of the Appropriations Committee: “As a member of the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education funding subcommittee, I am pleased to see many good provisions in this  bill. This bill eliminates hundreds of poison pill riders ranging from efforts to defund Planned Parenthood, eliminate teen pregnancy and  title X to dismantling of critical labor and consumer protections.

“The bill also includes $60 million for a competitive grant, which we  have been working on for years, for computer science funding for young  girls, young people living below the poverty line, and people of color.  I thank Mr. Fleischmann and others for helping us work on this, because  this truly is a bipartisan effort. We included robust increases in job  training, education, and childcare, as well as for historically Black  colleges and universities. Now, my State of California has the highest  number of students coming to HBCUs, so I am very grateful for those  increases.

“Even with these increases, Mr. Speaker, this conference report still  falls short of what we need to just return to the funding levels before the sequester 8 years ago. Adjusted for inflation, we are still way  below the 2010 levels for domestic spending.   What is worse, while underfunding our needs here at home, the bill includes an increase in $19 billion in defense.”

Representative Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-California), member of the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Subcommittee: “Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. It rejects the draconian cuts the  Trump administration proposed and strengthens our commitment to our  constituents by funding critical programs. It also ensures our national  defense remains strong in a dangerous world.   I am particularly pleased that HHS programs received such robust  funding in this Conference agreement.   The bill increases funding for three of my top legislative  priorities: fighting underage drinking, supporting newborn screening,  and reducing maternal mortality. At a time when this country is  experiencing the highest rates of sexually transmitted diseases in  history, this bill restores both the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program  and all Title X Family Planning dollars that help our teens gain  critical access to reproductive health care and education. And as this  country faces a growing demand for health care providers, the conference report reinstates the Health Careers Opportunity Program to  increase workforce diversity and restores funding for the Community Health Centers and the Nursing Workforce Programs to their FY18 funding  levels….

“Among Education and Labor programs, I am glad the maximum Pell award  will get an increase, which I called for during our committee markup. I  am also pleased we were able to work together to provide modest  increases to Head Start and TRIO programs to serve students with the  highest needs. Finally, the bill provides modest increases in funding  for apprenticeships and maintains language that directs those funds to  proven registered apprenticeships.”

Bill Summary:  

DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2019 

Title I—Military Personnel
Title II—Operation and Maintenance
Title III—Procurement
Title IV—Research, Development, Test and Evaluation
Title V—Revolving and Management Funds
Title VI—Other Department of Defense Programs
Title VII—Related Agencies
Title VIII—General Provisions
Title IX—Overseas Contingency Operations

DIVISION B—DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2019

Title I—Department of Labor
Title II—Department of Health and Human Services
Title III—Department of Education
Title IV—Related Agencies
Title V—General Provisions

DIVISION C—CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2019

Sec. 105:  Unless otherwise provided for in this Act or in the applicable appropriations Act for fiscal year 2019, appropriations and funds made available and authority granted pursuant to this Act shall be available until whichever of the following first occurs:

(1) the enactment into law of an appropriation for any project or activity provided for in this Act;

(2) the enactment into law of the applicable appropriations Act for fiscal year 2019 without any provision for such project or activity; or

(3) December 7, 2018.

Analysis:  Our analysis of the House-Senate compromise measure makes three objections:

1. Collectivism is Alive and Well in Both Parties
Leadership of both parties promote the idea that their principal job is to spend money in a timely manner and that the American taxpayer is counting on Congress to do so.   The appropriators often make it sound as though they are paying for these appropriations out of their own pockets.

Moreover, they tout all of the ostensible good things government can do on our behalf (collectivism), while completely ignoring the damage to middle class opportunity from a bloated out-of-control government.  Yet this unrestrained spending on unconstitutional programs threatens to bankrupt our nation and cost us our freedom.

The breakthrough American principle of constitutionally limited government is totally foreign to congressional appropriators. Those readers familiar with the U.S. Constitution will see below that representatives are boasting of federal involvement in numerous areas where there is simply no constitutional authorization, nor should there be.

2. Bipartisan Compromise Should Not Be Extolled As a Virtue
Legislative leaders and the Establishment media constantly seek to convince the public that political compromise is a necessary virtue.  But the real interests of the American people, and the unborn in particular, are not party to the compromise.

Congressmen should not compromise on fundamental principles, such as their oath to defend the Constitution.  And some don’t.  Instead, if there were a sufficient faction in the House committed to restoring limited government according to the Constitution, that faction should use the House’s “power of the purse” to play hardball with the socialists in the Senate. (And true regular order, funding parts of the government separately, is necessary in order to play hardball and take the sting out of the modern socialist threat of a total government shutdown.)

Responsible congressmen should vote on principle, even if they are not currently in the majority.  Unless some stake out the principled position, as a few are doing (see Scorecard), there is no hope of becoming the majority and averting disaster.

Note:  Those who extoll compromise are often employing a double standard.  Here, there is no compromise on so-called “Poison pills” — attempts to address significant policy problems by attaching them to appropriation measures.  But appropriators deemed it okay to compromise on the Constitution!

3. They Compromised to the Left
The House-Senate “compromise” boosting spending for unconstitutional programs brought the big-government Democrats on board. Conservative Republicans, including some constitutionalists, were left out in the cold by “their” leadership.

House Debates (from the Congressional Record, 9-26-18) [Emphasis added.]:
We support the above three objections with excerpts from the floor “debates” (as reported in the Congressional Record).  (Note: some of the remarks are from the preceding debate over the rule governing consideration.)

However, we must also point out that the so-called House and Senate debates were not debates at all.  This is often the case today.   Although there was opposition in both the House and Senate to the conference agreement, only in the Senate did one opponent of the measure (Senator Mike Lee of Utah, see Senate Vote 212) take the podium to give his reasons for opposition.  The “debate” time was divided almost exclusively between leading Republican and Democrat appropriators who embraced the House-Senate, Democrat-Republican “compromise.’

Representative Tom Cole (R-Oklahoma, Chairman, Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies: “[Passage of this appropriations minibus] represents the first time in more than 10 years that Congress  will send more than one final appropriations bill to the President for  signature before the beginning of the fiscal year. In years past, we  have relied strongly on omnibus spending bills to fund the government;  but now, with the hard work done on both sides of the aisle and in both Houses of Congress, we are returning to regular order and completing spending work through the normal legislative process.”

Freedom First Society: Passage of a minibus is not regular order (individual votes on each of the 12 regular appropriations measures).  The primary reason that the leadership combines appropriation measures into a minibus, rather than allowing votes on each individual measure, is to provide protective coloration so that congressmen can support the bad with the good.

Rep. Cole continues: “Mr. Speaker, as I have so often said on this floor, the primary obligation of the Congress is to fund the American Government and keep  it open and operating…. In passing this bill, we will provide crucial funding for services across broad areas of the government and fulfill our promises to the American people: to patients, to communities, to business owners, to  the military, and to Americans of all stripes.

“The House is already familiar with this bill from when it was passed  in June, and this conference version, agreed to with the Senate, has not substantially changed with respect to Defense. However, it now  reflects the combined priorities of the Members of both sides of the  aisle and in both the House and the Senate….

“Mr. Speaker, in the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education  title, the conference report appropriates $178 billion, a $1 billion  increase over fiscal year 2018.   As the conference knows, I am fortunate to chair the Labor, Health  and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, and I am  very pleased with the results of this year’s bill. We were able to  increase the budget of the National Institutes of Health by $2 billion  to $39 billion, thus ensuring that we will be able to direct  significant new dollars to medical research, tackling vexing health problems like Alzheimer’s disease, cancer, and the opioid crisis.   Indeed, across the entire bill, we are putting more than $6.6 billion  into the fight against the opioid crisis. We are putting $7.9 billion  into the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to make sure that  we will have the resources available to battle emerging public health  emergencies and fight infectious disease.

“We did all of this while also  ensuring that popular programs like Meals on Wheels, which provides  meals for our vulnerable senior citizens, can continue to be funded at  current levels.   In the other areas of the Labor-HHS title, we have provided $12.1 billion for the Department of Labor, including $3.5 billion for job  training, $1.7 billion for Job Corps….

“We provided $71 billion to the Department of Education. This includes  $12.4 billion for IDEA special education grants to States. We also  funded TRIO at $1.06 million and GEAR UP at $360 million, both substantial increases. These programs are near and dear to my heart personally and help  first-generation college students succeed.   We increased the maximum Pell grant award to $6,195, and we provided $1.9 billion for career, technical, and adult education programs.

“We  included significant funding for our youngest Americans, including  $10.1 billion for Head Start, $5.3 billion for childcare and development block grants, and $250 million for early childhood  programs.

“Finally, Mr. Speaker, this bill also includes a provision acting as a  continuing resolution, extending some portions of government funding  out to December 7. This extension, while not ideal, gives the  Appropriations Committee and both Houses of Congress time to come to an  agreement on legislation funding the remaining areas of our government.  Such an extension fulfills our primary obligation as legislators, which  is to fund the government and keep it open and operating.

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a brief look at what we have  accomplished and put these bills in context.   Last week, the President signed into law the first package of three bills for fiscal year 2019, covering Energy and Water, Military  Construction and Veteran Affairs, and the Legislative Branch titles.  These bills covered just over 11 percent of total discretionary  spending.  Today’s bill, which covers the Defense and Labor, Health and Human  Services, and Education titles, will produce the vast majority of  discretionary spending, just short of 65 percent of the total discretionary spending for fiscal year 2019.

“What is left in the remaining seven titles amounts to just shy of 24 percent of  discretionary spending.   We may need to do a short-term continuing resolution for part of the  government, but with these bills today, what we will have accomplished is sending over 75 percent of the total discretionary spending to the President for his signature into law before the start of the new fiscal year. That is an amazing accomplishment, one that has not happened in  Congress in over a decade. Indeed, this is the first time  in more than  10 years that the Department of Defense will have its full annual  funding enacted before the start of the fiscal year. This is the first  time in 22 years that the Departments of Labor, Health and Human  Services, Education, and Related Agencies will have been funded before  the beginning of the fiscal year….

“This  bill, Mr. Speaker, is a return to regular order, and we should all be  proud of what we have achieved. It also represents a compromise between the two parties in this body and between this body and our counterpart  on the other side of the Capitol Rotunda.”

Representative Norma Torres (D-California):  “H.R. 6157, the second minibus to keep the government open in fiscal  year 2019, is an example of how this body can still work together to  reach a bipartisan consensus when we take politics out of the picture.   Perhaps more important than what is included in the minibus is what  is not included. This minibus rejects the proposed cuts to healthcare  programs, job training, education, and access to healthcare that were  in President Trump’s budget proposal….

“In addition, let me make this clear: nothing in this legislation will  pay for one foot of the President’s border wall. I hope President Trump  joins this Congress and listens to the majority of the American people  who don’t want to fund this wall. This Congress has repeatedly rejected  funding for his misguided wall, and it is about time the President gave  up on such a foolish waste of taxpayer dollars while our bridges,  freeways, and streets are crumbling beneath us.”

Representative Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-New Jersey), Chairman, Committee on Appropriations:  “Mr. Speaker, it is my honor this afternoon to present the conference  report for H.R. 6157.  This conference report provides full-year funding  for the Department of Defense and for the Department of Labor, Health  and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies. It also includes a  continuing resolution through December 7, 2018, for Federal Government  programs and agencies not covered by the enacted appropriations  legislation….

“The  Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies  Appropriations bill provides $178 billion for programs that protect the  health, education, and labor standards that all Americans deserve.   Funding is directed to programs that have wide national benefit, in  particular, the National Institutes of Health, which receives a $2  billion increase to bolster its lifesaving research.  Notably, funding to fight the opioid abuse epidemic receives historic  funding levels, totaling $6.6 billion. This will support treatment, prevention, research, and other efforts to end this national crisis.   Another top priority is increased funding to keep our children safe in schools. This includes funding for mental health and other  protective measures.   Lastly, the Labor-HHS bill invests in our future, creating economic  opportunity and helping students get ahead and be part of a well- trained 21st century workforce….

“Upon enactment of this legislation, Congress will have provided full- year funding for three-quarters of the Federal Government, but there is  more work to be done on the remaining appropriations bills.  Mr. Speaker, this legislation is yet another step forward to our goal  of returning to what we call regular order and fully funding the  Federal Government for the fiscal year.”

Rep. Nita Lowey (D-New York ), the Ranking Democratic Member of the House Appropriations Committee: “Mr. Speaker, I join Chairman Frelinghuysen in strong support of this  bipartisan legislation. The Defense and Labor-HHS-Education bills carry  out some of Congress’ most important constitutional responsibilities.  We should all be pleased that we have completed our work on these bills  on time.  This conference report provides ample resources for our armed  services and strengthens military readiness….

“Turning to the Labor-HHS-Education division, I am pleased that  Congress has resoundingly rejected President Trump’s budget and restored $10 billion in proposed cuts that would have hurt working  families. Instead, we have won increased funding for a number of  important priorities.   This bill boosts biomedical research at the National Institutes of Health, expands opioid abuse treatment and prevention programs, and launches new initiatives for maternal and child health.   The bill increases funding for Head Start, childcare, and after school programs on which working families rely. It lifts the maximum  Pell grant to help more students access postsecondary education, and it  invests in the 21st century workforce with more support for registered  apprenticeships and career and technical education….

“Just as important is what this bill does not include: the unnecessary  partisan riders that caused House Democrats to oppose the Labor-HHS- Education bill in the Appropriations Committee.”

Representative Rosa DeLauro (D-Connecticut), ranking Democrat on the Labor-HHS, Education Subcommittee:  “The Labor-HHS funding bill for 2019 makes important investments in  health, education, and in our families. It is a $1 billion increase over 2018, leaving us to deliberate $178.1 billion. Especially when I view that the Trump administration is pursuing the fundamental hollowing out of our Federal agencies, we secured critical investments  in Democratic priorities that boost the middle class.

“First, let me talk about health. This bill includes an increase of $2  billion for NIH research. It also includes increases across the Centers  for Disease Control and Prevention, the Health Resources and Services Administration, particularly to address health threats to pregnant  women and babies.   We also secured increases for our country’s youngest children and their families, including an increase of $50 million for childcare and  $200 million for Head Start, including $50 million more for Early Head Start.   Turning to education, we won an increase for after-school programs and a raise in the maximum Pell grant, $100 for $6,195, to help  students afford the rising cost of a college degree….

“So, from health, to childcare, to education, we achieved several  great wins for the American people.   Importantly, the bill before us maintains the bipartisan amendments  that House Democrats introduced to condemn the administration’s policy  of separating families, to demand a reunification plan, and to ensure  that HHS upholds the highest standards of care for children in our  custody.  I am proud of what we included. I am also proud of what we kept out.  We held the line and kept out harmful ideological riders that would have sabotaged the Affordable Care Act, undermined women’s health, and  overturned the Flores settlement to allow the administration to keep  kids in cages indefinitely.”

Representative Debbie Wasserman-Schulz (D-Florida), ranking Democrat on the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies  Subcommittee:  “I am proud to say this bill retains my language protecting access to lifesaving mammograms, particularly for women between 40 and 50 years  old, and provides $5 million for my ongoing initiative, the Breast  Cancer Education and Awareness Requires Learning Young Act, or the  EARLY Act, which will continue to help increase the quality and  quantity of life for young women with breast cancer.  The bill increases funding for the Centers for Disease Control and  Prevention by $125 million and funds programs that fight the spread of  the Zika virus, as well as combats the use of tobacco.  It also provides vital funding that will benefit seniors, and it  includes $5 million to help Holocaust survivors and their families.”

Representative Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas):  “But, most importantly, my constituents are suffering from a lack of healthcare because of the undermining of the Affordable Care Act that we are still fighting for. So I am very grateful for the $39.1 billion  for the National Institutes of Health; $4.4 billion for programs that  respond to the opioid crisis; $7.9 billion for the Centers for Disease  Control, and, of course, what is so important to our constituents in  Houston and Texas is that our community health centers that are our  first line of defense to those who don’t have healthcare; $678 million  for a maternal and child health block grant — we have some of the  largest numbers of maternal death in Houston among African American  women; $10 billion for Head Start; and then specifically I want to talk  about the unaccompanied children, $1.3 billion, but I am grateful for  the language that demands of this administration to tell us who is  there that has not been reunited with their families, and then the  12,000 that are in the jurisdiction of HHS.”

Representative Barbara Lee (D-California), senior member of the Appropriations Committee: “As a member of the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education funding subcommittee, I am pleased to see many good provisions in this  bill. This bill eliminates hundreds of poison pill riders ranging from efforts to defund Planned Parenthood, eliminate teen pregnancy and  title X to dismantling of critical labor and consumer protections.

“The bill also includes $60 million for a competitive grant, which we  have been working on for years, for computer science funding for young  girls, young people living below the poverty line, and people of color.  I thank Mr. Fleischmann and others for helping us work on this, because  this truly is a bipartisan effort. We included robust increases in job  training, education, and childcare, as well as for historically Black  colleges and universities. Now, my State of California has the highest  number of students coming to HBCUs, so I am very grateful for those  increases.

“Even with these increases, Mr. Speaker, this conference report still  falls short of what we need to just return to the funding levels before the sequester 8 years ago. Adjusted for inflation, we are still way  below the 2010 levels for domestic spending.   What is worse, while underfunding our needs here at home, the bill includes an increase in $19 billion in defense.”

Representative Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-California), member of the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Subcommittee: “Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. It rejects the draconian cuts the  Trump administration proposed and strengthens our commitment to our  constituents by funding critical programs. It also ensures our national  defense remains strong in a dangerous world.   I am particularly pleased that HHS programs received such robust  funding in this Conference agreement.   The bill increases funding for three of my top legislative  priorities: fighting underage drinking, supporting newborn screening,  and reducing maternal mortality. At a time when this country is  experiencing the highest rates of sexually transmitted diseases in  history, this bill restores both the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program  and all Title X Family Planning dollars that help our teens gain  critical access to reproductive health care and education. And as this  country faces a growing demand for health care providers, the conference report reinstates the Health Careers Opportunity Program to  increase workforce diversity and restores funding for the Community Health Centers and the Nursing Workforce Programs to their FY18 funding  levels….

“Among Education and Labor programs, I am glad the maximum Pell award  will get an increase, which I called for during our committee markup. I  am also pleased we were able to work together to provide modest  increases to Head Start and TRIO programs to serve students with the  highest needs. Finally, the bill provides modest increases in funding  for apprenticeships and maintains language that directs those funds to  proven registered apprenticeships.”

Bill Summary:   As reported by the Congressional Research Service on the June 8 House-passed bill:

This bill provides FY2019 appropriations for several federal agencies. The bill includes 3 of the 12 regular FY2019 appropriations bills: the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2019; the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2019; and the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2019.

The bill also provides additional Overseas Contingency Operations/ Global War on Terrorism funding which is exempt from discretionary spending limits.”

Analysis:  Our analysis here of the House-Senate compromise measure makes three objections.  We support these with excerpts from the Senate floor “debates” (as reported in the September 12th Congressional Record).

1. Collectivism is Alive and Well in Both Parties

Leadership of both parties promote the idea that their job is to spend money in a timely manner and that the American taxpayer is counting on Congress to do so.   The appropriators often make it sound as though they are paying for these appropriations out of their own pockets.

Moreover, they tout all of the ostensible good things government can do on our behalf (collectivism), while completely ignoring the damage to middle class opportunity from a bloated out-of-control government.  Yet this unrestrained spending on unconstitutional programs threatens to bankrupt our nation and cost us our freedom.

Appropriations Vice Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont):  “Today, the Senate will consider final passage of the “Minibus #1”  conference report. This package contains the Legislative Branch, Energy  and Water Development, and Military Construction and Veterans Affairs  and Related Agencies Appropriations Bills…. The Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill  includes significant new investments in mental health and opioid abuse treatment. We are not just talking about things we would like to do to  address opioid abuse; we are actually including it in a bill. It  invests $1 billion in new funding over fiscal year 2017 levels for  mental healthcare programs and suicide prevention and $454 million over  fiscal year 2017 for opioid treatment and prevention….

“In the Energy and Water Development appropriations bill, we make significant investments that support scientific research, make America  more competitive in clean energy and increase funds for renewable energy.   Congress rejected President Trump’s shortsighted attempt to eliminate  ARPA-E, which researches and invests in new energy technologies, and  increased its funding by $60 million over fiscal year 2018. Thanks to  the Bipartisan Budget Agreement, investments in the Office of Science  are increased by $1.2 billion over fiscal year 2017, paving the way for  new and groundbreaking scientific research…..

“The Energy and Water bill also makes important investments in our  rural communities through regional commissions, including $20 million  for the four-State Northern Border Regional Commission. We once again  provide strong funding for the Weatherization Program, which helps so  many families in Vermont and other northern States who struggle with  high home heating prices during the cold winter months. And I am pleased  that the bill supports much needed repairs and improvements in our  environmental infrastructure and energy infrastructure and strengthens  innovative ways to deliver these critical assets that will make Vermont  and the entire country more resilient to the changing climate and  violent weather events.”

Freedom First Society:  Note: Passage of a minibus is not regular order (individual votes on each of the 12 regular appropriations measures). The primary reason that the leadership combines these 3 appropriation measures into a minibus, rather than allowing votes on each individual measure, is to provide protective coloration so that congressmen can support the bad with the good.

2. Bipartisan Compromise Should Not Be Extolled As a Virtue

Legislative leaders and the Establishment media constantly seek to convince the public that political compromise is a necessary virtue.  But congressmen should not compromise on fundamental principles, such as their oath to defend the Constitution.  And some don’t.

The principled position is for congressmen and senators to vote on principle, even if they are not currently in the majority. Unless some stake out the principled position, as a few are doing (see Scorecard), there is no hope of becoming the majority and averting disaster.

Note:  Those who extoll compromise are often employing a double standard.  There was no compromise on so-called “Poison pills” — attempts to address significant policy problems by attaching them to appropriation measures.  But they deemed it okay to compromise on the Constitution!

Senator Richard Shelby, (R-Alabama), Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee: “A few months ago, I came to the floor and urged my colleagues to set  aside partisan disputes so that we could focus on our most basic  constitutional responsibility: funding the government in a deliberate  and timely manner.

“Most observers deemed the prospect dubious at best. Who could blame  them? Like so much in Washington, the appropriations process was  broken, but at the urging of Leaders McConnell and Schemer and with the  help of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle — Vice Chairman Leahy,  in particular — we began to put the pieces back together.   Steadily, methodically, we passed 9 of the 12 annual appropriations bills in the Senate by overwhelming bipartisan margins. Today, I am  pleased to present my colleagues with the first dividends of their  cooperation….

“It does a lot of other things, but I  can say that this is an important package, and it is very important in what this package does not contain. It contains no poison pills— none  of the partisan riders that have taken down appropriations bills in  recent years in this package. As a result, the conference report looks a lot like the package that passed the Senate a few months ago by a vote of 86 to 5.”  [Emphasis added.]

Appropriations Vice Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont):  “This is a compromise bill. It makes significant investments in the  American people. It was not an easy path to get to where we are, but the Shelby-Leahy-McConnell-Schumer agreement we entered into — the four  of us — has laid the bipartisan framework for a path forward. This  package does have bipartisan support. It is free of poison pill riders,  and it is in line with the bipartisan budget agreement….

“In the Senate, we have come together, Republicans and Democrats. We have made more progress than we have in decades in appropriations.   I hope that we will continue down this path and pass the two  additional minibus appropriations bills that are in conference before  the end of the fiscal year. Funding the government is one of Congress’s  most basic responsibilities, and we owe it to the American people to do  our jobs.” 

3. They Compromised to the Left

As noted in Senator Leahy’s comments above (#1), the compromise legislation included major funding for government programs promoting “alternative energy sources.”   These “energy” programs are driven by the heavily financed environmental lobby with its media support.  They serve as a pretext for holding back our economic prosperity by blocking industry access to cheap, reliable energy capable of powering a major economy. (Solar panels won’t do it.)

Some legislators have opposed the limits in the Internationalists’ Paris climate accord purely on economic grounds. Even President Trump indicated a willingness to rejoin the climate accord if the U.S. could obtain better terms (AP, 6-1-17).  Others have challenged the flawed “models” and “findings” of the heavily financed environmental lobby as unsettled “science.”

However, no legislator seems willing or able to tell the American public what is really driving the unconstitutional “Department of Energy” to insist  on a shift to “alternative energy”:  an Internationalist power grab.  The power grab is supported by the UN fiction of a “scientific consensus” re man-made global warming due to the release of greenhouse gases.  And of course, the media refuses to report the mountains of scientific evidence disputing those claims and instead helps characterize such science as industry-financed or even a criminal threat to life on the planet.

For example, Richard S. Lindzen, Professor Emeritus, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote in Climate Change: The Facts (2015):

Global warming is about politics and power rather than science.  In science, there is an attempt to clarify, in global warming, language is misused in order to confuse and mislead the public….

Advocates of policies allegedly addressing global warming use models not to predict but rather to justify the claim that catastrophe is possible.

For more detail please see our analysis of the original House-passed version(House Roll Call 257, June 8, 2018).

 

Bill Summary:   As reported by the Congressional Research Service on the June 8 House-passed bill:

This bill provides FY2019 appropriations for several federal agencies. The bill includes 3 of the 12 regular FY2019 appropriations bills: the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2019; the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2019; and the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2019.

The bill also provides additional Overseas Contingency Operations/ Global War on Terrorism funding which is exempt from discretionary spending limits.”

Analysis:  Our analysis here of the House-Senate compromise measure makes three objections.  We support these with excerpts from the Senate floor “debates” (as reported in the September 12th Congressional Record).

1. Collectivism is Alive and Well in Both Parties

Leadership of both parties promote the idea that their job is to spend money in a timely manner and that the American taxpayer is counting on Congress to do so.   The appropriators often make it sound as though they are paying for these appropriations out of their own pockets.

Moreover, they tout all of the ostensible good things government can do on our behalf (collectivism), while completely ignoring the damage to middle class opportunity from a bloated out-of-control government.  Yet this unrestrained spending on unconstitutional programs threatens to bankrupt our nation and cost us our freedom.

Appropriations Vice Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont):  “Today, the Senate will consider final passage of the “Minibus #1”  conference report. This package contains the Legislative Branch, Energy  and Water Development, and Military Construction and Veterans Affairs  and Related Agencies Appropriations Bills…. The Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill  includes significant new investments in mental health and opioid abuse treatment. We are not just talking about things we would like to do to  address opioid abuse; we are actually including it in a bill. It  invests $1 billion in new funding over fiscal year 2017 levels for  mental healthcare programs and suicide prevention and $454 million over  fiscal year 2017 for opioid treatment and prevention….

“In the Energy and Water Development appropriations bill, we make significant investments that support scientific research, make America  more competitive in clean energy and increase funds for renewable energy.   Congress rejected President Trump’s shortsighted attempt to eliminate  ARPA-E, which researches and invests in new energy technologies, and  increased its funding by $60 million over fiscal year 2018. Thanks to  the Bipartisan Budget Agreement, investments in the Office of Science  are increased by $1.2 billion over fiscal year 2017, paving the way for  new and groundbreaking scientific research…..

“The Energy and Water bill also makes important investments in our  rural communities through regional commissions, including $20 million  for the four-State Northern Border Regional Commission. We once again  provide strong funding for the Weatherization Program, which helps so  many families in Vermont and other northern States who struggle with  high home heating prices during the cold winter months. And I am pleased  that the bill supports much needed repairs and improvements in our  environmental infrastructure and energy infrastructure and strengthens  innovative ways to deliver these critical assets that will make Vermont  and the entire country more resilient to the changing climate and  violent weather events.”

Freedom First Society:  Note: Passage of a minibus is not regular order (individual votes on each of the 12 regular appropriations measures). The primary reason that the leadership combines these 3 appropriation measures into a minibus, rather than allowing votes on each individual measure, is to provide protective coloration so that congressmen can support the bad with the good.

2. Bipartisan Compromise Should Not Be Extolled As a Virtue

Legislative leaders and the Establishment media constantly seek to convince the public that political compromise is a necessary virtue.  But congressmen should not compromise on fundamental principles, such as their oath to defend the Constitution.  And some don’t.

The principled position is for congressmen and senators to vote on principle, even if they are not currently in the majority. Unless some stake out the principled position, as a few are doing (see Scorecard), there is no hope of becoming the majority and averting disaster.

Note:  Those who extoll compromise are often employing a double standard.  There was no compromise on so-called “Poison pills” — attempts to address significant policy problems by attaching them to appropriation measures.  But they deemed it okay to compromise on the Constitution!

Senator Richard Shelby, (R-Alabama), Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee: “A few months ago, I came to the floor and urged my colleagues to set  aside partisan disputes so that we could focus on our most basic  constitutional responsibility: funding the government in a deliberate  and timely manner.

“Most observers deemed the prospect dubious at best. Who could blame  them? Like so much in Washington, the appropriations process was  broken, but at the urging of Leaders McConnell and Schemer and with the  help of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle — Vice Chairman Leahy,  in particular — we began to put the pieces back together.   Steadily, methodically, we passed 9 of the 12 annual appropriations bills in the Senate by overwhelming bipartisan margins. Today, I am  pleased to present my colleagues with the first dividends of their  cooperation….

“It does a lot of other things, but I  can say that this is an important package, and it is very important in what this package does not contain. It contains no poison pills— none  of the partisan riders that have taken down appropriations bills in  recent years in this package. As a result, the conference report looks a lot like the package that passed the Senate a few months ago by a vote of 86 to 5.”  [Emphasis added.]

Appropriations Vice Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont):  “This is a compromise bill. It makes significant investments in the  American people. It was not an easy path to get to where we are, but the Shelby-Leahy-McConnell-Schumer agreement we entered into — the four  of us — has laid the bipartisan framework for a path forward. This  package does have bipartisan support. It is free of poison pill riders,  and it is in line with the bipartisan budget agreement….

“In the Senate, we have come together, Republicans and Democrats. We have made more progress than we have in decades in appropriations.   I hope that we will continue down this path and pass the two  additional minibus appropriations bills that are in conference before  the end of the fiscal year. Funding the government is one of Congress’s  most basic responsibilities, and we owe it to the American people to do  our jobs.” 

3. They Compromised to the Left

As noted in Senator Leahy’s comments above (#1), the compromise legislation included major funding for government programs promoting “alternative energy sources.”   These “energy” programs are driven by the heavily financed environmental lobby with its media support.  They serve as a pretext for holding back our economic prosperity by blocking industry access to cheap, reliable energy capable of powering a major economy. (Solar panels won’t do it.)

Some legislators have opposed the limits in the Internationalists’ Paris climate accord purely on economic grounds. Even President Trump indicated a willingness to rejoin the climate accord if the U.S. could obtain better terms (AP, 6-1-17).  Others have challenged the flawed “models” and “findings” of the heavily financed environmental lobby as unsettled “science.”

However, no legislator seems willing or able to tell the American public what is really driving the unconstitutional “Department of Energy” to insist  on a shift to “alternative energy”:  an Internationalist power grab.  The power grab is supported by the UN fiction of a “scientific consensus” re man-made global warming due to the release of greenhouse gases.  And of course, the media refuses to report the mountains of scientific evidence disputing those claims and instead helps characterize such science as industry-financed or even a criminal threat to life on the planet.

For example, Richard S. Lindzen, Professor Emeritus, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote in Climate Change: The Facts (2015):

Global warming is about politics and power rather than science.  In science, there is an attempt to clarify, in global warming, language is misused in order to confuse and mislead the public….

Advocates of policies allegedly addressing global warming use models not to predict but rather to justify the claim that catastrophe is possible.

For more detail please see our analysis of the original House-passed version(House Roll Call 257, June 8, 2018).

 

Bill Summary:   As reported by the Congressional Research Service on the June 8 House-passed bill:

“This bill provides FY2019 appropriations for several federal agencies. The bill includes 3 of the 12 regular FY2019 appropriations bills:

the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2019;

the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2019; and

the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2019.

The bill also provides additional Overseas Contingency Operations/ Global War on Terrorism funding which is exempt from discretionary spending limits.”

Analysis:  Our analysis here of the House-Senate compromise measure makes three objections.  We support each with excerpts from the floor “debates” (as reported in the Congressional Record).

However, we must also point out that the so-called House and Senate debates were not debates at all.  This is often the case today.   Although there was opposition in both the House and Senate to the conference agreement, in neither chamber did opponents of the measure take the podium to give their reasons for opposition.   The “debate” time was divided almost exclusively between leading Republican and Democrat appropriators who embraced the House-Senate, Democrat-Republican “compromise.’

1. Collectivism is Alive and Well in Both Parties

Leadership of both parties promote the idea that their job is to spend money in a timely manner and that the American taxpayer is counting on Congress to do so.   The appropriators often make it sound as though they are paying for these appropriations out of their own pockets.

Moreover, they tout all of the ostensible good things government can do on our behalf (collectivism), while completely ignoring the damage to middle class opportunity from a bloated out-of-control government.  Yet this unrestrained spending on unconstitutional programs threatens to bankrupt our nation and cost us our freedom.

For example:  Just imagine the consequence to our modern specialized economy if the confidence in the dollar were destroyed.  Starvation and riots would be widespread.  The Internationalists would be eager to rescue us by providing us with a regional currency (like the Euro) at the price of our national independence.

Representative Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-New Jersey), Chairman, Committee on Appropriations: “This conference report is a responsible compromise that addresses shared priorities: funding for programs that benefit all Americans,  including national security, energy development programs and water  resources infrastructure, care for veterans, and operations of the legislative branch. Critically, this conference report represents the next step toward fully funding the Federal Government for fiscal year 2019.

“This is the first time since fiscal year 2017 that Congress will have  passed any Appropriations bill before the end of the year and the first  time in over a decade —— since fiscal year 2007 — that Congress will be  sending more than one Appropriations bill to the President’s desk  before September 30.   We have done our best to repair a broken appropriations process. This  is a welcome and long overdue return to regular order and fulfills our promise to the American people to deliver results….

“Support for this conference report today indicates that Congress is  willing and able to get its work done on behalf of the American people on time, under regular order, and within our set budget limits.” [Emphasis added.]

Freedom First Society:  Note:  Passage of a minibus is not regular order (individual votes on each of the 12 regular appropriations measures).  The primary reason that the leadership combines these 3 appropriation measures into a minibus, rather than allowing votes on each individual measure, is to provide protective coloration so that congressmen can support the bad with the good.

2. Bipartisan Compromise Should Not Be Extolled As a Virtue

Legislative leaders and the Establishment media constantly seek to convince the public that political compromise is a necessary virtue.  But congressmen should not compromise on fundamental principles, such as their oath to defend the Constitution.  And some don’t.  Instead, if there were a sufficient faction in the House committed to restoring limited government according to the Constitution, that faction should use the House’s “power of the purse” to play hardball with the socialists in the Senate.  (And true regular order is necessary in order to play hardball and take the sting out of the threat of a government shutdown.)

The principled position is for congressmen to vote on principle, even if they are not currently in the majority.  Unless some stake out the principled position, as a few are doing (see Scorecard), there is no hope of becoming the majority and averting disaster.

Note:  Those who extoll compromise are often employing a double standard.  There was no compromise on so-called “Poison pills” — attempts to address significant policy problems by attaching them to appropriation measures.  But they deemed it okay to compromise on the Constitution!

Representative Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), member Committee on Appropriations: “Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the ranking member, Mrs.  Lowey, for yielding and for the wonderful work she has done as our leader in the Appropriations Committee. I certainly want to thank, also, the chairman for his leadership and the bipartisan work that both individuals, Mrs. Lowey and Mr. Frelinghuysen, have done in working  together to make sure we pass this legislation and bring these three  bills to the floor….

“Again, I want to say thank you to everybody working together in a bipartisan way.” [Emphasis added.]

Representative Gene Green (D-Texas): “Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5895, the Energy and Water,  Legislative Branch and Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act. In an era of partisanship, bipartisan legislation like this bill is sorely needed.” [Emphasis added.]

From the Senate “debate” the previous day (9-12-18):

Senator Richard Shelby, (R-Alabama), Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee: “A few months ago, I came to the floor and urged my colleagues to set  aside partisan disputes so that we could focus on our most basic constitutional responsibility: funding the government in a deliberate and timely manner.

“Most observers deemed the prospect dubious at best. Who could blame  them? Like so much in Washington, the appropriations process was broken, but at the urging of Leaders McConnell and Schumer and with the  help of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle — Vice Chairman Leahy,  in particular — we began to put the pieces back together.   Steadily, methodically, we passed 9 of the 12 annual appropriations bills in the Senate by overwhelming bipartisan margins. Today, I am  pleased to present my colleagues with the first dividends of their  cooperation….

“It does a lot of other things, but I  can say that this is an important package, and it is very important in what this package does not contain. It contains no poison pills — none  of the partisan riders that have taken down appropriations bills in recent years in this package. As a result, the conference report looks a lot like the package that passed the Senate a few months ago by a vote of 86 to 5.”  [Emphasis added.]

3. They Compromised to the Left

As one example, the compromise legislation included major funding for government programs promoting “alternative energy sources.”  These “energy” programs are driven by the heavily financed environmental lobby with its media support.  They serve as a pretext for holding back our economic prosperity by blocking industry access to cheap, reliable energy capable of powering a major economy.  (Solar panels won’t do it.)

Some legislators have opposed the limits in the Internationalists’ Paris climate accord purely on economic grounds.  Even President Trump indicated a willingness to rejoin the climate accord if the U.S. could obtain better terms (AP, 6-1-17). Others have challenged the flawed “models” and “findings” of the heavily financed environmental lobby as unsettled “science.”

However,  no legislator seems willing or able to tell the American public what is really driving the unconstitutional “Department of Energy” to insist on a shift to “alternative energy”: an Internationalist power grab.  The power grab is supported by the UN fiction of a “scientific consensus” re man-made global warming due to the release of greenhouse gases.  And of course, the media refuses to report the mountains of scientific evidence disputing those claims and instead helps characterize such science as industry-financed or even a criminal threat to life on the planet.

For example, Richard S. Lindzen, Professor Emeritus, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote in Climate Change: The Facts (2015):

“Global warming is about politics and power rather than science.  In science, there is an attempt to clarify, in global warming, language is misused in order to confuse and mislead the public….

“Advocates of policies allegedly addressing global warming use models not to predict but rather to justify the claim that catastrophe is possible.”

Rep. Nita Lowey (D-New York ), the Ranking Democratic Member of the House Appropriations Committee: “Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this three-bill minibus,  which delivers important victories for the American people.  The fiscal year 2019 Energy and Water Development, Military  Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Legislative Branch bill is a bipartisan rejection of President Trump’s extreme budget cuts. It  restores $8.1 billion in funding for programs that create jobs and strengthen our economy.   Instead of cutting energy efficiency and renewable energy programs within the Department of Energy, as House Republicans proposed, we have  increased its funding. That means more resources to develop clean energy technology and accelerate job creation in this growing sector of  the economy.

“And this bill gives an emphatic thumbs-down to President Trump’s proposed elimination of the highly successful ARPA-E program, which  promotes and funds research and development of advanced energy technology.”

Rep.  Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), Ranking Democrat on the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee: “Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this three-cornered  minibus before us….

“This bill strongly funds programs that were eliminated in the  President’s budget, including weatherization assistance to conserve  energy and the path-breaking office of the Department of Energy’s  advanced research, ARPA-E, which unlocks science to build our future and the progress that goes with it.  Additionally, harmful, controversial policy riders that have no place  in this bill were removed.”  [Emphasis added.]

For more detail please see our analysis of the original House-passed version (House Roll Call 257, June 8, 2018).

Bill Summary:   As reported by the Congressional Research Service on the June 8 House-passed bill:

“This bill provides FY2019 appropriations for several federal agencies. The bill includes 3 of the 12 regular FY2019 appropriations bills:

the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2019;

the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2019; and

the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2019.

The bill also provides additional Overseas Contingency Operations/ Global War on Terrorism funding which is exempt from discretionary spending limits.”

Analysis:  Our analysis here of the House-Senate compromise measure makes three objections.  We support each with excerpts from the floor “debates” (as reported in the Congressional Record).

However, we must also point out that the so-called House and Senate debates were not debates at all.  This is often the case today.   Although there was opposition in both the House and Senate to the conference agreement, in neither chamber did opponents of the measure take the podium to give their reasons for opposition.   The “debate” time was divided almost exclusively between leading Republican and Democrat appropriators who embraced the House-Senate, Democrat-Republican “compromise.’

1. Collectivism is Alive and Well in Both Parties

Leadership of both parties promote the idea that their job is to spend money in a timely manner and that the American taxpayer is counting on Congress to do so.   The appropriators often make it sound as though they are paying for these appropriations out of their own pockets.

Moreover, they tout all of the ostensible good things government can do on our behalf (collectivism), while completely ignoring the damage to middle class opportunity from a bloated out-of-control government.  Yet this unrestrained spending on unconstitutional programs threatens to bankrupt our nation and cost us our freedom.

For example:  Just imagine the consequence to our modern specialized economy if the confidence in the dollar were destroyed.  Starvation and riots would be widespread.  The Internationalists would be eager to rescue us by providing us with a regional currency (like the Euro) at the price of our national independence.

Representative Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-New Jersey), Chairman, Committee on Appropriations: “This conference report is a responsible compromise that addresses shared priorities: funding for programs that benefit all Americans,  including national security, energy development programs and water  resources infrastructure, care for veterans, and operations of the legislative branch. Critically, this conference report represents the next step toward fully funding the Federal Government for fiscal year 2019.

“This is the first time since fiscal year 2017 that Congress will have  passed any Appropriations bill before the end of the year and the first  time in over a decade —— since fiscal year 2007 — that Congress will be  sending more than one Appropriations bill to the President’s desk  before September 30.   We have done our best to repair a broken appropriations process. This  is a welcome and long overdue return to regular order and fulfills our promise to the American people to deliver results….

“Support for this conference report today indicates that Congress is  willing and able to get its work done on behalf of the American people on time, under regular order, and within our set budget limits.” [Emphasis added.]

Freedom First Society:  Note:  Passage of a minibus is not regular order (individual votes on each of the 12 regular appropriations measures).  The primary reason that the leadership combines these 3 appropriation measures into a minibus, rather than allowing votes on each individual measure, is to provide protective coloration so that congressmen can support the bad with the good.

2. Bipartisan Compromise Should Not Be Extolled As a Virtue

Legislative leaders and the Establishment media constantly seek to convince the public that political compromise is a necessary virtue.  But congressmen should not compromise on fundamental principles, such as their oath to defend the Constitution.  And some don’t.  Instead, if there were a sufficient faction in the House committed to restoring limited government according to the Constitution, that faction should use the House’s “power of the purse” to play hardball with the socialists in the Senate.  (And true regular order is necessary in order to play hardball and take the sting out of the threat of a government shutdown.)

The principled position is for congressmen to vote on principle, even if they are not currently in the majority.  Unless some stake out the principled position, as a few are doing (see Scorecard), there is no hope of becoming the majority and averting disaster.

Note:  Those who extoll compromise are often employing a double standard.  There was no compromise on so-called “Poison pills” — attempts to address significant policy problems by attaching them to appropriation measures.  But they deemed it okay to compromise on the Constitution!

Representative Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), member Committee on Appropriations: “Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the ranking member, Mrs.  Lowey, for yielding and for the wonderful work she has done as our leader in the Appropriations Committee. I certainly want to thank, also, the chairman for his leadership and the bipartisan work that both individuals, Mrs. Lowey and Mr. Frelinghuysen, have done in working  together to make sure we pass this legislation and bring these three  bills to the floor….

“Again, I want to say thank you to everybody working together in a bipartisan way.” [Emphasis added.]

Representative Gene Green (D-Texas): “Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5895, the Energy and Water,  Legislative Branch and Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act. In an era of partisanship, bipartisan legislation like this bill is sorely needed.” [Emphasis added.]

From the Senate “debate” the previous day (9-12-18):

Senator Richard Shelby, (R-Alabama), Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee: “A few months ago, I came to the floor and urged my colleagues to set  aside partisan disputes so that we could focus on our most basic constitutional responsibility: funding the government in a deliberate and timely manner.

“Most observers deemed the prospect dubious at best. Who could blame  them? Like so much in Washington, the appropriations process was broken, but at the urging of Leaders McConnell and Schumer and with the  help of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle — Vice Chairman Leahy,  in particular — we began to put the pieces back together.   Steadily, methodically, we passed 9 of the 12 annual appropriations bills in the Senate by overwhelming bipartisan margins. Today, I am  pleased to present my colleagues with the first dividends of their  cooperation….

“It does a lot of other things, but I  can say that this is an important package, and it is very important in what this package does not contain. It contains no poison pills — none  of the partisan riders that have taken down appropriations bills in recent years in this package. As a result, the conference report looks a lot like the package that passed the Senate a few months ago by a vote of 86 to 5.”  [Emphasis added.]

3. They Compromised to the Left

As one example, the compromise legislation included major funding for government programs promoting “alternative energy sources.”  These “energy” programs are driven by the heavily financed environmental lobby with its media support.  They serve as a pretext for holding back our economic prosperity by blocking industry access to cheap, reliable energy capable of powering a major economy.  (Solar panels won’t do it.)

Some legislators have opposed the limits in the Internationalists’ Paris climate accord purely on economic grounds.  Even President Trump indicated a willingness to rejoin the climate accord if the U.S. could obtain better terms (AP, 6-1-17). Others have challenged the flawed “models” and “findings” of the heavily financed environmental lobby as unsettled “science.”

However,  no legislator seems willing or able to tell the American public what is really driving the unconstitutional “Department of Energy” to insist on a shift to “alternative energy”: an Internationalist power grab.  The power grab is supported by the UN fiction of a “scientific consensus” re man-made global warming due to the release of greenhouse gases.  And of course, the media refuses to report the mountains of scientific evidence disputing those claims and instead helps characterize such science as industry-financed or even a criminal threat to life on the planet.

For example, Richard S. Lindzen, Professor Emeritus, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote in Climate Change: The Facts (2015):

“Global warming is about politics and power rather than science.  In science, there is an attempt to clarify, in global warming, language is misused in order to confuse and mislead the public….

“Advocates of policies allegedly addressing global warming use models not to predict but rather to justify the claim that catastrophe is possible.”

Rep. Nita Lowey (D-New York ), the Ranking Democratic Member of the House Appropriations Committee: “Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this three-bill minibus,  which delivers important victories for the American people.  The fiscal year 2019 Energy and Water Development, Military  Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Legislative Branch bill is a bipartisan rejection of President Trump’s extreme budget cuts. It  restores $8.1 billion in funding for programs that create jobs and strengthen our economy.   Instead of cutting energy efficiency and renewable energy programs within the Department of Energy, as House Republicans proposed, we have  increased its funding. That means more resources to develop clean energy technology and accelerate job creation in this growing sector of  the economy.

“And this bill gives an emphatic thumbs-down to President Trump’s proposed elimination of the highly successful ARPA-E program, which  promotes and funds research and development of advanced energy technology.”

Rep.  Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), Ranking Democrat on the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee: “Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this three-cornered  minibus before us….

“This bill strongly funds programs that were eliminated in the  President’s budget, including weatherization assistance to conserve  energy and the path-breaking office of the Department of Energy’s  advanced research, ARPA-E, which unlocks science to build our future and the progress that goes with it.  Additionally, harmful, controversial policy riders that have no place  in this bill were removed.”  [Emphasis added.]

For more detail please see our analysis of the original House-passed version (House Roll Call 257, June 8, 2018).

Bill Summary:  As amended by the Senate, the Labor-HHS-Defense-Education bill appropriates $854 billion for Fiscal Year 2019.  Here is the Congressional Research Services (CRS) Summary of the Defense portion as considered by the House:

“Reported to House without amendment (06/20/2018)
Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2019

Provides FY2019 appropriations to the Department of Defense (DOD) for military activities. Excludes military construction, military family housing, civil works projects of the Army Corps of Engineers, and nuclear warheads, which are all considered in other appropriations bills.

Provides appropriations to DOD for:

Military Personnel;
Operation and Maintenance;
Procurement;
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation; and
Revolving and Management Funds.

Provides appropriations for Other Department of Defense Programs, including:

The Defense Health Program,
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction,
Drug-Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, and
the Office of the Inspector General.

Provides appropriations for Related Agencies, including the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System Fund and the Intelligence Community Management Account.

Provides appropriations for Overseas Contingency Operations/ Global War on Terrorism.

Sets forth requirements and restrictions for using funds provided by this and other appropriations Acts.”

Analysis:  America desperately needs a Congress that will focus on restoring limited government, i.e., rolling back the Federal monster to conform to what it is authorized by the Constitution — and no more.  Of course, that is far and away not the current focus of the leadership of either party.

And H.R. 6157 continues and expands unconstitutional government.

During the “debate” on H.R. 6157, Senate leaders sought to beguile the public with misleading boasts of collectivism, regular order, timeliness, and bipartisanship. Let’s examine each.

We dispute the claim that with this bill the Senate is implementing regular order.  Regular order means voting separately on the 12 individual appropriations bills.  The Senate-amended version of H.R. 6157 combines widely disparate topics, amounting to almost two-thirds of the discretionary spending, in order to achieve “bipartisan support” and ensure passage.

One could even argue that the Labor/HHS/education appropriations bill is an unhappy mixture and should be separated.  But not really.  The core of all three departments should be abolished as outside the proper federal role.

Regular order is primarily important as a means to do what Congress is not planning to do — trim the federal monster. Timeliness does reduce waste and uncertainty, but the important question that should be asked here is: What is to be done on time?  Americans should not be happy with just promoting government business as usual as though America doesn’t have a care in the world if the trains run on time.

Collectivism Alive and Well!

The Senate “debate” emphasized all of the great things federal money is doing for Americans in total violation of the Constitution.  In doing so, the sponsors of H.R. 6157 promoted the subversive collectivist worldview that the good things that happen in society must come from collective (i.e., government) action.  This was never the view of America’s Founding Fathers, who gave little authority to the federal government over domestic affairs, reserving such authority to the States and to the people.

Bipartisanship Deception

“We have two parties here, and only two.  One is the evil party, and the other is the stupid party….  Occasionally, the two parties get together to do something that’s both evil and stupid. That’s called bipartisanship.” — M. Stanton Evans

Although Evans’ clever assessment may appear to have an element of truth, the reality is worse.  As for the leadership of the two parties, we are really dealing with “wolves” versus “wolves in sheep’s clothing.”

The wolf in sheep’s clothing deceives those constituents who understand that government needs to be cut back.  The outright wolf appeals to those who accept the socialist lie that government can make their lives better and that more government power will be used to do so.

The Establishment media bolsters the latter by constantly drumming into the American people the ostensible virtues of political compromise. But compromising on one’s oath to uphold the Constitution is no virtue. 

From those standpoints, here are some revealing quotes from the “debate”: 

Excerpts from the Congressional Record (8-16, 8-20 to 8-23-18):

Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine), chair of Senate Committee on Aging: “It has been 11 years since a Labor, Health and Human Services, and  Education appropriations bill has been considered on the Senate floor,  so let me begin my remarks this morning by commending the chairman and  ranking member of the full Appropriations Committee, Senators Shelby and Leahy, for their determination to report each and every one of the  appropriations bills so they can be considered, fully debated, and  amended in the regular order. I also commend the subcommittee chairman,  Senator Blunt, and the ranking member, Senator Murray, for their  leadership in creating a bipartisan bill.

“This bill will make critical investments in medical research, opioid  abuse prevention and treatment, the education of our students, and  strengthening America’s workforce.   I appreciate so much that the subcommittee accommodated so many of my priorities in crafting this bill. It has my very strong support.  “I am  particularly pleased that the bill includes another $2 billion increase  for the National Institutes of Health. Robust investments in biomedical  research will pay dividends for many American families struggling with  disease and disability, just as such research has enabled us to  prevent, treat, or cure other serious illnesses.   Notably, this year, for the first time, the bill reaches the  milestone of providing at least $2 billion a year for Alzheimer’s  disease research — the amount that the advisory council to the National  Plan to Combat Alzheimer’s Disease has calculated is needed to find an  effective treatment for this disease by the year 2025….

“This bill provides $3.7 billion in the fight against the opioid  epidemic that is gripping our country. Sadly, in my State of Maine, the  crisis has actually worsened with drug-related overdoses claiming the  lives of 407 people in Maine last year, according to the new statistics  from the Centers for Disease Prevention and Control.   The crisis in Maine shows no signs of abating. Indeed, the  contamination of heroin with fentanyl has made this crisis even worse,  taking the lives of even more who are in the grips of addiction. While  I am very hopeful the Senate will consider a comprehensive opioids  package put together by the Senate HELP Committee, to which many of us  contributed in the weeks ahead, it is imperative that the funds  provided in this appropriations bill reach our communities without  delay.

“This legislation also funds key priorities for vulnerable seniors,  including the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which I know  is of interest to the Presiding Officer because he represents the State  of Alaska, and that program is critical there, as it is in the State of  Maine.  “It funds the State Health Insurance Program, Meals on Wheels,  and other essential programs that make such a difference to our  seniors.   As chair of the Senate Committee on Aging, I am particularly  delighted that this bill provides a $300,000 increase to the administration for community living for the establishment of the family  caregivers advisory council. This council was created by a bipartisan  bill that I introduced with Senator Baldwin, the RAISE Family Caregivers Act, and it will help develop a coordinated strategic plan  to leverage our resources, promote best practices, and expand services  and training for our Nation’s caregivers….

“The  hearings we have held in the Aging Committee have also put a spotlight  on the mobility challenges that many seniors face as they age, such as  difficulty climbing steep staircases that can lead to devastating  falls, performing routine household chores, taking care of themselves,  or being able to drive. This bill provides a $4 million increase for  the creation of a new aging and technology program to support the  development of assisted technology for seniors with disabilities in  rural areas….

“On a related note, I also applaud the inclusion of increased funding  to support community health centers, which serve approximately 27  million Americans, including upward of 186,000 individuals in the State  of Maine….

“I also strongly support the increased investment in the Individuals with Disabilities Education  Act, IDEA, which has provided opportunities to children with  disabilities and helped many of them reach their full potential….

“This bill also funds teacher and school leader professional  development, and the Rural Education Achievement Program, a law that I  coauthored several years ago to bring additional resources to small and  rural schools….

“Let me just end by urging my colleagues to support the fiscal year 2019 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill. It  is good and much needed legislation.   Thank you.”

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont): “Let me speak in my capacity as vice chairman of  the Senate Appropriations Committee.   Today, as you know, the Senate begins consideration of the Defense and Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies minibus appropriations bill. This will actually be the third  appropriations package brought to the Senate floor this year. Once we  complete action, the Senate will have passed 9 of the 12 committee-reported appropriations bills for the fiscal year 2019. It is certainly  much faster than has been done in years.   I want to thank Chairman Shelby for his commitment to a bipartisan  process…..

“I  think the bipartisan progress is due to the Shelby-Leahy-McConnell- Schumer commitment to move forward on appropriations bills that have  bipartisan support, are at spending levels agreed to in the bipartisan budget deal, and reject poison pill riders and controversial  authorizing language. The two bills in this package meet this test.    The minibus before us represents 65 percent of all discretionary  spending, but it also demonstrates the importance of the bipartisan  budget agreement reached earlier this year.

“The LHHS bill makes important new investments in healthcare and  education. It increases funding for the National Institutes of Health by $5 billion over fiscal year 2017 so they can aggressively pursue  cures for diseases like cancer, diabetes, and Alzheimer’s.  It backs our  commitment to increase access to higher education by increasing college affordability spending by $2.3 billion over fiscal year 2017. By  increasing access to childcare by $3.2 billion over fiscal year 2017,  it supports working families and communities in every part of our  country.  In doing this, we have rejected the President’s shortsighted budget  proposals, which would have cut important programs in the LHHS bill by  $12.5 billion from fiscal year 2018 funding level.

“Now, we take into consideration our immediate national security  needs, but you can’t just stop there, you have to think about the  future of the country. The deep ties that run between defense and non-defense priorities make it fitting that we take up these two bills together, and I applaud the chairman for doing that. By combining these  bills into one package, we increase the certainty that they will be enacted into law on time and will avoid the devastating effect of long- term continuing resolutions.   I urge our House counterparts, when they come back to Washington, to  commit, as we have, to producing a conference report that contains both  bills so that we can move swiftly toward final passage. [Emphasis added.]

“Finally, I wish to highlight the new funding in this bill that helps  our country address the scourge of opioids…. This package represents a second installment in investing in  serious solutions.   We invest $3 billion in new resources over fiscal year 2017 to  address this crisis. This is on top of roughly $500 million in additional funding contained in other appropriations bills and similar  funding levels in the fiscal year 2018 omnibus. But it is because of  the bipartisan budget deal that these new investments will surpass $6  billion over 2 years….

“I know we are going to go back now to the appropriations bills, but  here is a case in which I think we have done things right. Senator  Shelby is the chairman, and I am the vice chairman. It is one of only  three committees that has a vice chairman. We have worked very closely together, and we have done it in a way to get bills through in a bipartisan fashion. We actually work the way the Senate did when I  first came here, which is the way the Senate has worked under great  leaders on the Democratic side, like Mike Mansfield, or on the  Republican side, like Howard Baker, and we have gotten things done….

“We are just within an hour or so of doing something the Senate, as  Senator McConnell pointed out, has not been able to do in years.  I think we will pass a good, responsible and within-the-budget piece of legislation. Both Republicans and Democrats had a voice in the  process. We held numerous votes in the Senate Appropriations Committee, all of them overwhelmingly bipartisan, many of them unanimous — with the  exception of one or two votes — to get to where we are today….

“Mr. President, the Senate, and Congress as a whole, best  serves the American people when we reach real, bipartisan solutions.  Today, the Senate will pass its third bipartisan appropriations  package, completing Senate consideration of 9 of the 12 appropriations  bills reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee and accounting for 87 percent of all discretionary spending.   We are proving that when we put partisan politics aside, we can do  the work of the American people.”

Senator Richard Shelby (R-Alabama), Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee:  “Mr. President, this afternoon, as most of us realize now, the Senate has begun debate on amendments to the fiscal year 2019  Defense-Labor-HHS appropriations bill. These are the two largest bills  to come out of the Appropriations Committee as a whole. Both of them  together make up a great part of all of the appropriations process and  the numbers….

“So the No. 1 thing at stake here is rebuilding our military and taking care of our troops.  This bill also provides for a wide range of critical domestic priorities, including education, medical research, and funding to  combat the opioid epidemic. All are very important to America.

“Recent history suggests that we face a tall task in passing these  bills on the Senate floor. The Senate has not passed a Labor-HHS  appropriations bill in more than 10 years. It has been even longer since the President was able to sign a Defense appropriations bill into law before the end of the fiscal year, which ends September 30.   Why? Because in the past, poison pills have blown up the process or  foreclosed it altogether. I appreciate that one Senator’s poison pill  is often another Senator’s priority, but I strongly urge my colleagues  today to focus on accomplishing the big picture priorities that I have  underscored here. We know where the fault lines run, and I hope we can  avoid them.

“There are reasons to believe that this year will be a different year  and that we will produce a different outcome. First among them, there  is a unified desire to avoid another omnibus spending bill. Second, we  come to the floor this week on the heels of a string of recent  successes in passing appropriation bills. Third, each of the bills in  this package passed the Appropriations Committee by a vote of 30-1. These factors paved the way for the full Senate to consider this  package, and I want to take a minute to thank the leaders on both sides, Senator McConnell and Senator Schumer, for agreeing to bring  this bill to the floor.  I also want to thank the vice chairman of the Appropriations  Committee, Senator Leahy, for sticking to the agreement he and I made  to move these bills in a bipartisan manner….

“Mr. President, 1999 — nearly 20 years ago — was the last time the  Senate passed nine appropriations bills by the end of August — 1999.  Some of us are still here. This is the milestone here today that we are  about to mark with the passage of two appropriations bills and with the  most moneys than in any appropriations bill.   Earlier this year, we collectively called for a return to regular  order in the appropriations process because it was broken. The leaders  on both sides, Senator McConnell and Senator Schumer, provided us with  the opportunity to follow through. So I take a moment to thank both of  them for their leadership. I believe that we, together in the Senate,  are demonstrating that they made the right call.   I also recognize the vice chairman of the Appropriations Committee,  Senator Leahy, for his work in this regard. I can’t say enough about  the importance of his role in passing appropriations bills in a  bipartisan manner, because that is the only way we are going to get  them done.”

Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas), majority whip:  Mr. President, this week marks the continuation of a  bipartisan effort to actually do the work we were elected to do.   The New York Times recently published an article that said the Senate got its groove back. I don’t know if I would go that far, but certainly  we are making some progress when it comes to these important funding  bills.  These two appropriation bills are two of the largest ones in the  Federal Government. One, of course, is for the Department of Defense  which, appropriately, is the No. 1 priority of the Federal Government — to maintain the peace and keep our Nation safe. The other funds the  Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education.

“After we pass these bills this week, which we will, we will have  passed 9 of the 12 appropriations bills, which cover 87 percent of  discretionary spending.   I might add that when I mention discretionary spending, it is noteworthy that about 70 percent of what the Federal Government spends  is not discretionary spending. It is mandatory spending, which is  another story in and of itself.   But insofar as the Congress’s responsibility to appropriate the funds  in discretionary spending, we will have covered about 87 percent of  that.”

Freedom First Society:  Conservatives should be wary of action endorsed by the New York Times!  Are Americans really going to be satisfied that Congress has done its job by merely voting to spend taxpayer money and keep the government running with business as usual?

Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky), majority leader: “Now, let me say a word about the other appropriations bill that is  part of our package on the floor. This bill, the Labor-HHS-Education  bill, includes funding for the National Institutes of Health. For the  past 6 years, I have made this the focal point of my work here in the  Senate. I don’t take particular credit for the results, but I have done  my darndest to encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to  make this a priority, and I am happy to report they have.

“For the fourth year in a row, Congress is on track to provide the  National Institutes of Health with funding increases of at least 5  percent in real growth — a $2 billion increase in this bill. In the  fiscal year 2019 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill before the Senate, we will help to ensure that our Nation’s best and brightest medical researchers have the funding they need to conduct research on the diseases and conditions that impact every single American….

“I hope, as we move forward to conference with the House on this bill, that we can include at least a 5-percent funding increase for the  Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as well as other agencies  that allow America to literally lead the world in medical innovation.   This bill provides $3.7 billion for the prevention and treatment of  the scourge of opioid addiction. It will help our Federal agencies to  respond better to this ongoing public health challenge.

“It includes  provisions I requested to help the CDC address the toll of violence in the city of Chicago and assist with the Legionnaires’ disease outbreak in Quincy, IL.

“It rejects President Trump’s efforts to slash the Federal-Work Study Program and includes an increase in the maximum Pell grant of $100. It includes $5 million for the Open Textbooks Pilot  Program, helping college students across America with the exploding  cost of higher education.

“It is a good bill, and I want to commend Senator Patty Murray of  Washington, the Democrat, and Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri, the  Republican, for crafting the bipartisan fiscal year 2019 Labor, Health  and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill.”

Senator Shelley Moore Capito (R-West Virginia):  “We are here to talk about some of the important issues in this bill  and how consequential this bill will be and has the potential to be.   We are encompassing both Defense and Labor-HHS, both of which passed  out of our committee a few weeks ago with bipartisan support and a lot  of input from Members in the process.   Bills of this magnitude deserve to be debated on the Senate floor, as  we are doing today.

‘I will first address the defense part of this measure because I think it impacts not only our standing here and our  military here but also has a global impact.   President Trump has made rebuilding and strengthening our military one of his administration’s primary objectives, and this bill helps him  do exactly that.   This legislation invests in programs, projects, technologies, and  capabilities that will strengthen our Nation’s military. More  importantly, it invests in the people behind all of these efforts by  including a 2.6-percent raise for all of our military. That includes  our National Guard….

“Of course, the legislation under consideration doesn’t just focus on  the military; it also focuses on another war being waged right here in  our country, and that is the fight against the opioid epidemic…. Over the past 4 years, we have increased funding for this effort of fighting the opioid crisis by more than 1,275 percent, but we haven’t  done this blindly. We are just not throwing money at the problem. I think we have been very thoughtful, as have our partners in the State  and local areas.   We have focused on treatment through our community health centers. We  have focused on prevention, working with the CDC. We have focused on  recovery through our workforce initiatives. We have focused on research  at NIH, where, hopefully, NIH can develop a non-addictive opioid  treatment, which I think will be a major breakthrough for this problem,  and we have focused on directing funding to the States to meet the  local challenges through their State opioid response grants.

“We have  also focused on the ripple effects of this epidemic, including the  impact on families and children in foster care. These are all important  resources and much needed….

“Just a few weeks ago, our State Department of Health and Human  Resources released the preliminary numbers. So far in West Virginia, we  have had almost 500 opioid-related deaths. While this is the most  devastating statistic, when it comes to West Virginia and the opioid  epidemic, it is not the only one. It is not the only one we need to  look at.  We are seeing an increasing number of children in foster care. This  has impacted the entire family. There are more grandparents and great- grandparents who are raising their grandchildren and their great-grandchildren. Our State has an increased need for treatment facilities. We have  more babies who are requiring neonatal care, as well as the services as  they grow….

“While the opioid epidemic is a very significant focus of Labor-HHS, I  wish to highlight some of the other valuable investments…..

“With this bill we have surpassed, with the help of Chairman Blunt and his leadership, a $2 billion milestone when it comes to Alzheimer’s research. That isn’t just for research. It is also to figure out the best way to help our caregivers.   Also in this bill, we have directed help to other priorities to a lot of rural States like mine for community health centers, which are critical.

“As for apprenticeship grants, I was just with the plumbers and  pipefitters. Apprenticeships are absolutely critical to the workforce  that we need.   There is the IDeA Program at NIH, which drives research dollars out to universities, away from the main campus of NIH….

“In short, this legislation aims to improve the health and well-being of every single American.   When it comes to the Department of Labor, very briefly, this is important for us in West Virginia. There is a training program there  for displaced coal workers and coal miners. We have re-funded that. We  have pushed more funding to that, I should say.”

Senator Ben Cardin (D-Maryland):  “Prescription drug costs are  out of control. Any of us who have been to any town-hall meetings — I  have been to many in my State — we hear constituents all the time talk  about the fact that there is a serious challenge as to whether they can  afford to take the medicines they need in order to control their  disease, whether it is diabetes, heart, kidney, or cancer.   So many patients have to make very tough decisions as to whether they  can afford the prescription drugs that are necessary for their care.  Many are going into debt. We are now seeing people going into bankruptcy because of medical debt from prescription drugs, and many are going without the  medicines themselves. We need to do something about it….

“Lastly, we need to improve Medicare Part D. The out-of-pocket costs  are not affordable. We have to put reasonable limits on what people can  afford and cover what is beyond those reasonable limits.”

Freedom First Society:  Here is one realistic objection.  Senator Flake was one of only seven  senators to vote against H.R. 6157:

Senator Jeff Flake (R-Arizona): “With our national debt now exceeding $21 trillion, taxpayers should not have to pick up the Pentagon’s tab for beer bots and for many other  unnecessary spending items which are in the bill that we are  considering right now. This minibus bill provides over $800 billion in  funding to the Departments of Defense, Labor, Health and Human  Services, and Education. Yet, over the past 3 days, we have considered  just four amendments to the bill, and not a single one has offered a reduction in spending — not a single one.”

Bill Summary:  As amended by the Senate, the Labor-HHS-Defense-Education bill appropriates $854 billion for Fiscal Year 2019.  Here is the Congressional Research Services (CRS) Summary of the Defense portion as considered by the House:

“Reported to House without amendment (06/20/2018)
Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2019

Provides FY2019 appropriations to the Department of Defense (DOD) for military activities. Excludes military construction, military family housing, civil works projects of the Army Corps of Engineers, and nuclear warheads, which are all considered in other appropriations bills.

Provides appropriations to DOD for:

Military Personnel;
Operation and Maintenance;
Procurement;
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation; and
Revolving and Management Funds.

Provides appropriations for Other Department of Defense Programs, including:

The Defense Health Program,
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction,
Drug-Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, and
the Office of the Inspector General.

Provides appropriations for Related Agencies, including the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System Fund and the Intelligence Community Management Account.

Provides appropriations for Overseas Contingency Operations/ Global War on Terrorism.

Sets forth requirements and restrictions for using funds provided by this and other appropriations Acts.”

Analysis:  America desperately needs a Congress that will focus on restoring limited government, i.e., rolling back the Federal monster to conform to what it is authorized by the Constitution — and no more.  Of course, that is far and away not the current focus of the leadership of either party.

And H.R. 6157 continues and expands unconstitutional government.

During the “debate” on H.R. 6157, Senate leaders sought to beguile the public with misleading boasts of collectivism, regular order, timeliness, and bipartisanship. Let’s examine each.

We dispute the claim that with this bill the Senate is implementing regular order.  Regular order means voting separately on the 12 individual appropriations bills.  The Senate-amended version of H.R. 6157 combines widely disparate topics, amounting to almost two-thirds of the discretionary spending, in order to achieve “bipartisan support” and ensure passage.

One could even argue that the Labor/HHS/education appropriations bill is an unhappy mixture and should be separated.  But not really.  The core of all three departments should be abolished as outside the proper federal role.

Regular order is primarily important as a means to do what Congress is not planning to do — trim the federal monster. Timeliness does reduce waste and uncertainty, but the important question that should be asked here is: What is to be done on time?  Americans should not be happy with just promoting government business as usual as though America doesn’t have a care in the world if the trains run on time.

Collectivism Alive and Well!

The Senate “debate” emphasized all of the great things federal money is doing for Americans in total violation of the Constitution.  In doing so, the sponsors of H.R. 6157 promoted the subversive collectivist worldview that the good things that happen in society must come from collective (i.e., government) action.  This was never the view of America’s Founding Fathers, who gave little authority to the federal government over domestic affairs, reserving such authority to the States and to the people.

Bipartisanship Deception

“We have two parties here, and only two.  One is the evil party, and the other is the stupid party….  Occasionally, the two parties get together to do something that’s both evil and stupid. That’s called bipartisanship.” — M. Stanton Evans

Although Evans’ clever assessment may appear to have an element of truth, the reality is worse.  As for the leadership of the two parties, we are really dealing with “wolves” versus “wolves in sheep’s clothing.”

The wolf in sheep’s clothing deceives those constituents who understand that government needs to be cut back.  The outright wolf appeals to those who accept the socialist lie that government can make their lives better and that more government power will be used to do so.

The Establishment media bolsters the latter by constantly drumming into the American people the ostensible virtues of political compromise. But compromising on one’s oath to uphold the Constitution is no virtue. 

From those standpoints, here are some revealing quotes from the “debate”: 

Excerpts from the Congressional Record (8-16, 8-20 to 8-23-18):

Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine), chair of Senate Committee on Aging: “It has been 11 years since a Labor, Health and Human Services, and  Education appropriations bill has been considered on the Senate floor,  so let me begin my remarks this morning by commending the chairman and  ranking member of the full Appropriations Committee, Senators Shelby and Leahy, for their determination to report each and every one of the  appropriations bills so they can be considered, fully debated, and  amended in the regular order. I also commend the subcommittee chairman,  Senator Blunt, and the ranking member, Senator Murray, for their  leadership in creating a bipartisan bill.

“This bill will make critical investments in medical research, opioid  abuse prevention and treatment, the education of our students, and  strengthening America’s workforce.   I appreciate so much that the subcommittee accommodated so many of my priorities in crafting this bill. It has my very strong support.  “I am  particularly pleased that the bill includes another $2 billion increase  for the National Institutes of Health. Robust investments in biomedical  research will pay dividends for many American families struggling with  disease and disability, just as such research has enabled us to  prevent, treat, or cure other serious illnesses.   Notably, this year, for the first time, the bill reaches the  milestone of providing at least $2 billion a year for Alzheimer’s  disease research — the amount that the advisory council to the National  Plan to Combat Alzheimer’s Disease has calculated is needed to find an  effective treatment for this disease by the year 2025….

“This bill provides $3.7 billion in the fight against the opioid  epidemic that is gripping our country. Sadly, in my State of Maine, the  crisis has actually worsened with drug-related overdoses claiming the  lives of 407 people in Maine last year, according to the new statistics  from the Centers for Disease Prevention and Control.   The crisis in Maine shows no signs of abating. Indeed, the  contamination of heroin with fentanyl has made this crisis even worse,  taking the lives of even more who are in the grips of addiction. While  I am very hopeful the Senate will consider a comprehensive opioids  package put together by the Senate HELP Committee, to which many of us  contributed in the weeks ahead, it is imperative that the funds  provided in this appropriations bill reach our communities without  delay.

“This legislation also funds key priorities for vulnerable seniors,  including the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which I know  is of interest to the Presiding Officer because he represents the State  of Alaska, and that program is critical there, as it is in the State of  Maine.  “It funds the State Health Insurance Program, Meals on Wheels,  and other essential programs that make such a difference to our  seniors.   As chair of the Senate Committee on Aging, I am particularly  delighted that this bill provides a $300,000 increase to the administration for community living for the establishment of the family  caregivers advisory council. This council was created by a bipartisan  bill that I introduced with Senator Baldwin, the RAISE Family Caregivers Act, and it will help develop a coordinated strategic plan  to leverage our resources, promote best practices, and expand services  and training for our Nation’s caregivers….

“The  hearings we have held in the Aging Committee have also put a spotlight  on the mobility challenges that many seniors face as they age, such as  difficulty climbing steep staircases that can lead to devastating  falls, performing routine household chores, taking care of themselves,  or being able to drive. This bill provides a $4 million increase for  the creation of a new aging and technology program to support the  development of assisted technology for seniors with disabilities in  rural areas….

“On a related note, I also applaud the inclusion of increased funding  to support community health centers, which serve approximately 27  million Americans, including upward of 186,000 individuals in the State  of Maine….

“I also strongly support the increased investment in the Individuals with Disabilities Education  Act, IDEA, which has provided opportunities to children with  disabilities and helped many of them reach their full potential….

“This bill also funds teacher and school leader professional  development, and the Rural Education Achievement Program, a law that I  coauthored several years ago to bring additional resources to small and  rural schools….

“Let me just end by urging my colleagues to support the fiscal year 2019 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill. It  is good and much needed legislation.   Thank you.”

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont): “Let me speak in my capacity as vice chairman of  the Senate Appropriations Committee.   Today, as you know, the Senate begins consideration of the Defense and Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies minibus appropriations bill. This will actually be the third  appropriations package brought to the Senate floor this year. Once we  complete action, the Senate will have passed 9 of the 12 committee-reported appropriations bills for the fiscal year 2019. It is certainly  much faster than has been done in years.   I want to thank Chairman Shelby for his commitment to a bipartisan  process…..

“I  think the bipartisan progress is due to the Shelby-Leahy-McConnell- Schumer commitment to move forward on appropriations bills that have  bipartisan support, are at spending levels agreed to in the bipartisan budget deal, and reject poison pill riders and controversial  authorizing language. The two bills in this package meet this test.    The minibus before us represents 65 percent of all discretionary  spending, but it also demonstrates the importance of the bipartisan  budget agreement reached earlier this year.

“The LHHS bill makes important new investments in healthcare and  education. It increases funding for the National Institutes of Health by $5 billion over fiscal year 2017 so they can aggressively pursue  cures for diseases like cancer, diabetes, and Alzheimer’s.  It backs our  commitment to increase access to higher education by increasing college affordability spending by $2.3 billion over fiscal year 2017. By  increasing access to childcare by $3.2 billion over fiscal year 2017,  it supports working families and communities in every part of our  country.  In doing this, we have rejected the President’s shortsighted budget  proposals, which would have cut important programs in the LHHS bill by  $12.5 billion from fiscal year 2018 funding level.

“Now, we take into consideration our immediate national security  needs, but you can’t just stop there, you have to think about the  future of the country. The deep ties that run between defense and non-defense priorities make it fitting that we take up these two bills together, and I applaud the chairman for doing that. By combining these  bills into one package, we increase the certainty that they will be enacted into law on time and will avoid the devastating effect of long- term continuing resolutions.   I urge our House counterparts, when they come back to Washington, to  commit, as we have, to producing a conference report that contains both  bills so that we can move swiftly toward final passage. [Emphasis added.]

“Finally, I wish to highlight the new funding in this bill that helps  our country address the scourge of opioids…. This package represents a second installment in investing in  serious solutions.   We invest $3 billion in new resources over fiscal year 2017 to  address this crisis. This is on top of roughly $500 million in additional funding contained in other appropriations bills and similar  funding levels in the fiscal year 2018 omnibus. But it is because of  the bipartisan budget deal that these new investments will surpass $6  billion over 2 years….

“I know we are going to go back now to the appropriations bills, but  here is a case in which I think we have done things right. Senator  Shelby is the chairman, and I am the vice chairman. It is one of only  three committees that has a vice chairman. We have worked very closely together, and we have done it in a way to get bills through in a bipartisan fashion. We actually work the way the Senate did when I  first came here, which is the way the Senate has worked under great  leaders on the Democratic side, like Mike Mansfield, or on the  Republican side, like Howard Baker, and we have gotten things done….

“We are just within an hour or so of doing something the Senate, as  Senator McConnell pointed out, has not been able to do in years.  I think we will pass a good, responsible and within-the-budget piece of legislation. Both Republicans and Democrats had a voice in the  process. We held numerous votes in the Senate Appropriations Committee, all of them overwhelmingly bipartisan, many of them unanimous — with the  exception of one or two votes — to get to where we are today….

“Mr. President, the Senate, and Congress as a whole, best  serves the American people when we reach real, bipartisan solutions.  Today, the Senate will pass its third bipartisan appropriations  package, completing Senate consideration of 9 of the 12 appropriations  bills reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee and accounting for 87 percent of all discretionary spending.   We are proving that when we put partisan politics aside, we can do  the work of the American people.”

Senator Richard Shelby (R-Alabama), Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee:  “Mr. President, this afternoon, as most of us realize now, the Senate has begun debate on amendments to the fiscal year 2019  Defense-Labor-HHS appropriations bill. These are the two largest bills  to come out of the Appropriations Committee as a whole. Both of them  together make up a great part of all of the appropriations process and  the numbers….

“So the No. 1 thing at stake here is rebuilding our military and taking care of our troops.  This bill also provides for a wide range of critical domestic priorities, including education, medical research, and funding to  combat the opioid epidemic. All are very important to America.

“Recent history suggests that we face a tall task in passing these  bills on the Senate floor. The Senate has not passed a Labor-HHS  appropriations bill in more than 10 years. It has been even longer since the President was able to sign a Defense appropriations bill into law before the end of the fiscal year, which ends September 30.   Why? Because in the past, poison pills have blown up the process or  foreclosed it altogether. I appreciate that one Senator’s poison pill  is often another Senator’s priority, but I strongly urge my colleagues  today to focus on accomplishing the big picture priorities that I have  underscored here. We know where the fault lines run, and I hope we can  avoid them.

“There are reasons to believe that this year will be a different year  and that we will produce a different outcome. First among them, there  is a unified desire to avoid another omnibus spending bill. Second, we  come to the floor this week on the heels of a string of recent  successes in passing appropriation bills. Third, each of the bills in  this package passed the Appropriations Committee by a vote of 30-1. These factors paved the way for the full Senate to consider this  package, and I want to take a minute to thank the leaders on both sides, Senator McConnell and Senator Schumer, for agreeing to bring  this bill to the floor.  I also want to thank the vice chairman of the Appropriations  Committee, Senator Leahy, for sticking to the agreement he and I made  to move these bills in a bipartisan manner….

“Mr. President, 1999 — nearly 20 years ago — was the last time the  Senate passed nine appropriations bills by the end of August — 1999.  Some of us are still here. This is the milestone here today that we are  about to mark with the passage of two appropriations bills and with the  most moneys than in any appropriations bill.   Earlier this year, we collectively called for a return to regular  order in the appropriations process because it was broken. The leaders  on both sides, Senator McConnell and Senator Schumer, provided us with  the opportunity to follow through. So I take a moment to thank both of  them for their leadership. I believe that we, together in the Senate,  are demonstrating that they made the right call.   I also recognize the vice chairman of the Appropriations Committee,  Senator Leahy, for his work in this regard. I can’t say enough about  the importance of his role in passing appropriations bills in a  bipartisan manner, because that is the only way we are going to get  them done.”

Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas), majority whip:  Mr. President, this week marks the continuation of a  bipartisan effort to actually do the work we were elected to do.   The New York Times recently published an article that said the Senate got its groove back. I don’t know if I would go that far, but certainly  we are making some progress when it comes to these important funding  bills.  These two appropriation bills are two of the largest ones in the  Federal Government. One, of course, is for the Department of Defense  which, appropriately, is the No. 1 priority of the Federal Government — to maintain the peace and keep our Nation safe. The other funds the  Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education.

“After we pass these bills this week, which we will, we will have  passed 9 of the 12 appropriations bills, which cover 87 percent of  discretionary spending.   I might add that when I mention discretionary spending, it is noteworthy that about 70 percent of what the Federal Government spends  is not discretionary spending. It is mandatory spending, which is  another story in and of itself.   But insofar as the Congress’s responsibility to appropriate the funds  in discretionary spending, we will have covered about 87 percent of  that.”

Freedom First Society:  Conservatives should be wary of action endorsed by the New York Times!  Are Americans really going to be satisfied that Congress has done its job by merely voting to spend taxpayer money and keep the government running with business as usual?

Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky), majority leader: “Now, let me say a word about the other appropriations bill that is  part of our package on the floor. This bill, the Labor-HHS-Education  bill, includes funding for the National Institutes of Health. For the  past 6 years, I have made this the focal point of my work here in the  Senate. I don’t take particular credit for the results, but I have done  my darndest to encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to  make this a priority, and I am happy to report they have.

“For the fourth year in a row, Congress is on track to provide the  National Institutes of Health with funding increases of at least 5  percent in real growth — a $2 billion increase in this bill. In the  fiscal year 2019 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill before the Senate, we will help to ensure that our Nation’s best and brightest medical researchers have the funding they need to conduct research on the diseases and conditions that impact every single American….

“I hope, as we move forward to conference with the House on this bill, that we can include at least a 5-percent funding increase for the  Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as well as other agencies  that allow America to literally lead the world in medical innovation.   This bill provides $3.7 billion for the prevention and treatment of  the scourge of opioid addiction. It will help our Federal agencies to  respond better to this ongoing public health challenge.

“It includes  provisions I requested to help the CDC address the toll of violence in the city of Chicago and assist with the Legionnaires’ disease outbreak in Quincy, IL.

“It rejects President Trump’s efforts to slash the Federal-Work Study Program and includes an increase in the maximum Pell grant of $100. It includes $5 million for the Open Textbooks Pilot  Program, helping college students across America with the exploding  cost of higher education.

“It is a good bill, and I want to commend Senator Patty Murray of  Washington, the Democrat, and Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri, the  Republican, for crafting the bipartisan fiscal year 2019 Labor, Health  and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill.”

Senator Shelley Moore Capito (R-West Virginia):  “We are here to talk about some of the important issues in this bill  and how consequential this bill will be and has the potential to be.   We are encompassing both Defense and Labor-HHS, both of which passed  out of our committee a few weeks ago with bipartisan support and a lot  of input from Members in the process.   Bills of this magnitude deserve to be debated on the Senate floor, as  we are doing today.

‘I will first address the defense part of this measure because I think it impacts not only our standing here and our  military here but also has a global impact.   President Trump has made rebuilding and strengthening our military one of his administration’s primary objectives, and this bill helps him  do exactly that.   This legislation invests in programs, projects, technologies, and  capabilities that will strengthen our Nation’s military. More  importantly, it invests in the people behind all of these efforts by  including a 2.6-percent raise for all of our military. That includes  our National Guard….

“Of course, the legislation under consideration doesn’t just focus on  the military; it also focuses on another war being waged right here in  our country, and that is the fight against the opioid epidemic…. Over the past 4 years, we have increased funding for this effort of fighting the opioid crisis by more than 1,275 percent, but we haven’t  done this blindly. We are just not throwing money at the problem. I think we have been very thoughtful, as have our partners in the State  and local areas.   We have focused on treatment through our community health centers. We  have focused on prevention, working with the CDC. We have focused on  recovery through our workforce initiatives. We have focused on research  at NIH, where, hopefully, NIH can develop a non-addictive opioid  treatment, which I think will be a major breakthrough for this problem,  and we have focused on directing funding to the States to meet the  local challenges through their State opioid response grants.

“We have  also focused on the ripple effects of this epidemic, including the  impact on families and children in foster care. These are all important  resources and much needed….

“Just a few weeks ago, our State Department of Health and Human  Resources released the preliminary numbers. So far in West Virginia, we  have had almost 500 opioid-related deaths. While this is the most  devastating statistic, when it comes to West Virginia and the opioid  epidemic, it is not the only one. It is not the only one we need to  look at.  We are seeing an increasing number of children in foster care. This  has impacted the entire family. There are more grandparents and great- grandparents who are raising their grandchildren and their great-grandchildren. Our State has an increased need for treatment facilities. We have  more babies who are requiring neonatal care, as well as the services as  they grow….

“While the opioid epidemic is a very significant focus of Labor-HHS, I  wish to highlight some of the other valuable investments…..

“With this bill we have surpassed, with the help of Chairman Blunt and his leadership, a $2 billion milestone when it comes to Alzheimer’s research. That isn’t just for research. It is also to figure out the best way to help our caregivers.   Also in this bill, we have directed help to other priorities to a lot of rural States like mine for community health centers, which are critical.

“As for apprenticeship grants, I was just with the plumbers and  pipefitters. Apprenticeships are absolutely critical to the workforce  that we need.   There is the IDeA Program at NIH, which drives research dollars out to universities, away from the main campus of NIH….

“In short, this legislation aims to improve the health and well-being of every single American.   When it comes to the Department of Labor, very briefly, this is important for us in West Virginia. There is a training program there  for displaced coal workers and coal miners. We have re-funded that. We  have pushed more funding to that, I should say.”

Senator Ben Cardin (D-Maryland):  “Prescription drug costs are  out of control. Any of us who have been to any town-hall meetings — I  have been to many in my State — we hear constituents all the time talk  about the fact that there is a serious challenge as to whether they can  afford to take the medicines they need in order to control their  disease, whether it is diabetes, heart, kidney, or cancer.   So many patients have to make very tough decisions as to whether they  can afford the prescription drugs that are necessary for their care.  Many are going into debt. We are now seeing people going into bankruptcy because of medical debt from prescription drugs, and many are going without the  medicines themselves. We need to do something about it….

“Lastly, we need to improve Medicare Part D. The out-of-pocket costs  are not affordable. We have to put reasonable limits on what people can  afford and cover what is beyond those reasonable limits.”

Freedom First Society:  Here is one realistic objection.  Senator Flake was one of only seven  senators to vote against H.R. 6157:

Senator Jeff Flake (R-Arizona): “With our national debt now exceeding $21 trillion, taxpayers should not have to pick up the Pentagon’s tab for beer bots and for many other  unnecessary spending items which are in the bill that we are  considering right now. This minibus bill provides over $800 billion in  funding to the Departments of Defense, Labor, Health and Human  Services, and Education. Yet, over the past 3 days, we have considered  just four amendments to the bill, and not a single one has offered a reduction in spending — not a single one.”

Bill Summary:   The Congressional Research Service (CRS) Summary of H.R. 3366 highlighted its accountability provisions, but ignored the underlying authorization for $3.29 billion in additional contributions to the World Bank (actually to its International Development Association (IDA) — the 18th replenishment of the Association’s resources). (See here text of H.R. 3366, as sent to the Senate.)

Here are the two principal accountability provisions comprising most of the CRS Summary:

“This bill provides that for each of FY2018-FY2023, 15% of appropriations for the World Bank’s International Development Association shall be withheld and not disbursed until the Department of the Treasury reports to Congress that the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development: (1) is implementing institutional incentives that prioritize poverty reduction, development outcomes, and capable project management over the Bank’s lending and grant making volume; (2) is taking, or has completed, steps to address the management failures from the Uganda Transport Sector Development Project; and (3) is strengthening its trust fund management in order to increase accountability for poverty reduction and development outcomes.

“An additional 15% of appropriations for such fiscal years shall be withheld and not disbursed until Treasury reports that the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development: (1) is emphasizing its support for secure property rights, due process of law, and economic freedom as essential to sustained poverty reduction in World Bank borrowing countries; (2) has not approved any loans or grants to a country designated by the U.S. as a state sponsor of terrorism and is strengthening the ability of Bank-funded projects to undermine violent extremism; (3) is taking steps to conduct randomized forensic audits of projects receiving Bank assistance; and (4) is working to detect and minimize corruption in projects involving development policy lending.”

A 1999 CRS Report for Congress, entitled “IMF and World Bank: U.S. Contributions and Agency Budgets” explains the IDA program:

“The International Development Association (IDA) is the World Bank affiliate that receives a contribution from the United States each year…. IDA makes loans on highly concessional terms to the world’s poorest countries. It uses money contributed by the world’s most prosperous countries to fund its loan program. Every three years, the IDA donor countries meet to determine how large the next replenishment of IDA’s resources should be and what share of the total each donor should contribute.”

Analysis:   During the “debate” over this measure, congressmen made no mention of the fact that the Constitution doesn’t authorize the federal government to use taxpayers’ dollars to engage in world charity nor even to provide “charity” through the World Bank.

The Republican sponsors made a big issue of the horrible lending record of the World Bank and the need to put restrictions on U.S. aid.  But restrictions and complaints had been ongoing for decades without significant impact.  So without an understanding of the real role of the World Bank, as envisioned by its Internationalist creators, it might seem incredible that the obvious conclusion — simply stop all aid to the World Bank — was never mentioned as an option.

The Democrat critics, however, endorsed the U.S. largesse but seemed to have decided to balk at the new attempts at accountability primarily as a means to blast President Trump’s attitudes and giving this president any authority to restrict the aid.

Bretton Woods

During the “debate” over this measure, there was no mention of the subversive origin and purpose of the World Bank.

The proposals for the World Bank and its sister, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), were developed at the Internationalists’ Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and presented to President Roosevelt in 1942.  The concepts were adopted at a 44-nation financial conference at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire in 1944, prior to the end of World War II.

The most significant U.S. representative at the conference was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Harry Dexter White (CFR), who dominated the proceedings.  White was later exposed as a Soviet spy.

The World Bank (and IMF) were publicized as a means to aid post-war recovery.  But the World Bank was actually designed as a permanent pipeline to transfer wealth from the developed countries to the poor countries, while serving the purposes of those seeking to control the world politically.

Long History of Abuse

One reason the Insiders decided to channel U.S. wealth to “poor” countries through international institutions was precisely to avoid accountability.  Direct bilateral foreign aid to oppressive regimes would be unpopular with voters, but if international institutions dispense the aid, the institutions could be blamed.

Bretton Woods propounded the phony principle that poor nations would develop if they were given enough aid and that the “developed” countries had the moral responsibility to provide that aid.  But the “underdeveloped” nations remained so because they were socialist.  In fact, World Bank loans and aid often served to expand government power and bureaucracy in the Third World rather than aiding the world’s poor.

Contrary to the Establishment-created image of Ronald Reagan as a great conservative leader, Reagan merely served as a front-man for his administrations.  He gave great conservative speeches, but his administrations were run by Internationalist Insiders, such as Secretary of State George Pratt Schultz (CFR).

In 1988, Reagan’s Treasury Secretary, James A. Baker III (CFR in 1998), asked Congress to approve an additional $70.9 million per year for the World Bank for the coming six years.  In opposition, Senator Steve Symms (R-Idaho) offered an amendment to delete the six-year authorization from the Fiscal 1989 foreign aid appropriations bill.  Conservative Republican Senator Jesse Helms argued on behalf of the Symms amendment: “[W]e do not have the money; if we go deeper in debt to get the money, it will be thrown at Socialist regimes, nationalized industries, corrupt foreign officials, and over-paid bureaucracies.”  The Symms amendment attempt failed.

Excerpts from Congressional Record (1-17-18) [Emphasis added]:

Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), Chairman, Financial Services Comittee:

“H.R. 3326 makes a share of future World Bank appropriations  contingent upon vitally needed reforms, with focus on the World Bank’s  International Development Association, known as IDA, which is the World  Bank’s concessional lending window, dedicated to 75 of the world’s  poorest countries.   Mr. Chairman, the reforms in this bill have emerged from five different oversight hearings held in our committee over the past 2  years and they all enjoy bipartisan support.   The bill also supports the administration’s goal of ensuring that the World Bank’s work is consistent with U.S. priorities that are,  obviously, financed by the U.S. taxpayer….

“H.R. 3326 would  enact the administration’s request for a 15 percent reduction on authorized funds for IDA.   In addition, Mr. Barr’s legislation contains crucial national  security provisions, including a prohibition on World Bank assistance to countries that knowingly violate U.N. Security Council sanctions on  North Korea.  Also, safeguarding our national security is a provision that helps ensure World Bank assistance won’t be used for state sponsors of  terrorism.   Mr. Chairman, this is a commonsense requirement that benefited from the input of our democratic colleague on the committee: again, Mr.  Sherman from California.

“So, again, Mr. Chairman, it does kind of beg the questions: Why are  we here today? Why are we debating a bill that received support from  every single Republican and Democrat on the committee?  As some who may be viewing our proceedings know, there is such a  thing known as a suspension calendar for relatively noncontroversial  items. This bill should have been dispensed with on what is known as a  suspension calendar since it passed our committee 60-0.

“But now, apparently, the ranking member has had a change of heart on opposing a bill that she voted for on committee. So some may be  confused, and indeed we are confused. It is interesting that we now see opposition to linking these IDA payments to reforms, but that is  exactly what Democrats on the Financial Services Committee did in 2005.  It is exactly what they did when they voted to withhold 25 percent of  IDA funds in a foreign operation’s appropriations bill. Last July, the ranking member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters),  consistent with her earlier vote, voted in support of H.R. 3326 as well. So, again, some of us are confused as to why it is being opposed now if she has voted for the policy of withholding twice, including  voting for the very bill we are debating today.

“It is also important to note, Mr. Chairman, that the reforms included in this bill are those that the World Bank itself deems are important.  As far back as 1992, a bank management review highlighted its perverse staff incentives that made pushing money out the door more important than making a dent in global poverty. And as recently as 2014, a bank evaluation report confirmed that these very same perverse incentives  are still in place….

“Mr. Chairman, if the World Bank thinks these reforms are necessary,  shouldn’t we all think these reforms are necessary?   And how about the testimony of Sasha Chavkin, a reporter for the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, who testified  before our committee?   Sasha said:  We found that, over a decade, spanning from 2004 to 2013, projects financed by the World Bank physically or economically displaced an estimated 3.4 million people around  the world.    Mr. Chairman, these are some of the world’s most vulnerable displaced  by the World Bank that screams out for more reforms.

“Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Barr for saying with his legislation that enough is enough. He has produced a serious, long overdue reform bill,  one that was supported in our committee unanimously 60-0. We typically could not get a 60-0 vote on a Mother’s Day resolution, yet we have it  for this bill. Again, it just begs credibility and credulity as to why  are we here today debating a bill that was passed unanimously in  committee.” 

Freedom First Society:  It’s sad that all 60 members (GOP and Democrat) of the Financial Services Committee supported this measure.  It is not “commonsense,” as Chairman Hensarling claims.  H.R. 3326 is unconstitutional and subversive.  And 16 Republicans, not on the committee, took the opportunity to vote against H.R. 3326 on the floor, although they were not among those who spoke.

Rep. Maxine Waters (Calif.), Ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee:

“Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3326, the World Bank  Accountability Act of 2017.   Last year, Democrats on the Financial Services Committee joined our  Republican colleagues in favorably reporting H.R. 3326 out of committee  to support the bill’s authorization of a U.S. contribution of $3.29  billion to multilateral development efforts and to enforce the  importance of U.S. leadership at the international financial  institutions, but the favorable report in committee came with clear  conditions for the future of the bill.

“Democrats made it clear during consideration of this bill in  committee that our ongoing support for the measure would depend upon  changes to provisions in the bill moving forward that put critical U.S.  funding at risk. But here we are today and Republicans have not made  any effort at all to address our very specific concerns.  Namely, the bill would cut up to 30 percent of the U.S. contribution  to the International Development Association — IDA — in any year in which  the Treasury Secretary does not certify to Congress that the World Bank  has adopted or is taking steps to implement two sets of reforms  mandated in the bill.

“IDA is the arm of the World Bank that provides grants and other  assistance to the world’s 77 poorest countries, which are home to more  than 450 million people living in extreme poverty. Cuts to U.S. funds  to IDA would punish millions of children and other vulnerable people in  Africa, Latin America, and Asia, who are living in extreme poverty, who  are suffering from famine, or who are emerging from conflict.   Democrats do not believe that cutting U.S. funds for, and diminishing U.S. influence at, the international financial institutions is an  effective approach to reform….

“For many years, the Financial Services Committee has worked in a bipartisan fashion to achieve a number of important reforms at the World Bank, including increased transparency, the creation of the  inspection panel, more disclosure of information, and closer  consultation with local communities most affected by World Bank  projects.  We were able to successfully advance these policy goals through  serious and direct negotiations and sustained engagement with both the  Department of the Treasury and the World Bank itself, not by threatening to walk away from our commitments, but the Trump  administration has consistently demonstrated troubling attitudes toward  the role of the U.S. in the world….”

“Today, I stand with Africa, and I urge my colleagues to oppose  this legislation and its misguided, cynical approach to  multilateralism…..

“Let’s see what Jessie Duarte, Deputy Secretary General of the [FFS: terrorist] African National Congress, has to say. He said,  He said, ‘Ours is not a s—-hole  country, neither is Haiti or any other country in distress.’”

Rep. Andy Barr (R-Kentucky) (sponsor of the legislation and chairman of the Financial  Services Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade):

“As Chairman Hensarling has already noted, H.R. 3326 passed the House  Financial Services Committee by a unanimous vote of 60-0. No amendments  were offered by any of our Democratic colleagues during that markup. So  it is disappointing to me that the ranking member is standing in  opposition today, despite voting for this bill in committee and then  waiting half a year before proposing any changes.   Nonetheless, I want to address the gentlewoman’s criticism of the withholding mechanism in this legislation, because she seems to share a philosophy endemic at the World Bank, which basically says this: money  equals impact. But this runs counter to the evidence we have heard again and again during multiple oversight hearings.   It also runs counter to how the World Bank itself operates with its borrowers. The World Bank lends to poor countries by attaching conditions. People can disagree if that conditionality is too much or  too little, but the World Bank affects behavior by telling governments that there are no blank checks.

“The ranking member knows this, and it  goes without saying that there are many elements to World Bank conditionality that the ranking member and her Democratic colleagues passionately support, but if the gentlewoman from California would never tolerate the World Bank writing blank checks to governments, it  is odd that she wants Congress to write a blank check to the World  Bank….

“Here is how a former, longtime senior staff member of the World Bank  put it in testimony before our subcommittee last Congress:  ‘… the  reality is that bank staff are assessed by the volume of their lending, dollars of money lent. And that is just a poor indicator of impact on  poverty. You have impact on poverty sometimes when you don’t lend at  all.”   This perverse lending culture at the World Bank has been documented  for at least a quarter century and documented by the World Bank itself.  Mr. Chairman, I want to draw your attention to a 1992 bank management  review entitled, ‘Effective Implementation: Key to Development Impact,’ commonly known as the Wapenhans Report, which details a  pressure to lend that distorts staff incentives at the expense of  management and project implementation. Again, this is from 1992.   Well, fast forward to 2014, and a report by the bank’s own evaluation office entitled, ‘Learning and Results in World Bank Operations: How  the Bank Learns,’ concludes that the pressure to lend is alive and  well….

“As  distinguished academics such as Nobel economics laureate Angus Deaton,  New York University’s William Easterly, and the University of Chicago’s  James Robinson have found, foreign aid makes little positive difference  if we are indifferent to the poor’s right to exert control over their  livelihoods, own land and other assets, and be free from arbitrary  government interference.    Now, Mr. Chairman, if the World Bank supports a corrupt government, that doesn’t mean that it is going to help the condition of the  impoverished in that country that is denied economic freedom.”

Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-New York):

“Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3326, the World Bank  Accountability Act of 2017.   Let me be clear, from the outset, that I support the World Bank and  its mission. The World Bank is a vital source of financial and  technical assistance to developing countries. It works to reduce  poverty and support development around the globe.   Let me also be clear that I support this bill’s authorization of  $3.29 billion to the World Bank’s International Development Association, which provides grants and very low-interest loans to the  poorest 77 countries on the planet.” 

Rep. Bill Huizenga (R-Michigan), Chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on  Capital Markets, Securities, and Investments:

“Having had the opportunity last Congress to chair the subcommittee that Mr. Barr now leads, I can tell my colleagues that the reforms in this bill are real and they’re urgent.   Let me highlight one case of management failure at the World Bank  that I focused on last Congress, alongside with my ranking member, the distinguished gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).”

Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-New York):

“Today, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3326, the World Bank  Accountability Act of 2017.   Let me start by stating how important our Nation’s contributions are  to the World Bank’s International Development Association, IDA. Those  funds support the largest source of development finance for the world’s  poorest nations, including those in Africa, Latin America, and Asia.

“That is why, at the committee level, I voted in favor.   Both Democrats and Republicans agreed that funding the World Bank’s  development finance for poor nations represented America’s highest ideals and interests. And, naturally, I would support a bill like this,  but we had agreed that it wasn’t the last word, that we would work and there would be additions thereto and/or subtractions in reviewing the bill.

“In my estimation, looking at the bill, it also cedes too much  authority to the executive, and those concerns have not been addressed in the final bill. For me, particularly in light of this  administration’s statements just a few days ago, it is troubling that it could be misused by this administration.   As written, the President, who has indicated a complete disdain for poor nations and people of color, could withhold foreign assistance if  the World Bank does not conform to his administration’s policies. It  would be a mistake to allow the President to coerce the World Bank to fit his flawed world view, especially this President whose world view is inconsistent with America’s past leadership around the globe, and  that is whether it was a Democrat or Republican President.”

Rep. Roger Williams (R-Texas), Vice Chairman of Financial Services Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade:

“Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3326, the World Bank Accountability Act. I would like to thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade, Mr. Andy  Barr, for his hard work on this piece of legislation and for his  leadership on this important issue.   H.R. 3326 passed through the Financial Services Committee unanimously, with an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 60-0.   Mr. Chair, right now, the World Bank’s International Development  Association, IDA, is an irresponsible benefactor for the world’s neediest nations.”

Rep. Bill Foster (D-Illinois), senior member of the Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade of the Financial Services  Committee:  

“Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3326 as  it currently stands.   This is a disappointment to me. I, like many of my colleagues,  originally voted to support this legislation in committee, with the understanding that both sides of the aisle would continue to work to allay the concerns that elements of this bill would give the Trump administration new and disruptive tools that would likely be used to  the detriment of the World Bank’s mission and our relationships with  other countries….

“This bill does have elements that are important to our country’s obligation to some of the poorest countries in the world.  The World  Bank provides grants and highly concessional loans through the International Development Association, the IDA, to the world’s 77  poorest countries. This money goes a long way towards raising the standard of living, public health, and economic growth for the 450 million people who live there….

“But our confidence that this administration’s broad discretion to  defund the IDA — provided in the bill we will be voting on — would not be  abused, frankly, was not improved by the President’s recent racist  remarks last week.”

From Rep. Hensarling’s concluding remarks:

“First, Mr. Chairman, let me get the whole process debate out of the way. Anybody who is watching this debate has got to be scratching their head at the proposition that every single one of my Democratic  colleagues who come to the floor to denounce H.R. 3326 have already  voted for it. They voted for it 60-0 in committee.  Mr. Chairman, do you know how many amendments they offered in that  markup, their opportunity to refine the legislation, their opportunity  to improve the legislation, their opportunity to put their imprimatur  on the legislation? Do you know how many amendments they offered? Zero. Zero amendments were offered by the minority who now claim that somehow  they were cut out of the process.

“For 6 months, we have been waiting, waiting to bring this bill, waiting to hear about these improvements, and only three legislative  days ago did, finally, the Democrats deign to offer any new improvement  to this bill.    So I think, Mr. Chairman, she doth protest too much.

“And now what I  don’t understand, Mr. Chairman, is how my Democratic colleagues can defend some of these rogue regimes and some of the activities of the  World Bank.  Dr. Jean Ensminger, Edie and Lew Wasserman professor of social  science at Caltech, testified that there is corruption throughout World  Bank projects in remote areas of Kenya near the Somali border.   She said: ‘As I dug more deeply, it became apparent that corruption  had been entrenched in the project since 2000.’ And we are talking  about the poorest of the poor.  She goes on to say:  As the board was about to renew the project for 5 years, finally, the internal investigation showed that 62 percent of the transactions were fraudulent. Except my friends on the other side of the aisle: It doesn’t matter.  Don’t worry about the fraud. Just send them U.S. taxpayer money. It  doesn’t matter that the poor aren’t actually helped. Just send them  money because it makes us feel good.

“Sasha Chavkin from the International Consortium of Investigative  Journalists testified — and I alluded to this earlier about the forced  displacement of the poorest of the poor caused by projects financed by  the World Bank.   He went on to testify: ‘We found, instead, that the bank repeatedly  funded governments that not only failed to adequately resettle communities, but, in some cases, were accused of human rights abuses  such as rape, murder, and violent evictions associated with bank projects. We found in several cases that the World Bank continued to  bankroll these borrowers even after evidence of these abuses came to  light.’”

Bill Summary (from the Congressional Research Service):

Shown Here: Public Law No: 115-225 (07/31/2018)
National Flood Insurance Program Extension Act of 2018
(Sec. 2) This bill amends the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 to reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program through November 30, 2018.

Analysis: To understand and address the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), it is important to recognize its origins.

NFIP Origins

According to a report by the late Gary Allen in the June 1975 issue of American Opinion:

“The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 is another of the land-grab statutes. [Promoted heavily by members of the Rockefeller-endowed political syndicate known as Thirteen-Thirteen.] It was created under Title Twenty-four of the Housing and Urban Development Act of that year, but it was updated and consolidated with other such acts under the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973.   [Note: The United States Housing and Urban Development Department was created in 1965 during the Lyndon Johnson administration.]

“This legislation directed H.U.D. to designate all areas in the country that are subject to mudflows in any one year or to a one percent chance of being flooded (that’s a chance of one flood per century). An estimated ten thousand communities were thus subjected to the controls. Once designated, communities and citizens are coerced to join the flood insurance program. Those that refuse to participate find that federal monies are withheld — including federal insurance of banks and savings and loan associations….

“To meet H.U.D.’s standards, designated communities are required to come up with a land-use plan acceptable to bureaucrats of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. They have so arranged their control structure that it could be necessary to get the permission of a bureaucrat to so much as move a hedge in your backyard.

“And these boys mean business. When only about twenty percent of the designated flood-prone communities had applied for participation as of May 1974, H.U.D. recommended in its ‘information kit on flood insurance’ that citizens who suffer loss in non-participating communities file damage suits against their local officials.

“Seeing the handwriting on the wall, the states now claim they must pass land-use laws or face federal harassment.” [Emphasis added.]

Constitutional Limitations

Nothing in the Constitution authorizes the federal government to provide state and local disaster aid.   At one time in our nation’s history, that was understood.

In one of his most famous vetoes, President Grover Cleveland rejected the “Texas Seed Bill” that would have provided minimal disaster assistance to a number of drought-stricken Texas counties. On February 16, 1886, Cleveland delivered his veto message to the House of Representatives. The following excerpt speaks to principles long ignored by today’s collectivist-oriented media:

“I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadily resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the Government, the Government should not support the people.

“The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated.  Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.”

Our Freedom Is in Danger

The great majority of what the federal government does today is unconstitutional. The number of unconstitutional agencies and programs has exploded since World War II.   The resulting federal monster is now bankrupting our nation and reducing the middle class.  It ultimately targets our freedom.   It must be tamed, and the Constitution provides the essential standard for doing so.

Instead of asserting an unconstitutional responsibility to provide disaster aid, government’s main responsibility should be to get us out of the unconstitutional mess it has created.  The fact that Congress often requires years to accomplish even the most basic reforms suggest that the size of the bureaucracy it has created now exceeds the ability of Congress to manage it.

Correcting the mess doesn’t necessarily mean going “cold turkey” on all unconstitutional spending.   In some cases, it just means letting programs run their course and expire. But restoring constitutional government does means slashing the enormous borrowing, taxing, and spending of the federal government, so the states can acquire the revenue to do what the voters want their states to do and the voters have the means to provide private charity and “strengthen the bonds of a common brotherhood.”

It well to keep in mind Napoleon Bonaparte’s succinct assessment: “The purely defensive is doomed to defeat.”  Freedom will not survive unless there is leadership to roll back prior socialist big-government gains.

Lack of Transparency

The House passage of this four-month extension of the National Flood Insurance Program, quickly approved by the Senate and signed into law by the President, reflected an exceptional lack of transparency. More than two weeks after the House vote and a week after it became public law, the clerk’s listing of roll calls still only showed Roll Call 373 as a vote on S. 1182, “The American Legion 100th Anniversary Commemorative Coin Act,” as amended.

Rather than introducing its own legislation, the House leadership chose to use a prior year’s Senate bill, S. 1182, as a “legislative vehicle.”  The amended legislation contains no mention of the Commemorative Coin Act.  Actually, the American Legion got its Commemorative Coin approved last October as a House bill.

The use of “legislative vehicles” is an unfortunate, but common congressional practice.  The justification for their use is that amending an existing bill is easier procedurally, requiring less time or votes, than introducing a new bill.  However, the public seeking to monitor Congress suffers. And in this case, the House’s use of a Senate bill as the vehicle conveniently bypasses its own sham requirement that a “constitutional authority statement” must accompany every H.R. or H.J. Res.

The House “Debate”

During the House “debate” on S. 1182 (see excerpts, below), several GOP representatives argued that the flood insurance program desperately needed reform.  Some held their nose and voted for another clean extension without any reform, while others said enough was enough and refused to go along.

But none of those taking the floor objected that the Constitution did not permit the program and that it should therefore be eliminated.  Nor was there any criticism of the Federal Government’s initial involvement with flood insurance in 1968.  (Note: Prior to 1968, the nation somehow was able to cope with floods and hurricanes.  Volunteers, churches, and other private not-profit organizations provided a great amount of relief.)

As you read the excerpts also keep in mind that the necessity for federal involvement has been effectively rebutted. In “Disaster Relief — Flooded with Errors,” Sheldon Richman of the Cato Institute argued persuasively that floods are an “insurable risk”:

“[T]here is incontrovertible proof that flood damage is insurable. Some private insurers, such as Lloyds of London, offer unsubsidized flood insurance. The drawback to private insurance is that it is about ten times the cost of government insurance.” — Wall Street Journal, July 8, 1993

Excerpts from Congressional Record (7-24-18) [Emphasis added.]:

Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas 05) (Financial Services Committee Chairman):  “Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to do something I do not often  do, and that is: I have asked my leadership to put a bill on the floor that I do not support.  I am talking about the bill that would provide for a non-reform reauthorization of the National Flood Insurance Program through the end  of November. To make it very clear, Mr. Speaker, I believe this program needs to be reauthorized, and the House has done its work. The House passed a bill with reforms last November. Never underestimate the Senate’s capacity to do nothing.   Unfortunately, the Senate has done nothing.

“But this is a program,  Mr. Speaker, that continues to be in dire need of reform. And now, we have reauthorized it without reforms, not once, not twice, not three  times, not four times, not five times, but six times since the  Financial Services Committee first reported this bill out. Enough is enough.

“Mr. Speaker, in America, we lost 116 lives last year to flooding,  with billions and billions of dollars of property loss, and, yet, we have a program unreformed that incents people to live in harm’s way. We should not be doing this, Mr. Speaker.  I went and I visited with those who survived Hurricane Harvey, people that were close to your district, people whose homes had flooded three times in the last 8 years, and I heard harrowing tales of survival. And, yet, we have a program that says, you know what? We are going to help rebuild your same home in the same fashion in the same place. Hope you survive next time. That is just wrong, Mr. Speaker.

“And, yes, we need more mitigation money. We need better flood control  projects. The House bill had more flood mitigation money than any other reform bill, but this bill before us has no reforms.  Finances: This is a program that the taxpayer has subsidized so far by $40 billion. Some of the debt has been forgiven, but it runs a billion-and-a-half dollar deficit every single year, Mr. Speaker. It is  unsustainable.The Congressional Budget Office says it, the GAO says  it, the OMB says it. It is an unsustainable program. The finances do not work.

“And then last, but not least, Mr. Speaker, it is a government  monopoly. It is a government monopoly when people could, through a competitive marketplace, actually get more affordable flood insurance.  And that is just not a theory. That is happening as we speak.   In the small little bit of the marketplace that is open to competition, people are saving hundreds, if not thousands of dollars in  places like Pennsylvania, and in places like Florida….

“Mr. Speaker, deja vu all over again. This House has been here many times before. In fact, we have had 41 reauthorizations of this program, 38 with no reforms.   So, a vote for S. 1182 is a vote for the status quo. And what is the  status quo? The status quo is people in harm’s way who have homes that flood five, six, seven, and eight times, putting their lives in danger  and burdening the taxpayer at the same time.   A vote for S. 1182 is a vote to ensure that we continue to have more red ink as far as the eye can see. Mr. Speaker, $40 billion of taxpayer subsidies to the program already. A vote for S. 1182 is a vote to  protect a government monopoly….

“Well, the irony is, if we had market competition, we would have more affordable flood insurance, but we don’t have market competition.   When is enough enough? When do we finally act? If we can vote down this, we can vote in favor of reforms, which is what we should have done in the first place. For us to do the same thing over and over  again and expect a different result, we all know, Mr. Speaker, is the  very definition of insanity.   I have no doubt this thing will be voted ‘aye,’ but it shouldn’t be, and it is a sad day for the House.”

Freedom First Society:  Although as Committee Chair, Rep. Hensarling called for a House vote on a clean extension, the unhappy Representative did follow through on his objections and vote “nay.”  Nevertheless, he didn’t voice any objections to reauthorizing “reformed” federal flood insurance.  Constitutional limitations were apparently not on his radar screen.

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif 43) (Ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee): “Mr. Speaker, since the National Flood Insurance Program’s multiyear  authorization expired on September 30, 2017, ideological differences have led Congress to pass six short-term extensions, and have even  allowed the program to briefly lapse twice since the government shutdowns.   More than 5 million families rely on the NFIP for affordable flood insurance coverage. Communities rely on the NFIP for flood maps and  mitigation assistance, and small businesses rely on the NFIP to pick up  the pieces when the inevitable storm hits. Yet, the long-term stability  of this critical program continues to fall victim to partisan politics….

“Mr. Speaker, I am deeply disappointed that Congress continues to miss  opportunities to responsibly help homeowners, businesses, and renters  who all need access to affordable flood insurance by taking sensible steps to stabilize flood insurance premiums, deal with the NFIP’s debt and invest in up-to-date and accurate flood maps. Instead, the House has passed controversial and ideological reforms that make flood insurance more expensive, less available, and less fair, which is, obviously, going nowhere in the Senate.

“Given the critical importance of the NFIP to our housing market, I am pleased that we are taking the small step today of reauthorizing the program for 4 months to at least provide some level of certainty to  businesses and families, but let us not be fooled into thinking that our work is done. I have led the effort for years to provide long-term reauthorizations of the NFIP that also ensure the affordability and the availability of flood insurance, and I will continue to do so when this latest short-term extension expires in November….

“Mr. Speaker, partisan gamesmanship and harmful reforms passed out of the House stalled the NFIP’s long-term reauthorization for long enough.  While I would prefer a longer term reauthorization of this important program, I strongly support today’s 4-month extension to provide  homeowners, businesses, renters, and communities with the certainty  they deserve.

“But make no mistake. This short-term reauthorization does not absolve  Congress of its responsibility to reauthorize the flood insurance  program for the long term. It is past time for Congress to do its job  and pass a long-term reauthorization that will ensure Americans are  protected this and every hurricane season to come…. We must put  partisanship and ideology aside and ensure the continued affordability and availability of coverage for millions of Americans.”

Freedom First Society: Rep. Waters seems to mean “put the Constitution aside.” The principles that support freedom, such as constitutionally limited government, should not be trivialized as “ideological differences” or “partisan politics.”

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Missouri 05): “This bill would provide a clean, 4-month extension for the  NFIP.   Now, I do plan to vote in favor of this bill, but I do so with deep  consternation that we are, yet again, passing a short-term reauthorization. This will be the seventh short-term extension for the  NFIP in the last 10 months. This is somewhat embarrassing, or should  be, to all of us.   If we fail to reauthorize the program, the NFIP will not be able to issue new policies, and borrowing authority would be limited. A lapse  in authorization during the height of hurricane season could have  serious ramifications for communities that have already weathered last  year’s severe storms….

“Affordability must remain a central component of any long-term plan  to revamp the NFIP. Rates are already increasing for many policyholders, and we need to ensure that homeowners who rely on the  NFIP for protection are not priced out of the program….

“To be sure, I am pleased that we are voting to keep the NFIP up and  running for the next 4 months, but I remain concerned that we have been  unable to agree on a long-term plan. I again urge my colleagues to come to the table in a bipartisan manner for a solution and for the updating  of the NFIP.”

Freedom First Society:  “Come to the table in a bipartisan manner” means ignore the Constitution and compromise with socialists.

Rep. Steve Scalise (R-Louisiana 01) (GOP Majority Whip):  “Why are we here, Mr. Speaker? We are here because, first of all, the House did take strong action to pass a 5-year reauthorization of NFIP that included really important reforms, reforms that I was happy to work with the chairman on to pass through the House. But, ultimately, as the bill went over to the Senate, we kept hearing  story after story that the Senate was going to pass something, and then a month would go by and another month would go by, and, ultimately, the  Senate still hasn’t passed anything to reauthorize this program. So it leaves us here literally days before the program expires.

“Mr. Speaker, we can’t play some game of chicken with the lives of  millions of families that represent, by the way, all 50 States. All 50 States participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. This isn’t something that just applies to coastal communities. You have got every inland State as well that have families that rely on this program to  work.

“Mr. Speaker, what kind of program would we like to see? I would love  to see a vibrant marketplace with private sector company after private sector company that would offer options to families just like we have with car insurance or homeowners insurance. But we don’t have that today.  So what we need to do is usher in reformslike the Ross-Castor  legislation, Mr. Speaker, that I am a cosponsor of. Ross-Castor, by the way, was included in the House-passed bill.

“There are other important reforms…. But at the midnight hour, let’s  at least keep this program going for a few more months while we  continue negotiating, and let’s get a long-term deal that actually has the reforms that will make this a sustainable program with private  sector involvement for years to come.   Mr. Speaker, I urge a ‘yes’ vote.”

Rep. Bill Huizenga (R-Michigan 02) (Subcommittee Chairman): “Mr. Speaker, I rise today with deep hesitation in supporting another clean extension of the National Flood Insurance  Program through November of this year. While I completely agree that  letting this program lapse in the middle of hurricane season is deeply  problematic, it is inconceivable to me that even extremely modest  reforms to this troubled program are not included in this legislation

“The House amendment to S. 1182 is a simple piece of legislation with  a simple extension. What is notable, however, is the fact that the legislation contains none of the reforms passed by this House in a  bipartisan manner in November, nor does the legislation contain any of  the more modest reforms recently introduced by my colleagues from  California and Oregon, Representatives Royce and Blumenauer.

“Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from Missouri said, this will be extension number 7 in less than a year. This is even after Congress forgave that $16 billion in NFIP debt, all while fewer than 2 percent of the 5 million policies that are out there have absorbed more than $8  billion in payments.    These numbers are staggering.

“Instead of passing clean extension  after clean extension, the Senate should — no, wait a minute — the Senate  must do its job and take up bipartisan reform that we passed in  November.”

Freedom First Society:  Rep. Huizenga voted yea.

Rep. Al Green (D-Texas 09): “While we have different reasons for being opposed to a temporary fix, the truth is we have no choice at this point.  In about a week, the program will expire…. We must reauthorize. And 4 months, while it seems like it is an inappropriate amount of time, does give us some additional time. My hope is that we will come to some conclusion that will be acceptable such that we can have a long-term extension.”

Rep. Ed Royce (R-Calif. 39): “Mr. Speaker, we stand here doing what we  have done, I guess, 38 times now since 1998, and that is passing an  extension of the National Flood Insurance Program without the much-needed reforms that should be in that program. This is unacceptable.

“Subsidized flood insurancerepresents what economists call a moral  hazard,and let me tell you why. We tell Americans that if you buy flood insurance from Uncle Sam, no matter how many times your house  floods, we will give you money to rebuild it.   We haven’t worked to decrease that moral hazard through reform;  rather, we have embraced and refueled it, and we make it more difficult  for people to move than rebuild.  We fail to encourage communities to mitigate flood risk. We continue to build in high-risk areas. The clearest sign of moral hazard is the number of repeatedly flooded properties that are rebuilt with little deference to mitigation. I will give you some examples: A $90,000 home in Missouri has been flooded, now, 34 times, at a cost of more than $600,000; A $56,000 home in Louisiana flooded more than 40 times at a cost of  $430,000; A $72,000 home in Texas that flooded again last year cost taxpayers over $1 million in payouts.

“I came to the floor today hoping to support a bill that Mr. Blumenauer and I authored that would have extended the flood program with what The Wall Street Journal called de minimis policy changes that have broad, bipartisan support, which would do something about the fact that you have got fewer than 2 percent of the 5 million policies that  have absorbed more than $8 billion of the payments because we don’t have these reforms. That is not in this bill before us.  Unfortunately, I oppose this can-kicking exercise, and I urge my  colleagues to do the same.”

Freedom First Society:  The “needed reform” is to refuse to reauthorize this unconstitutional federal intrusion in the marketplace and squandering of taxpayer dollars.

Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon 03):  “Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman’s courtesy  in permitting me to speak on this, and I am pleased to follow my friend  from California (Mr. Royce).   This is troubling for me, his reference here to 38 extensions without  reform. I have been working on this for 20 years. This is the 41st  time, and we had one back in 2004 with my friend, Doug Bereuter, where  we had some small steps, but they were anticipatory of being able to  make greater reforms.

“I am vexed that we continue to move forward and dodge some hard  facts. We are subsidizing too much for people who grow complacent.   I am concerned about affordability. There are things we can do to deal with affordability, but that doesn’t mean to have massive subsidization for people who don’t need it and, in fact, encourage people to be in harm’s way and, in fact, after they are flooded out, to  go back, putting them in harm’s way again.  There are simple, commonsense steps we can take….

“I am deeply troubled that we are going to do this again without dealing with the problems.  I just want to say that it is not just financial hardship and it is  not just wasting of money. Our failure to reform the Flood Insurance  Program puts people at risk. Every one of these massive events shows  that people will go back, trying to deal with a family member; they are dealing with their business, or they are dealing with a pet. People die because we fail to take steps to reform and make it work right….

“There is a path forward. This bill is not the path forward. I don’t want it to lapse. I don’t want disruption. But it is hard for me to sit here and vote ‘yes’ for something that doesn’t do the minimum.We don’t do anybody any favors along this path.”

Freedom First Society: Hooray for Rep. Blumenauer!  He was the only Democrat with the courage to vote against extending this business-as-usual travesty (even though he supported the underlying unconstitutional program).

Rep. Garret Graves (R-Louisiana 06) (Subcommittee Chairman):  “Mr. Speaker, do you really believe people want to be flooded? Do you  think people want to have everything they own underwater and have to throw it all out?   Anybody who believes that has obviously never stepped foot in a flooded home, never spoken to a flood victim.   Do you really think people intentionally want to build their home in  a place that is going to flood so all their family heirlooms are flooded and lost? That whole concept is irrational….

“I represent the State of Louisiana. We drain from Montana to two Canadian provinces to New York. All that water comes and drains down through our State. It is one of the largest watersheds in the world. More water is coming to us now.  So, yes, we are more vulnerable. But the people who live in these homes and businesses are innocent. Folks are trying to charge them more  for something they have no control over. That is not American. That is not okay….

“I agree that we need to reform these programs, but we need to do it in a way that does not penalize the innocent. Until we get to that point, we need to do an extension to provide certainty and to ensure we make it through  hurricane season, and we have a rational debate.”

Rep. Sean Duffy (R-Wisconsin 07) (Subcommittee Chairman):  “This is a rich conversation. I am hearing my colleagues saying: We are almost out  of time. We have to reauthorize the program. We can’t let it expire.   The truth is, we have known for months that this program was going to  expire. We have known. And many of us have tried to go to those who  have disagreed on any kind of flood reform to craft a deal, to craft a compromise, but, lo and behold, there was no willingness to come  together and find a compromise on flood reform.  It was: No, no. We want to come to the very end and pretend like it is a crisis and we have to extend the program because we can’t put people in harm’s way.

“By the way, this program puts people in harm’s way. We know that people don’t want to flood, just like people don’t want to get in a car crash and they don’t want their house to burn. But if 2 times, 4 times, 10 times someone’s house burns, we might say: Hey, we have got a  problem with that. Maybe we should look at where you are living.   If someone gets in a car crash 2 times, 5 times, 10 times, 15 times, we might say: Hey, you have got a problem, maybe, with your driving. But with flood insurance, we say: Listen, you can flood 1 time, 5 times, 10 times — and guess what? You can flood 10 times, 15 times, and  your premiums don’t go up at all. You are grandfathered in.   When my daughter crashed our car twice, guess what happened to my premiums? They went through the roof. But with flood insurance, your premiums don’t go up.

“Let’s fix this program. There are commonsense reforms that we can  implement…. Maybe we could find some little bit of reform that could make the program work better. It is $20.5 billion in debt, and we already forgave $16 billion in debt. It is under water, to use a pun.   Let’s work on fixing it.  Let’s help people get out of harm’s way.  Reform does that, Mr. Speaker. Let’s get it done.”

Freedom First Society:  Rep. Duffy voted “nay.”  But repeal not “reform” should be the goal.

Excerpts from Congressional Record (7-25-18) [Emphasis added.]:

Rep. Mark MEADOWS (R-North Carolina 11):

“Mr. Speaker, earlier this afternoon I voted for final passage of the House Amendment to S. 1182 — National Flood Insurance Program Extension Act of 2018 (Roll No. 373). I intended to vote against final passage of this legislation.”