Bills

Analysis: Undoubtedly, some of the programs funded by this measure are proper. However, a common practice with legislation that continues progressively larger unconstitutional government is to mix the good with the bad. This tactic provides weak politicians with the “excuse” for voting for the entire package.

Informed constituents should demand that their representatives and senators vote “no” on legislation that makes no serious effort to phase out and eliminate unconstitutional spending.

As a candidate for president in 1980, Ronald Reagan called for the abolition of Jimmy Carter’s Department of Energy (the DOE), but there has been little serious effort to do so, to the detriment of our nation. In general most of what the DOE does is not only unconstitutional, but counterproductive — acting to keep energy scarce and expensive. (The DOE did absorb some constitutional defense-related functions re our nuclear stockpile, making it a more difficult target.)

In the floor discussion prior to passage, we saw no willingness to expose or challenge the federal government’s war on energy, supported by the Insiders and their environmentalist offspring. Quite the opposite.

Indeed, Senator Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon), used the occasion to promote “a movement — a vision — called “Keep It in the Ground,” under the heading “Energy Policy and Climate” change.   His unchallenged remarks emphasized the scare of manmade global warming, while perpetuating cover-ups of revolutionary orchestration to generate the appearance of popular support for his agenda. He also relied on the proclamations of an assumed genuine and respectable “international community,” as opposed to Insider-dominated governments and institutions.

The decades-old Insider-orchestrated war on energy has prevented and continues to prevent the U.S. from enjoying plentiful, inexpensive energy resources and the tremendous boost to the economy that would entail, while empowering the government to ration and act as a gatekeeper to those resources.

Author Steve Milloy, in his 2009 blockbuster, Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Control Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them, very credibly exposed these myths and the real agenda driving them. In our review (see our complete review of Milloy’s book) we stated:

The Green War on Energy

A primary green objective is to create scarcities, which then provide the pretext for government regulation and rationing. And what better place to bring a modern industrial nation to its knees than to starve it of energy?

In the late sixties and early seventies, the anti-nuclear movement, in cooperation with revolutionaries in government, largely killed the use of this American technology on American soil.

The current tactic to achieve energy scarcity, promoted by the Obama administration, is to emphasize the development of ‘renewable’ energy, while attaching burdensome strings to the construction of power plants and the development of resources that can realistically supply our immediate energy needs, such as oil from shale. Colorado, as Milloy points out, is the Saudia Arabia of shale oil. Yet this resource has for years been off limits to development.

Green Hell provides a much-needed dose of reality regarding promises that a modern society can be run anytime soon on the alternative sources being touted, and Milloy points out the enormous expense in trying.

Moreover, when push comes to shove, as Milloy shows, green leaders will oppose even their “renewable” sources where these sources look like they might offer serious help, since the real but not advertised objective is no energy. The renewable energy campaign is really just a campaign to create shortages (at immense expense) that government can ration.

Myths re Nuclear Waste

The late Petr Beckman in his 1979 booklet “The Non-Problem of Nuclear Wastes,” correctly observed:

2. It is utterly untrue that no method of waste disposal is known;
3. The paramount issue that is being covered up is a simple comparison: Is nuclear waste disposal a significant advantage in safety, public health, and environmental impact over wastes of fossil-fired power plants … or not?
4. Much of the answer to the question above is contained in two simple statistics: For the same power, nuclear wastes are some 3.5 million times smaller in volume; and in duration of their toxicity, the advantage ranges from a few percent to infinity.

Yet by perpetuating the myth of a nuclear waste problem, the federal government, with convenient pressure from the Insider-financed environmental lobby, has been able to stifle the use of U.S.-pioneered nuclear technology on American soil. And, of course, big-spenders love a problem to manage.

Excerpts from the May 12, 2016 Congressional Record

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont):

“The bill also includes report language that directs the Department of Energy to fund activities that support the development and testing of new low-emission, highly efficient wood stoves, an important heat source for many Vermont homes because of the affordable and renewable thermal energy they provide.

“Senator Alexander and Senator Feinstein have worked in a bipartisan way to produce a responsible, rider-free appropriations bill, and I hope this process will serve as a model for the Senate as we continue the appropriations process this year.”

Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tennessee):

“This bill is almost half and half defense and nondefense, about $37.5 billion. It supports several Federal agencies that do important work, including the U.S. Department of Energy, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, National Nuclear Security Administration, which has to do with our nuclear weapons, and the Appalachian Regional Commission….

“It helps to resolve the nuclear waste stalemate that our country has been in for 25 years, finding appropriate places to put used nuclear fuel so we can continue to have a strong nuclear power program — which produces 60 percent of all the carbon-free electricity we have in this country — and it cleans up hazardous materials at Cold War sites.”

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California):

“I extend my congratulations to the distinguished Senator from Tennessee on passing this bill. We have not passed a free-standing Energy and Waterbill on this floor for 7 years, since 2009, when Senators Dorgan and Bob Bennett were chair and ranking member. Not only are we passing the bill, but we are passing a good bill.”

Since 2011, an amendment to House Rule XII requires that, to be accepted for introduction by the House Clerk, all bills (H.R.) and joint resolutions (H.J.Res.) must provide a document stating “as specifically as practicable the power or powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the bill or joint resolution.” [Emphasis added.]

Rather than improving respect for the authority of the Constitution, this requirement has often served to create the mere appearance of respect for constitutional limits while continuing unconstitutional business as usual.

Indeed, the sponsor of this reauthorization, Mr. Curbelo of Florida, followed a common practice when he asserted: “Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United States.” Section 8 does spell out in detail the powers given to Congress. But managing the handling of juvenile crime and delinquency is not among them. Nor does Mr. Curbelo give us any indication where in the Section 8 list he thinks he has found such authority.

Indeed, the Establishment media and federal politicians of both parties regularly retail the collectivist view that the federal government is qualified and has the responsibility to address virtually all problems of society using taxpayer dollars. This agenda is totally incompatible with carefully crafted limited federal government given us by our founding fathers.

In addition to violating constitutional constraints, the intended solutions in this program rely on “progressive” concepts of social engineering.   Often in these reauthorizations of federal overreach, we are supposed to be reassured that the legislated “improvements” are “evidence based.”

We provide here excerpts from the bipartisan leaders of the “debate” over this measure, per the Congressional Record, that illustrate the “unlimited power of the federal government” attitude.

Carlos Curbelo, R-Florida: 

“H.R. 5963 includes a number of positive reforms, all aimed at improving services to keep at-risk youth out of the juvenile system and help juvenile offenders turn their lives around.

“First, the bill’s reforms will set these children up for long-term success. They will help them gain the skills they need to become productive members of society or a second chance to reach their full potential. These reforms will also give State and local leaders the flexibility to meet specific and unique needs of vulnerable kids in their communities.

“The legislation also prioritizes what works, focusing on evidence-based strategies that will help reduce juvenile delinquency. It will also give policymakers, State and local leaders, and service providers a better understanding of the best ways to serve kids across the country.

“Finally, the bill improves oversight and accountability to ensure juvenile justice programs are delivering positive results for children and to protect the taxpayers’ investment in these important programs.”

Bobby Scott, D-Virginia:

“Mr. Speaker, juvenile courts were established by States over 100 years ago on the emerging legal theory that children should not be held fully responsible for their actions, a theory proven by scientific research into impulse control and brain development. The capacity to rehabilitate children became the focus of the system rather than punishment of offenders….

“Long overdue for reauthorization, H.R. 5963 creates Federal guardrails that protect children in the juvenile justice system within each State. In the 14 years since Congress last reauthorized the program, there have been advancements in research and expansion of evidence informing improved methods to prevent inappropriate youth incarceration and to reduce delinquency.

“The bill we consider today includes necessary improvements in Federal policy firmly grounded in facts that demonstrate that public investments in services to our youth, particularly trauma-informed care and alternatives to incarceration, will produce positive results for at-risk youth. Those results, in turn, will lead to reduced crime and long-term cost savings.

“H.R. 5963 requires, for the first time, that State juvenile justice plans take into account the latest scientific research on adolescent development and behavior, recognizing the importance of prevention and early intervention in juvenile crime policy.”

Since 2011, an amendment to House Rule XII requires that, to be accepted for introduction by the House Clerk, all bills (H.R.) and joint resolutions (H.J.Res.) must provide a document stating “as specifically as practicable the power or powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the bill or joint resolution.” [Emphasis added.]

Rather than improving respect for the authority of the Constitution, this requirement has often served to create the mere appearance of respect for constitutional limits while continuing unconstitutional business as usual.

Indeed, the sponsor of this reauthorization, Mr. Curbelo of Florida, followed a common practice when he asserted: “Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United States.” Section 8 does spell out in detail the powers given to Congress. But managing the handling of juvenile crime and delinquency is not among them. Nor does Mr. Curbelo give us any indication where in the Section 8 list he thinks he has found such authority.

Indeed, the Establishment media and federal politicians of both parties regularly retail the collectivist view that the federal government is qualified and has the responsibility to address virtually all problems of society using taxpayer dollars. This agenda is totally incompatible with carefully crafted limited federal government given us by our founding fathers.

In addition to violating constitutional constraints, the intended solutions in this program rely on “progressive” concepts of social engineering.   Often in these reauthorizations of federal overreach, we are supposed to be reassured that the legislated “improvements” are “evidence based.”

We provide here excerpts from the bipartisan leaders of the “debate” over this measure, per the Congressional Record, that illustrate the “unlimited power of the federal government” attitude.

Carlos Curbelo, R-Florida: 

“H.R. 5963 includes a number of positive reforms, all aimed at improving services to keep at-risk youth out of the juvenile system and help juvenile offenders turn their lives around.

“First, the bill’s reforms will set these children up for long-term success. They will help them gain the skills they need to become productive members of society or a second chance to reach their full potential. These reforms will also give State and local leaders the flexibility to meet specific and unique needs of vulnerable kids in their communities.

“The legislation also prioritizes what works, focusing on evidence-based strategies that will help reduce juvenile delinquency. It will also give policymakers, State and local leaders, and service providers a better understanding of the best ways to serve kids across the country.

“Finally, the bill improves oversight and accountability to ensure juvenile justice programs are delivering positive results for children and to protect the taxpayers’ investment in these important programs.”

Bobby Scott, D-Virginia:

“Mr. Speaker, juvenile courts were established by States over 100 years ago on the emerging legal theory that children should not be held fully responsible for their actions, a theory proven by scientific research into impulse control and brain development. The capacity to rehabilitate children became the focus of the system rather than punishment of offenders….

“Long overdue for reauthorization, H.R. 5963 creates Federal guardrails that protect children in the juvenile justice system within each State. In the 14 years since Congress last reauthorized the program, there have been advancements in research and expansion of evidence informing improved methods to prevent inappropriate youth incarceration and to reduce delinquency.

“The bill we consider today includes necessary improvements in Federal policy firmly grounded in facts that demonstrate that public investments in services to our youth, particularly trauma-informed care and alternatives to incarceration, will produce positive results for at-risk youth. Those results, in turn, will lead to reduced crime and long-term cost savings.

“H.R. 5963 requires, for the first time, that State juvenile justice plans take into account the latest scientific research on adolescent development and behavior, recognizing the importance of prevention and early intervention in juvenile crime policy.”

 

 

Analysis: Congress first authorized the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act in 1984. The most recent reauthorization was signed by President George W. Bush in 2006 and expired in 2012.

This unconstitutional federal funding of state technical education programs was promoted as a step to help the economy. But as the 19th Century free-market legislator Frederick Bastian once observed, the socialists can be seen to concoct “the antidote and the poison in the same laboratory.” Such is certainly the case in almost every area of concern today.

Too much government overhead and regulation, combined with perverse incentives, have pushed manufacturing and heavy industry, such as steel production, abroad. And with that export of capital intensive production went thousands of high paying jobs. Now the federal government claims to be acting responsibly to fund technical training, having killed much of the demand.

And in the process, Congress continues to establish Big Brother as the dominant authority in education. Indeed, the collectivist rhetoric that all blessings must flow from the state is in high swing. And, of course, the cost, both to a vibrant domestic economy and to our freedom, of this assault on limited constitutional government is ignored.

We include here a few excerpts from the House speech-making in support of H.R. 5587, cloaked as a “debate”:

Congressional Record (9-13-16)

Glenn Thompson (R-PA): 

“Mr. Speaker, a weak economy and advances in technology have dramatically changed today’s job market, creating both challenges and opportunities for men and women entering the workforce. This is why equipping today’s students with the tools they need to remain competitive is essential. One way we can achieve that goal is by strengthening career and technical education programs for those eager to pursue pathways to success.

“As cochair of the Career and Technical Education Caucus, I have worked hard to increase awareness about the opportunities available through CTE….

“Recognizing the importance of engagement with community leaders and local businesses, this bill empowers State and local leaders by providing them with the flexibility they need to best prepare their students for the workforce and to respond to the changing needs of their communities.’

Katherine Clark (D-Massachussetts):

“Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5587, the Strengthening Career and Technical Education for the 21st Century Act, legislation that I am proud to introduce with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson)….

“The bill before us is proof that Democrats and Republicans can come together and do the right thing for America’s students, workers, and employers.

“The Perkins Career and Technical Education program reaches over 11 million American students across the country each year….

“This bill will help families by preparing them with the skills they need to thrive in high-demand fields as diverse as child care, advanced manufacturing, carpentry, computer science, automotive technology, culinary arts, and more.

“This legislation is supported by over 200 leading national organizations, including educators, trade groups, and major employers across the country.

It was reported by the House Education and the Workforce Committee without a single dissenting vote, which I think reflects the

bipartisan, good faith process by which we came together to draft and introduce this bill.”

“Specifically, I am pleased this legislation takes steps to help policymakers measure what does and does not work in career and technical education, allowing us to build on our past successes….

“It directly supports our early education and childcare workforce and brings the Perkins program into the modern 21st century global economy.”

Tim Walberg (R-Michigan): 

“Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5587, which will help people in Michigan and across the country find meaningful careers in the 21st century workforce by updating our career and technical education programs….

“This bill will help create pathways to careers by encouraging States to review their regulatory climate and ensure it does not create unnecessary barriers for job growth.”

Bobby Scott (D-Virginia):

“We need to make sure that we have greater accountability for program quality. We want to ensure that we have more inclusive collaboration between educational institutions, industries, employers, and community partners. And we need to make sure that those programs are aligned with our recent K through 12 education and workforce systems.”

James Langevin (D-Rhode Island): 

“The bill also expands student access to work-based learning opportunities. This will help students to bridge the gap between classroom theory and workplace practice and align skills and training with employer needs.”

Todd Rokita (R-Indiana, chairman of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education that has jurisdiction on this bill):

“Now, through a number of commonsense measures, Mr. Speaker, this bill is delivering the reforms that will provide the flexibility to State and local leaders to meet those unique local needs, build stronger engagement with employers, and ensure that CTE programs are delivering results….

“First, the good news. All across the country, there is an exciting and growing need for trade and technical skills to fill jobs that young people can build a career and life around. Advanced manufacturing opportunities in aerospace, maritime, and even health care are happening from coast to coast. And the question of the day for many employers is whether our education and job training systems are ready to fill the need.

“Recent updates to K-12 and job training programs signed into law by President Obama in 2014 and 2015 built a positive platform to address this challenge, and passage of this bill for technical programs will add to that capability.

Susan Davis (D-California):

“I am excited that this bill places an emphasis on teachers getting opportunities to advance their knowledge and skills. Teachers need support and training from industry leaders so that they can take their knowledge back to students.”

Analysis: Congress first authorized the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act in 1984. The most recent reauthorization was signed by President George W. Bush in 2006 and expired in 2012.

This unconstitutional federal funding of state technical education programs was promoted as a step to help the economy. But as the 19th Century free-market legislator Frederick Bastian once observed, the socialists can be seen to concoct “the antidote and the poison in the same laboratory.” Such is certainly the case in almost every area of concern today.

Too much government overhead and regulation, combined with perverse incentives, have pushed manufacturing and heavy industry, such as steel production, abroad. And with that export of capital intensive production went thousands of high paying jobs. Now the federal government claims to be acting responsibly to fund technical training, having killed much of the demand.

And in the process, Congress continues to establish Big Brother as the dominant authority in education. Indeed, the collectivist rhetoric that all blessings must flow from the state is in high swing. And, of course, the cost, both to a vibrant domestic economy and to our freedom, of this assault on limited constitutional government is ignored.

We include here a few excerpts from the House speech-making in support of H.R. 5587, cloaked as a “debate”:

Congressional Record (9-13-16)

Glenn Thompson (R-PA):

“Mr. Speaker, a weak economy and advances in technology have dramatically changed today’s job market, creating both challenges and opportunities for men and women entering the workforce. This is why equipping today’s students with the tools they need to remain competitive is essential. One way we can achieve that goal is by strengthening career and technical education programs for those eager to pursue pathways to success.

“As cochair of the Career and Technical Education Caucus, I have worked hard to increase awareness about the opportunities available through CTE….

“Recognizing the importance of engagement with community leaders and local businesses, this bill empowers State and local leaders by providing them with the flexibility they need to best prepare their students for the workforce and to respond to the changing needs of their communities.’

Katherine Clark (D-Massachussetts):

“Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5587, the Strengthening Career and Technical Education for the 21st Century Act, legislation that I am proud to introduce with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson)….

“The bill before us is proof that Democrats and Republicans can come together and do the right thing for America’s students, workers, and employers.

“The Perkins Career and Technical Education program reaches over 11 million American students across the country each year….

“This bill will help families by preparing them with the skills they need to thrive in high-demand fields as diverse as child care, advanced manufacturing, carpentry, computer science, automotive technology, culinary arts, and more.

“This legislation is supported by over 200 leading national organizations, including educators, trade groups, and major employers across the country.

It was reported by the House Education and the Workforce Committee without a single dissenting vote, which I think reflects the

bipartisan, good faith process by which we came together to draft and introduce this bill.”

“Specifically, I am pleased this legislation takes steps to help policymakers measure what does and does not work in career and technical education, allowing us to build on our past successes….

“It directly supports our early education and childcare workforce and brings the Perkins program into the modern 21st century global economy.”

Tim Walberg (R-Michigan):

“Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5587, which will help people in Michigan and across the country find meaningful careers in the 21st century workforce by updating our career and technical education programs….

“This bill will help create pathways to careers by encouraging States to review their regulatory climate and ensure it does not create unnecessary barriers for job growth.”

Bobby Scott (D-Virginia):

“We need to make sure that we have greater accountability for program quality. We want to ensure that we have more inclusive collaboration between educational institutions, industries, employers, and community partners. And we need to make sure that those programs are aligned with our recent K through 12 education and workforce systems.”

James Langevin (D-Rhode Island):

“The bill also expands student access to work-based learning opportunities. This will help students to bridge the gap between classroom theory and workplace practice and align skills and training with employer needs.”

Todd Rokita (R-Indiana, chairman of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education that has jurisdiction on this bill):

“Now, through a number of commonsense measures, Mr. Speaker, this bill is delivering the reforms that will provide the flexibility to State and local leaders to meet those unique local needs, build stronger engagement with employers, and ensure that CTE programs are delivering results….

“First, the good news. All across the country, there is an exciting and growing need for trade and technical skills to fill jobs that young people can build a career and life around. Advanced manufacturing opportunities in aerospace, maritime, and even health care are happening from coast to coast. And the question of the day for many employers is whether our education and job training systems are ready to fill the need.

“Recent updates to K-12 and job training programs signed into law by President Obama in 2014 and 2015 built a positive platform to address this challenge, and passage of this bill for technical programs will add to that capability.

Susan Davis (D-California):

“I am excited that this bill places an emphasis on teachers getting opportunities to advance their knowledge and skills. Teachers need support and training from industry leaders so that they can take their knowledge back to students.”

 

Analysis: In her endorsement of King during the Senate debate, Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren (MA) provided an unintended indictment of Federal management of education:

Secretary of Education must be one of the most difficult jobs in Washington because for years there has been some kind of problem at the Department of Education that has made it practically impossible to get the Department to put the interests of students ahead of the interests of private contractors and for-profit colleges that are making the big money off our students.

Warren then proceeded to cite several horrific scandals that had resisted improvement. As a member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions, she was in a position to know.

The Committee Chair, Republican Senator Lamar Alexander (TN), and sponsor of the Every Student Succeeds Act, argued:

The reason we are voting today is because we need a U.S. Education Secretary confirmed by and accountable to the U.S. Senate so that the law to fix No Child Left Behind will be implemented the way Congress wrote it….

That law was passed with broad bipartisan support. It passed the U.S. Senate by a vote of 85 to 12. It passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 359 to 64.

We achieved that result because, as Newsweek said, No Child Left Behind was a law everybody wanted fixed and fixing it was long overdue. Governors, teachers, superintendents, parents, Republicans, Democrats, and students all wanted No Child Left Behind fixed….

This new law is a dramatic change in direction for Federal education policy. In short, it reverses the trend toward what had become a national school board and restores to those closest to children the responsibility for their well-being and academic success.

The Wall Street Journal called the new Every Student Succeeds Act “the largest devolution of federal control of schools from Washington back to the states in a quarter of a century.”…

The Senate Education Committee, which I chair … will hold at least six hearings to oversee implementation of the new law. All of those hearings will be bipartisan, as our hearings almost always are.

We already held the first hearing on February 23 with representatives of many of the groups who worked together to pass the law, and now they are working together to implement the law. They already formed a coalition made up of the National Governors Association, the School Superintendents Association, the National Education Association, the American Federation of Teachers, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National Association of State Boards of Education, the National School Boards Association, the National Association of Elementary School Principals, the National Association of Secondary School Principals, the National Parent Teacher Association, with the support of the Chief State School Officers.

At first glance, Senator Alexander cites impressive diverse support for ESSA. But on closer examination, that diversity falls apart. Bipartisan support generally just means that the leadership of both parties have combined to implement an Establishment program. Newsweek and the Wall Street Journal are both Establishment media sources.

And the mentioned coalition includes groups at the forefront of the drive to nationalize education (such as the National Education Association) and many official-sounding private foundations created to guide, propagandize, and then represent government officials in support of the Establishment agenda. (See, for example, the video “Getting to the Core of Common Core” on YouTube.)

Champions of the “Every Student Succeeds Act” (ESSA) deceptively promoted it as a change in direction in federal control over elementary and secondary education. In particular, they falsely hyped ESSA as returning a large measure of policy control over education to the states. In reality, ESSA cemented such control in federal hands.

During an interview with Politico, retiring Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, was asked: “How do you respond to the notion that you’ve had your wings clipped on your way out the door?”

Amazingly, Duncan boasted:  “… candidly, our lawyers are much smarter than many of the folks [in Congress] who were working on this bill. There are some face-saving things you give up, some talking points that you give up, which we always do because we’re focused on substance. And we have every ability to implement. That’s all I’ve ever wanted.”

Not surprisingly, Republican Senator Lamar Alexander, who as Chairman of the Senate Education Committee has supported King’s confirmation, would later complain in a press release [4-16-16] that King was not relinquishing federal control under the new law:

Today, we’re holding our second hearing of at least six to oversee the implementation of this law and already we are seeing disturbing evidence of an Education Department that is ignoring the law that each of this committee’s 22 members worked so hard to craft.

We agree with much of Senator Lee (R-UT) objections to King’s confirmation during the Senate “debate”:

[L]ast week the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee voted to advance President Obama’s nominee for Secretary of Education, Dr. John King. Tonight the nomination is set to come before the Senate not for a robust debate but for a hasty vote, and by all accounts confirmation is expected.

I rise to oppose the nomination of Dr. King and to urge my colleagues to join me in voting against his confirmation as Secretary of Education. I have studied Dr. King’s professional record–most notably, his time in New York’s Department of Education. I have reviewed the transcripts of his confirmation hearing. Based on the policies he has supported, the bipartisan opposition he has invited throughout his career, and his uncompromising commitment to the designs of bureaucrats and central planners over the lived experiences of parents and teachers, I believe it would be a grave error for the Senate to confirm Dr. King’s nomination at this time….

More to the point, what matters aren’t the jobs someone has held but the policies that person has advanced. This is the problem with Dr. King’s nomination.

Look closely at his record, especially look closely at the 3\1/2\ years he spent as New York’s education commissioner, where he forced on an unwilling school system unpopular Common Core curriculum and standards, an inflexible testing regime, and a flawed teacher evaluation system.

All of this proves that Dr. King is the standard bearer of No Child Left Behind — the discredited K-12 regime that has become synonymous with dysfunctional education policy in classrooms and households all across America. This is not just my opinion. It was the opinion of New York’s parents, teachers, legislators, school board members, and superintendents. The vast majority of them opposed and protested against Dr. King and the policies he championed while at the helm of the State’s education department.

This Congress and President Obama have promised to move Federal education policy in the opposite direction established by No Child Left Behind. Under these circumstances, Dr. King–the embodiment of the failed K-12 status quo — is not the person who should be put in charge of the Department of Education. If confirmed, Dr. King would serve as the head of the Department of Education for 10 months, until January 2017, when the next President is sworn into office. This may sound like an insignificant amount of time for a Cabinet Secretary to serve, but in reality the next 10 months are crucially important to the future of Federal education policy in America….

I urge all of my colleagues to join me in voting against this nomination.

Not surprisingly, despite Lee’s reasoned appeal, all of the voting Democrats voted to confirm with the exception of the aforementioned Gillibrand of New York. But particularly revealing, as noted earlier, seven GOP senators, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, provided the margin needed for the confirmation.

Analysis: In her endorsement of King during the Senate debate, Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren (MA) provided an unintended indictment of Federal management of education:

Secretary of Education must be one of the most difficult jobs in Washington because for years there has been some kind of problem at the Department of Education that has made it practically impossible to get the Department to put the interests of students ahead of the interests of private contractors and for-profit colleges that are making the big money off our students.

Warren then proceeded to cite several horrific scandals that had resisted improvement. As a member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions, she was in a position to know.

The Committee Chair, Republican Senator Lamar Alexander (TN), and sponsor of the Every Student Succeeds Act, argued:

The reason we are voting today is because we need a U.S. Education Secretary confirmed by and accountable to the U.S. Senate so that the law to fix No Child Left Behind will be implemented the way Congress wrote it….

That law was passed with broad bipartisan support. It passed the U.S. Senate by a vote of 85 to 12. It passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 359 to 64.

We achieved that result because, as Newsweek said, No Child Left Behind was a law everybody wanted fixed and fixing it was long overdue. Governors, teachers, superintendents, parents, Republicans, Democrats, and students all wanted No Child Left Behind fixed….

This new law is a dramatic change in direction for Federal education policy. In short, it reverses the trend toward what had become a national school board and restores to those closest to children the responsibility for their well-being and academic success.

The Wall Street Journal called the new Every Student Succeeds Act “the largest devolution of federal control of schools from Washington back to the states in a quarter of a century.”…

The Senate Education Committee, which I chair … will hold at least six hearings to oversee implementation of the new law. All of those hearings will be bipartisan, as our hearings almost always are.

We already held the first hearing on February 23 with representatives of many of the groups who worked together to pass the law, and now they are working together to implement the law. They already formed a coalition made up of the National Governors Association, the School Superintendents Association, the National Education Association, the American Federation of Teachers, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National Association of State Boards of Education, the National School Boards Association, the National Association of Elementary School Principals, the National Association of Secondary School Principals, the National Parent Teacher Association, with the support of the Chief State School Officers.

At first glance, Senator Alexander cites impressive diverse support for ESSA. But on closer examination, that diversity falls apart. Bipartisan support generally just means that the leadership of both parties have combined to implement an Establishment program. Newsweek and the Wall Street Journal are both Establishment media sources.

And the mentioned coalition includes groups at the forefront of the drive to nationalize education (such as the National Education Association) and many official-sounding private foundations created to guide, propagandize, and then represent government officials in support of the Establishment agenda. (See, for example, the video “Getting to the Core of Common Core” on YouTube.)

Champions of the “Every Student Succeeds Act” (ESSA) deceptively promoted it as a change in direction in federal control over elementary and secondary education. In particular, they falsely hyped ESSA as returning a large measure of policy control over education to the states. In reality, ESSA cemented such control in federal hands.

During an interview with Politico, retiring Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, was asked: “How do you respond to the notion that you’ve had your wings clipped on your way out the door?”

Amazingly, Duncan boasted:  “… candidly, our lawyers are much smarter than many of the folks [in Congress] who were working on this bill. There are some face-saving things you give up, some talking points that you give up, which we always do because we’re focused on substance. And we have every ability to implement. That’s all I’ve ever wanted.”

Not surprisingly, Republican Senator Lamar Alexander, who as Chairman of the Senate Education Committee has supported King’s confirmation, would later complain in a press release [4-16-16] that King was not relinquishing federal control under the new law:

Today, we’re holding our second hearing of at least six to oversee the implementation of this law and already we are seeing disturbing evidence of an Education Department that is ignoring the law that each of this committee’s 22 members worked so hard to craft.

We agree with much of Senator Lee (R-UT) objections to King’s confirmation during the Senate “debate”:

[L]ast week the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee voted to advance President Obama’s nominee for Secretary of Education, Dr. John King. Tonight the nomination is set to come before the Senate not for a robust debate but for a hasty vote, and by all accounts confirmation is expected.

I rise to oppose the nomination of Dr. King and to urge my colleagues to join me in voting against his confirmation as Secretary of Education. I have studied Dr. King’s professional record–most notably, his time in New York’s Department of Education. I have reviewed the transcripts of his confirmation hearing. Based on the policies he has supported, the bipartisan opposition he has invited throughout his career, and his uncompromising commitment to the designs of bureaucrats and central planners over the lived experiences of parents and teachers, I believe it would be a grave error for the Senate to confirm Dr. King’s nomination at this time….

More to the point, what matters aren’t the jobs someone has held but the policies that person has advanced. This is the problem with Dr. King’s nomination.

Look closely at his record, especially look closely at the 3\1/2\ years he spent as New York’s education commissioner, where he forced on an unwilling school system unpopular Common Core curriculum and standards, an inflexible testing regime, and a flawed teacher evaluation system.

All of this proves that Dr. King is the standard bearer of No Child Left Behind — the discredited K-12 regime that has become synonymous with dysfunctional education policy in classrooms and households all across America. This is not just my opinion. It was the opinion of New York’s parents, teachers, legislators, school board members, and superintendents. The vast majority of them opposed and protested against Dr. King and the policies he championed while at the helm of the State’s education department.

This Congress and President Obama have promised to move Federal education policy in the opposite direction established by No Child Left Behind. Under these circumstances, Dr. King–the embodiment of the failed K-12 status quo — is not the person who should be put in charge of the Department of Education. If confirmed, Dr. King would serve as the head of the Department of Education for 10 months, until January 2017, when the next President is sworn into office. This may sound like an insignificant amount of time for a Cabinet Secretary to serve, but in reality the next 10 months are crucially important to the future of Federal education policy in America….

I urge all of my colleagues to join me in voting against this nomination.

Not surprisingly, despite Lee’s reasoned appeal, all of the voting Democrats voted to confirm with the exception of the aforementioned Gillibrand of New York. But particularly revealing, as noted earlier, seven GOP senators, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, provided the margin needed for the confirmation.

 

From the Congressional Research Service Summary:

• This bill creates the position of Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use Disorders to take over the responsibilities of the Administrator of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). Mental health programs are extended and training regarding mental health is expanded. [Emphasis added.]

• SAMHSA must establish the National Mental Health Policy Laboratory and the Interagency Serious Mental Illness Coordinating Committee. [Emphasis added.]

• This bill amends the Public Health Service Act to require the National Institute of Mental Health to translate evidence-based interventions and the best available science into systems of care.

• Certain mental health care professional volunteers are provided liability protection.

• Pediatric mental health subspecialists are eligible for National Health Service Corps programs.

• An underserved population of children or a site for training in child psychiatry can be designated as a health professional shortage area.[Emphasis added.] 

Analysis: Perhaps, the best way to help Americans realize how far Congress has drifted from the wise federalism devised by America’s founding fathers is to acquaint them with what our supposed representatives are actually supporting.

Accordingly, we include here some admissions against interest by the supporters of the “Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act” during their self-congratulating statements, masquerading as a “debate.”

From the Congressional Record (7/6/16):

Opening remarks by the bill’s sponsor (Tim Murphy, R-Pennsylvania):

“Mr. Speaker, our mental health system in this country is a failure.

“This is one of those times where we are not gathered for a moment of silence, but a time of action. We are here finally to speak up for the last, the lost, the least, and the lonely, that is those who suffer from mental illness which is untreated.

“Mental illness affects one in five Americans. [FFS: Please forgive us, but we can’t help wondering how many that makes in Congress.] About 10 million Americans have serious mental illness. About 4 million of those go without any treatment. There are 100,000 new cases each year. Half of psychosis cases emerge by age 14, 75 percent by age 24. We have a need for 30,000 child psychiatrists. We only have 9,000. We have great shortages of psychologists.

“The time between the emergence of the first symptoms of serious mental illness and the first appointment is about 80 weeks. We need about 100,000 hospital beds in this country, but we only have 40,000 for psychiatric crises. A person is 10 times more likely, therefore, to be in jail than in a hospital if they are mentally ill.

“And these statistics, too: 43,000 suicides last year, 47,000 drug overdose deaths, 1,000 homicides, 250 mentally ill violently killed in a police encounter where they attacked a policeman. We have hundreds of thousands of homeless and mentally ill who die the slow-motion death of chronic illness, and that comes to more than the number who die of breast cancer, perhaps 350,000 or more a year.”

[FFS: Mr. Murphy outlines a horrific problem in our society, but he and other supporters of this bill give no indication as to how this problem, if they are anywhere near correct, came about. Is this plague only affecting Americans? Is it natural to all societies or just a modern phenomenon? Certainly, an accurate diagnosis of the cause is an essential first step in developing a cure.

And please excuse us again for suspecting that part of the cause is a failure to observe George Washington’s admonition in his Farewell Address:

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports…. And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

Furthermore, the whole agenda here smells of a federal power grab driven by the revolutionary fervor of social engineers and acquiesced in by the politician eager to promise that government programs can fix almost anything.]

Mr. Murphy continues:

“The Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act, a bipartisan bill with over 205 cosponsors, which came out of the Committee on Energy and Commerce with a unanimous vote, fixes this.”

[FFS: Wow! What a claim! Ostensibly prior federal Mental Health Care programs were ineffective. (Incredibly, we are told there are 112 such programs — see next.) Why should we now have confidence that Washington will finally get it right? Perhaps, Washington is guided by a dangerous view of the federal bureaucracy’s responsibility for managing society.]

Remarks by Kevin McCarthy, R-California:

“The House will soon vote to pass Mr. Murphy’s Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act under suspension. Though this bill is the most significant reform to our Nation’s mental health program in decades, it has such a breadth of bipartisan support that we know it will pass with far more than a majority of votes in this House….

“You see, each year, the Federal Government has responded with money–$130 billion to be exact. But we cannot and should never conflate the amount we spend with the effectiveness of the spending.

“The Federal Government has 112 programs to address mental illness. But coordination is limited and gaps are common. Children with mental health disorders can’t get psychiatrists. Criminal facilities are commonly used to house mental health patients. Funding isn’t going to support evidence-based breakthroughs that improve people’s lives.

“We need simplification, coordination, and effectiveness. We need reforms that help those who suffer from mental illness while also making our Nation safer.

“This bill is thorough and will deliver. From top to bottom it will improve our fragmented mental health systems, giving new hope to those too often forgotten and support to those truly in need.”

Opening remarks of Frank Pallone, D-New Jersey, controlling the Democrat portion of the debate:

“Today’s mental health system can hardly be described as a system at all….

“I am proud that H.R. 2646 now includes several policies championed by Democrats.

“The bill requires that States provide the full range of early and periodic screening, diagnostic, and treatment–EPSDT–services to children in the Medicaid program who receive inpatient psychiatric care at so-called institutions of mental disease. “It creates a new assertive community treatment grant program and a peer professional workforce grant program….

“A great deal of work went into crafting this agreement….

“That said, the bill before us today is not transformative reform nor is it a panacea to the many problems now facing our mental health system. I encourage my colleagues to see this legislation as a necessary step rather than a solution, and I want to be very clear on this point. If we are truly serious about fixing our broken mental health system, we have to expand access and make sustained investment, and that means we must work to encourage all States to expand Medicaid and provide more Federal resources to support the growth of community-based prevention, treatment, and recovery services.

“This legislation is not comprehensive. It by no means contains enough funding to make the mental health system whole. I hope that, in the near future, we can work together again on additional legislation to increase treatment options and further strengthen mental health parity enforcement.” [Emphasis added.]

[FFS: What, you may ask, is mental health parity? This is an ongoing campaign by the federal government to force health insurance companies to supply benefits for the treatment of mental illness similar to those for other physical diseases, etc. In short, the federal government has become an advocate for the efficacy of psychiatric treatment.]

Remarks of Leonard Lance, R-New Jersey:

“This bill includes provisions I have championed to help provide early detection of eating disorders and improve access to treatment coverage. This is an historic achievement, as it marks the first time Congress has addressed eating disorders specifically through legislation.”

Remarks of Joe Pitts, R-Pennsylvania:

“[Congressman Murphy’s] bill will increase accountability so that we can better understand how Federal mental health and substance abuse treatment funds are used in each State.”  [Emphasis added.]

Remarks of Jim McDermott, D-Washington:

“[I]f the Federal Government doesn’t put money into this program that we are outlining in this very carefully constructed bill, we will be sending out a blank check. There will be nothing. It won’t be worth anything. To think that State legislatures or somebody is going to find the money somewhere is simply not real.”

[FFS: Mr. McDermott points to a fundamental problem that few discuss — why the Federal government has deep pockets, putting it in the driver’s set, and the State governments do not. Of course, the answer is the Federal Reserve System that can debauch our money by creating it out of nothing and the Federal Income Tax. The Federal Government is a huge drain on taxpayer money. With its unlimited monstrous appetite, the Federal government is killing our economy and chasing growth overseas. What kind of health care system could America, as a third world country provide?]

Remarks of Diana DeGette, D-Colorado:

“The last thing I want to say is, action on mental health legislation does not excuse inaction on gun violence prevention legislation. We must do something as well as passing comprehensive mental health legislation to respond to the gun violence epidemic.”

Remarks of Rick Allen, R-Georgia:

“Sadly, one in five children ages 13 to 18 have or will battle a mental illness.

“As a proud member of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, I had the privilege of visiting schools across Georgia’s 12th Congressional District and visiting with educators and staff members. School leaders from elementary school to college all say that mental health is one of their top concerns for the students.”

Remarks of Mrs. Mimi Walters, R-California:

“Across this country, our mental health system is broken. Nearly 10 million Americans suffer from serious mental illness, and for far too many of those individuals the Federal Government stands between them and the care that they so desperately need.

“The laws on the books are complicated and outdated, but with this legislation, we have the opportunity to reform our national mental health system.”

From the Congressional Research Service Summary:

• This bill creates the position of Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use Disorders to take over the responsibilities of the Administrator of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). Mental health programs are extended and training regarding mental health is expanded. [Emphasis added.]

• SAMHSA must establish the National Mental Health Policy Laboratory and the Interagency Serious Mental Illness Coordinating Committee. [Emphasis added.]

• This bill amends the Public Health Service Act to require the National Institute of Mental Health to translate evidence-based interventions and the best available science into systems of care.

• Certain mental health care professional volunteers are provided liability protection.

• Pediatric mental health subspecialists are eligible for National Health Service Corps programs.

• An underserved population of children or a site for training in child psychiatry can be designated as a health professional shortage area.[Emphasis added.] 

Analysis: Perhaps, the best way to help Americans realize how far Congress has drifted from the wise federalism devised by America’s founding fathers is to acquaint them with what our supposed representatives are actually supporting.

Accordingly, we include here some admissions against interest by the supporters of the “Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act” during their self-congratulating statements, masquerading as a “debate.”

From the Congressional Record (7/6/16):

Opening remarks by the bill’s sponsor (Tim Murphy, R-Pennsylvania):

“Mr. Speaker, our mental health system in this country is a failure.

“This is one of those times where we are not gathered for a moment of silence, but a time of action. We are here finally to speak up for the last, the lost, the least, and the lonely, that is those who suffer from mental illness which is untreated.

“Mental illness affects one in five Americans. [FFS: Please forgive us, but we can’t help wondering how many that makes in Congress.] About 10 million Americans have serious mental illness. About 4 million of those go without any treatment. There are 100,000 new cases each year. Half of psychosis cases emerge by age 14, 75 percent by age 24. We have a need for 30,000 child psychiatrists. We only have 9,000. We have great shortages of psychologists.

“The time between the emergence of the first symptoms of serious mental illness and the first appointment is about 80 weeks. We need about 100,000 hospital beds in this country, but we only have 40,000 for psychiatric crises. A person is 10 times more likely, therefore, to be in jail than in a hospital if they are mentally ill.

“And these statistics, too: 43,000 suicides last year, 47,000 drug overdose deaths, 1,000 homicides, 250 mentally ill violently killed in a police encounter where they attacked a policeman. We have hundreds of thousands of homeless and mentally ill who die the slow-motion death of chronic illness, and that comes to more than the number who die of breast cancer, perhaps 350,000 or more a year.”

[FFS: Mr. Murphy outlines a horrific problem in our society, but he and other supporters of this bill give no indication as to how this problem, if they are anywhere near correct, came about. Is this plague only affecting Americans? Is it natural to all societies or just a modern phenomenon? Certainly, an accurate diagnosis of the cause is an essential first step in developing a cure.

And please excuse us again for suspecting that part of the cause is a failure to observe George Washington’s admonition in his Farewell Address:

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports…. And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

Furthermore, the whole agenda here smells of a federal power grab driven by the revolutionary fervor of social engineers and acquiesced in by the politician eager to promise that government programs can fix almost anything.]

Mr. Murphy continues:

“The Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act, a bipartisan bill with over 205 cosponsors, which came out of the Committee on Energy and Commerce with a unanimous vote, fixes this.”

[FFS: Wow! What a claim! Ostensibly prior federal Mental Health Care programs were ineffective. (Incredibly, we are told there are 112 such programs — see next.) Why should we now have confidence that Washington will finally get it right? Perhaps, Washington is guided by a dangerous view of the federal bureaucracy’s responsibility for managing society.]

Remarks by Kevin McCarthy, R-California:

“The House will soon vote to pass Mr. Murphy’s Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act under suspension. Though this bill is the most significant reform to our Nation’s mental health program in decades, it has such a breadth of bipartisan support that we know it will pass with far more than a majority of votes in this House….

“You see, each year, the Federal Government has responded with money–$130 billion to be exact. But we cannot and should never conflate the amount we spend with the effectiveness of the spending.

“The Federal Government has 112 programs to address mental illness. But coordination is limited and gaps are common. Children with mental health disorders can’t get psychiatrists. Criminal facilities are commonly used to house mental health patients. Funding isn’t going to support evidence-based breakthroughs that improve people’s lives.

“We need simplification, coordination, and effectiveness. We need reforms that help those who suffer from mental illness while also making our Nation safer.

“This bill is thorough and will deliver. From top to bottom it will improve our fragmented mental health systems, giving new hope to those too often forgotten and support to those truly in need.”

Opening remarks of Frank Pallone, D-New Jersey, controlling the Democrat portion of the debate:

“Today’s mental health system can hardly be described as a system at all….

“I am proud that H.R. 2646 now includes several policies championed by Democrats.

“The bill requires that States provide the full range of early and periodic screening, diagnostic, and treatment–EPSDT–services to children in the Medicaid program who receive inpatient psychiatric care at so-called institutions of mental disease. “It creates a new assertive community treatment grant program and a peer professional workforce grant program….

“A great deal of work went into crafting this agreement….

“That said, the bill before us today is not transformative reform nor is it a panacea to the many problems now facing our mental health system. I encourage my colleagues to see this legislation as a necessary step rather than a solution, and I want to be very clear on this point. If we are truly serious about fixing our broken mental health system, we have to expand access and make sustained investment, and that means we must work to encourage all States to expand Medicaid and provide more Federal resources to support the growth of community-based prevention, treatment, and recovery services.

“This legislation is not comprehensive. It by no means contains enough funding to make the mental health system whole. I hope that, in the near future, we can work together again on additional legislation to increase treatment options and further strengthen mental health parity enforcement.” [Emphasis added.]

[FFS: What, you may ask, is mental health parity? This is an ongoing campaign by the federal government to force health insurance companies to supply benefits for the treatment of mental illness similar to those for other physical diseases, etc. In short, the federal government has become an advocate for the efficacy of psychiatric treatment.]

Remarks of Leonard Lance, R-New Jersey:

“This bill includes provisions I have championed to help provide early detection of eating disorders and improve access to treatment coverage. This is an historic achievement, as it marks the first time Congress has addressed eating disorders specifically through legislation.”

Remarks of Joe Pitts, R-Pennsylvania:

“[Congressman Murphy’s] bill will increase accountability so that we can better understand how Federal mental health and substance abuse treatment funds are used in each State.”  [Emphasis added.]

Remarks of Jim McDermott, D-Washington:

“[I]f the Federal Government doesn’t put money into this program that we are outlining in this very carefully constructed bill, we will be sending out a blank check. There will be nothing. It won’t be worth anything. To think that State legislatures or somebody is going to find the money somewhere is simply not real.”

[FFS: Mr. McDermott points to a fundamental problem that few discuss — why the Federal government has deep pockets, putting it in the driver’s set, and the State governments do not. Of course, the answer is the Federal Reserve System that can debauch our money by creating it out of nothing and the Federal Income Tax. The Federal Government is a huge drain on taxpayer money. With its unlimited monstrous appetite, the Federal government is killing our economy and chasing growth overseas. What kind of health care system could America, as a third world country provide?]

Remarks of Diana DeGette, D-Colorado:

“The last thing I want to say is, action on mental health legislation does not excuse inaction on gun violence prevention legislation. We must do something as well as passing comprehensive mental health legislation to respond to the gun violence epidemic.”

Remarks of Rick Allen, R-Georgia:

“Sadly, one in five children ages 13 to 18 have or will battle a mental illness.

“As a proud member of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, I had the privilege of visiting schools across Georgia’s 12th Congressional District and visiting with educators and staff members. School leaders from elementary school to college all say that mental health is one of their top concerns for the students.”

Remarks of Mrs. Mimi Walters, R-California:

“Across this country, our mental health system is broken. Nearly 10 million Americans suffer from serious mental illness, and for far too many of those individuals the Federal Government stands between them and the care that they so desperately need.

“The laws on the books are complicated and outdated, but with this legislation, we have the opportunity to reform our national mental health system.”

 

Bill Summary:   In addition to the above, the Global Food Security Act, provides the following:

(Sec. 6) To carry out the strategy, the President may provide assistance under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to prevent or address food shortages.

(Sec. 7) This section …. amends the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to authorize the President to provide emergency food assistance (including funds, transfers, vouchers, and agricultural commodities) acquired through local or regional procurement to meet emergency food needs arising from manmade and natural disasters.” [Emphasis ours.]

Analysis: A charitable pretense is used to justify such unconstitutional assumption of responsibility. For further support, we are told that it is in the U.S. national security interest for the federal government to promote global food security, resilience, and nutrition.

Unfortunately, the humanitarian and national security pretenses are a smokescreen for subversive Internationalist designs. Ever since World War II, the U.S. State Department has worked to destabilize pro-Western regimes, while supporting socialist revolutions and dictators, precisely the opposite of what nations need to become economically self sufficient.

There are myriad examples of State’s subversive interventions, such as the efforts to oust the Shah of Iran, allowing the Ayatollah Khomeni to come to power, forcing Anastasio Somoza to abandon Nicaragua to the Communist Sandinistas, and even helping the Communist Mao TseTung take over China.

From the Congressional Record (7-5-16)

Rep. Ed Royce (R), CA-39:

“The legislation before us is the product of more than 3 years of careful deliberation and inclusive negotiations.

Rep. Eliot Engel (D), NY-16:

“Mr. Speaker, nearly 800 million people around the world live without the certainty that their families will have enough to eat. When children don’t make it to the age of 5, half the time it is because of malnutrition….

“This bill places a special priority on foreign assistance programs that aim to reduce global poverty and hunger. It also authorizes a robust investment in the Obama administration’s signature Feed the Future initiative as well as other State Department and USAID efforts dealing with global hunger.”