Bills

Bill Summary: The original topic of H.R. 601, the Reinforcing Education Accountability in Development Act, was an unconstitutional acceptance of federal responsibility for improving educational opportunities in developing nations. Originally passed in January by voice vote, the version here had been amended to include three other unrelated topics: 1) $15 billion in disaster relief from Hurricane Harvey; 2) a Continuing Resolution to fund all government departments and programs into the new fiscal year until December 8; and 3) raising the national debt ceiling to cover authorized expenditures during that same period. We quote excerpts here from the Congressional Research Services summary of the 4 divisions of the bill (emphasis added):

Division A — Reinforcing Education Accountability in Development Act or the READ Act.

(Sec. 3) Amends the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to state that it shall be U.S. policy to work with partner countries, other donors, multilateral institutions, the private sector, and nongovernmental and civil society organizations (including faith-based organizations and organizations that represent teachers, students, and parents) to promote basic education through programs that: (1) respond to the needs and capacities of developing countries to improve literacy and other basic skills; (2) strengthen educational systems, expand access to safe learning environments (including by breaking down barriers to basic education for women and girls), and support the engagement of parents in their children’s education; (3) promote education as a foundation for economic growth; (4) monitor and evaluate basic education programs in partner countries; and (5) promote U.S. values, especially respect for all persons and freedoms of religion, speech, and the press.

(Sec. 5) Establishes within the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) the position of Senior Coordinator of United States International Basic Education Assistance, who shall have primary responsibility for the oversight and coordination of U.S. government resources and activities relating to the promotion of international basic education.

Division B — SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR DISASTER RELIEF REQUIREMENTS ACT, 2017

Provides $15.25 billion in FY2017 supplemental appropriations to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Small Business Administration (SBA), and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for disaster relief requirements, such as response and recovery efforts from Hurricanes Harvey and Irma…. (Emergency spending is exempt from discretionary spending limits and other budget enforcement rules.)

Division C — TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF PUBLIC DEBT RELIEF

(Sec. 101) Suspends the public debt limit through December 8, 2017. Increases the limit on December 9, 2017, to accommodate obligations issued during the suspension period.

Division D — CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2018

(This division provides continuing appropriations to federal agencies through December 8, 2017, or the enactment of specified appropriations legislation. It is known as a continuing resolution [CR] and prevents a government shutdown that would otherwise occur when FY2018 begins on October 1, 2017, if the twelve FY2017 regular appropriations bills that fund the federal government have not been enacted….)

(Sec. 101) Provides FY2018 appropriations to federal agencies for continuing projects or activities at the levels of, and under the terms and conditions of specified FY2017 appropriations Acts, reduced by 0.6791%.

Analysis:  One significant objection to this package is the very fact that it is a package, a package designed to win Democratic support for a continuation of big-government business as usual.   Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), who voted for the measure, which included Hurricane Harvey relief aid to his home state, stated before the vote:

“It is unfortunate that Congressional leadership and the Administration chose to tie Harvey relief to short-term extensions to the [continuing resolution] and the debt ceiling. I would have much preferred a clean Harvey relief bill — which would have passed both Houses nearly unanimously.”

Let’s look at each division individually:

Division A. Reinforcing Education Accountability in Development Act or the READ Act.

Comments during the January House “debate” over this division illustrate just how far leading members of Congress are from the vision of limited constitutional government:

Representative Ed Royce (R-CA-39): For women in particular, a primary school education is directly correlated very strongly with improved maternal-child health and improved survival rates.   Yet, around the world, as we know here, there are 120 million children that are not in school. More than one-third of these children, as Nita Lowey [The sponsor of the measure] can testify, come from countries that are embroiled in war, embroiled in conflict, and many of these recent conflicts have lasted for over a decade.   We are now seeing entire generations of these young children who are failing to receive even the most basic education.   You want to talk about a humanitarian crisis?   This is it. There are clear implications for global stability and for our security…. This bill, the READ Act, introduces the new guidelines and the increased accountability for existing U.S. efforts to improve access to basic education in developing and conflict-torn countries…. It also requires increased attention to what is most important here, and that is to the specific barriers to education that are faced by women and girls.

Representative Nita M. Lowey (D-NY-17): Mr. Speaker, I rise in full support of bipartisan legislation that would increase transparency and congressional oversight of U.S. basic education programs around the world.   H.R. 601, the Reinforcing Education Accountability in Development– READ–Act, which I introduced with my colleague, Representative David Reichert, would elevate the importance of education while improving USAID’s efforts and ensuring that taxpayer dollars are well spent.   The challenge is clear. Nearly 60 million primary school-age children and 65 million adolescents are out of school around the world. Millions more are expected to never enroll. Women and girls are disproportionately out of school. The United States has a clear moral, economic, and security interest in promoting universal basic education as a fundamental human right.

Representative Brenda Lawrence (D-MI-14): Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 601. As a parent who was very involved in my children’s education and served as President of the Southfield Public Schools Board of Education, I firmly believe the importance of promoting education to all regions of the world. Education is a universal human right that should be obtained by every young mind of the world.   Access to basic education is a human right that must be guaranteed to all children. In my role as the Vice Chair of the Bipartisan Congressional Women’s Caucus during the 115th Congress, I will work with my colleagues in a bipartisan manner to highlight barriers to basic education, specifically focusing on girls’ education in the developing world. Providing girls with an education helps break the cycle of poverty. Educated women are less likely to get married, more likely to have healthy babies, and are more likely to understand the value of education…. I am grateful that our Chamber has taken this important step to ensure that the United States dedicates our time and resources to helping the future of the world gain an education. I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their continued support of universal education for all.

Division B. — SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR DISASTER RELIEF REQUIREMENTS ACT, 2017 ($15.25 billion in FY2017).

Following Hurricane Irene, another natural disaster that hit Texas in 2011, the House grappled with a number of bills to replenish “federal disaster aid funds.” Following an early House vote, the Establishment’s New York Times commented:

“Democrats and Republicans agree that [disaster] assistance is one of the government’s main responsibilities, but disagree over how much of the cost can be anticipated and how much, if any, should be offset.” [Emphasis added.] —“House Rebukes G.O.P. Leaders Over Spending,” New York Times, 9/21/11

If the Times was correct, then both parties agreed that the Constitution is irrelevant. And both parties supported this measure in the wake of Hurricane Harvey. There was no opposition from the Democrats and Republicans supported the measure, 133 to 90. GOP House Speaker Paul Ryan commented:

“Nothing can really capture just how big and wide this devastation is,” House Speaker Paul Ryan said, speaking about the damage left by Hurricane Harvey. “You hear a lot of numbers. Tens of thousands of people in shelters. Hundreds of thousands of homes damaged. Nothing can really capture this.”

However, 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.”

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.

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.”

Division C — TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF PUBLIC DEBT RELIEF

The Trump administration was calling for a “clean” debt limit increase, divorced of “partisan” policy riders, and it got its way. Although no one wants to see the federal government default on its debt, we need to realize that the debt is driven by unconstitutional spending, programs, and departments.   The best place to tackle this problem, when an informed public gives Congress the backbone to do so, is with appropriations (and the House using its power of the purse, see next).

Division D — CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2018

The primary questions re any continuing appropriations (CR) measure should be why and for what? Why is more time needed (since the federal fiscal year was advanced 3 months in 1976 to give Congress more time) and to accomplish what?

In this case, the CR was clearly for the purpose of fashioning an omnibus spending bill, which is exactly the wrong approach for bringing government under control. And, in fact, within a week, the House passed its own omnibus appropriations measure for FY2018 (see Roll Call 528, 9-14-17), opening the door for a compromise with Senate liberals before the CR expires.

Wielding the Power of the Purse

Two widely perpetuated myths provide cover for the House’s unwillingness to use its power of the purse to trim spending. The first is the notion that when pushed against deadlines the House needs to include all 12 appropriations measures in a single omnibus measure for an up-or-down vote.   With an omnibus bill, the big spenders can use the specter of a government-wide shutdown to scare a public increasingly dependent on federal spending in order to obtain congressional support.

In reality, the House could easily schedule several independent votes and play hardball with one or more of the areas. The bottom line is that we need to insist that our representatives refuse to support omnibus appropriations measures. And the House could even craft CRs to exclude appropriations bills it had already passed, if it were bent on really trimming the federal government.

The Compromise Myth

The other destructive myth is an ostensible need for compromise. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell repeated it recently when he stated that spending bills “cannot be done by one party alone.”   The idea that appropriation legislation has to be a compromise with socialists, as happened here, is a sure road to our destruction.

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

Separate votes on the 12 appropriations measures would help restore the House’s leverage. Unfortunately, that is not the program of the House leadership. House Speaker Paul Ryan speaks often of returning to regular order (12 independent votes), but Ryan and his GOP predecessors are always willing to kick this can down the road to the following year.

Bill Summary: This measure was amended before passage to include all 12 appropriations bills and retitled as the “Make America Secure and Prosperous Appropriations Act.”   As reported by The Hill (9-14-17):

“Together, the bills appropriate $621.5 billion for defense spending and $511 billion for nondefense discretionary spending. It also devotes another $87 billion in Overseas Contingency Operation (OCO) funding, which does not count toward budget cuts. Of that, $75 billion went to defense, $12 billion to nondefense.”

Analysis: Following the narrow House passage of this omnibus appropriations bill (with the support of only 1 Democrat), House Speaker Paul Ryan scheduled a press conference with the appropriations committee and subcommittee chairmen.   Ryan gave the GOP credit for passing all 12 appropriations bills much earlier than normal:

“This is a big day. This is a big day in the House of Representatives. Today, the people’s House passed all 12 funding bills on time…. This is the first time the House has done that since 2009…. We’ve done our job for the people, but more importantly we did our job the right way. We did it through regular order.” — Paul Ryan, September 14, 2017

            However, this is not what is normally understood by regular order, nor what Ryan had promised in the past. As The Hill (9-14-17) correctly reports:

“The package included eight new bills, plus four previously passed appropriations bills that advanced through the House in July. Regular order for appropriations typically involved passing each of the bills individually, not in groups of 4 or 8.”

         At the same press conference, House Appropriations Chairman Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ) added: “This is the next step in the process, but it is not the end. Funding these important federal responsibilities and keeping the government open is our constitutional duty to the people we serve, and I look forward to the final completion of all these critical bills.”

Such political statements cleverly ignore the source of the funds — the struggling American people.   The pronouncements make it sound as though Congress funds these programs out of some mysterious slush fund, from a money tree, or perhaps even from the members’ own pockets.

Merely enabling the government to write bad checks to support the bloated federal monster is not what the American people need from Congress.   What America desperately needs is action to bring government under control, and the House cannot use its power of the purse to do this by passing omnibus spending bills.

After voting this past May against another such omnibus spending measure for the expiring fiscal year (ending September 30, 2017) (see our scorecard for Roll Call 249, H.R. 244 in this, the 115th, Congress), Congressman Thomas Massie (R-KY) correctly stated:

“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.”

Here’s What’s Next

The House investment in this omnibus measure was immense. The Appropriations subcommittees each spent hours completing the work on the individual spending bills and 342 amendments were considered on the floor of the House. (In total the House recorded 703 actions on H.R. 3354.)

However, despite this investment, the omnibus bill is likely going nowhere, as it will not withstand a Democratic filibuster, and the Senate is not ready with its versions of the appropriations bills. So in early September both the House and the Senate approved a continuing resolution, signed by President Trump, funding the federal government through December 8th at pretty much FY2017 levels. (See House Roll Call 480 and Senate Vote 192.)

Judging from the recent past, a likely scenario is that Congress will agree on an omnibus spending package with bipartisan support (read another compromise with socialists) before the December 8 deadline. To get Democratic support and prevent sequestration, the package would likely need to include increases to the spending caps imposed by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (as updated).

All of this is a consequence of the big-government agenda currently driving the leadership and the majority in Congress.

Bill Summary: The four appropriations bills in H.R. 3219, the “Make America Secure Appropriations Act, 2018,” would provide a total of $790 billion in funding for FY 2018. This also includes $1.6 billion in funding for 74 miles of border wall moved from the Homeland Security appropriation bill, which is not otherwise part of this “minibus” “security” appropriations package.

Government published records of this roll call are (or were for weeks) extremely misleading. Without reading the Congressional Record, the official government websites (e.g., clerk.house.gov and appropriations ) provided absolutely no indication that the bill included anything more than the Defense Appropriations bill.

Analysis: The House leadership knew at the outset that this package, which was strongly opposed by House Democrats for several reasons, could not survive as it now stands in the Senate, where it would need Democratic support. But see Mr. Tom Cole’s admission below (he led the debate in favor of measure).

As Rep. Tom Massie (R-KY) explains below, the only way for the House to get tough on spending is to pass individual appropriations bills (regular order). By contrast, the minibus package approach, which Congress often absorbs later into a larger omnibus package, strives for consensus among those supporting or willing to accept business as usual.   In fact, in less than three weeks (9-14-17) the House unilaterally absorbed this minibus into an omnibus package (see House Roll Call 528, H.R. 3354, amended to become an omnibus for all 12 appropriations bills and retitled as the “Make America Secure and Prosperous Appropriations Act.)

This minibus is pure Republican posturing. Although H.R. 3219 purports to provide an increase in defense spending, as it stands the measure breeches the surviving caps in the Budget Control Act of 2011 by $72 billion and would trigger a mandatory 13 percent sequester of defense accounts, until such time as Congress could reach agreement on raising the caps (liberals are insisting that spending caps for domestic, read unconstitutional, programs be raised in the bargain). The $1.6 billion funding that was added to the package for the border wall was designed to pick up votes from Republicans who needed to posture as tough on illegal immigration.

President Trump’s Border Wall

Building the equivalent of a “Great Wall of China” along our border as the solution to illegal immigration is at best misguided. A principal breakdown in our border enforcement lies in the courts and in Congress, both responding to the well funded open-borders lobby. And efforts to curb incentives for illegal immigration, such as the welfare magnet, have been blocked.

However, only a small amount of the total estimated cost of the administration’s proposed wall is included in this bill. That amount is primarily for repairing and strengthening existing border barriers at critical places — totally justified, it seems to us.

We applaud those GOP who voted against this measure, primarily because the minibus tactic, combining several appropriations bills into one, stands in the way of the tough action required to roll back unconstitutional government and federal spending.   Mixing the bad with the good in order to achieve consensus with socialists will not preserve freedom and restore economic opportunity.

From the Congressional Record (7-26-17):

Deputy Majority Whip Mr. Tom Cole (R) OK 04:

“At the end of the day, and I tell this to my friends on the right and the left, we will end up with a bicameral, bipartisan appropriations bill. There is simply no other way to fund the Government of the United States, and we pledge to work toward that.”

FFS: With that statement, Mr. Cole ignores the House’s power of the purse and assumes that a coalition with big-spending socialists must be the order of the day in perpetuating business-as-usual government. Contrast that view with a statement by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY 04) this past May. After voting against the FY 2017 omnibus spending measure, which ends September 30, 2017, Congressman Thomas Massie (R-KY) correctly stated:

“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.”

Bill Summary:   The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2017 comprehended 11 of the 12 regular appropriations areas, finishing off the funding for the Fiscal Year 2017 (ending September 30, 2017). These 11 areas had been funded through continuing resolutions up to this point. (The 12th of the regular measures — Military Construction, the Department of Veteran Affairs — was passed and became law last September.)

Analysis: In any omnibus spending bill, there is good mixed with the bad. That’s one reason why omnibus appropriations are so destructive — the “good” in the bill makes it easier to obtain congressional support. And proponents of this measure argued that there was something in this legislation for everyone — except, of course, for those who have to pay the bill and whose liberty is threatened by the federal monster.

It is easy to assess the 1,665-page measure, the product of a “bipartisan deal,” from the fact that only 15 House Democrats and no Senate Democrats opposed it. The good news is that 18 GOP Senators refused to go along with this business as usual.

AP (5-3-17) reported that both President Trump and Speaker Paul Ryan “declared victory, but the opinions of top party leaders were not shared by the rank and file…. Negotiators on the bill say it looks pretty much like the measure would have looked like if it had been ironed out last year under Obama — save for Trump’s add-ons for the Pentagon and the border.”

Two days later (5-5-17) AP further reported:

“Even supporters of the bill dislike the secretive, closed-door negotiations that produced it and delivered it seven months behind schedule while denying anyone the opportunity to amend it.

“‘Is there any member of the United States Senate that has read this?’ asked Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. ‘And many of us are going to be compelled to vote for it because we don’t want to shut the government down.’”

And McCain did vote for it, although the argument that the only alternative is to shut the government down is a myth (see Congressman Massie’s explanation re House action, below).

Why did 103 House Republicans and 18 Senate Republicans buck their party leadership to vote against this measure?   Certainly, not because they are all committed constitutionalists. It’s because they know they have to face the voters back home and ward off any challenges to their reelection.

Wielding the Power of the Purse

Two widely perpetuated myths provide cover for the House’s unwillingness to use its power of the purse to trim spending. The first is the notion that when pushed against deadlines the House needs to include all 12 appropriations measures in a single omnibus measure for an up-or-down vote.   With an omnibus bill, the big spenders can use the specter of a government-wide shutdown to scare a public increasingly dependent on federal spending in order to obtain congressional support.

In reality, the House could easily schedule several independent votes and play hardball with one or more of the areas. In fact, in the case of the just completed FY 2017 appropriations, the least controversial of the 12 regular measures — Military Construction, the Department of Veteran Affairs — was passed and became law last September.

Moreover, in the new 115th Congress, the House passed appropriations for the Department of Defense on March 8.   There was no need for the House to include that measure again in an omnibus measure: A tough House would demand that the Senate deal with the House bill already before it.

After voting against the omnibus spending measure, Congressman Thomas Massie (R-KY) correctly stated:

“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.”

The bottom line: Responsible representatives concerned about the unconstitutional growth in the federal monster must refuse to support omnibus appropriations measures, and informed voters back home must insist that they do. And senators should do so, also.

The Compromise Myth

The other destructive myth is an ostensible need for compromise. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell repeated the myth on April 7th, stating that spending bills “cannot be done by one party alone.”   The idea that appropriation legislation has to be a compromise with socialists, as happened here, is a sure road to our destruction.

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

Separate votes on the 12 appropriations measures would help restore the House’s leverage. Unfortunately, that is not the program of the House leadership. House Speaker Paul Ryan speaks often of returning to regular order (12 independent votes), but Ryan and his GOP predecessors are always willing to kick this can down the road to the following year.

In 2015, shortly after Ryan became Speaker of the House, he “vowed that in 2016 there will be a return to regular order in the appropriations….” — Roll Call (12-16-15), “Paul Ryan Talks Up Return to Regular Order.” Unfortunately, we’ve been hearing that hollow promise for decades.   Indeed, the backbone and will to deal with the federal monster will have to come from an organized and informed electorate back home.

 

Bill Summary:   The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2017 comprehended 11 of the 12 regular appropriations areas, finishing off the funding for the Fiscal Year 2017 (ending September 30, 2017). These 11 areas had been funded through continuing resolutions up to this point. (The 12th of the regular measures — Military Construction, the Department of Veteran Affairs — was passed and became law last September.)

Analysis: In any omnibus spending bill, there is good mixed with the bad. That’s one reason why omnibus appropriations are so destructive — the “good” in the bill makes it easier to obtain congressional support. And proponents of this measure argued that there was something in this legislation for everyone — except, of course, for those who have to pay the bill and whose liberty is threatened by the federal monster.

It is easy to assess the 1,665-page measure, the product of a “bipartisan deal,” from the fact that only 15 House Democrats and no Senate Democrats opposed it. The good news is that 18 GOP Senators refused to go along with this business as usual.

AP (5-3-17) reported that both President Trump and Speaker Paul Ryan “declared victory, but the opinions of top party leaders were not shared by the rank and file…. Negotiators on the bill say it looks pretty much like the measure would have looked like if it had been ironed out last year under Obama — save for Trump’s add-ons for the Pentagon and the border.”

Two days later (5-5-17) AP further reported:

“Even supporters of the bill dislike the secretive, closed-door negotiations that produced it and delivered it seven months behind schedule while denying anyone the opportunity to amend it.

“‘Is there any member of the United States Senate that has read this?’ asked Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. ‘And many of us are going to be compelled to vote for it because we don’t want to shut the government down.’”

And McCain did vote for it, although the argument that the only alternative is to shut the government down is a myth (see Congressman Massie’s explanation re House action, below).

Why did 103 House Republicans and 18 Senate Republicans buck their party leadership to vote against this measure?   Certainly, not because they are all committed constitutionalists. It’s because they know they have to face the voters back home and ward off any challenges to their reelection.

Wielding the Power of the Purse

Two widely perpetuated myths provide cover for the House’s unwillingness to use its power of the purse to trim spending. The first is the notion that when pushed against deadlines the House needs to include all 12 appropriations measures in a single omnibus measure for an up-or-down vote.   With an omnibus bill, the big spenders can use the specter of a government-wide shutdown to scare a public increasingly dependent on federal spending in order to obtain congressional support.

In reality, the House could easily schedule several independent votes and play hardball with one or more of the areas. In fact, in the case of the just completed FY 2017 appropriations, the least controversial of the 12 regular measures — Military Construction, the Department of Veteran Affairs — was passed and became law last September.

Moreover, in the new 115th Congress, the House passed appropriations for the Department of Defense on March 8.   There was no need for the House to include that measure again in an omnibus measure: A tough House would demand that the Senate deal with the House bill already before it.

After voting against the omnibus spending measure, Congressman Thomas Massie (R-KY) correctly stated:

“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.”

The bottom line: Responsible representatives concerned about the unconstitutional growth in the federal monster must refuse to support omnibus appropriations measures, and informed voters back home must insist that they do. And senators should do so, also.

The Compromise Myth

The other destructive myth is an ostensible need for compromise. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell repeated the myth on April 7th, stating that spending bills “cannot be done by one party alone.”   The idea that appropriation legislation has to be a compromise with socialists, as happened here, is a sure road to our destruction.

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

Separate votes on the 12 appropriations measures would help restore the House’s leverage. Unfortunately, that is not the program of the House leadership. House Speaker Paul Ryan speaks often of returning to regular order (12 independent votes), but Ryan and his GOP predecessors are always willing to kick this can down the road to the following year.

In 2015, shortly after Ryan became Speaker of the House, he “vowed that in 2016 there will be a return to regular order in the appropriations….” — Roll Call (12-16-15), “Paul Ryan Talks Up Return to Regular Order.” Unfortunately, we’ve been hearing that hollow promise for decades.   Indeed, the backbone and will to deal with the federal monster will have to come from an organized and informed electorate back home.

 

Bill Summary:   The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2017 comprehended 11 of the 12 regular appropriations areas, finishing off the funding for the Fiscal Year 2017 (ending September 30, 2017). These 11 areas had been funded through continuing resolutions up to this point. (The 12th of the regular measures — Military Construction, the Department of Veteran Affairs — was passed and became law last September.)

Analysis: In any omnibus spending bill, there is good mixed with the bad. That’s one reason why omnibus appropriations are so destructive — the “good” in the bill makes it easier to obtain congressional support. And proponents of this measure argued that there was something in this legislation for everyone — except, of course, for those who have to pay the bill and whose liberty is threatened by the federal monster.

It is easy to assess the 1,665-page measure, the product of a “bipartisan deal,” from the fact that only 15 House Democrats opposed it. The good news is that GOP support was split 131 in favor to 103 against.   (In the Senate, the only opposition came from 18 Republican Senators.)

AP (5-3-17) reported that both President Trump and Speaker Paul Ryan “declared victory, but the opinions of top party leaders were not shared by the rank and file…. Negotiators on the bill say it looks pretty much like the measure would have looked like if it had been ironed out last year under Obama — save for Trump’s add-ons for the Pentagon and the border.”

Why did 103 House Republicans buck their party leadership to vote against this measure?   Certainly, not because they are all committed constitutionalists. It’s because they know they have to face the voters back home and ward off any challenges to their reelection.

Wielding the Power of the Purse

Two widely perpetuated myths provide cover for the House’s unwillingness to use its power of the purse to trim spending. The first is the notion that when pushed against deadlines the House needs to include all 12 appropriations measures in a single omnibus measure for an up-or-down vote.   With an omnibus bill, the big spenders can use the specter of a government-wide shutdown to scare a public increasingly dependent on federal spending in order to obtain congressional support.

In reality, the House could easily schedule several independent votes and play hardball with one or more of the areas. In fact, in the case of the just completed FY 2017 appropriations, the least controversial of the 12 regular measures — Military Construction, the Department of Veteran Affairs — was passed and became law last September.

Moreover, in the new 115th Congress, the House passed appropriations for the Department of Defense on March 8.   There was no need for the House to include that measure again in an omnibus measure: A tough House would demand that the Senate deal with the House bill already before it.

After voting against the omnibus spending measure, Congressman Thomas Massie (R-KY) correctly stated:

“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.”

The bottom line: Responsible representatives concerned about the unconstitutional growth in the federal monster must refuse to support omnibus appropriations measures, and informed voters back home must insist that they do.

The Compromise Myth

The other destructive myth is an ostensible need for compromise. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell repeated the myth on April 7th, stating that spending bills “cannot be done by one party alone.”   The idea that appropriation legislation has to be a compromise with socialists, as happened here, is a sure road to our destruction.

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

Separate votes on the 12 appropriations measures would help restore the House’s leverage. Unfortunately, that is not the program of the House leadership. House Speaker Paul Ryan speaks often of returning to regular order (12 independent votes), but Ryan and his GOP predecessors are always willing to kick this can down the road to the following year.

In 2015, shortly after Ryan became Speaker of the House, he “vowed that in 2016 there will be a return to regular order in the appropriations….” — Roll Call (12-16-15), “Paul Ryan Talks Up Return to Regular Order.” Unfortunately, we’ve been hearing that hollow promise for decades.   Indeed, the backbone and will to deal with the federal monster will have to come from an organized and informed electorate back home.

Bill Summary:   The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2017 comprehended 11 of the 12 regular appropriations areas, finishing off the funding for the Fiscal Year 2017 (ending September 30, 2017). These 11 areas had been funded through continuing resolutions up to this point. (The 12th of the regular measures — Military Construction, the Department of Veteran Affairs — was passed and became law last September.)

Analysis: In any omnibus spending bill, there is good mixed with the bad. That’s one reason why omnibus appropriations are so destructive — the “good” in the bill makes it easier to obtain congressional support. And proponents of this measure argued that there was something in this legislation for everyone — except, of course, for those who have to pay the bill and whose liberty is threatened by the federal monster.

It is easy to assess the 1,665-page measure, the product of a “bipartisan deal,” from the fact that only 15 House Democrats opposed it. The good news is that GOP support was split 131 in favor to 103 against.   (In the Senate, the only opposition came from 18 Republican Senators.)

AP (5-3-17) reported that both President Trump and Speaker Paul Ryan “declared victory, but the opinions of top party leaders were not shared by the rank and file…. Negotiators on the bill say it looks pretty much like the measure would have looked like if it had been ironed out last year under Obama — save for Trump’s add-ons for the Pentagon and the border.”

Why did 103 House Republicans buck their party leadership to vote against this measure?   Certainly, not because they are all committed constitutionalists. It’s because they know they have to face the voters back home and ward off any challenges to their reelection.

Wielding the Power of the Purse

Two widely perpetuated myths provide cover for the House’s unwillingness to use its power of the purse to trim spending. The first is the notion that when pushed against deadlines the House needs to include all 12 appropriations measures in a single omnibus measure for an up-or-down vote.   With an omnibus bill, the big spenders can use the specter of a government-wide shutdown to scare a public increasingly dependent on federal spending in order to obtain congressional support.

In reality, the House could easily schedule several independent votes and play hardball with one or more of the areas. In fact, in the case of the just completed FY 2017 appropriations, the least controversial of the 12 regular measures — Military Construction, the Department of Veteran Affairs — was passed and became law last September.

Moreover, in the new 115th Congress, the House passed appropriations for the Department of Defense on March 8.   There was no need for the House to include that measure again in an omnibus measure: A tough House would demand that the Senate deal with the House bill already before it.

After voting against the omnibus spending measure, Congressman Thomas Massie (R-KY) correctly stated:

“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.”

The bottom line: Responsible representatives concerned about the unconstitutional growth in the federal monster must refuse to support omnibus appropriations measures, and informed voters back home must insist that they do.

The Compromise Myth

The other destructive myth is an ostensible need for compromise. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell repeated the myth on April 7th, stating that spending bills “cannot be done by one party alone.”   The idea that appropriation legislation has to be a compromise with socialists, as happened here, is a sure road to our destruction.

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

Separate votes on the 12 appropriations measures would help restore the House’s leverage. Unfortunately, that is not the program of the House leadership. House Speaker Paul Ryan speaks often of returning to regular order (12 independent votes), but Ryan and his GOP predecessors are always willing to kick this can down the road to the following year.

In 2015, shortly after Ryan became Speaker of the House, he “vowed that in 2016 there will be a return to regular order in the appropriations….” — Roll Call (12-16-15), “Paul Ryan Talks Up Return to Regular Order.” Unfortunately, we’ve been hearing that hollow promise for decades.   Indeed, the backbone and will to deal with the federal monster will have to come from an organized and informed electorate back home.

Bill Summary: House Joint Resolution 83 makes use of an expedited legislative process authorized by the Congressional Review Act of 1996 to overturn administration rules issued within the previous 60 legislative days.

Analysis of the Department of Labor rule:

We support the House GOP repeal of this rule, a last-minute parting shot by the Obama administration.

However, it is clear from the debate arguments (see below) that the GOP has accepted the federal government’s prior unconstitutional usurpation of state and local authority over the domestic workplace in the form of OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration). (See our summary of the unconstitutional 1970 OSHA power grab, below.)

As Napoleon once astutely observed “the purely defensive is doomed to defeat.” Merely defending against further Federal regulatory intrusions will never stem the growth of Big Brother. There must be leadership for a movement to roll back the unconstitutional federal expansion.

The following excerpts from the “debate” as recorded in the Congressional Record (3-1-17) are instructive:

Mr. Bradley Byrne (R) AL-01:

“Mr. Speaker, America’s workers deserve responsible, commonsense, regulatory policies to ensure safe and healthy working conditions. Let me say that again. America’s workers deserve responsible, commonsense regulatory policies to ensure safe and healthy working conditions. They deserve a Federal Government that holds bad actors accountable, and a government that takes proactive steps to help employers improve safety protections and prevent injuries and illnesses before they occur. Just as importantly, they deserve to know that Federal agencies are following the law. For years, Republicans have called on OSHA to reject a top-down approach to worker protections and, instead, collaborate with employers to identify gaps in safety and address the unique challenges facing workplaces. Unfortunately, under the Obama administration, our concerns usually fell on deaf ears. In fact, one of the administration’s parting gifts to workers and small businesses was a regulatory scheme that reflects not only a backwards, punitive approach to workplace safety, but one that is completely unlawful.”  (Emphasis added.)

FFS: Representative Byrne included two letters in the record from safety organizations opposing the proposed Obama regulation, the first from the American Society of Safety Engineers:

Mr. Byrne:

“What [their letter] says is that this regulation does nothing to enhance workplace safety. That is from the American Society of Safety Engineers. Also opposing this regulation is the Coalition for Workplace Safety. I include in the Record a letter from them dated February 17 of this year.”

Mr. Robert Scott (D) VA-03:

“Underreporting means that workplace hazards are masked, making it less likely that employers or employees become aware of patterns that would indicate the need to take corrective actions to prevent future injuries. If injuries and illnesses are not on the log, OSHA may overlook hazards at a worksite during an inspection and consequently leaving workers exposed to correctable dangers. Mr. Speaker, because of underfunding, OSHA only has sufficient resources to inspect a workplace once every 140 years on average….

“But no court has reviewed this new rule, only the predecessor. There has been no appeal of the new rule that has been lodged since the new rule was issued in December. The proper course of action is to have the courts decide the legal question since arguably they are in the best position to interpret the laws and evaluate the precedents….

“On the other hand, if the purpose of passing this resolution is just to eliminate the possibility of OSHA’s clarifying rule could ever be found lawful, then it is obvious that H.J. Res. 83 is an ideological attack without any regard for consequences to worker safety…. [Emphasis added.]

“Mr. Speaker, there are 2,000 inspectors at OSHA. There are 8 million work sites. We can’t expect them to visit every 6 months when the funding only allows them to visit each workplace once every 140-some years.” [FFS: Thank goodness!]

FFS: Mr. Scott inserted several letters supporting the OSHA rule. One dated February 28, 2017 should reveal the existence of a radical network and radical agenda helping to drive the expansion of federal power. The letter was signed by dozens of organizations, including such left-wing outfits as:  Earthjustice; National LGBTQ Task Force Action Fund; National Organization for Women; Natural Resources Defense Council; Public Citizen; Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC); and Union of Concerned Scientists.

Ms. Virginia Foxx (R) NC-05:

“I rise today in support of this resolution because it will reverse an unlawful power grab and restore responsible worker health and safety policies. Article I of the Constitution is clear. It is the Members of this body—the legislative branch—who write the law. Why? Because we are closest to the people and, therefore, more responsive to the needs and demands of those we serve. It is the responsibility of the executive branch to enforce the laws ‑ not write them. Unfortunately, the previous administration failed to abide by this founding principle. President Obama boasted about his days teaching constitutional law, yet his administration tried time and time again to rewrite the law unilaterally through executive fiat.”

The 1970 OSHA Power Grab

In 1970, Congress passed the Williams-Steiger Occupational Safety and Health Act and President Nixon signed it into law. Citing the impact of workplace injury on interstate commerce, the act unconstitutionally usurped state and local power and authority over regulating the safety of the domestic workplace. The Act applied to every employer, small and large, in the United States.

Under the Act, the Secretary of Labor would publish safety and health standards in the Federal Register, which would have the force of law. Soon after the Act took effect, OSHA published 248 pages of standards with which even small employers were expected to comply.

OSHA compliance officers had the responsibility to ensure employers complied with the standards. The Act gave them the power “to enter without delay and at reasonable times any factory, plant, establishment, construction site, or other area, workplace or environment where work is performed by an employee of an employer; and to inspect and investigate during regular working hours and at other reasonable times, and within reasonable limits and in a reasonable manner, any such place of employment and all pertinent conditions, structures, machines, apparatus, devices, equipment, and materials therein, and to question privately any such employer, owner, operator, agent or employee.”

If the compliance officers found violations during surprise inspections, even small things such as a ladder in need of repair, they could issue citations, fines and compliance orders. Certainly, the Founding Fathers and the 13 States ratifying the Constitution never envisioned that the new government would claim such authority and responsibility.

Furthermore, the Act allowed any disgruntled employee or even a former employee to request an inspection: “Any employees or representative of employees who believe that a violation of a safety or health standard exists that threatens physical harm, or that an imminent danger exists, may request an inspection by giving notice to the Secretary or his authorized representative of such violation or danger. Any such notice shall be reduced to writing, shall set forth with reasonable particularity the grounds for the notice, and shall be signed by the employees or representative of employees, and a copy shall be provided the employer or his agent no later than at the time of inspection, except that, upon the request of the person giving such notice, his name and the names of individual employees referred to therein shall not appear in such copy or on any record published, released, or made available pursuant to subsection (g) of this section….”

The initial implementation of OSHA was extremely tyrannical and resulted in several successful court challenges. However, the basic federal intrusion has never been reversed.

Bill Summary: House Joint Resolution 83 makes use of an expedited legislative process authorized by the Congressional Review Act of 1996 to overturn administration rules issued within the previous 60 legislative days.

Analysis of the Department of Labor rule:

We support the House GOP repeal of this rule, a last-minute parting shot by the Obama administration.

However, it is clear from the debate arguments (see below) that the GOP has accepted the federal government’s prior unconstitutional usurpation of state and local authority over the domestic workplace in the form of OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration). (See our summary of the unconstitutional 1970 OSHA power grab, below.)

As Napoleon once astutely observed “the purely defensive is doomed to defeat.” Merely defending against further Federal regulatory intrusions will never stem the growth of Big Brother. There must be leadership for a movement to roll back the unconstitutional federal expansion.

The following excerpts from the “debate” as recorded in the Congressional Record (3-1-17) are instructive:

Mr. Bradley Byrne (R) AL-01:

“Mr. Speaker, America’s workers deserve responsible, commonsense, regulatory policies to ensure safe and healthy working conditions. Let me say that again. America’s workers deserve responsible, commonsense regulatory policies to ensure safe and healthy working conditions. They deserve a Federal Government that holds bad actors accountable, and a government that takes proactive steps to help employers improve safety protections and prevent injuries and illnesses before they occur. Just as importantly, they deserve to know that Federal agencies are following the law. For years, Republicans have called on OSHA to reject a top-down approach to worker protections and, instead, collaborate with employers to identify gaps in safety and address the unique challenges facing workplaces. Unfortunately, under the Obama administration, our concerns usually fell on deaf ears. In fact, one of the administration’s parting gifts to workers and small businesses was a regulatory scheme that reflects not only a backwards, punitive approach to workplace safety, but one that is completely unlawful.”  (Emphasis added.)

FFS: Representative Byrne included two letters in the record from safety organizations opposing the proposed Obama regulation, the first from the American Society of Safety Engineers:

Mr. Byrne:

“What [their letter] says is that this regulation does nothing to enhance workplace safety. That is from the American Society of Safety Engineers. Also opposing this regulation is the Coalition for Workplace Safety. I include in the Record a letter from them dated February 17 of this year.”

Mr. Robert Scott (D) VA-03:

“Underreporting means that workplace hazards are masked, making it less likely that employers or employees become aware of patterns that would indicate the need to take corrective actions to prevent future injuries. If injuries and illnesses are not on the log, OSHA may overlook hazards at a worksite during an inspection and consequently leaving workers exposed to correctable dangers. Mr. Speaker, because of underfunding, OSHA only has sufficient resources to inspect a workplace once every 140 years on average….

“But no court has reviewed this new rule, only the predecessor. There has been no appeal of the new rule that has been lodged since the new rule was issued in December. The proper course of action is to have the courts decide the legal question since arguably they are in the best position to interpret the laws and evaluate the precedents….

“On the other hand, if the purpose of passing this resolution is just to eliminate the possibility of OSHA’s clarifying rule could ever be found lawful, then it is obvious that H.J. Res. 83 is an ideological attack without any regard for consequences to worker safety…. [Emphasis added.]

“Mr. Speaker, there are 2,000 inspectors at OSHA. There are 8 million work sites. We can’t expect them to visit every 6 months when the funding only allows them to visit each workplace once every 140-some years.” [FFS: Thank goodness!]

FFS: Mr. Scott inserted several letters supporting the OSHA rule. One dated February 28, 2017 should reveal the existence of a radical network and radical agenda helping to drive the expansion of federal power. The letter was signed by dozens of organizations, including such left-wing outfits as:  Earthjustice; National LGBTQ Task Force Action Fund; National Organization for Women; Natural Resources Defense Council; Public Citizen; Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC); and Union of Concerned Scientists.

Ms. Virginia Foxx (R) NC-05:

“I rise today in support of this resolution because it will reverse an unlawful power grab and restore responsible worker health and safety policies. Article I of the Constitution is clear. It is the Members of this body—the legislative branch—who write the law. Why? Because we are closest to the people and, therefore, more responsive to the needs and demands of those we serve. It is the responsibility of the executive branch to enforce the laws ‑ not write them. Unfortunately, the previous administration failed to abide by this founding principle. President Obama boasted about his days teaching constitutional law, yet his administration tried time and time again to rewrite the law unilaterally through executive fiat.”

The 1970 OSHA Power Grab

In 1970, Congress passed the Williams-Steiger Occupational Safety and Health Act and President Nixon signed it into law. Citing the impact of workplace injury on interstate commerce, the act unconstitutionally usurped state and local power and authority over regulating the safety of the domestic workplace. The Act applied to every employer, small and large, in the United States.

Under the Act, the Secretary of Labor would publish safety and health standards in the Federal Register, which would have the force of law. Soon after the Act took effect, OSHA published 248 pages of standards with which even small employers were expected to comply.

OSHA compliance officers had the responsibility to ensure employers complied with the standards. The Act gave them the power “to enter without delay and at reasonable times any factory, plant, establishment, construction site, or other area, workplace or environment where work is performed by an employee of an employer; and to inspect and investigate during regular working hours and at other reasonable times, and within reasonable limits and in a reasonable manner, any such place of employment and all pertinent conditions, structures, machines, apparatus, devices, equipment, and materials therein, and to question privately any such employer, owner, operator, agent or employee.”

If the compliance officers found violations during surprise inspections, even small things such as a ladder in need of repair, they could issue citations, fines and compliance orders. Certainly, the Founding Fathers and the 13 States ratifying the Constitution never envisioned that the new government would claim such authority and responsibility.

Furthermore, the Act allowed any disgruntled employee or even a former employee to request an inspection: “Any employees or representative of employees who believe that a violation of a safety or health standard exists that threatens physical harm, or that an imminent danger exists, may request an inspection by giving notice to the Secretary or his authorized representative of such violation or danger. Any such notice shall be reduced to writing, shall set forth with reasonable particularity the grounds for the notice, and shall be signed by the employees or representative of employees, and a copy shall be provided the employer or his agent no later than at the time of inspection, except that, upon the request of the person giving such notice, his name and the names of individual employees referred to therein shall not appear in such copy or on any record published, released, or made available pursuant to subsection (g) of this section….”

The initial implementation of OSHA was extremely tyrannical and resulted in several successful court challenges. However, the basic federal intrusion has never been reversed.

Congressional Research Service Summary: This bill requires the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to identify reputable model standards for the licensing of foster family homes.

Part E (Foster Care and Adoption Assistance) of title IV of the Social Security Act is amended to require state plans for foster care and adoption assistance to require submission to HHS of information addressing:

• whether the state licensing standards are in accord with HHS-identified model standards, and if not, the reason for the specific deviation and a description of why having a standard that is reasonably in accord with the corresponding national model standards is not appropriate for the state;
• whether the state has elected to waive certain standards for relative foster family homes, a description of standards most commonly waived, and if the state has not so elected, the reason why;
• if the state has elected to waive such standards, how caseworkers are trained to use the waiver authority and whether the state has developed a process or offered tools to assist caseworkers in waiving nonsafety standards to quickly place children with relatives; and
• a description of the steps the state is taking to improve caseworker training or the process, if any.

Analysis: With the passage of the 1935 Social Security Act during the Great Depression, the federal government took over control and direction of a whole spectrum of state welfare programs. H.R. 2866 would extend the unconstitutional federal overreach of that watershed New Deal legislation by imposing new requirements on states regarding foster care licensing as well as new reporting requirements.

The pretext for H.R. 2866 flows from the collectivist vision that if there’s a problem, the federal government should address it, regardless of any constitutional limitations.   Indeed, the Insider Establishment regularly uses the pretense of humanitarian concern to advance a totalitarian power grab.

The federal monster thus created increasingly threatens our freedom while undermining our standard of living.

In 1953, free-lance writer Garet Garret astutely pointed out:

“In these twenty years [since the launch of FDR’s New Deal] a revolution took place in the relationship between government and people. Formerly government was the responsibility of people; now people were the responsibility of government.” — The People’s Pottage, 1953, p. 9.

With the development of federal deep pockets thru the Federal Reserve Act and the income tax, that revolution has also extended to the federal-state relationship. The federal government now assumes that it has responsibility to manage the states.

Think with Heart?

Proponents of H.R. 2866 heralded the overwhelming bipartisanship support for this measure as evidence that the people’s House could think with its heart. But America’s founders were guided by wisdom born of experience, not mindless heart and socialist propaganda.

If representatives today had the voter-supplied backbone to respect their oath to uphold the Constitution, they could make the case that the growth of the federal monster is largely responsible for America’s decline — morally, socially, and economically.

By design, the Establishment-controlled media no longer emphasize the importance of principle-based government, in particular constitutionally limited government, where problems are addressed at the lowest level of government, if government needs to be involved at all.

Congress now has enormous difficulty in controlling the direction of the monster it has created.   Even House legislation that has overwhelming support, good or usually bad, often requires years and multiple attempts before it is taken up by the Senate and becomes law.

Excerpts from Congressional Record:

Cosponsor Mike Kelly (R-PA-03):

“As a matter of good public policy, we should be making the placement process much easier for family members, not more difficult, because it is often in the best interest of the child.   Studies show that placing foster children with relatives solves many of the problems children face when being placed into foster care; moreover, it improves the outcomes for these children. Children are more likely to succeed when they can stay with a family member of their own and someone they are already familiar with and know.”

[FFS: Sounds reasonable, but the federal government properly lacks the authority to force the states to implement such policy. Moreover, with this bill, Congress does not actually specify the model/policy, but leaves it up to the Secretary of Health and Human Services to determine what are “reputable model licensing standards.” Suppose a future liberal Secretary determines that “same-sex couples” deserve special favorable consideration.]

“The problem is that, while current law allows States to waive certain licensing standards when placing children with relatives, many States have been slow to implement the law. One of the purported reasons is that caseworkers are slow or they simply don’t know how to place children with relatives because of a lack of training on their part. Today, caseworkers may not be adequately trained regarding their ability to waive certain standards when licensing relatives…. Representative Smucker’s bill, H.R. 2866, will help remedy this problem… States, subsequently, would need to do their part by submitting their plans to be in compliance with model standards for family foster care placement. Additionally, States would need to explain how caseworkers in their respective States are being trained.” [Emphasis added.]

Cosponsor Terri A Sewell (D-AL-07):

[Colloquy with cosponsor Mike Kelley]

“Is it your expectation that the National Association for Regulatory Administration’s Model Family Foster Home Licensing Standards would be the kind of standards envisioned by the bill?”   Mr. Kelly: “My feeling is the National Association for Regulatory Administration’s Model Foster Home Licensing Standards would be a prime example of what HHS should consider.”   Ms. Sewell: “I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for that response.”

Cosponsor Danny K. Davis (D-IL-07):

H.R. 2866 requires States to modernize their licensing standards to align with the best practices in licensing. This is a commonsense and important change…. To understand the use of waivers, Children’s Bureau should collect data on State’s granting waivers for nonsafety licensing standards for relatives, including the number of relatives applying for waivers, the number of waivers issued or denied, and the reason for denial.” [Emphasis added.]

Cosponsor Karen Bass (D-CA-37):

“Ironically, in the 1990s, when the crack cocaine epidemic hit, that was the first time that women started using drugs equal to men. It hadn’t happened before, and so families fell apart. One of the things that happened, in the early 1990s, was in the middle of the night a grandmother might be called and three grandchildren delivered to her by Children’s Protective Services. The grandmother would take the children without any support and without any knowledge of how to deal with the trauma that the children faced….”

“One of the things we did in Los Angeles was we organized the grandmothers, and we trained them how to go before the board of supervisors and advocate on their own behalf. That happened all around the country…. So there began a national movement for relative caregivers to fighting for their rights and for services.” [Emphasis added.]

FFS: National movements require organization and funding. If we recognize the prevalence today of revolutionary organizations with hidden subversive agendas, we should be suspicious when the sponsoring organizers are not mentioned. Also, the federal government, responding to revolutionary influences, often produces the “poison and the antidote” in the same laboratory.   The modern attack on the traditional family and pushing religion out of public life cannot help but contribute to the problems Bass cited.