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.”

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.

The Senate approved this extension of the NFIP essentially without debate.  For some commentary on the problems troubling the NFIP, please see the House debate excerpts in our analysis of the House Roll Call 373 (7-15-18).

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.

The Senate approved this extension of the NFIP essentially without debate.  For some commentary on the problems troubling the NFIP, please see the House debate excerpts in our analysis of the House Roll Call 373 (7-15-18).

Bill Summary: According to the Chair of the House Appropriations Committee, Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen: “The Interior and Environment appropriations bill, authored by Representative Calvert of California, provides $35.3  billion for the EPA, the U.S. Forest Service, and the Department of the  Interior and other programs that promote our natural heritage…. The Interior bill continues funding for other programs that manage our national resources and cultural heritage, like the National Park Service, the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities, the  Chemical Safety Board, and the Smithsonian Institution…. The Financial Services appropriations bill, authored by  Representative Graves of Georgia, totals $23.4 billion which, like the  Interior bill, is equal to fiscal year 2018 levels.” — Congressional Record (7-17-18) 

Freedom First Society Further Analysis:

Our analysis is provided in response to the comments of representatives during the ostensible “debate”:

Excerpts from the Congressional Record (7-19-18) [Emphasis added]:

Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-New Jersey), Chair of the House Appropriations Committee:  “Mr. Speaker, this legislation before us contains two important Appropriations bills: the Interior and Environmental bill and the Financial Services bill. The first of these two bills, the Interior bill, funds important  programs that protect and promote our Nation’s resources…. [A]nd, yes, this bill streamlines our Federal Government, returning the  EPA to its core mission and cutting back regulatory red tape.  The second bill, the Financial Services bill, helps make our Nation a safer place to live and helps our economy grow…. Funding these Federal programs is a responsibility given to Congress by our Founding Fathers as part of the Constitution.”

[Freedom First Society:  Rep. Frelinghuysen makes it sound as though the Constitution requires congressmen to pay for federal programs out of their own pockets.  But clearly, the money Congress spends is taxpayer money.  As representatives of the people, the House of Representatives is charged with making sure that taxpayer money is spent judicially and constitutionally in the interest of the nation.

The responsibility of both chambers of Congress is to control how much is spent and what it is spent for.  Merely writing checks with someone else’s money to keep every federal program running at a comfortable level is not a significant accomplishment.  America desperately needs the constitutionally limited, small federal government the Founding Fathers intended that the House, the people’s representatives, would champion.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not have a core constitutional mission.  Although it was initiated by President Nixon, the impetus for its creation was the result of Internationalist-sponsored agitation, designed in reality to justify federal and international power grabs.  The EPA has grown to over 14,000 employees.

America needs congressmen who will work to reverse prior federal usurpations rather than accepting those programs as a given.   And we need congressmen who will support the vision of the Founding Fathers and reject the collectivist theme that all blessings flow from government programs. As specific examples, that means rolling back the unconstitutional power grabs accomplished under President Johnson’s Great Society and the creation of the Department of Energy sponsored by President Jimmy Carter.  The Department of Education also needs to go. (See “A Masterful Wake-up Call” our review of Steve Milloy’s Green Hell — How Environmentalists Plan to Control Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them.)  (Of course congressmen who do what’s needed will be vulnerable to the Internationalist-controlled media, unless they have strong informed support from back home — see “The Example of Larry McDonald.”)

With regard to this legislation, other objectionable intrusions that should be challenged include:

• the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management,
• the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement,
• the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
• the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities.

Indeed, abolition of the National Endowment for the Arts  and the National Endowment for the Humanities (both established under President Johnson) is long overdue.  At the 1787 Philadelphia convention, Charles Pinkney from South Carolina suggested that the new federal government take on those responsibilities, but his suggestion was soundly rejected as not a legitimate function of a national government. Indeed, both endowments have a long record of making grants for radical and subversive purposes.]

From the Congressional Record, Two Days Earlier (7-17-18):

Rep. Nita Lowey (D-New York ), the Ranking Democratic Member of the House Appropriations Committee: “I rise in strong opposition to the Interior, Environment, and  Financial Services, and General Government minibus, that fails the American people by slashing environmental protection, rolling back consumer protections, and even cutting basic election security funding. With bills this bad, it is no wonder Republicans have abandoned all pretense of regular order, grouped two unrelated appropriations bills together, and blocked numerous Democratic amendments…. As much as it pains me to say, we should be  following the Senate and producing bipartisan bills instead of wasting  time on playing political games and taking show votes to appease the  right wing of the Republican Conference.”

[Freedom First Society:  Although we do not share Rep. Lowey’s vision of responsible appropriations, we do endorse her criticism that Republican leaders have abandoned regular order.  The objective, however, should not be greater bipartisan compromise with collectivist Democrats, but instead taking a tough line to use the House’s power of the purse strategically to force cuts in unconstitutional programs and spending.  This is not currently on the House’s agenda, and Rep. Lowey is perhaps correct that this Roll Call is a show vote, as undoubtedly the House will abandon this bill in favor of a compromise bill with the Senate, which will become law.] 

Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), Chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: “As reported by the Appropriations Committee, the fiscal year 2019  Interior and Environment bill is funded at $35.252 billion, which is  equal to the FY18 enacted level. We have made sincere efforts to prioritize critical needs within our subcommittee allocation and in reviewing more than 5,200 individual requests.”

[Freedom First Society: Reviewing 5,200 requests?  With a federal bureaucracy grown so immense, no wonder Congress is unable to manage it!]

Rep.  Betty McCollum (D-Minnesota), Ranking Democratic Member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies): “I am pleased that the bill recommends an increase of $410 million  over the fiscal year 2018 enacted level for programs critical to Indian  Country…. T]hat is the one bright spot in this bill; but, unfortunately, other important priorities for the American public did not fare as well.

“Even though the fiscal year 2019 Interior, Environment, and Related  Agencies Subcommittee allocation [$35.252 billion] is equal to the fiscal year 2018  enacted level, the majority is proposing a $100 million [$0.1 billion] cut from the Environmental Protection Agency, which is just untenable…. We are at a defining moment in history. The Interior bill has an opportunity to make a global difference in the quality of life for generations to come, but, sadly, this bill is a mirror of the Trump administration’s actions and disregard for the environment. We cannot afford to ignore the overwhelming scientific evidence the planet is warming, sea levels are rising, and glaciers are melting.”

[Freedom First Society:  Here, the Ranking Democrat endorses the Internationalist pretext for power grabs and its purported scientific evidence. Unfortunately, that “science” is more politics than science — “an inconvenient truth” for Al Gore.]

Rep. McCollum continues: “Madam Chair, this bill fails the American people. It cuts environmental protections. It removes safeguards for our air and water and endangered species and allows rampant corruption in the executive  branch to go unchecked…. I know we can do better than this, and it is my hope we will do better after conference…. So despite my current opposition, I intend to continue to work with the chairman through this year’s appropriations process to produce a responsible bill that I know we can have both parties support in the end.”

[Freedom First Society:  Realistically, the bill both parties will support in the end will not be responsible.]

Rep. Tom Graves (R-Georgia), Chair of the Financial Services Subcommittee: “This bill [FY 2019 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations] is a product of a very Member-driven process. We brought appropriators and authorizers together. We consulted other committees. We fostered personal Member-to-Member conversations to make sure that  priorities in this bill were vetted and supported across jurisdictions. We held several public hearings and reviewed over 2,100 unique Member requests as we put this bill together. As the bill passed out of this Appropriations Committee, it passed with bipartisan support. What more can you do on behalf of America’s  kids and grandkids?”

[Freedom First Society:  “What more?” How about standing up to political and media pressure while working to restore constitutionally limited government!]

Rep. Graves continues: “In fact, this bill includes more than 20 pieces of  legislation that have passed through this body with bipartisan support, in most cases with more than 270 votes.”

[Freedom First Society: Today, 270 votes reflects much of the bipartisan collectivist “representation” in the House. Additionally, if more than 20 pieces of legislation passed the House, why is the House voting on those pieces again, rather than insisting that the Senate deal with those already passed?]

Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Illinois), Ranking Democratic Member of the Financial Services Subcommittee: “But with that said, I continue to strongly oppose the bill before us  today.  Given its flat allocation of $23.4 billion, this bill does not adequately meet the growing needs of our small businesses, taxpayers,  and middle class consumers and investors.”

[Freedom First Society: Rep. Quigley’s statement clearly reflects the collectivist theme that the Federal government must grow to meet America’s needs.]

From the Congressional Research Service Bill Summary [Emphasis added]:
This bill makes several changes to state Medicaid programs to address opioid and substance use disorders. Specifically, the bill:

• modifies provisions related to coverage for juvenile inmates and former foster care youth,
• establishes a demonstration project to increase provider treatment capacity for substance use disorders,
• requires the establishment of drug management programs for at-risk beneficiaries,
• establishes drug review and utilization requirements,
• extends the enhanced federal matching rate for expenditures regarding substance use disorder health home services, and
• temporarily requires coverage of medication-assisted treatment.

The bill also alters Medicare requirements to address opioid use. Specifically, the bill:

• exempts substance use disorder telehealth services from specified requirements,
• requires the initial examination for new enrollees to include an opioid use disorder screening,
• modifies provisions regarding electronic prescriptions and post-surgical pain management,
• requires prescription drug plan sponsors to establish drug management programs for at-risk beneficiaries, and
• requires coverage for services provided by certified opioid treatment programs.

The bill also addresses other opioid-related issues. Specifically, the bill:

• establishes and expands programs to support increased detection and monitoring of fentanyl and other synthetic opioids, and
• increases the maximum number of patients that health care practitioners may initially treat with medication-assisted treatment (i.e., under a buprenorphine waiver).

Analysis:  According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO):  “On May 9 and May 17, 2018, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce ordered 59 bills to be reported related to the nation’s response to the opioid epidemic.”  Unfortunately, Congress is merely posturing to address symptoms of a crisis, e.g., by spending more and more money to treat addiction, while refusing to identify and deal with the real cause of the deadly epidemic.

Researcher/writer Daniel E. Horowitz wrote in “The big opioid myths and lies,” a March 28, 2018 article for conservativereview.com:

“Washington and state governments are clamoring to deal with ‘the opioid crisis.’ But they fail to define what the crisis is, the cause, the trends, why it exploded just a few years ago, and who is at fault…. The reason why they don’t want to discuss the real culprits is obvious: They are open borders and Medicaid, two favored policies of both parties. Worse, some are discussing increasing Medicaid spending as the solution and continue to block every effort to combat drug smuggling, sanctuary cities, and criminal aliens….

“Clearly, if there is a national emergency, it is being caused by illicit drugs. We have a recent heroin/fentanyl problem, mixed with other drugs, not a general opioid crisis – certainly not caused by legitimately prescribed opioids….

“Fentanyl is not being over-prescribed by doctors; it is being smuggled into this country from Mexico and China and is 100 times more potent than morphine. It is practically a hazmat issue and represents the true national emergency.” [Emphasis added.]

In an earlier March 16 report, Horowitz argued:

“We’ve always had drugs flowing into this country. But the supply and dangerous nature of the drugs coming into this country from Mexico (or from China and then distributed by the Mexican cartels) since 2013-2014 are at an epidemic level, dwarfing anything we’ve seen before. It all began with the suspension of immigration enforcement from 2010-2014 and suspension of interior enforcement. Transnational drug cartels worked with gangs and human smugglers to take advantage of Obama’s unprecedented dismantling of our borders in order to launch what should be described as chemical warfare on this country….

“The epidemic we are facing today is not from prescription opioids, at least not more than it has been for an entire generation….

“Almost the entirety of the increased fatalities above the long-term existing trajectory beginning in 2012 were from illicit drugs and mainly from the most dangerous one – heroin. Then, as heroin use began to skyrocket in 2013-2014, we began to see the growth of the cursed synthetic drug – fentanyl – which is 50-100 times stronger than morphine and can kill in small quantities. It’s often laced into heroin. In pretty much every state, fentanyl has skyrocketed to such a level that it has overtaken heroin as the leading drug killer….

“Thus, we don’t have ‘an opioid crisis;’ we have a heroin and fentanyl crisis….

“From 2013 to 2016, according to the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), the level of heroin production in Mexico tripled.”

Congressional Camouflage

The following arguments by proponents of H.R. 6 illustrate the refusal of Congress to acknowledge that drug cartels are waging a deadly war against America and why America is vulnerable to the attack.  Congress is also willing to camouflage this attack by putting the blame on a myriad of other ostensible causes.

A particularly glaring omission from this discussion is the unwillingness to identify the federal government’s refusal to enforce our southern border as a prime cause of the epidemic.    A less obvious omission is the politically supported decline in America’s cultural defenses against drug addiction.  These cultural weaknesses have developed in large part from the organized, revolutionary attack on our foundations of religion, morality, the traditional family and purpose.

From the Congressional Record (June 22, 2018) [Emphasis added]:

Rep. Greg Walden (R-Oregon), Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee: “These past 2 weeks, this House, the people’s House, has dedicated tremendous amounts of time and energy to send a simple message to  millions of Americans impacted by the opioid crisis. And that message  is: Help is on the way.   Not only are we passing legislation, dozens and dozens of bills that will save lives, but also we want to leave no doubt in the minds of  those suffering from addiction that the United States House of  Representatives, Republicans and Democrats alike, stand with them  together….

“H.R. 6 includes several bills that went through regular order at the  Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means Committees, but the bill we will  vote on today also includes dozens of other pieces of legislation that  have recently passed the House, most unanimously or with very strong  bipartisan majorities.   You see, at a time when it seems we couldn’t be more divided, it is  clear that striking back against addiction is something that transcends  politics and brings us together as a community, as a country, and as a Congress.

“Remember, this legislation is not the first action that this Congress has taken to combat the opioid crisis, and I am sure it will not be the  last…. The Comprehensive Addiction Recovery Act and the 21st Century Cures Act, both of which were signed into law nearly 2 years ago, and an additional $4 billion in resources for States and communities that was provided in the omnibus appropriations bill just a few months ago, indicate we have been at this for awhile, and we will be at  this for a while longer.   Taken together, this is one of the most significant congressional  efforts against a drug crisis in our Nation’s history….

“The legislation before us will help advance treatment and recovery  initiatives, improve prevention and educational efforts, protect our  communities, and bolster our efforts to fight deadly synthetic drugs like fentanyl.”

Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-New Jersey), Ranking Member of the Energy and Commerce Committee: “Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 6, the SUPPORT for Patients  and Communities Act. This bill makes incremental changes to support  those affected by the opioid crisis, but it is far from perfect….

“Nonetheless, I am pleased that Democrats were able to secure positive provisions in the final package that we are considering today.   Most notably, H.R. 6 includes provisions from a bill introduced by Representative Tonko and Representative Lujan that would extend access to evidence-based, medication-assisted treatment. Specifically, this  section of the bill will allow advanced practice registered nurses, including midwives, to treat patients with buprenorphine for opiate use disorder for 5 years.

“The bill will also allow nurse practitioners and physician assistants to treat patients with buprenorphine permanently, and allow qualified providers to treat up to 100 patients instead of 30 patients in their first year.  This is a critical step forward in the expansion of treatment, one of  the major challenges that we continue to face in the fight against this epidemic…..

“This bill also expands coverage through Medicare by adding methadone  clinics to the Medicare program. Right now, methadone clinics are not Medicare providers. Seniors who want to get treatment from methadone  clinics have to pay out of pocket. Adding methadone clinics will address an important coverage gap in the Medicare program and meaningfully expand access to treatment for opiate use disorders. The bill also improves coverage for vulnerable populations in Medicaid, ensures coverage for former foster youth up to the age of 26  nationwide, and supports State efforts to ensure continuity of coverage  for people with substance use disorders as they leave incarceration.

“The bill will also provide funding to Medicaid substance use disorder  health homes, give States money to expand the treatment capacity of  Medicaid providers, and raise reimbursement rates. It also mandates coverage of Medicaid for all forms of medication-assisted treatment for  5 years.”

Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-Kentucky: “Over the  past 2 weeks, we have passed more than 50 bills out of the House,  including my bill, the Comprehensive Opioid Recovery Centers Act.”

Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.): “There isn’t any question that our country is in the midst of a  destructive opioid epidemic that claims 142 lives every day. This is a  national crisis, and it is our duty as Members of Congress to do everything in our power to stem the tide of addiction and the devastation that this epidemic is causing. It is claiming more lives  than were lost in the Vietnam war. They are staggering figures.”

Rep. David McKinley (R-West Virginia): “Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 6. Over the  past 2 weeks, America has witnessed something impressive. Both parties have come together, once again, to take action on one of the more challenging issues of our time: the opioid epidemic.” 

Rep. Scott Peters (D-Calif.): “The opioid crisis has ravaged our Nation. It twice has been declared  a national public health emergency under Federal law. More than 100  people will die from an overdose just today.   That is why this bipartisan effort to address it is so important.  There is certainly work to be done, but I am happy that legislation  that I worked on with my colleague, Dr. Bucshon, is included in this  bill, and it aims to stop addiction where it frequently begins: after surgery. Millions of Americans are prescribed opioids following routine surgeries because they are cheap and accessible, and nearly 70 percent  of those pills go unused.   Our bill reverses the perverse incentive that put so many cheap pills in people’s hands in the first place.”

Rep. Katherine Clark (D-Mass.): “Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member  for yielding and for all his work on this issue and continuing to underscore the need to actually fund access to healthcare so that we  can curb this horrible epidemic in a meaningful way.

[Freedom First Society:  This is how Congress proposes to deal with the crisis:  “Let’s not prevent car accidents. We’ll just fix up the victims as best we can and finance their treatment with money created by the Federal Reserve System out of thin air to cover whatever deficits we run.”]

Rep. Clark continues: “One of the many factors that contributes to the opioid crisis is the  sheer volume of opioids in circulation. According to the CDC, over 214  million prescriptions were written for opioids in 2016, and we can see  that in our own Federal programs.   A 2016 study showed that one in three Medicare part D recipients  received opioids. That is almost 80 million prescriptions for a cost of  $4.1 billion. The sheer volume makes it hard to prevent abuse,  addiction, waste, and fraud…. “That is why I, along with my colleague, Markwayne Mullin, have  introduced the Every Prescription Conveyed Securely Act. This bill will  require that every prescription written for a Medicare part D  beneficiary be prescribed electronically by 2021. We know this  technology will save lives by making it harder to forge prescriptions, easier for doctors to know if a patient is doctor shopping, and be able  to prevent fraud and save the government money.”

Rep. Larry Bucshon(R-Indiana): “Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 6, the  SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act. This bill will help our  struggling communities combat the opioid epidemic ravaging our Nation  by focusing on providing care to those in need while addressing  prevention of opioid misuse and abuse.   I am proud that two pieces of legislation that I introduced are  included in H.R. 6 as sections 202 and 203. Section 202, which I worked  closely with Representative Peters on to introduce, would incentivize development of nonopioid pain alternatives for postsurgical pain.”

Rep. Paul Tonko (D-New York): “The SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act incorporates legislation that I introduced along with my good friend  and colleague, Representative Ben Ray Lujan of New Mexico, which will  provide a meaningful expansion to addiction treatment across our  country, especially in rural areas, and for vulnerable populations like  pregnant and postpartum women and the 13,000 babies born on average  each year with neonatal abstinence syndrome.   Our legislation includes three main policy changes to expand access  to treatment.”

Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), House Majority Leader:  “Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge the passage of H.R. 6 which  contains more than 50 opioid-related bills which we have considered in the past 2 weeks.   We have in this body the opportunity nearly every day to approve  legislation of great consequence to millions of people. But rarely do  the consequences feel so immediate and so vital as they do for the  opioids package we are considering. That is because this legislation  has to do with the deadliest drug crisis in our Nation’s history. The grim truth is this: More Americans have died from drug overdoses  since the turn of the century than died in the Civil War. Yes, you  heard that right. In less than two decades, more than 630,000 people  have died because of drugs. Half of those deaths had to do with opioids. This death toll is the ‘American carnage’ that President  Trump referred to in his inaugural address…..

“Mr. Chair, if we hope to defeat the deadliest drug crisis in history,  we will need the biggest response in history. Rest assured that the  response is already underway, led by this administration and this Congress. We are wrapping up voting on more than 50 bills to help  millions of Americans affected by the opioid crisis. We are about to vote on a package that contains almost all of those bills, H.R. 6.

“Among others, it contains a bill by Congressman  Mike Bishop that  will reduce the flow of Chinese fentanyl into our country by giving law  enforcement new tools to detect suspicious packages in the mail.”

[Freedom First Society:  Efforts to “reduce the flow of Chinese fentanyl into our country” are on target.]

Rep. Tony Cardenas (D-Calif.): “Mr. Chair, I rise today to say how glad I am that my bill, the At-Risk Youth Medicaid Protection Act, has been included in today’s opioid  package.   According to a June 2017 MACPAC report, the opioid epidemic disproportionately affects Medicaid beneficiaries. Therefore, State Medicaid programs are taking the lead in identifying and tailoring strategies to prevent and treat opioid use disorder.”

Mr. Leonard Lance (R-New Jersey):  “Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of this bipartisan package, H.R. 6.  The Energy and Commerce Committee, under the leadership of Chairman Walden, has again delivered for the American people on the pressing public health challenges facing the Nation. From combating childhood  cancer, to improving mental health care, to fighting the scourge of  drug addiction, the Energy and Commerce Committee produces results.   The menace of drug abuse and addiction has manifested itself in opiates. Every corner of this country has known the heartache of losing a life from this terrible problem. Congress has acted before with  passage of the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, but CARA needs  reinforcement. H.R. 6 delivers more resources, treatment, and  mitigation tools to fight opiate addiction.   Included in this package is the Eliminating Opioid-Related Infectious  Diseases Act, legislation I have authored with my colleague on the Energy and Commerce Committee, Congressman Joseph P. Kennedy III.”

Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas): “All too often, we hear stories of loved ones exposed to opioids, and then quickly addicted, from routine surgeries that may not have required opioid treatment in the first place. This can be prevented.  That is why I rise today in support of H.R. 6, known as the SUPPORT for  Patients and Communities Act.  This bill, which incorporates legislation recently approved by the Ways and Means Committee, addresses this crisis by putting in place many commonsense measures to reduce the unnecessary prescription of opioids and also to help those who have become addicted.”

Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.):  “H.R. 6 also expands coverage of medication-assisted treatments and allows nurse practitioners and physician assistants to prescribe or dispense certain opioid treatment drugs. The measure also provides consistent Medicaid coverage for at-risk youth and expands Medicaid  coverage for foster youth until the age of 26.   These bills are pieces of a large, complex puzzle. We need to find  realistic solutions with long-term outcomes. Part of this approach is to protect and strengthen Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act.”

Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Illinois): “So here is what we are trying to do: We are saying that we need to resist pharmacy shopping. We need to resist doctor shopping. And we  need to make sure that people can be identified who have a  predisposition towards this addiction.   So what this bill does —what part of this bill does — is it says:  Medicare part D programs don’t just have the option of requiring a lock-in program, we are now locking in on lock-in. We are saying: You have got to do this.   Unambiguously, it is a mandate, it is a good mandate, and it is something that has been a long time coming.” 

Rep. George Holding (R- North Carolina): “Mr. Chairman, I would like to highlight the importance of medication-assisted treatment in combating the opioid epidemic…. Medicare beneficiaries have among the highest and fastest rate of opioid use disorder, yet they do not currently have coverage for the most effective treatment.   The SUPPORT Act, which will be before the House today, would change  that. This bill provides for a fully coordinated, bundled-care model  that will help patients through medication-assisted treatment, which combines the use of medication with counseling, group therapy, and drug testing.”

Rep. Jackie Walorski (R-Indiana): “Mr. Chair, I rise today in support for the SUPPORT for Patients and  Communities Act. It includes my bill, the Dr. Todd Graham Pain Management, Treatment, and Recovery Act, that passed the House earlier  this week.”

An Even Greater Danger

Unfortunately, America is the victim of a much bigger and ultimately more serious epidemic — one totally ignored by Congress — the perversion of Congress to become a tool for building total government.  The result can be seen in the continued growth of unconstitutional government programs and spending.  The negative impact on middle class opportunity must be incredible.  One can only imagine what Americans could have accomplished since World War II if they were free from burdensome regulation and destructive incentives!

But the perversion doesn’t stop there.  As with open borders, the destruction is planned and championed by Establishment elites.  Time and again, Congress has created the poison and the bigger government antidote in the same laboratory.

Rebuilding a Congress accountable to an informed electorate, a Congress that respects the limits of the Constitution will require organized action from responsible, concerned citizens.  Please consider the program of Freedom First Society.

From the Congressional Research Service Bill Summary [Emphasis added]:
This bill makes several changes to state Medicaid programs to address opioid and substance use disorders. Specifically, the bill:

• modifies provisions related to coverage for juvenile inmates and former foster care youth,
• establishes a demonstration project to increase provider treatment capacity for substance use disorders,
• requires the establishment of drug management programs for at-risk beneficiaries,
• establishes drug review and utilization requirements,
• extends the enhanced federal matching rate for expenditures regarding substance use disorder health home services, and
• temporarily requires coverage of medication-assisted treatment.

The bill also alters Medicare requirements to address opioid use. Specifically, the bill:

• exempts substance use disorder telehealth services from specified requirements,
• requires the initial examination for new enrollees to include an opioid use disorder screening,
• modifies provisions regarding electronic prescriptions and post-surgical pain management,
• requires prescription drug plan sponsors to establish drug management programs for at-risk beneficiaries, and
• requires coverage for services provided by certified opioid treatment programs.

The bill also addresses other opioid-related issues. Specifically, the bill:

• establishes and expands programs to support increased detection and monitoring of fentanyl and other synthetic opioids, and
• increases the maximum number of patients that health care practitioners may initially treat with medication-assisted treatment (i.e., under a buprenorphine waiver).

Analysis:  According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO):  “On May 9 and May 17, 2018, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce ordered 59 bills to be reported related to the nation’s response to the opioid epidemic.”  Unfortunately, Congress is merely posturing to address symptoms of a crisis, e.g., by spending more and more money to treat addiction, while refusing to identify and deal with the real cause of the deadly epidemic.

Researcher/writer Daniel E. Horowitz wrote in “The big opioid myths and lies,” a March 28, 2018 article for conservativereview.com:

“Washington and state governments are clamoring to deal with ‘the opioid crisis.’ But they fail to define what the crisis is, the cause, the trends, why it exploded just a few years ago, and who is at fault…. The reason why they don’t want to discuss the real culprits is obvious: They are open borders and Medicaid, two favored policies of both parties. Worse, some are discussing increasing Medicaid spending as the solution and continue to block every effort to combat drug smuggling, sanctuary cities, and criminal aliens….

“Clearly, if there is a national emergency, it is being caused by illicit drugs. We have a recent heroin/fentanyl problem, mixed with other drugs, not a general opioid crisis – certainly not caused by legitimately prescribed opioids….

“Fentanyl is not being over-prescribed by doctors; it is being smuggled into this country from Mexico and China and is 100 times more potent than morphine. It is practically a hazmat issue and represents the true national emergency.” [Emphasis added.]

In an earlier March 16 report, Horowitz argued:

“We’ve always had drugs flowing into this country. But the supply and dangerous nature of the drugs coming into this country from Mexico (or from China and then distributed by the Mexican cartels) since 2013-2014 are at an epidemic level, dwarfing anything we’ve seen before. It all began with the suspension of immigration enforcement from 2010-2014 and suspension of interior enforcement. Transnational drug cartels worked with gangs and human smugglers to take advantage of Obama’s unprecedented dismantling of our borders in order to launch what should be described as chemical warfare on this country….

“The epidemic we are facing today is not from prescription opioids, at least not more than it has been for an entire generation….

“Almost the entirety of the increased fatalities above the long-term existing trajectory beginning in 2012 were from illicit drugs and mainly from the most dangerous one – heroin. Then, as heroin use began to skyrocket in 2013-2014, we began to see the growth of the cursed synthetic drug – fentanyl – which is 50-100 times stronger than morphine and can kill in small quantities. It’s often laced into heroin. In pretty much every state, fentanyl has skyrocketed to such a level that it has overtaken heroin as the leading drug killer….

“Thus, we don’t have ‘an opioid crisis;’ we have a heroin and fentanyl crisis….

“From 2013 to 2016, according to the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), the level of heroin production in Mexico tripled.”

Congressional Camouflage

The following arguments by proponents of H.R. 6 illustrate the refusal of Congress to acknowledge that drug cartels are waging a deadly war against America and why America is vulnerable to the attack.  Congress is also willing to camouflage this attack by putting the blame on a myriad of other ostensible causes.

A particularly glaring omission from this discussion is the unwillingness to identify the federal government’s refusal to enforce our southern border as a prime cause of the epidemic.    A less obvious omission is the politically supported decline in America’s cultural defenses against drug addiction.  These cultural weaknesses have developed in large part from the organized, revolutionary attack on our foundations of religion, morality, the traditional family and purpose.

From the Congressional Record (June 22, 2018) [Emphasis added]:

Rep. Greg Walden (R-Oregon), Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee: “These past 2 weeks, this House, the people’s House, has dedicated tremendous amounts of time and energy to send a simple message to  millions of Americans impacted by the opioid crisis. And that message  is: Help is on the way.   Not only are we passing legislation, dozens and dozens of bills that will save lives, but also we want to leave no doubt in the minds of  those suffering from addiction that the United States House of  Representatives, Republicans and Democrats alike, stand with them  together….

“H.R. 6 includes several bills that went through regular order at the  Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means Committees, but the bill we will  vote on today also includes dozens of other pieces of legislation that  have recently passed the House, most unanimously or with very strong  bipartisan majorities.   You see, at a time when it seems we couldn’t be more divided, it is  clear that striking back against addiction is something that transcends  politics and brings us together as a community, as a country, and as a Congress.

“Remember, this legislation is not the first action that this Congress has taken to combat the opioid crisis, and I am sure it will not be the  last…. The Comprehensive Addiction Recovery Act and the 21st Century Cures Act, both of which were signed into law nearly 2 years ago, and an additional $4 billion in resources for States and communities that was provided in the omnibus appropriations bill just a few months ago, indicate we have been at this for awhile, and we will be at  this for a while longer.   Taken together, this is one of the most significant congressional  efforts against a drug crisis in our Nation’s history….

“The legislation before us will help advance treatment and recovery  initiatives, improve prevention and educational efforts, protect our  communities, and bolster our efforts to fight deadly synthetic drugs like fentanyl.”

Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-New Jersey), Ranking Member of the Energy and Commerce Committee: “Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 6, the SUPPORT for Patients  and Communities Act. This bill makes incremental changes to support  those affected by the opioid crisis, but it is far from perfect….

“Nonetheless, I am pleased that Democrats were able to secure positive provisions in the final package that we are considering today.   Most notably, H.R. 6 includes provisions from a bill introduced by Representative Tonko and Representative Lujan that would extend access to evidence-based, medication-assisted treatment. Specifically, this  section of the bill will allow advanced practice registered nurses, including midwives, to treat patients with buprenorphine for opiate use disorder for 5 years.

“The bill will also allow nurse practitioners and physician assistants to treat patients with buprenorphine permanently, and allow qualified providers to treat up to 100 patients instead of 30 patients in their first year.  This is a critical step forward in the expansion of treatment, one of  the major challenges that we continue to face in the fight against this epidemic…..

“This bill also expands coverage through Medicare by adding methadone  clinics to the Medicare program. Right now, methadone clinics are not Medicare providers. Seniors who want to get treatment from methadone  clinics have to pay out of pocket. Adding methadone clinics will address an important coverage gap in the Medicare program and meaningfully expand access to treatment for opiate use disorders. The bill also improves coverage for vulnerable populations in Medicaid, ensures coverage for former foster youth up to the age of 26  nationwide, and supports State efforts to ensure continuity of coverage  for people with substance use disorders as they leave incarceration.

“The bill will also provide funding to Medicaid substance use disorder  health homes, give States money to expand the treatment capacity of  Medicaid providers, and raise reimbursement rates. It also mandates coverage of Medicaid for all forms of medication-assisted treatment for  5 years.”

Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-Kentucky: “Over the  past 2 weeks, we have passed more than 50 bills out of the House,  including my bill, the Comprehensive Opioid Recovery Centers Act.”

Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.): “There isn’t any question that our country is in the midst of a  destructive opioid epidemic that claims 142 lives every day. This is a  national crisis, and it is our duty as Members of Congress to do everything in our power to stem the tide of addiction and the devastation that this epidemic is causing. It is claiming more lives  than were lost in the Vietnam war. They are staggering figures.”

Rep. David McKinley (R-West Virginia): “Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 6. Over the  past 2 weeks, America has witnessed something impressive. Both parties have come together, once again, to take action on one of the more challenging issues of our time: the opioid epidemic.” 

Rep. Scott Peters (D-Calif.): “The opioid crisis has ravaged our Nation. It twice has been declared  a national public health emergency under Federal law. More than 100  people will die from an overdose just today.   That is why this bipartisan effort to address it is so important.  There is certainly work to be done, but I am happy that legislation  that I worked on with my colleague, Dr. Bucshon, is included in this  bill, and it aims to stop addiction where it frequently begins: after surgery. Millions of Americans are prescribed opioids following routine surgeries because they are cheap and accessible, and nearly 70 percent  of those pills go unused.   Our bill reverses the perverse incentive that put so many cheap pills in people’s hands in the first place.”

Rep. Katherine Clark (D-Mass.): “Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member  for yielding and for all his work on this issue and continuing to underscore the need to actually fund access to healthcare so that we  can curb this horrible epidemic in a meaningful way.

[Freedom First Society:  This is how Congress proposes to deal with the crisis:  “Let’s not prevent car accidents. We’ll just fix up the victims as best we can and finance their treatment with money created by the Federal Reserve System out of thin air to cover whatever deficits we run.”]

Rep. Clark continues: “One of the many factors that contributes to the opioid crisis is the  sheer volume of opioids in circulation. According to the CDC, over 214  million prescriptions were written for opioids in 2016, and we can see  that in our own Federal programs.   A 2016 study showed that one in three Medicare part D recipients  received opioids. That is almost 80 million prescriptions for a cost of  $4.1 billion. The sheer volume makes it hard to prevent abuse,  addiction, waste, and fraud…. “That is why I, along with my colleague, Markwayne Mullin, have  introduced the Every Prescription Conveyed Securely Act. This bill will  require that every prescription written for a Medicare part D  beneficiary be prescribed electronically by 2021. We know this  technology will save lives by making it harder to forge prescriptions, easier for doctors to know if a patient is doctor shopping, and be able  to prevent fraud and save the government money.”

Rep. Larry Bucshon(R-Indiana): “Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 6, the  SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act. This bill will help our  struggling communities combat the opioid epidemic ravaging our Nation  by focusing on providing care to those in need while addressing  prevention of opioid misuse and abuse.   I am proud that two pieces of legislation that I introduced are  included in H.R. 6 as sections 202 and 203. Section 202, which I worked  closely with Representative Peters on to introduce, would incentivize development of nonopioid pain alternatives for postsurgical pain.”

Rep. Paul Tonko (D-New York): “The SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act incorporates legislation that I introduced along with my good friend  and colleague, Representative Ben Ray Lujan of New Mexico, which will  provide a meaningful expansion to addiction treatment across our  country, especially in rural areas, and for vulnerable populations like  pregnant and postpartum women and the 13,000 babies born on average  each year with neonatal abstinence syndrome.   Our legislation includes three main policy changes to expand access  to treatment.”

Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), House Majority Leader:  “Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge the passage of H.R. 6 which  contains more than 50 opioid-related bills which we have considered in the past 2 weeks.   We have in this body the opportunity nearly every day to approve  legislation of great consequence to millions of people. But rarely do  the consequences feel so immediate and so vital as they do for the  opioids package we are considering. That is because this legislation  has to do with the deadliest drug crisis in our Nation’s history. The grim truth is this: More Americans have died from drug overdoses  since the turn of the century than died in the Civil War. Yes, you  heard that right. In less than two decades, more than 630,000 people  have died because of drugs. Half of those deaths had to do with opioids. This death toll is the ‘American carnage’ that President  Trump referred to in his inaugural address…..

“Mr. Chair, if we hope to defeat the deadliest drug crisis in history,  we will need the biggest response in history. Rest assured that the  response is already underway, led by this administration and this Congress. We are wrapping up voting on more than 50 bills to help  millions of Americans affected by the opioid crisis. We are about to vote on a package that contains almost all of those bills, H.R. 6.

“Among others, it contains a bill by Congressman  Mike Bishop that  will reduce the flow of Chinese fentanyl into our country by giving law  enforcement new tools to detect suspicious packages in the mail.”

[Freedom First Society:  Efforts to “reduce the flow of Chinese fentanyl into our country” are on target.]

Rep. Tony Cardenas (D-Calif.): “Mr. Chair, I rise today to say how glad I am that my bill, the At-Risk Youth Medicaid Protection Act, has been included in today’s opioid  package.   According to a June 2017 MACPAC report, the opioid epidemic disproportionately affects Medicaid beneficiaries. Therefore, State Medicaid programs are taking the lead in identifying and tailoring strategies to prevent and treat opioid use disorder.”

Mr. Leonard Lance (R-New Jersey):  “Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of this bipartisan package, H.R. 6.  The Energy and Commerce Committee, under the leadership of Chairman Walden, has again delivered for the American people on the pressing public health challenges facing the Nation. From combating childhood  cancer, to improving mental health care, to fighting the scourge of  drug addiction, the Energy and Commerce Committee produces results.   The menace of drug abuse and addiction has manifested itself in opiates. Every corner of this country has known the heartache of losing a life from this terrible problem. Congress has acted before with  passage of the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, but CARA needs  reinforcement. H.R. 6 delivers more resources, treatment, and  mitigation tools to fight opiate addiction.   Included in this package is the Eliminating Opioid-Related Infectious  Diseases Act, legislation I have authored with my colleague on the Energy and Commerce Committee, Congressman Joseph P. Kennedy III.”

Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas): “All too often, we hear stories of loved ones exposed to opioids, and then quickly addicted, from routine surgeries that may not have required opioid treatment in the first place. This can be prevented.  That is why I rise today in support of H.R. 6, known as the SUPPORT for  Patients and Communities Act.  This bill, which incorporates legislation recently approved by the Ways and Means Committee, addresses this crisis by putting in place many commonsense measures to reduce the unnecessary prescription of opioids and also to help those who have become addicted.”

Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.):  “H.R. 6 also expands coverage of medication-assisted treatments and allows nurse practitioners and physician assistants to prescribe or dispense certain opioid treatment drugs. The measure also provides consistent Medicaid coverage for at-risk youth and expands Medicaid  coverage for foster youth until the age of 26.   These bills are pieces of a large, complex puzzle. We need to find  realistic solutions with long-term outcomes. Part of this approach is to protect and strengthen Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act.”

Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Illinois): “So here is what we are trying to do: We are saying that we need to resist pharmacy shopping. We need to resist doctor shopping. And we  need to make sure that people can be identified who have a  predisposition towards this addiction.   So what this bill does —what part of this bill does — is it says:  Medicare part D programs don’t just have the option of requiring a lock-in program, we are now locking in on lock-in. We are saying: You have got to do this.   Unambiguously, it is a mandate, it is a good mandate, and it is something that has been a long time coming.” 

Rep. George Holding (R- North Carolina): “Mr. Chairman, I would like to highlight the importance of medication-assisted treatment in combating the opioid epidemic…. Medicare beneficiaries have among the highest and fastest rate of opioid use disorder, yet they do not currently have coverage for the most effective treatment.   The SUPPORT Act, which will be before the House today, would change  that. This bill provides for a fully coordinated, bundled-care model  that will help patients through medication-assisted treatment, which combines the use of medication with counseling, group therapy, and drug testing.”

Rep. Jackie Walorski (R-Indiana): “Mr. Chair, I rise today in support for the SUPPORT for Patients and  Communities Act. It includes my bill, the Dr. Todd Graham Pain Management, Treatment, and Recovery Act, that passed the House earlier  this week.”

An Even Greater Danger

Unfortunately, America is the victim of a much bigger and ultimately more serious epidemic — one totally ignored by Congress — the perversion of Congress to become a tool for building total government.  The result can be seen in the continued growth of unconstitutional government programs and spending.  The negative impact on middle class opportunity must be incredible.  One can only imagine what Americans could have accomplished since World War II if they were free from burdensome regulation and destructive incentives!

But the perversion doesn’t stop there.  As with open borders, the destruction is planned and championed by Establishment elites.  Time and again, Congress has created the poison and the bigger government antidote in the same laboratory.

Rebuilding a Congress accountable to an informed electorate, a Congress that respects the limits of the Constitution will require organized action from responsible, concerned citizens.  Please consider the program of Freedom First Society.

Bill Summary:   Every five years, Congress tasks itself with renewing something informally called the “Farm Bill,” which defines policies and authorizes programs for the Department of Agriculture.  While originally dealing with agricultural price supports and crop production, the mission of the Department of Agriculture has expanded greatly.

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

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

Analysis:  This “Farm Bill” is essentially the same bill that failed to pass the House in May (House Roll Call 205).  However, at that time some Republicans were withholding their yes vote on the Farm Bill in order to get a vote on the Goodlatte immigration bill: “The main reason conservatives are reviving their push for a vote on the Goodlatte bill now is to kill the discharge petition on the queen of the hill rule.” —  “Freedom Caucus Seeks to Leverage Farm Bill Support for Immigration Vote,” Roll Call, 5-15-18.

Immediately after the vote on the Goodlatte bill (House Roll Call 282, 6-21-18), the “Farm Bill” was brought up again and almost ten GOP no votes switched to the yes column, narrowly putting the farm bill over the hump.

Following passage of this bill, the Senate voted on H.R. 2 (Senate Vote 143, June 28, 2018), by substituting its own version.  This means that H.R. 2 will likely go to a House-Senate Committee to iron out differences.

Farm Bill History

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

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

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

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

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

Thomas Jefferson, at one time a farmer himself and a strong advocate of limited government, wisely stated:

“Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread.”

There is no place for federal welfare in a strong America.  Other programs in the Farm Bill not discussed here are equally destructive.  America desperately needs Congress to roll back and abolish the subversive, unconstitutional programs launched under prior administrations, such as FDR’s New Deal, Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society, and Jimmy Carter’s Department of Energy (that primarily prevents American from enjoying plentiful low cost energy) to name a few.

But the drive for such a roll back will not come from within Congress itself.  It must come from an informed electorate.  Please share these scorecard posts widely.

Also see our analysis of the 2013 Farm Bill signed by President Obama (H.R. 2642, House Roll Call 31, 1-29-14).

Bill Summary:   Every five years, Congress tasks itself with renewing something informally called the “Farm Bill,” which defines policies and authorizes programs for the Department of Agriculture.  While originally dealing with agricultural price supports and crop production, the mission of the Department of Agriculture has expanded greatly.

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

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

Analysis:  A week after the House passed H.R. 2 (Roll Call 284, June 21) the full Senate took up the measure and immediately substituted its own version, as passed above.  This means that H.R. 2 will likely go to a House-Senate Committee to iron out differences.

Farm Bill History

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

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

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

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

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

Thomas Jefferson, at one time a farmer himself and a strong advocate of limited government, wisely stated:

“Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread.”

There is no place for federal welfare in a strong America. Other programs in the Farm Bill not discussed here are equally destructive.  Th Farm Bill has become massive, but there is little talk of reversing this trend.   Indeed, Senator Pat Roberts (R-Kansas), Chairman of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee, in proudly introducing the legislation stated:

“The bill  that passed the Agriculture Committee with a strong 20-to-1 vote earlier this month addresses many of those concerns. In fact, the Ag  Committee-passed product includes portions of 65 stand-alone bills, and  an additional 73 amendments were adopted in the committee. We have also  included 18 amendments in today’s substitute amendment.”

As with so many of his fellows, Senator David Perdue (R-Georgia), cousin of the current Secretary of Agriculture, embraced the federal intervention as though federal support was obviously necessary  for farmers to succeed:

“This is, indeed, a  strategic industry. It must survive, and it is different.  Getting to a farm bill that balances the needs of every commodity and every region is not an easy task….

“We have reduced global poverty. Since 1965, when the Great Society  was signed, the United States almost singlehandedly — on the back of our  open market, on the back of our trade deals, and on the back of the our  military, which provided for safe transportation of goods around the  world — has reduced poverty by more than 60 percent. I have seen that  happen in my career, in my lifetime.   Unfortunately, in the United States, the poverty rate today is basically the same as it was in the midsixties….

“As I said, while the current farm bill is not perfect, I am proud to  stand today and encourage every Member of this body to support it and  vote for it. It does provide certainty in a very uncertain world for  our agriculture community.”

America desperately needs Congress to roll back and abolish the subversive, unconstitutional programs launched under prior administrations, such as FDR’s New Deal, Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society, and Jimmy Carter’s Department of Energy (that primarily prevents American from enjoying plentiful low cost energy) to name a few.

But the drive for such a roll back will not come from within Congress itself.  It must come from an informed electorate.  Please share these scorecard posts widely.

Also see our analysis of the 2013 Farm Bill signed by President Obama (H.R. 2642, House Roll Call 31, 1-29-14).

Bill Summary:   Every five years, Congress tasks itself with renewing something informally called the “Farm Bill,” which defines policies and authorizes programs for the Department of Agriculture.  While originally dealing with agricultural price supports and crop production, the mission of the Department of Agriculture has expanded greatly.

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

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

Analysis:  A week after the House passed H.R. 2 (Roll Call 284, June 21) the full Senate took up the measure and immediately substituted its own version, as passed above.  This means that H.R. 2 will likely go to a House-Senate Committee to iron out differences.

Farm Bill History

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

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

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

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

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

Thomas Jefferson, at one time a farmer himself and a strong advocate of limited government, wisely stated:

“Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread.”

There is no place for federal welfare in a strong America. Other programs in the Farm Bill not discussed here are equally destructive.  Th Farm Bill has become massive, but there is little talk of reversing this trend.   Indeed, Senator Pat Roberts (R-Kansas), Chairman of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee, in proudly introducing the legislation stated:

“The bill  that passed the Agriculture Committee with a strong 20-to-1 vote earlier this month addresses many of those concerns. In fact, the Ag  Committee-passed product includes portions of 65 stand-alone bills, and  an additional 73 amendments were adopted in the committee. We have also  included 18 amendments in today’s substitute amendment.”

As with so many of his fellows, Senator David Perdue (R-Georgia), cousin of the current Secretary of Agriculture, embraced the federal intervention as though federal support was obviously necessary  for farmers to succeed:

“This is, indeed, a  strategic industry. It must survive, and it is different.  Getting to a farm bill that balances the needs of every commodity and every region is not an easy task….

“We have reduced global poverty. Since 1965, when the Great Society  was signed, the United States almost singlehandedly — on the back of our  open market, on the back of our trade deals, and on the back of the our  military, which provided for safe transportation of goods around the  world — has reduced poverty by more than 60 percent. I have seen that  happen in my career, in my lifetime.   Unfortunately, in the United States, the poverty rate today is basically the same as it was in the midsixties….

“As I said, while the current farm bill is not perfect, I am proud to  stand today and encourage every Member of this body to support it and  vote for it. It does provide certainty in a very uncertain world for  our agriculture community.”

America desperately needs Congress to roll back and abolish the subversive, unconstitutional programs launched under prior administrations, such as FDR’s New Deal, Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society, and Jimmy Carter’s Department of Energy (that primarily prevents American from enjoying plentiful low cost energy) to name a few.

But the drive for such a roll back will not come from within Congress itself.  It must come from an informed electorate.  Please share these scorecard posts widely.

Also see our analysis of the 2013 Farm Bill signed by President Obama (H.R. 2642, House Roll Call 31, 1-29-14).

Bill Summary:  H.R. 5895 is a minibus package of three FY 2019 appropriations measures:  1) Energy and Water (mentioned in the title); 2) the Legislative Branch; and 3 Military Construction and Veterans Administration.  The current Congressional Research Service Summary only describes the Energy and Water bill in the package (so much for transparency).

Analysis:  During the “debates” over H.R. 5895, both the GOP and Democrat sides repeated the myth that appropriations bills must necessarily be the work of a bipartisan consensus with socialists.   When that myth is followed in developing appropriations legislation, a responsible congressman should vote no and not become a party to the sellout of our nation and our Constitution.

30 of 234 House Republicans serve on the full House Appropriations Committee.  All but Steven Palazzo (who did not vote) supported H.R. 5895.  As usual, none of the 16 GOP opponents, who were not on the Committee, were given time to register their complaints.

The following “debate” excerpts from the June 6, 2018 Congressional Record illustrate forcefully the big-government agenda that drives the leadership of both parties in the appropriations process. [Emphasis and comments are added.]

Representative Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ), Chairman, Committee on Appropriations:  “I rise today in support of H.R. 5895, the first set of the fiscal  year 2019 appropriations bills: Energy and Water, the Legislative Branch, and the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs…. To highlight a few of these important investments:   The Energy and Water bill, under Chairman Simpson’s direction, funds  our national security and supports the energy and water infrastructure that keeps our economy moving and America open for business.”

[Freedom First Society:  If the Department of Energy, which produces no energy, “keeps our economy moving and America open for business,” we must ask, how did America function before President Jimmy Carter created the Cabinet Level Department of Energy (DOE) in 1977?

Contrary to Mr. Frelinghuysen’s claim, President Carter’s energy policy could be summarized as a campaign to deny America use of its own energy resources, create dependence on foreign suppliers, and create shortages leading to government rationing.  In the beginning, the DOE drew a lot of political fire, but, in the decades following, several defense related functions were shifted to the department, which served to protect the  department from calls for its abolition.]

Mr. Frelinghuysen continues:  “In total, [Rep. Simpson’s] bill provides $44.7 billion in discretionary funding….  The bill also further supports economic growth by investing in the  Department of Energy’s programs to advance the goal of an all-of-the- above solution to energy independence.”

[Freedom First Society:  Were it not for the Foundation-funded environmental movement, which was responsible for creating an energy crisis, the U.S. would never have lostits energy independence. And with technological progress, America could have enjoyed increasingly plentiful energy at lower and lower costs.

For example, where are the new nuclear power plants being built to increase U.S. reliance on nuclear power (as of 2015, France generated 40 percent of its electricity with this American technology, now blocked from use in the U.S.)?  Or when will American companies be allowed to tap our vast reserves of shale oil?

In the decades of the 70s, several foundation-funded studies bolstered the case for oppressive federal measures.  One of the most significant was “The Unfinished Agenda: The Citizen’s Policy Guide to Environmental Issues,” a 1977 report of a task force sponsored by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

The panel of “experts” preparing the report was staffed with leaders from foundation-funded groups.  The finished “Unfinished Agenda” summarized its message: “[T]his book is about a world transition from abundance to scarcity, a transition that is already well underway.”

“The Unfinished Agenda” called for many federal measures designed to restrict ostensibly environmentally damaging consumption and the American standard of living.

The previous year, the Internationalists’ Foreign Affairspublished an essay, “Energy Strategy: the Road Not Taken?” The essay gave “scientific” standing to a clever campaign to stifle America’s energy production by pushing for conversion to “soft” energy sources (e.g. solar, wind, and geothermal).  The campaign was in full swing during the Obama administration. (See our review of Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Control Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them by Steve Milloy.]

Mr. Frelinghuysen continues:  “Next, the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill under Chairman  Yoder’s lead provides $3.8 billion in funding for the operation of Congress and its support agencies, excluding Senate-only items. It may be the smallest of the 12 appropriations bills, but it is very  important to the operation of our great democracy.   This total represents a small increase above current enacted levels….

“Lastly, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations  bill, led initially by former Chairman Dent and now by Chairman Judge Carter, provides a total of $96.9 billion in discretionary funding at a  crucial time for our Armed Forces and the VA…. This bill also includes $85.3 billion for the Department of Veterans  Affairs, the largest total amount for the VA in its history…. These bills received bipartisan support in committee because they focus on universal priorities: national security, care for our veterans  and military families, and essential infrastructure.   I am extremely disappointed to read and hear the minority has  directed its Members to oppose this appropriations package, despite the fact that all of these bills were constructed as they always have been: in a bipartisanmanner.”

[Freedom First Society: Constructing appropriations bills in a bipartisanmanner, as a compromise with socialists, should not be the goal as this just continues the collectivist expansion of our federal government. Instead, America desperately needs a Congress that will curtail unconstitutional programs and spending.

The panacea for solving America’s problems cannot be found in the collectivist vision of government doing everything for us. Quite the contrary, the federal monster has already pushed quality jobs overseas, destroying middle class opportunity, and it threatens our very survival as a free nation.]

Representative Nita Lowey (D-NY), Ranking Member, Committee on Appropriations:  “Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the three-bill  package that Republicans are bringing to the floor today.   Instead of following regular order and debating and amending the  Energy and Water, Legislative Branch, and Military Construction and  Veterans Affairs bills separately, Republican leadership is forcing us  to consider them together.   This broken process has a simple aim. Republicans are using America’s  veterans as pawns to force through cuts to clean energy research and  harmful policy provisions that weaken environmental standards….”

[Freedom First Society:  While we agree with Rep. Lowey’s complaint about process, we certainly disagree with her support of the subversive environmental agenda.]

Mrs. Lowey continues: “While I support many of the increases within the Military  Construction and Veterans Affairs bill, Republicans have created a dilemma by transitioning the VA Choice program from mandatory to  discretionary funding in the middle of fiscal year 2019.   I want to make it clear: This is a serious decision. It should have been adequately debated.   Even worse, Republicans have blocked consideration of my amendment to  solve this problem. That will mean a further squeeze, and perhaps even  cuts, to programs that benefit the middle class.   The Bipartisan Budget Act provided an $18 billion increase for both  defense and nondefense discretionary spending between fiscal years 2018  and 2019.   Instead of using those resources to create jobs and grow our economy,  Republicans have chosen to devote $4.8 billion, more than a quarter of  that increase, to the Department of Homeland Security, presumably for  President Trump’s border wall and the deportation force….

“Frankly, it is just part of a pattern in which Republicans are  underfunding bills that will come later in the appropriations process.   For example, Republicans have not provided a single penny in  additional resources to the Labor, Health and Human Services,  Education, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. What does that mean? This means that they threaten to starve our schools, hurt job training and workplace rights protection, jeopardize Pell grants, and  limit access to affordable healthcare, among many other ill effects.  We can and must do better than spending levels that prioritize  President Trump’s border wall and attacks on immigrant communities over the urgent needs of American children, families, and seniors.

“Now, with regard to the Energy and Water bill specifically, we are  confronted with a partisan bill that contains cuts to many important  priorities for the American people.”

[Freedom First Society:  Clearly Rep. Lowey is pushing the fiction that the key to America’s prosperity is more spending by the federal government.]

Representative Mike Simpson (R-Idaho):  “Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to present to the House the fiscal year 2019 Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations  Act.   Before I review the details of the bill, I would like to thank  Chairman Frelinghuysen for his leadership and unwavering commitment to the appropriations process. Our committee is back on track to bring 12 bills through the committee markup and before the full House for the second year in a row….”

[Freedom First Society:  Yes, but last year (FY2018) the House ignored the individual bills in favor of a massive $1.3 trillion bipartisan omnibus.  And so far, with this minibus, the House seems to be on the same track for FY2019.  And, in what follows, Mr. Simpson shows no interest in rolling back unconstitutional spending, let alone reducing spending.]

Mr. Simpson continues: “The Energy and Water bill totals $44.7 billion, which is $1.5 billion  more than last year’s level and $8.2 billion above the budget request….

“The bill includes strong funding for the Army Corps of Engineers — $451 million more than last year and $2.5 billion more than the budget  request.This is to address our Nation’s critical infrastructure needs.   Harbor maintenance activities are funded at $1.6 billion, which is $200 million more than the fiscal year 2018 appropriation. The level  exceeds the WRDA annual target by $160 million and represents — and I am  proud of this — 95 percent of the estimated revenue.

“Basic science research and applied energy research and development  programs at the Department of Energy, including Nuclear Energy, Fossil  Energy, the Office of Science, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,  and ARPA-E, are strongly supported in this bill. Taken together, these  programs advance the all-of-the-above energy strategy that will support  a strong national economy well into the future….This is a strong bill that incorporates priorities and interests of  all Members of the House….”

[Freedom First Society:  It’s difficult to find a substantive difference between House GOP leaders like Mr. Simpson and Democratic leaders.  America doesn’t need the federal government to incorporate “priorities and interests of all Members of the House.” The mission of the Department of Energy, since its founding days under President Jimmy Carter, has been to inhibit energy production and, in conjunction with the Establishment-funded environmental movement, to force industry to rely on politically correct sources such as dilute solar, which are incapable of powering a modern industrial economy. The DOE is really an assault on energy independence and energy availability.]

Representative Marcy Kaptur (D-OH):  “Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the ranking member from New  York, Nita Lowey, for yielding me this time and for the wonderful work  she has done on 12 bills, and this is but the first.   I also want to thank the chair of the full committee, Congressman Frelinghuysen, whose service has been so meritorious. We miss his  service on the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies  Committee directly, but he has moved up to greater things.  I also thank Chairman Simpson and the members of our fine  subcommittee and our staff on our side of the aisle….

“Our bill contributes to ensuring the critical availability of energy  and waterway improvements for domestic stability and national security,  not just for today but for the tomorrows to come.  Energy is the power that flows and drives our economy and courses  through our Nation. Sometimes people even forget it is there binding  our country together at the community level, connecting our Nation from  coast to coast, and ensuring our superior defense posture globally.   Our Nation has made enormousstrides in increasing our energy independence by developing a broad portfolio of power sources, with no  bill more important than this one in reaching the strategic goal of  energy independence for America’s independence.  But it is not yet time to declare mission accomplished….

“Actually, energy can become a tourniquet that throttles economic growth, and rising fuel prices means our Nation  could be headed there again.   So we must not lose sight of the ultimate goal of energy independence  for American independence. Largely, thanks to the bipartisan budget  agreement, the chairman has been able to provide increased funding  levelsto that end across much of our bill….

“And, unfortunately, while the chair has been generous in the funding  of most programs, the bill cuts over $400 million in funding from this  year’s levels for next year for some of the highest priorities to those  of us on this side of the aisle….

“Think about  this: Nearly 3.2 million Americans now work in clean energy industries alone. Those are jobs that didn’t exist 35 years ago. Energy means  jobs, and new energy systems means economic growth….

“One of our biggest concerns is the damage this bill does to other  bills. It is like musical chairs: if we succeed with our bill, then the  11 bills that follow may not have sufficient funding.   Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for leading us to this point. We are very proud to be the first bill on the floor this year, 2018, in  the appropriations process.”

Representative John R. Carter (R-TX):  “Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be here as the  newly appointed chairman of the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs  and Related Agencies Subcommittee…. Charlie Dent and Debbie Wasserman Schultz developed such a good bill  that it was approved by a 47-0 vote in the full committee…. The bill contains $96.9 billion in budget authority, an increase of  $4.2 billion over last year’s level.”

[Freedom First Society:  The following remarks of the Representative from California demonstrate clearly that the deceptive collectivist fraud is alive an well in Congress.  A big share of our problem is that the American people are not being taught the proper limited role authorized by the Constitution for the federal government. That role is not to take care of our health and our education.

A much more serious omission is the media cover-up of the subversive agenda hiding behind a camouflage of pretended humanitarian concern — a power-seeking agenda that targets our freedom.]

Representative Barbara Lee (D), Calif. 13:  “Mr. Chair, as a member of the Appropriations Committee, I rise in  strong opposition to this bill — H.R. 5895 — the Fiscal Year 2019 Energy  and Water, Leg Branch, and MilconVA spending bills.   This Republican minibus fails to protect the health, security, and  safety of the American people.   And really, this bill is an attempt to block critical funding for  education, health, and the economic security.   Once again, Republicans are funding defense at the expense of  priorities here at home….

“Mr. Chair — instead of making defense contractors even richer, how about  we start helping struggling families here at home?  At a time when we should invest robustly in the American people,  Republicans are doing just the opposite…. By flat funding four of our most important domestic spending bills — including Labor, HHS, and Education, the funding subcommittee I sit  on — there will be less money for job training, education, and public  health….   This is a shame, Mr. Chair.   And I am sad to say that with the flat funding of many of our bills — people will lose out.   Americans want good-paying jobs. They want to be able to see a doctor  when they’re sick.They want safe schools to send their kids to.   But instead, Republicans keep shortchanging families so that billionaires, polluters and defense contractors can pad their pockets.   This bill is a disgrace. I urge my colleagues to vote no.

[Freedom First Society:  Senate rules would not allow a senator to impute such disgraceful motives to a specific fellow senator. But apparently such remarks can be directed at an entire party.  Unfortunately, we rarely see Republicans speak the hard truth about the real motivations driving many fellow Democrats and the subversive agendas that both parties are supporting.]