Freedom First Society

149/H.R. 5086

Issue: H.R. 5086, Innovators to Entrepreneurs Act of 2018. Question: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended (2/3 vote required).

Result: Passed in House, 379 to 16, 33 not voting. GOP and Democrat selected vote.

Freedom First Society: H.R. 5086 is a glaring, albeit small, example of the collectivist attitude prevailing in Washington that government must drive our nation’s progress and solve all of society’s problems (to most of which it contributes). The resulting unconstitutional overreach has created the federal monster that threatens our prosperity and freedom.

H.R. 5086, with the unanimous support of 180 voting House Democrats, authorizes the National Science Foundation to expand its Innovation Corps (“I-Corps”) Program “by offering additional entrepreneurship training to small businesses as they advance toward commercialization.”

We have assigned (good vote) to the Nays and (bad vote) to the Yeas. (P = voted present; ? = not voting; blank = not listed on roll call.)

Bill Summary: H.R. 5086 authorizes the National Science Foundation to expand its Innovation Corps (“I-Corps) Program. The following is from the text of H.R. 5086 as passed by the House on April 24, 2018:

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:

(4) The success of I-Corps in the very early stages of the innovation continuum should be expanded upon by offering additional entrepreneurship training to small businesses as they advance toward commercialization….

Analysis: The framers of America’s Constitution understood that the proper role of government is to protect our God-given rights (e.g., to life and property). They knew that to fulfill that role government needed authority, but strictly limited authority or else, as history had shown, government would become a threat to those very rights.

And to help prevent government from becoming too powerful, the framers were careful to separate authorized powers among the various branches and levels of government and especially to limit the new federal government they were establishing.

Unfortunately, today the limits of the Constitution are routinely ignored and the importance of limited government rarely explained. Indeed, the proponents of big, unlimited government, particularly among politicians and the Establishment media, would have us view Uncle Sam as Santa Claus. But the socialistic “benefits” provided by Big Government carry a heavy price in dollars and liberty. To save both, the federal government must be returned to its proper limited role

Constitutional Authority Statement

For a couple of decades, House rules have required that every bill submitted be accompanied by a statement of constitutional authority. Since 2011, these statements are supposed to cite “as specifically as practicable the power or powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the bill or joint resolution.”

Originally outside pressure likely inspired these rules, but more recently the House seems to have embraced the rule as a political public relations opportunity to satisfy uninformed voters.

To appear to comply with the requirement, Rep. Daniel Lipinski (D-IL-03), the sponsor of H.R. 5086, stated: “Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution.”

Lipinski’s choice, the “General Welfare Clause,” is a typical abuse of the requirement. As Notre Dame Law School Professor Charles Rice has explained, that clause “does not does not confer on Congress a general power to legislate and regulate for purposes beyond those enumerated in the remaining clauses of Section 8.” (See “Constitutional Camouflage.”)

Supporter Arguments

Having dispensed with constitutional limitations, the supporters of H.R. 5086 argue that this bill helps maximize the return of the huge taxpayer investment in research and that it also allows individuals to use other grant money to fund the expanded federal I-Corps training.

However, the constitutionality of the grant money as well as some of the non-defense research investment should be questioned. Although the proposed expansion of the I-Corps program and clientele is initially minor compared with the total federal overreach, as we see here one unconstitutional program leads to another. Where will it end?

Moreover, we would dispute the assumption that the federal government should provide the service if the private sector does not. One of the great freedoms of the free market is the “freedom to fail.” Government programs cannot fail and, if unwarranted, become a perpetual burden on the economy.

Certainly, the greatest scientific breakthroughs, such as in medicine, were not the product of government investment. (Consider the inability of the socialist and Communist countries to use the power of government to create either scientific breakthroughs or prosperity for their societies.)

Excerpts from Congressional Record (4-24-18) [Emphasis added]:

Representative Daniel Webster (R) FL 11: “Mr. Speaker, today I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the Innovators to Entrepreneurs Act, H.R. 5086. I thank my friend Daniel Lipinski for introducing the legislation with me. He is a champion of the time-proven Innovation Corps program, better known as I-Corps. This bipartisan piece of legislation is a result of the committee hearings on the I-Corps program. The Innovation Corps program was created by the National Science Foundation in 2011 to teach scientists and engineers how to turn their laboratory innovations into successful commercial products and services. This program assists scientists and engineers in the development of their academic research and equips them to bring that research into the private market. We have witnessed the wonderful successes of this program in my home State of Florida and across the Nation.

“H.R. 5086 expands the I-Corps program by creating a new course for commercialization-ready companies. Following the completion of an I-Corps team course, individuals are eligible for this new course which will help them create, market, and eventually expand their private sector company. Through marketing, hiring, organizing, and attracting investors, these participants’ success increases dramatically. The bill breaks down the barriers experienced by current scientists when attempting to bring their product to market. Additionally, this bill expands the groups allowed to apply for the I-Corps program and offers new options for how to initially pay for the course.”

Representative Daniel Lipinski (D) IL 03: “Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5086, the Innovators to Entrepreneurs Act of 2018, a bill that I introduced to spur entrepreneurship and turn American innovation into jobs. I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Webster) for being a lead cosponsor of this legislation. This bill expands the National Science Foundation’s highly successful Innovation Corps, or I-Corps, program, which, as my Science, Space, and Technology Committee colleagues know, I have been a major champion of since it was first created by NSF in 2011. In 2016, I led the effort that officially authorized I-Corps. I-Corps teaches scientists and engineers how to turn their federally funded laboratory research into successful products and services. The program has educated more than 1,100 teams, including many women and underrepresented minorities, and has been linked to over 400 startup companies….

“I-Corps is a modest investment that leads to a much higher return on our federally funded research by significantly increasing rates of commercialization and job creation. Our economy is driven by the ingenuity of our scientists and engineers, developing innovations today that become tomorrow’s great products; and yet, still only a minority of federally funded research with commercial potential ever makes it to the marketplace. The I-Corps program helps change that.

“But we can do even more, and this bill helps to do that. First, it helps more people participate in the program. Right now, unless you are a grantee of the NSF or another agency with an I-Corps program, the training can be difficult to access. This bill will give recipients of small business grants from any Federal agency the flexibility to pay for I-Corps with their grant funds. It will also let private citizens apply and pay out of pocket to participate. Second, the bill directs NSF to establish a new course as part of the I-Corps program to teach scientist entrepreneurs how to start and grow a company. While the current I-Corps course does a great job of helping scientists develop innovation and determine whether or not it is suitable for commercialization, it offers only limited guidance for what to do after the decision is made to become an entrepreneur. Skills such as how to write a business plan, hire a team, and attract investment are taught in business schools, but not in Ph.D. programs. NSF recognizes that need and has already begun a pilot program to test curricula for this new course….

“We all know that helping our scientists, engineers, and academics not only advances our knowledge and understanding of the world, but it also creates jobs and products that fuel our economy, which is a goal that all of us can agree upon. As a former university professor, I know that it is not something that we teach in Ph.D. programs.”

Representative Lamar Smith (R) TX 21: “Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5086, the Innovators to Entrepreneurs Act…. H.R. 5086authorizes a new I-Corps course for commercial-ready research ventures that teaches skills involving company organization, attracting investors, and hiring. In research labs today lie the seeds for breakthroughs in new fields like quantum computing, artificial intelligence, and bioengineering. These breakthroughs will continue to transform our lives and the world we live in. Many scientists and engineers are not trained for commercializing those ideas and did not go to business school or take any business development classes. I-Corps gives researchers tools to maximize the taxpayer investment in basic research and to spur innovation.”

Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson (D) TX 30: “The societal benefit of research is only realized if the science successfully makes it out of the laboratory. This does not always happen, and in fact, the successful commercialization of scientific advances is largely the exception, rather than the rule. The path from the laboratory to the market is difficult to navigate. Many promising ideas are never considered for commercialization, while some researchers invest significant time and money into launching a startup only to realize that there is no market for their innovation. The commercialization of scientific research is an important driver of economic growth….

“To maintain our position as the global leader in technological innovation, we must ensure that we are realizing the full economic potential of federal investment in research. Other countries have caught on to research as one of the secrets to our success, and they are nipping at our heels….

“Since it was established, the I-Corps program has successfully provided entrepreneurship training to nearly 3,000 individuals at over 200 universities. Combined, I-Corps grantees have raised over $100 million, with $30 million coming from private investors. Grantees have used the skills and networks they gained from their I-Corps training to start over 360 companies.”

149/H.R. 5086

Issue: H.R. 5086, Innovators to Entrepreneurs Act of 2018. Question: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended (2/3 vote required).

Result: Passed in House, 379 to 16, 33 not voting. GOP and Democrat selected vote.

We have assigned (good vote) to the Nays and (bad vote) to the Yeas. (P = voted present; ? = not voting; blank = not listed on roll call.)

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:

Constitutional Authority Statement

Originally outside pressure likely inspired these rules, but more recently the House seems to have embraced the rule as a political public relations opportunity to satisfy uninformed voters.

Supporter Arguments

Excerpts from Congressional Record (4-24-18) [Emphasis added]:

138/H.J. Res. 2

Issue: H.J. Res. 2, Proposing a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Question: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass (2/3 vote required). GOP only scored.

Result: Failed in House, 233 to 184, 11 not voting.

Freedom First Society: H.J. Res. 2 substitutes misleading posturing for immediate constructive action to begin rolling back unconstitutional programs. Defects in the Constitution are not responsible for out-of-control government. However, by blaming the Constitution, the Republican majority covers up its refusal to use regular order and the House’s power of the purse to restore constitutionally limited government. We do not score the Democrats on this one, as the overt big spenders undoubtedly opposed it for the wrong reason.

Not only is this proposed constitutional amendment deceptive, it’s dangerous (see below).

We have assigned (good vote) to the Nays and (bad vote) to the Yeas. (P = voted present; ? = not voting; blank = not listed on roll call.)

Congressional Research Service (CRS) Summary: This joint resolution proposes a constitutional amendment prohibiting total outlays for a fiscal year from exceeding total receipts for that fiscal year unless Congress authorizes the excess by a three-fifths roll call vote of each chamber. The prohibition excludes outlays for repayment of debt principal and receipts derived from borrowing.

The amendment requires a three-fifths roll call vote of each chamber of Congress to increase the public debt limit. It requires a majority roll vote of each chamber to increase revenue. It also requires the President to submit a balanced budget to Congress annually.

Congress is authorized to waive these requirements when a declaration of war is in effect or if the United States is engaged in a military conflict which causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security.

Analysis: With this and similar proposed balanced-budget amendments (BBA), representatives are engaged in deceptive finger pointing while putting the entire Constitution in danger.

The Available Power of the Purse

Freedom First Society has repeatedly pointed out how America’s Founding Fathers gave the House of Representatives the power of the purse as a means for the people through their representatives to control their government. A majority in the House alone, with sufficient backbone and the support of an informed electorate, can bring the federal government under control, and that majority can start in any fiscal year. (See “If It Ain’t Broke, Don’t Fix It,” by Andrew Carver.)

No “Relief” for Up to 12 Years!

However, H.J. Res. 2, by suggesting the Constitution first needs to be fixed, allows up to seven years for the states to ratify the amendment, and then another five years (Section 8), before it would take effect: “This article shall take effect beginning with the fifth fiscal year beginning after its ratification.”

No Focus on Reducing Spending

There are several other serious problems with H.J. Res. 2. The focus of the amendment is on balancing the budget, not on reducing spending, particularly unconstitutional spending. Only a majority of both Houses (Section 4) are required to raise taxes (with the president’s signature), whereas three-fifths are required to accept an unbalanced budget. This provides an excuse for Congress to balance the budget by increasing taxes.

Indeed, during the debate, Representative Andy Biggs (AZ-05), one of the few Republicans to vote against the resolution, expressed his concern: “The issue for me is, when I look at it, I see that we make it easier to raise taxes, that is what we make it easier to do, by a 51 percent vote.”

Enforce Existing Law (the Constitution)

If unconstitutional spending were eliminated, the budget would balance easily. But there is little political attention given to restoring and enforcing limited constitutional government. It is well to ask, how can passing another law (constitutional amendment) fix a failure to enforce existing laws (the Constitution)?

No Real Teeth

Moreover, for all the effort, ostensibly to add teeth, the amendment provides a simple majority in Congress with an out (Section 5): “The provisions of this article may be waived for any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in military conflict which causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security and is so declared by a joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number of each House, which becomes law.”

The president’s proposed budget has no teeth, so requiring the president to submit one that balances revenue with outlays (Section 3) accomplishes little.

The Con-con Danger

In order for Congress to pass H.J. Res. 2 and send the amendment to the states for their ratification, two-thirds of both chambers must approve. For many years this has proven to be an insurmountable obstacle, (wisely preventing spurious amendments). This refusal by Congress (thank goodness) is then used by various groups that would like to get their hands on the Constitution to push the states to call a constitutional convention through the Article V process. (See, “In a Nutshell, the Case Against a Con-con,” by Andrew Carver.)

State legislators, frustrated over the bloated federal government’s intrusion into state matters and its consuming of tax dollars that could go directly to the states, are being constantly hammered to call such a convention. And a leading pretext is the ostensible need to pass a balanced-budget amendment in view of the refusal/inability of Congress to propose one. (See our “Expose the Article V Con-con Fraud” campaign.)

The Solution

There is a solution to our fiscal mess — enforcing the Constitution. But it’s not an easy one in today’s climate, particularly if the problem and its solution are widely ignored or not understood.

Backbone in Congress has to come from an informed electorate. And informing that electorate requires organization, since the long and well-organized Establishment forces that control the major media are misinforming Americans in so many ways. Providing that organizational leadership is the mission of Freedom First Society.

And our online congressional scorecardis one of our tools for helping concerned Americans control their government. We recommend that concerned citizens share the scorecard widely.

063/H.R. 1625

Issue: H.R. 1625, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (Vehicle: TARGET ACT). Question: On the Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 1625.

Result: Passed in Senate, 65 to 32, 3 not voting. Passed previous day in House (House Roll Call 127). Became Public Law 115-141 (signed by the President, 3-23-18). GOP only scored.

Freedom First Society: The support for this massive $1.3 trillion omnibus appropriations bill shows clearly the big-spending colors of the leadership of both parties in Congress as well as of the White House — unconstitutional, unlimited government run amok. A frustrated Senator Robert Corker (R-TN) summarized the leadership and the bill:

“I could not be more discouraged about where we are today with our adult leadership here in Congress and at the White House. This is one of the most grotesque pieces of legislation I can remember.” — The Hill (3-23-18)

Although the overwhelming majority of Democrats supported the omnibus, several voted against it for the wrong reason — complaining about what else they didn’t get (e.g., legislation to resolve DACA). So we only score the Republicans on this one. 23 of the more conservative Republican senators refused to go along.

We have assigned (good vote) to the Nays and (bad vote) to the Yeas. (P = voted present; ? = not voting; blank = not listed on roll call.)

Bill Summary: The “Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018” appropriated a total of $1.3 trillion to the 12 regular appropriations areas. The Bipartisan Budget Act passed in February had raised the spending caps (imposed by the Budget Control Act of 2011) for defense spending in FY 2018 by $80 billion and for non-Defense spending by $63 billion. This act appropriated to those levels.

In addition, a number of independent “legislative” measures were tacked on to the omnibus. For example, Division S — Other Matters — included the following subjects:

Title I–Child Protection Improvements Act

Title II–Save America’s Pastime Act

Title III–Keep Young Athletes Safe Act

Title IV–Consent of Congress to Amendments to the Constitution of the State of Arizona

Title V–Stop School Violence Act

Title VI–Fix NICS Act

Title VII–State Sexual Risk Avoidance Education Program

Title VIII–Small Business Credit Availability Act

Title IX–Small Business Access to Capital After a Natural Disaster Act

Title X–Taylor Force Act

Title XI–FARM Act Title

XII–Tipped Employees

Title XIII–Revisions to Pass-Through Period and Payment Rules

The above Title VI — Fix NICS Act — pressures states to expand their reporting of criminal records and other information to Washington in support of the National Instant Background Check System (NICS).

Analysis: The Constitution gives the House of Representatives the “Power of the Purse.” As James Madison pointed out in the Federalist No. 58, a simple majority in the House alone, regardless of the Senate make-up, can use that power to bring government under control. But no such House majority currently has any intention of using its power strategically to roll back unconstitutional government.

Instead, Republican leaders, with the support of the Establishment media, insist they must compromise with big-spending Democrats to pass a giant omnibus. Not so. After voting against an omnibus in the previous session, Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY) explained what could be done, if informed voters supplied Congress with the needed backbone:

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

And while appropriations bills originate in the House, a determined Senate could amend an omnibus bill to eliminate a couple of appropriations bills, send it back to the House and insist on voting on separate measures.

After the March 22nd House vote on this latest $1.3 trillion omnibus, Representative Mark Meadows (R-NC) explained why so many of his House colleagues voted no:

“This omnibus doesn’t just forget the promises we made to voters — it flatly rejects them…. This is wrong. This is not the limited government conservatism our voters demand.” — Reuters, 3-22-18

When the bill came to the Senate, Senator Rand Paul (R-TX) tweeted:

“Shame, shame. A pox on both Houses — and parties. Here’s the 2,232 page, $1.3 trillion, budget-busting Omnibus spending bill.”

As reported by The Hill (3-23-18), “Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) held a joint press conference on Thursday to tout provisions their party secured in the legislation. ‘It was weeks of pain-staking negotiations,’ Schumer said. ‘We Democrats are really happy with what we were able to accomplish on a number of priorities.’ He added that ‘this spending agreement brings the era of austerity to an unceremonious end.'”

127/H.R. 1625

Issue: H.R. 1625, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (Vehicle: TARGET ACT). Question: On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment with an Amendment.

Result: Passed in House, 256 to 167, 7 not voting. Passed next day in Senate (Senate Vote #63). Became Public Law 115-141 (signed by the President, 3-23-18). GOP only scored.

“I could not be more discouraged about where we are today with our adult leadership here in Congress and at the White House. This is one of the most grotesque pieces of legislation I can remember.” — The Hill (3-23-18)

Although a majority of Democrats supported the omnibus, others voted against it for the wrong reason — complaining about what else they didn’t get (e.g., legislation to resolve DACA). So we only score the Republicans on this one. 90 of the more conservative Republicans refused to go along. (See below for realistic alternatives omitted from the “public debate.” Also see the enthusiastic endorsements of big-spending liberals.)

We have assigned (good vote) to the Nays and (bad vote) to the Yeas. (P = voted present; ? = not voting; blank = not listed on roll call.)

In addition, a number of independent “legislative” measures were tacked on to the omnibus. For example, Division S — Other Matters — included the following subjects:

Title I–Child Protection Improvements Act

Title II–Save America’s Pastime Act

Title III–Keep Young Athletes Safe Act

Title IV–Consent of Congress to Amendments to the Constitution of the State of Arizona

Title V–Stop School Violence Act

Title VI–Fix NICS Act

Title VII–State Sexual Risk Avoidance Education Program

Title VIII–Small Business Credit Availability Act

Title IX–Small Business Access to Capital After a Natural Disaster Act

Title X–Taylor Force Act

Title XI–FARM Act

Title XII–Tipped Employees

Title XIII–Revisions to Pass-Through Period and Payment Rules

Note: Few if any of the legislators voting on this 2,232-page measure were given time to read it. The bill was unveiled late on Wednesday for a scheduled Thursday vote. At least 6 days after the measure became public law, the Congressional Research Service still had not posted a summary of what was in it. Nevertheless, the principal features were known.

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

After the March 22nd House vote on this latest $1.3 trillion omnibus, Representative Mark Meadows (R-NC) explained why so many of his colleagues voted no:

“This omnibus doesn’t just forget the promises we made to voters — it flatly rejects them…. This is wrong. This is not the limited government conservatism our voters demand.” — Reuters, 3-22-18

When the bill came to the Senate, Senator Rand Paul (R-TX) tweeted:

“Shame, shame. A pox on both Houses — and parties. Here’s the 2,232 page, $1.3 trillion, budget-busting Omnibus spending bill.”

The Big-spending Fix is in

The House approved-rule (H.Res. 796) for consideration of this omnibus allowed for one hour of chest-pounding “debate.” The GOP chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Rodney Frelinghuysen (NJ), and its ranking Democrat, Mrs. Nita Lowey (NY), each controlled 30 minutes.

Although 90 Republicans voted against the omnibus, not one was given time to speak during the phony “debate.” Instead, 15 GOP representatives along with several Democrats bragged about what they were accomplishing by spending enormous sums of taxpayer money and borrowing against our future. (Analogy: Give us a million dollars and we will repair your roof for you. But the politicians don’t mention the million dollars they are taking. They emphasize only how fortunate you are that because of this bipartisan “compromise” they are now going to fix your roof.)

From the Congressional Record (3-22-18):

Mr. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ): “After the bipartisan budget deal was enacted last month, appropriations committee leadership, House and Senate leadership on both sides of the aisle, and the White House quickly went to work, negotiating in good faith and in the best interest of the American people. The bill we are considering today is a product of that hard-fought agreement. In total, the legislation provides $1.3 trillion in discretionary funding for the Federal Government, including $78.1 billion for the global war on terror and overseas contingency operations. This meets the caps provided in the recent budget agreement.” [Emphasis added.]

Mrs. Nita Lowey: “This bill rejects scores of divisive poison pill riders targeting women’s health, clean air and water, worker rights, consumer financial protections, health insurance, and other critical priorities. In addition, I am pleased the omnibus includes language clarifying that the CDC has the authority to conduct research on the causes of gun violence.” [Emphasis added.]

Freedom First Society: No such studies are needed. Moreover, don’t expect the CDC research to fault the liberal agenda as a fundamental cause of high-profile violent crimes. (E.g., liberal support for the culture war and the breakdown of the traditional family and the liberal attack on traditional morality and its essential religious support.) In his 1969 book, Journey into Darkness, John Douglas, legendary FBI profiler and expert on the criminal personality, concluded:

“Unfortunately, no matter what we do with our criminal justice system, the only thing that is going to cut down appreciably on crimes of violence and depravity is to stop manufacturing as many criminals…. [T]he real struggle must be where it has always been: in the home.”

And the home has been the target of the Insiders and the liberal agenda for decades.

Ms. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio): “Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bipartisan agreement before us…. In my title, the Energy and Water Development bill, we make progress by bringing forward America’s backlogged construction projects, which number into the billions of dollars, making many important investments for our Nation’s infrastructure, including: a 13 percent increase for the Army Corps of Engineers over 2017, which will allow for more critical waterways projects to drive our economy and job creation; and an 11 percent increase to the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy to finally move toward complete energy independence for our country, including through the weatherization program, which has increased, as well as an additional 15 percent to invent our energy future through our most advanced energy technology programs, ARPA-E….

“This deal busts through budget caps set in 2011 by $143 billion, or 13 percent. And although I support investment in our military, the balance between defense and our domestic priorities is skewed in the wrong direction. In Ohio, we are at the epicenter of the opioid epidemic, with more than 5,000 drug estimated overdose deaths in the last 12 months alone. We rank second in the Nation for deaths per capita…. Mr. Speaker, although I support the inclusion of a $2.7 billion increase for opioid prevention, treatment, and recovery, this funding only nibbles at the edge of the problem. This is a national crisis.” [Emphasis added.]

Freedom First Society: The collectivist mentality is on full display here, i.e., the Federal Government is responsible for managing America’s future and solving its problems. In reality, the Federal Government — its unconstitutional overreach — HAS BECOME America’s overriding problem.

Also, the illegal drug market is principally responsible for the opioid crisis, much more so than prescription drugs. And the illegal drugs come across our porous Southern border, which Congress, under pressure from the “open borders movement,” has for decades refused to enforce.

Robert Aderholt (R-AL): “Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Subcommittee on Appropriations, let me add that this division of the bill has solid wins for agriculture, for the food sector, for the healthcare community, and for rural America. Members from rural districts with agriculture constituents, like I have down in Alabama, can be proud of the many accomplishments that are included in this bill. We are restoring funding and greatly adding to the needed infrastructure upgrades. This bill also provides necessary relief for American farmers and ranchers, who continued to experience a significant reduction in income over the past few years. This bill today contains a downpayment on ensuring that rural America is not left behind. The rural development account in this bill today contains $625 million of commitment to expanding rural broadband in an effort to close the rural digital divide for the 23 million Americans — more than 40 percent of all Americans–who do not have access to broadband. In addition to broadband, the bill invests in water and wastewater needs for our rural constituents. The bill provides a total of $3 billion in loan authorizations and $1 billion in grants–an increase of $500 million over last year — to provide clean and reliable water resources in rural America.”

Ms. Barbara Lee (D-CA): “Almost 6 months after the deadline, though, for the fiscal year 2018 appropriations bill, this 2,232-page omnibus was released late last night. Now, less than 24 hours later, we are about to vote on a bill that really no one has had the time to read. I don’t know who in this body has read this bill. We would have had to read 100 pages per hour to get through this bill. Does anybody here read that fast, 100 pages per hour? What kind of informed decisions are we making with this last-minute rush for a vote?

“This is no way, Mr. Speaker, to run a government. However, yes, this omnibus has some really good provisions in it. It eliminates hundreds of poison pill riders ranging from efforts to defund Planned Parenthood to dismantling of critical labor and consumer protections. I am very grateful for that. Many good provisions include a new competitive grant which we have been working on for years for computer science funding for young girls and people of color. We include increases in job training, education, and family relief, as well as for Historically Black Colleges and Universities. My State has the highest number of students coming to HBCUs; so I am very grateful for those increases. Even with these increases, Mr. Speaker, the omnibus bill still falls so far short of what we need to just return to the funding levels before the sequester 8 years ago. Adjusted for inflation, we are still way below the 2010 levels for domestic spending. What is worse, while underfunding our needs here at home, this bill includes an increase in $80 billion in defense.”

Freedom First Society: Democrat Rep. Barbara Lee voted nay.

John Culberson (R-TX): “Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this critical appropriations bill to ensure that our military has the resources they need to protect us abroad and that our law enforcement agencies have the resources they need to protect us here at home.”

Ms. Betty McCollum (D-MN): “Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the omnibus appropriations act. While this is not the bill I would have written, nonetheless, it is a significant victory for Minnesotans and Americans. By investing in critical priorities like education, election integrity, housing, infrastructure, public safety, opioid abuse prevention and treatment, and veterans’ healthcare, this legislation keeps Minnesota and our entire country safe, strong, and moving forward. As ranking member of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, my focus has been on protecting the environment, upholding our commitments to Native Americans, and preserving our natural resources and cultural treasures.” [Emphasis added.]

Henry Cuellar (D-TX): “I know this is not a perfect bill. But, again, we got together, we negotiated, and this is the bill that we have got under the system, working together. This bill, first of all, funds our military’s and veterans’ needs…. It provides $1.6 billion for community health centers to provide healthcare. It also provides money for Pell grants to make sure people are able to go to college.”

Paul Ryan (R-WI): “Mr. Speaker, this measure before us is about as critical as it gets; it really is. It addresses the priorities that we have been discussing in this Chamber for a long time.”

Ms. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): “And [Minority Whip Steny Hoyer] said [the Republican Leaders] are rushing because people have codels, trips, fundraisers, and this and that. I contend there may be another reason why they are rushing it through. First of all, they don’t want anybody to know what is in the bill, because this is a tremendous victory for the American people in terms of what Mrs. Lowey was able to negotiate, in a bipartisan way, on the domestic side.” [Emphasis added.]

082/H.R. 2422

Issue: H.R. 2422, Action for Dental Health Act of 2017. Question: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended (2/3 vote required).

Result: Passed 387 to 13, 30 not voting. GOP and Democrat selected vote.

Freedom First Society: The Action for Dental Health Act of 2017 would finance dental care for “underserved populations.” As such, it is a particularly blatant example that Congress (here, the House of Representatives) has no respect for the limits of the Constitution, which protect our freedom. The Constitution does not authorize the “deep pockets” of the federal government to address every need in society, real or imagined. And dental care is not among those few responsibilities the Constitution entrusts to Washington. No Democrat and only 13 Republicans opposed these unconstitutional federal grants for welfare programs.

In reading the House debate (see below), we were reminded of the comment Harry Hopkins, assistant to President Franklin Roosevelt, made to a friend during an outing at a New York race track. Hopkins said that the strategy of the Roosevelt administration was to “tax and tax, spend and spend, elect and elect.” If the current congressional track were only that benign!

We have assigned (good vote) to the Nays and (bad vote) to the Yeas. (P = voted present; ? = not voting; blank = not listed on roll call.)

Congressional Research Service Summary:

Action for Dental Health Act 2017

(Sec. 2) This bill amends the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize oral health promotion and disease prevention programs through FY2022.

The Department of Health and Human Services may award grants or enter into contracts to collaborate with state, county, or local public officials and other stakeholders to develop and implement initiatives to: (1) improve oral health education and dental disease prevention; (2) reduce geographic barriers, language barriers, cultural barriers, and other similar barriers in the provision of dental services; (3) establish dental homes for children and adults; (4) reduce the use of emergency departments by individuals who seek dental services more appropriately delivered in a dental primary care setting; or (5) facilitate the provision of dental care to nursing home residents.

Analysis: Perhaps somebody should finance some of the new services addressed in the Action for Dental Health Act 2017, but not the Federal government. Perhaps. But consider that during the drive in the last century to build support for King-Anderson (Medicare), congressional hearings were manipulated to demonstrate a problem — the medical neglect of older Americans — that did not exist at that time. In his classic book, Code Blue, Dr. Edward Annis, former president of the American Medical Association, exposed the fraud from first hand experience.

At that time, many doctors willingly served impoverished patients for free, American medical societies took care of many of the needs of the poor, and some state governments reimbursed hospitals. Private charity was alive and well in America. But for decades Congress, guided by revolutionary socialist precepts, has determined that many needs of the poor are services they have a “right” to expect from government, thereby undermining charity.

Revolutionary Organization Ignored

But the real problem with this federal overreach is the hidden agenda it serves. Never mentioned in the mainstream media, the long drive to have government take control of medicine was organized more than a century ago by socialists and Communists (with support from top American Insiders).

The goal of this revolutionary network was central control of virtually every human activity (socialism) and world government. (See Chapter 1, Socialized Medicine, Media-Controlled Delusion online or order a printed copy of the entire booklet.)

Constitutional Authority Statement

As required by House rules, the bill sponsor, Rep. Robin Kelly (D-IL-02), provided a statement of constitutional authority to support the Action for Dental Health Act of 2017. She chose the following convenient copout:

Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 (“The Congress shall have Power to . . . provide for the common Defen[s]e and general Welfare of the United States[.]”) (By establishing a grant program for mobile dental health units, the bill will expand access to oral care, and improve the health and wellbeing of Americans that lack access to dental services.).

Unfortunately, representatives commonly use the “general welfare” clause in Article I, Section 8, to create the appearance that unconstitutional congressional acts are constitutional. The Constitution does not provide politicians with blanket authority to do anything that promotes “the general welfare.” As Notre Dame Law School Professor Charles Rice wrote in 1987: “The Constitution created a government of limited, delegated powers. The term ‘general welfare’ in Article I, Section 8, does not confer on Congress a general power to legislate and regulate for purposes beyond those enumerated in the remaining clauses of Section 8.”

At America’s founding, James Madison had also corrected this misinterpretation in Federalist No. 41:

“For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars.”

The “debate” (excerpts below) over the “Action for Dental Health Act 2017” further illustrates the lack of respect in Congress for constitutional limits. As you will see, the collectivist view that government programs are the key to creating a healthy society is alive and well in these “debates.”

Yet around the world, government-run health care systems are known to inflate costs, require rationing, and kill the very initiative that launched modern medicine in the first place (for government to regulate). Indeed, in America, health care is already one of the most overregulated industries with doctors and hospitals strangled by senseless paperwork.

But more ominously, the phony socialist argument is really camouflage for a power grab — making the people dependent on government instead of vice versa.

Excerpts from Congressional Record (2-26-18) [Emphasis added.]:

Representative Michael Burgess (R) TX 26:

“This bill also reauthorizes HRSA’s [Health Resources and Services Administration] Grants to States to Support Oral Health Workforce Activities and permits States to establish dental homes, mobile or portable dental clinics, initiatives to reduce the use of emergency departments by patients seeking dental services, and initiatives to provide dental care to nursing home residents. Good oral health is an important component of good overall health, and this bill takes important steps to help improve the dental care in underserved communities.”

Representative Gene Green (D) TX 29:

“For millions of Americans, affordable dental care is hard to find and desperately needed. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, nearly half of all individuals in our country over the age of 30 suffer from some form of gum disease. One in four children under the age of 5 already have cavities. The lack of basic oral health services in some communities today leads many Americans to delay treatment to the point the pain is so severe that they rush to the emergency room, where they receive expensive treatment for common dental issues. Dental care is necessary for more than cosmetic reasons. Good oral health is vital to a person’s overall health. Bad oral health can be a sign of larger health issues….

“The Action for Dental Health Act will make grants available through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Health Resources and Services Administration, for programs to improve oral health for underserved populations. This legislation will make it possible for groups, such as State health departments and nonprofit dental societies, to receive funding for critical oral health services. These services may include providing dental services to nursing home residents, operating a mobile dental clinic, or implementing an emergency room program so patients can receive dental care in the dentist’s chair instead of the ER.”

Freedom First Society: “This legislation will make it possible for groups … to receive funding.” Rep. Green carefully avoids mentioning where the funding comes from — ultimately, private citizens. And federal services for health matters are incredibly more expensive than if left to private enterprise or even state government. Indeed, the federal government is now so large that it can take years for Congress to correct a glaring problem in one of its unconstitutional programs.

Sponsor Rep. Robin Kelly (D) IL 02:

“It has been a tremendous honor to work with my colleague, Mr. Simpson from Idaho, in moving this legislation that I am intensely passionate about — the Action for Dental Health Act. I want to acknowledge that, while Members of this Chamber may not always see eye-to-eye on matters of health policy, I am proud that my colleagues were able to work together in a constructive, compassionate, and considerate way to address the critical public health matter of improving oral health in America.

“Mr. Speaker, all Americans deserve a healthy smile; but, sadly, each year, tens of millions of Americans forego needed oral healthcare due to poverty, fear, language or cultural barriers, or the simple fact that there isn’t a dentist in the area in which they live. We know that regular visits to a dentist can do more than keep your smile attractive. They can tell a whole lot about your overall health, including whether or not you may be developing a disease like diabetes, or if you are at risk for a stroke.

“Fifty million Americans live in places with limited access to dental care, and economically vulnerable adults are almost twice as likely to have had no dental care in the previous year than Americans in middle-and upper-income brackets.

“Dental problems are a leading problem of school absences for kids and missed work for parents. Oral health has a direct relationship with school performance. Kids who reported having recent tooth pain were four times more likely to have a low grade point average — below the median GPA of 2.8 — when compared to children without oral pain, according to a study by the Ostrow School of Dentistry at the University of Southern California.

“My bill improves oral health for Americans by breaking down barriers to care. It allows organizations to qualify for oral health grants to support activities that improve oral health education and dental disease prevention. This includes developing and expanding outreach programs that will facilitate establishing dental homes for children and adults, including the elderly, blind, and disabled.

“The Action for Dental Health Act has received the endorsement of the American Dental Association, the National Dental Association, the American Dental Education Association, and a bipartisan coalition of our congressional colleagues.… I am a true believer in the power of order and bipartisanship in making a difference in the lives of the families we represent.”

Cosponsor Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D) TX 18:

“I rise in strong support of H.R. 2422, the Action for Dental Health Act of 2017.   The ADH Act will allow states to receive grants that will establish innovative dental programs on behalf of the Health Resources and Services Administration.   Passing H.R. 2422 will establish dental homes for children and adults, reduce use of emergency departments for dental services, and reduce geographic, language and cultural barriers in the dental care system.

“Mr. Speaker, there is a great need to improve oral health education and prevent dental diseases in low-income and underserved communities.   The health of many Americans is dependent upon the resources we provide. African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans and Alaska Natives generally have the poorest oral health of any racial and ethnic groups in the United States.   African Americans, non-Hispanics, and Mexican Americans aged 35 to 44 years experience untreated tooth decay nearly twice as much as white, non-Hispanics.

“Poor oral health is strongly correlated with other chronic health conditions like cardiovascular diseases, lung disease, strokes, diabetes and can also contribute to problems with employment which furthers poverty.   The Surgeon General estimates that children with oral disease miss over 51 million hours of school each year, and that adults with oral disease miss approximately 164 million hours of work each year.   I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 2422 to show their support and compassion for the people we serve and to ensure that individuals predisposed to contracting any sort of dental diseases receive the proper prevention and care they deserve.”

082/H.R. 2422

Issue: H.R. 2422, Action for Dental Health Act of 2017. Question: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended (2/3 vote required).

Result: Passed 387 to 13, 30 not voting. GOP and Democrat selected vote.

We have assigned (good vote) to the Nays and (bad vote) to the Yeas. (P = voted present; ? = not voting; blank = not listed on roll call.)

Congressional Research Service Summary:

Action for Dental Health Act 2017

(Sec. 2) This bill amends the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize oral health promotion and disease prevention programs through FY2022.

Revolutionary Organization Ignored

Constitutional Authority Statement

Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 (“The Congress shall have Power to . . . provide for the common Defen[s]e and general Welfare of the United States[.]”) (By establishing a grant program for mobile dental health units, the bill will expand access to oral care, and improve the health and wellbeing of Americans that lack access to dental services.).

At America’s founding, James Madison had also corrected this misinterpretation in Federalist No. 41:

“For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars.”

But more ominously, the phony socialist argument is really camouflage for a power grab — making the people dependent on government instead of vice versa.

Excerpts from Congressional Record (2-26-18) [Emphasis added.]:

Representative Michael Burgess (R) TX 26:

“This bill also reauthorizes HRSA’s [Health Resources and Services Administration] Grants to States to Support Oral Health Workforce Activities and permits States to establish dental homes, mobile or portable dental clinics, initiatives to reduce the use of emergency departments by patients seeking dental services, and initiatives to provide dental care to nursing home residents. Good oral health is an important component of good overall health, and this bill takes important steps to help improve the dental care in underserved communities.”

Representative Gene Green (D) TX 29:

“For millions of Americans, affordable dental care is hard to find and desperately needed. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, nearly half of all individuals in our country over the age of 30 suffer from some form of gum disease. One in four children under the age of 5 already have cavities. The lack of basic oral health services in some communities today leads many Americans to delay treatment to the point the pain is so severe that they rush to the emergency room, where they receive expensive treatment for common dental issues. Dental care is necessary for more than cosmetic reasons. Good oral health is vital to a person’s overall health. Bad oral health can be a sign of larger health issues….

“The Action for Dental Health Act will make grants available through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Health Resources and Services Administration, for programs to improve oral health for underserved populations. This legislation will make it possible for groups, such as State health departments and nonprofit dental societies, to receive funding for critical oral health services. These services may include providing dental services to nursing home residents, operating a mobile dental clinic, or implementing an emergency room program so patients can receive dental care in the dentist’s chair instead of the ER.”

Sponsor Rep. Robin Kelly (D) IL 02:

“It has been a tremendous honor to work with my colleague, Mr. Simpson from Idaho, in moving this legislation that I am intensely passionate about — the Action for Dental Health Act. I want to acknowledge that, while Members of this Chamber may not always see eye-to-eye on matters of health policy, I am proud that my colleagues were able to work together in a constructive, compassionate, and considerate way to address the critical public health matter of improving oral health in America.

“Mr. Speaker, all Americans deserve a healthy smile; but, sadly, each year, tens of millions of Americans forego needed oral healthcare due to poverty, fear, language or cultural barriers, or the simple fact that there isn’t a dentist in the area in which they live. We know that regular visits to a dentist can do more than keep your smile attractive. They can tell a whole lot about your overall health, including whether or not you may be developing a disease like diabetes, or if you are at risk for a stroke.

“Fifty million Americans live in places with limited access to dental care, and economically vulnerable adults are almost twice as likely to have had no dental care in the previous year than Americans in middle-and upper-income brackets.

“Dental problems are a leading problem of school absences for kids and missed work for parents. Oral health has a direct relationship with school performance. Kids who reported having recent tooth pain were four times more likely to have a low grade point average — below the median GPA of 2.8 — when compared to children without oral pain, according to a study by the Ostrow School of Dentistry at the University of Southern California.

“My bill improves oral health for Americans by breaking down barriers to care. It allows organizations to qualify for oral health grants to support activities that improve oral health education and dental disease prevention. This includes developing and expanding outreach programs that will facilitate establishing dental homes for children and adults, including the elderly, blind, and disabled.

“The Action for Dental Health Act has received the endorsement of the American Dental Association, the National Dental Association, the American Dental Education Association, and a bipartisan coalition of our congressional colleagues.… I am a true believer in the power of order and bipartisanship in making a difference in the lives of the families we represent.”

Cosponsor Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D) TX 18:

“I rise in strong support of H.R. 2422, the Action for Dental Health Act of 2017.   The ADH Act will allow states to receive grants that will establish innovative dental programs on behalf of the Health Resources and Services Administration.   Passing H.R. 2422 will establish dental homes for children and adults, reduce use of emergency departments for dental services, and reduce geographic, language and cultural barriers in the dental care system.

“Mr. Speaker, there is a great need to improve oral health education and prevent dental diseases in low-income and underserved communities.   The health of many Americans is dependent upon the resources we provide. African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans and Alaska Natives generally have the poorest oral health of any racial and ethnic groups in the United States.   African Americans, non-Hispanics, and Mexican Americans aged 35 to 44 years experience untreated tooth decay nearly twice as much as white, non-Hispanics.

“Poor oral health is strongly correlated with other chronic health conditions like cardiovascular diseases, lung disease, strokes, diabetes and can also contribute to problems with employment which furthers poverty.   The Surgeon General estimates that children with oral disease miss over 51 million hours of school each year, and that adults with oral disease miss approximately 164 million hours of work each year.   I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 2422 to show their support and compassion for the people we serve and to ensure that individuals predisposed to contracting any sort of dental diseases receive the proper prevention and care they deserve.”

031/H.R. 1892

Issue: H.R. 1892, Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (Confusing vehicle: Honoring Hometown Heroes Act). Question: On the Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 1892 with an Amendment (SA 1930).

Result: Agreed to, 71 to 28, 1 not voting. (Agreed to by House later that day, House Roll Call 69.) Became Public Law 115-123 (signed by the President, 2-9-2018). GOP only scored.

Freedom First Society: This “bipartisan” agreement carved out by the Senate leadership, with input from House Speaker Paul Ryan and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, increases federal spending by hundreds of billions of dollars we don’t have. As such, it is equivalent to legalized counterfeiting through the Federal Reserve System.

Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) tweeted: “This spending proposal is disgusting and reckless — the biggest spending increase since 2009.” Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) complained: “What you’re seeing is recklessness trying to be passed off as bipartisanship.” But it’s not recklessness, it’s duplicity.

We do not score the Senate Democrats on this one, as several of the 11 who opposed this measure, including potential 2020 presidential candidates, apparently were protesting the lack of progress in granting immigration amnesty to DREAMERS.

We have assigned (good vote) to the Nays and (bad vote) to the Yeas. (P = voted present; ? = not voting; blank = not listed on roll call.)

Bill Summary: The massive Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 addresses multiple current and future appropriations topics. Here are some of the principal ones:

The Act further extends continuing appropriations for FY 2018 through March 23rd (the 5th Continuing Resolution), keeping the government fully funded as the details of an expected omnibus are worked out to fund the government through the rest of the fiscal year ending September 30th.
To win bipartisan support for this measure, the massive Act raises the defense and non-defense budget caps (imposed by the 2011 Budget Control Act) for FY 2018 and FY 2019. The cap on discretionary spending for defense was increased by $80 billion in FY 2018 and $85 billion in FY 2019.

The cap on discretionary spending for nondefense was increased by $63 billion for FY 2018 and $68 billion for FY 2019.

Some of the other “sweeteners” designed to attract bipartisan support include:

– $6 billion to address opioid addiction and mental health;

– $2 billion to the National Institutes of Health;

– $20 billion in infrastructure investment;

– $ 7 billion for community health centers;

– and $4 billion to help the Veterans Administration Department with its backlog.

In addition, the Act provides $89.3 billion in new supplemental disaster aid, not subject to the caps, for states and territories damaged by the recent hurricanes and wildfires;
And the Act suspends the debt limit ceiling through March 1, 2019.

The Congressional Budget office estimates that the net budgetary impact of The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 will cost an additional $320 billion over the next ten years, much of that in the first year.

The measure did offer about $100 billion in questionable “offsets” to help fund the increased spending. For example, some of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve would be sold off and surplus funds at Federal Reserve Banks reduced.

Analysis: This fiscally irresponsible Act makes zero effort to roll back massive unconstitutional federal programs and spending. Of some comfort, 16 GOP senators (and 73 GOP representatives) did stand tall and opposed the massive spending spree, signed into law by President Trump.

The Hill (2-7-18) quotes Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) as objecting to the excessive defense outlays:

“Military spending and defense spending is far above the president’s request,” he said. “I’m all for supporting our military and I want to make sure they’re funded properly. It’s very difficult to have that big an increase in one year and then be able to use it wisely.”

But others, such as Senator Orin Hatch (R-Utah), put their disregard for constitutional limits on full display:

“Mr. President, I rise today to speak in strong support of the bipartisan Budget Act which will hopefully pass later today. This bill, as the name implies, is the result of rigorous, bipartisan, and bicameral negotiations. I am pleased to have played a part in this endeavor….”

Hatch, Ted Kennedy and CHIP

According to Medicaid.gov, “The Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) provides health coverage to eligible children, through both Medicaid and separate CHIP programs. CHIP is administered by states, according to federal requirements. The program is funded jointly by states and the federal government.

During the debate, Hatch stated his support for the extension of the CHIP program, one of several parts of the Act not summarized above:

“Among the more prominent victories in this bill is an extension of the Children’s Health Insurance Program for an additional 4 years. As we all know, last month Congress passed a historic 6-year CHIP extension, which was eventually signed into law. The bill before us would add another 4 years on top of that 6-year provision, providing a total extension of 10 years — 10 years. That is remarkable. I have a long history with the CHIP program. I was the original author of the program, and I have always been an outspoken champion of it. We have had some back-and-forth here in the Senate about CHIP in recent months, and some of it has gotten pretty fierce. However, today the Senate will pass legislation — bipartisan legislation — to provide unprecedented security and certainty for the families who depend on CHIP and the State governments that need more predictability to map out their own expenditures. I am sure my friend, former Senator Kennedy, is up there watching. I am very happy he came on this bill in the early stages and helped to put it through.” [Emphasis added.]

President Trump had earlier tweeted his support for the CHIP extension.

The Brief Shutdown

There was some drama attached to the Senate passage of the Act. Since the Act had the support of both the Republican and Democratic leaders, the outcome of the Senate vote was never in doubt. However, Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) was able to delay the vote for several hours by insisting on an opportunity for an amendment. The delay resulted in a several hour shutdown of the government.

Paul wanted the Senate to vote on an amendment that would restore the budget caps. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused Paul’s demand, saying to do so would risk opening the measure for a flood of amendments. Many of Paul’s colleagues argued that Paul’s stand was pointless, merely wasting fellow senators’ time.

However, we have to side with Paul. Few of those supporting the massive Act would have been eager to vote explicitly to lift the caps. It was much easier for senators to vote for a complex measure that could be camouflaged as a compromise necessary to keep the government open and support our military.

And when it was clear that Paul would not get a vote on his amendment, his stand still garnered a great deal of news, highlighting the GOP sellout. On the Senate floor that night he stated:

“When the Democrats are in power, Republicans appear to be the conservative party, but when Republicans are in power, it seems that there is no conservative party.”

Without Paul’s stand, the extravagant GOP spending would have received much less attention. The time it cost Senators to have this point made was negligible compared to what’s at stake for the nation’s future and the hundreds of billions of dollars of additional debt.

069/H.R. 1892

Issue: H.R. 1892, The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018. Question: On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amdt to the House Amdt to the Senate Amdt.

Result: Passed in House, 240 to 186, 5 not voting. (Passed/Agreed to earlier in Senate, 2-9-18, Senate Vote #31.) Became Public Law 115-123 (signed by the President, 2-9-2018). GOP only scored.

After the details of the Senate leadership deal were released, Representative Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) blasted the amended measure as a “debt junkie’s dream,” adding, “All I know is that unfortunately those who vote for this bill are betraying our country’s future and they are selling out our kids and our grandkids.”

We do not score the House Democrats on this one, as many voted against it simply because they hadn’t received assurances from Rep. Paul Ryan that there would be a DACA vote.

We have assigned (good vote) to the Noes and (bad vote) to the Ayes. (P = voted present; ? = not voting; blank = not listed on roll call.)

Bill Summary: The massive Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 addresses multiple current and future appropriations topics. Here are some of the principal ones:

The Act further extends continuing appropriations for FY 2018 through March 23rd (the 5th Continuing Resolution), keeping the government fully funded as the details of an expected omnibus are worked out to fund the government through the rest of the fiscal year ending September 30th.
To win bipartisan support for this measure, the massive Act raises the defense and non-defense budget caps (imposed by the 2011 Budget Control Act) for FY 2018 and FY 2019. The cap on discretionary spending for defense was increased by $80 billion in FY 2018 and $85 billion in FY 2019.

The cap on discretionary spending for nondefense was increased by $63 billion for FY 2018 and $68 billion for FY 2019.

Some of the other “sweeteners” designed to attract bipartisan support include:

– $6 billion to address opioid addiction and mental health;

– $2 billion to the National Institutes of Health;

– $20 billion in infrastructure investment;

– $ 7 billion for community health centers;

– and $4 billion to help the Veterans Administration Department with its backlog.

In addition, the Act provides $89.3 billion in new supplemental disaster aid, not subject to the caps, for states and territories damaged by the recent hurricanes and wildfires;
And the Act suspends the debt limit ceiling through March 1, 2019.

Analysis: This fiscally irresponsible Act makes zero effort to roll back massive unconstitutional federal programs and spending.

This GOP sellout, under the mask of bipartisan compromise, was unnecessary if the Republican leadership had stuck to their promise to restore “regular order” (12 individual appropriations bills voted on by the full House). But many Republicans and the Republican leadership are also committed to big government, along with most of the Democrats.
Former Representative Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), interviewed on Fox after the House vote, correctly summarized the Republican sellout:

“Republicans have lost every single bit of credibility on the idea that they care at all about debts and deficits. They can talk all they want, but when they had the chance to do it [by controlling the White House and both chambers of Congress], they caved and they spent so much money it’s stunning.”

Of some comfort, 73 GOP representatives (and 16 GOP senators) did stand tall and opposed the massive spending spree, signed into law by President Trump. Yet several expressed surprise at the sellout:

“It’s a terrible deal. I never thought Speaker Ryan would be supportive of this … I just never thought the Speaker would go here with these high numbers.” — Representative Jim Jordan (R-Ohio)

“I am baffled why the Republican Party has turned into such a big spending party. It is one thing to spend money; it is another thing to spend money you don’t have. No American family can operate that way; no American business can operate that way, and it is folly to believe that the United States of America can operate that way.”— Representative Mo Brooks (R-Alabama)

Even a few Democrats opposed the bill not for the absence of a DACA agreement, because they couldn’t stomach the spending:

“When it comes to the budget, both parties agree on only one thing: being irresponsible. This isn’t compromise, it’s collusion. It’s not bipartisan, it’s a pay-off.” – Rep. Sean Patrick Mahoney (D-New York)

But the sellout shouldn’t have been a surprise for those who understand the Establishment grip on Congress. Asked earlier whether he had the votes to approve the Act, House Speaker Paul Ryan said:

“I feel good. Part of it depends on the Democrats. This is a bipartisan bill. It’s going to need bipartisan support.”

Which meant Ryan had written off those in his party who wouldn’t go along.

709/H.R. 4667

Issue: H.R. 4667, Making further supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2018, for disaster assistance for Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria, and calendar year 2017 wildfires, and for other purposes. Question: On Passage.

Result: Passed in House, 251 to 169, 12 not voting. GOP scored.

Freedom First Society: The first part of H.R. 4667 would provide $81 billion in FY2018 emergency appropriations (almost double the administration’s request) to several federal agencies for another round of disaster assistance related to Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria; and wildfires that occurred in 2017.

Despite its current political popularity, federal disaster aid is unconstitutional. Even worse, this particular spending measure is fiscally irresponsible with no offsets to stay within budget, as permitted under emergency provisions. Moreover, substantial non-emergency funding included in the other divisions was specifically exempted from budgetary limits, again with no offsets.

51 Republicans opposed the measure, receiving blue check marks. We do not score the Democrats on this one as many of the 118 who opposed it, opposed it for wrong reasons — they wanted to spend more and complained that they were not invited to negotiate the final bill.

We have assigned (good vote) to the Nays and (bad vote) to the Yeas. (P = voted present; ? = not voting; blank = not listed on roll call.)

Bill Summary: H.R. 4667 is comprised of four divisions (A, B, C, and D). For each, we quote from the Congressional Research Service Summary.

Division A — Disaster Assistance: “This division provides $81 billion in FY2018 emergency appropriations to several federal agencies for disaster assistance related to Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria; and wildfires that occurred in 2017. (Emergency spending is exempt from discretionary spending limits and other budget enforcement rules.)”

Division B — Disaster Recovery Reform Act. “This division amends the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to modify the Federal Emergency Management Administration disaster response and recovery programs.”

Division C — Other Matters. “This division amends the Agricultural Act of 2014 to designate cottonseed as a covered commodity beginning with the 2018 crop year. (Producers of covered commodities are eligible for Department of Agriculture [USDA] price and income support programs such as the Price Loss Coverage program.) It also amends the Federal Crop Insurance Act to remove the $20 million cap on annual expenditures for livestock producers under the federal crop insurance program.

Division D — Budgetary Effects. “This division exempts the budgetary effects of division B and each succeeding division of this bill from Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) and other budget enforcement rules.”

Analysis: For H.R. 4667, Rep. Rodney Freylinghuysen, GOP Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee submitted a Constitutional Authority Statement, as required by current House rules. As usual, it was a sham bow to the Constitution, relying on public ignorance of what was going on. Here is his statement (Congressional Record, page H10180):

“Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: The principal constitutional authority for this legislationis clause 7 of section 9 of article I of the Constitution of the United States (the appropriation power), which states: ‘No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law….’”

FFS: But this does not provide any authority, only a requirement. So the statement continues:

“In addition, clause 1 of section 8 of article I of the Constitution (the spending power) provides: ‘The Congress shall have the Power . . . to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States….’ Together, these specific constitutional provisions establish the congressional power of the purse, granting Congress the authority to appropriate funds, to determine their purpose, amount, and period of availability, and to set forth terms and conditions governing their use.”

The implication that Article I, Section 8 provides Congress with general legislative authority was refuted by Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist, No. 83, by pointing to the Constitution’s enumeration of specific powers:

“This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended.”

And, in 1987, Notre Dame Law School Professor Charles Rice clarified the misuse of the clause:

“The Constitution created a government of limited, delegated powers. The term ‘general welfare’ in Article I, Section 8, does not confer on Congress a general power to legislate and regulate for purposes beyond those enumerated in the remaining clauses of Section 8.”

And, of course, Mr. Freylinghuysen’s statement failed to cite any specific authority for federal disaster aid, and he could not do so, because it’s not in the Constitution.

No restraint on spending

With the GOP-led House passage of H.R. 4667, there was no attempt at offsets to control the impact on the deficit. We recall Senator Rand Paul’s statement regarding the October round of FY2018’s disaster aid:

From the Congressional Record (10-24-17):

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) (Emphasis added):

“Mr. President, we currently have a $20 trillion debt. Now, we might ask ourselves, whose fault is it, Republicans or Democrats? The easy answer is both. Both parties are equally responsible, equally culpable, and equally guilty of ignoring the debt, ignoring the spending problem, and really I think allowing our country to rot from the inside out. This year, the deficit will be $700 billion, for just 1 year for our country, $700 billion. We borrow about $1 million a minute. Under George W. Bush, the debt went from $5 trillion to $10 trillion. Under President Obama, it went from $10 trillion to $20 trillion. It is doubling under Republicans and Democrats.

“Right now, we are in the midst of another spending frenzy. People will say: Well, we are spending the money for something good. We are going to help those in Puerto Rico, in Texas, and in Florida. My point is, if we are going to spend money to help someone in need, maybe we should take it from another area of spending that is less in need. I think that just simply borrowing it — even for something you can argue is compassionate — is really foolhardy and may make us weaker as a nation.

“Admiral Mullen put it this way. He said: The No. 1 threat to our national security is our debt. In fact, most people who follow world politics — while we do have problems around the world — don’t really see us being invaded anytime soon by an army or an armada, but people do see the burden of debt…. My request is very simple: We should pay for it…. We are set, in all likelihood, to have over $100 billion spent on these hurricanes. I simply ask that we take it from some spending item that seems to be less pressing. We could go through a list of hundreds and hundreds of items….”

And the the House “Debates” re H.R. 4667 displays a similar attitude that federal money grows on trees:

From the Congressional Record (12-21-17):

Mr. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R) (NJ-11) (Emphasis added):

“We must stand by our fellow Americans to get them the help and resources they need to recover. To this end, this legislation provides a total of $81 billion for crucial Federal programs that support ongoing relief, recovery, and rebuilding…. This includes … $12.1 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers to repair and rebuild infrastructure projects that help protect against future disasters, building in resiliency. The bill also includes $3.8 billion for the Department of Agriculture, which will support critical agriculture disaster assistance for massive crop and livestock loss. “Congress has already provided $51.75 billion in two separate supplemental bills for these ongoing efforts. With this third tranche of emergency funding, it will bring the total funding for fiscal year 2018 emergency response to $132 billion.”

Mrs. Nita Lowey (Ranking Member of the Appropriations Committee) (D) (NY-17) (Emphasis added):

“Mr. Speaker, this legislation is a failure of both process and substance. When Congress received the paltry and insufficient disaster request from the administration, the House and Senate Appropriations Committees began a bipartisan and bicameral process to develop an emergency assistance package that would come closer to meeting the massive scale of need resulting from hurricanes and wildfires in the summer and fall 2017. I sincerely regret that the majority leadership abandoned that process…. Despite some robust funding levels, this bill fails to fix a potentially calamitous Medicaid system situation for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.”

Mr. John Culberson (R) (TX-7) (Emphasis added):

“I am one of eight subcommittee chairmen who held public hearings at the request of the chairman…. We are grateful for the funding that is contained here…. For example, we have got $12 billion here for the Army Corps of Engineers’ projects that is going to be prioritized [[Page H10386]] and targeted to areas that have suffered repeated floods over the last 2 years, to areas that have been declared disasters by the President…. That is going to help us get that third reservoir built in northwest Harris County. This funding is also sufficient to fully pay for all federally authorized flood control projects in southeast Texas. That means we will have front-loaded funding for a critical project to finish out Brays Bayou, to build it to the 100-year flood protection standard. The Army Corps of Engineers’ funding is also going to allow us to dredge the Port of Houston, the Port of Beaumont, and open up those ports to full capacity…. Mr. Speaker, we will also be able to rebuild churches and synagogues.”

Mr. José Serrano (D) (NY-15) (Emphasis added):

“I rise to sadly oppose this disaster supplemental, which does not do enough to help Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands…. It does not do enough to help States like New York and New Jersey and others that have generously opened their arms to our fellow citizens displaced by these storms.”

Mr. Peter DeFazio (D) (OR-4) (Emphasis added):

“Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Division B of this bill, which has bipartisan, bicameral support of the leadership of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate….. While there are many good provisions in Division B, I will focus my comments on a few provisions that I believe will have the most impact in making the United States a leader in disaster recovery. Under Division B, the Nation will be on the right track to build stronger and more resilient communities and it will encourage better behavior before and after disaster strikes.”

Default title

Receive Alerts