Bills

Bill Summary: H. R. 2, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015, is a complex measure (the engrossed bill ran to 95 pages that referred to many other pages of existing law).The following excerpts taken from the greatly simplified Congressional Research Summary (CRS) of the measure, as introduced, provide a foundation for the analysis that follows: (although H.R. 2 was not amended in either the House or Senate, later CRS summaries were greatly expanded):

“Directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a Merit-based Incentive Payment (MIP) system under which eligible professionals (including physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, and certified registered nurse anesthetists) shall receive annual payment increases or decreases based on their performance….

“Requires the Secretary to: (1) draft a plan for development of quality measures to assess professionals, including non-patient-facing professionals….

“Declares it a national objective to achieve widespread exchange of health information through interoperable certified electronic health records technology nationwide by December 31, 2018….

“Amends SSAct title V (Maternal and Child Health Services) to extend: (1) abstinence education; (2) personal responsibility education program; (3) family-to-family health information centers; and (4) maternal, infant, and early childhood home visiting programs.

“Amends SSAct title XXI (State Children’s Health Insurance Program) (CHIP) to extend the CHIP program through FY2017….

“Extends through FY2015 the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000.”

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analyzed the financial impact of H.R. 2. From the CBO summary:

“Over the 2015–2025 period, CBO estimates, enacting H.R. 2 would increase both direct spending (by about $145 billion) and revenues (by about $4 billion), resulting in a $141 billion increase in federal budget deficits (see table on page 2). Although the legislation would affect direct spending and revenues, it would waive the pay-as-you-go procedures that otherwise apply.”

Analysis: The passage of H.R. 2, with overwhelming support in both parties, was heralded in the media as a great example of bipartisanship. Americans are supposed to be reassured, because both parties found common ground.   When political adversaries agree, there shouldn’t be anything to worry about, right? Wrong!

Bipartisanship on significant matters today generally means that the leaders of the two parties have combined to slip a subversive socialist power grab over on the American people under false colors. It also means that the leadership figures the deception is strong enough so that the people won’t catch on.

Any federal involvement in the health care business is flatly unconstitutional and for good reason. America did not become a beacon of hope to the world because of paternalistic government, but because government got out of the way and let the people produce and keep the fruits of their labors.

The debate over health care further illustrates that even the most “conservative” politicians regularly deceive the American public by keeping the debate focused on symptoms, while ignoring the revolutionary socialist agenda driving the nationalization of healthcare. Conservative opponents of the liberal/socialist agenda regularly debate the false pretext of humanitarianism advanced by proponents of the government take over.

In so doing, they ignore the real driver of the power grab — elites who see federal control of health care as a route for controlling people by making them dependent on the federal government for essential services.   Ignoring this deceptive socialist strategy in order to make socialism more efficient does not help America return to a path to greater prosperity and freedom.

H.R. 2 is actually another significant step forward on the path to complete nationalization of health care.  In 1965, following extensive lobbying by radical union boss Walter Reuther and the (Fabian Socialist) Americans for Democratic Action, President Johnson was finally able to overcome decades of constitutional objections and public opposition to this power grab and saddle America with Medicare and Medicaid.

President Johnson was only able to do so by playing on emotion following the assassination of President Kennedy and arguing that this is what the young president has wanted. The American health care system does need reform — the real reform of getting the federal government out of the system.

The “Doc-fix” Pretext

Healthcare costs skyrocketed as soon as the Medicare bureaucracy was established. Huge paperwork expense became associated with even the simplest of treatments. And federal intrusion further entrenched the third-party payer system, which undermines natural cost control.

In his outstanding 1993 exposé Code Blue: Health Care in Crisis, Dr. Edward Annis, past president of the American Medical Association and a leader in blocking the federal takeover for many years, described the reason health care costs skyrocketed:

“All of the current problems in the medical marketplace — hyperinflation, millions of uninsured Americans, excessive administrative costs — carry a “MADE IN WASHINGTON” label. Yet the truth remains hidden to most Americans….

“Finagle all they will, bureaucrats and entrepreneurs will never overcome the problem of excessive cost without correcting the basic flaw: the system of third-party payers, whether government or corporate. There is no more efficient or effective method of delivering health care than the private doctor serving the patient who pays directly for the service provided.”

In 1997, Congress passed the Balanced Budget Act. Part of that plan revised the formula for reimbursing physicians who treated Medicare patients with something called the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) System. Essentially Congress was trying to control rising costs by blaming doctors. Naturally, many doctors threatened to quit treating Medicare patients. Congress has responded to its created “crisis” 17 times by delaying the SGR temporarily — the so-called “doc fix.”

Merit-based Incentive Payment (MIPS) system

The new system to be phased in following the enactment of H.R. 2 is being heralded by Republicans, Democrats, and especially President Obama, as a permanent “doc fix.”

However, the pretext of fixing a flawed plan for reimbursement of doctors obscures a further advance in federal control. In reality, the new law provides the Medicare bureaucracy with great new financial power over health care providers by tying reimbursement level to performance in implementing its wishes. Instead of being accountable to patients, health care providers must increasingly view the feds as their bosses.

And concurrently, the enormous Medicare cost burden on society is merely shifted where it is less visible.

Look at the Text!

Although everyone knows that the federal bureaucracy is huge, that fact really doesn’t come home until one looks at the enormous scope and variety of the federal undertaking today.

We urge readers to peruse the text of H.R 2 and see for themselves the complexity of federal regulation. We think many will be astonished at what our lawmakers attempt to understand and what the billing department of a doctor’s office must be trained to understand.

Keep in mind there are many hundreds of similar unconstitutional programs and overreaches in the federal budget.   Overseeing such a monster responsibly exceeds the ability of Congress, even when subdivided into a dozen appropriations subcommittees.

The solution: a much better informed electorate must force Congress to cut back the federal government to constitutionally authorized limits.

Bill Summary: H. R. 2, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015, is a complex measure (the engrossed bill ran to 95 pages that referred to many other pages of existing law).The following excerpts taken from the greatly simplified Congressional Research Summary (CRS) of the measure, as introduced, provide a foundation for the analysis that follows: (although H.R. 2 was not amended in either the House or Senate, later CRS summaries were greatly expanded):

“Directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a Merit-based Incentive Payment (MIP) system under which eligible professionals (including physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, and certified registered nurse anesthetists) shall receive annual payment increases or decreases based on their performance….

“Requires the Secretary to: (1) draft a plan for development of quality measures to assess professionals, including non-patient-facing professionals….

“Declares it a national objective to achieve widespread exchange of health information through interoperable certified electronic health records technology nationwide by December 31, 2018….

“Amends SSAct title V (Maternal and Child Health Services) to extend: (1) abstinence education; (2) personal responsibility education program; (3) family-to-family health information centers; and (4) maternal, infant, and early childhood home visiting programs.

“Amends SSAct title XXI (State Children’s Health Insurance Program) (CHIP) to extend the CHIP program through FY2017….

“Extends through FY2015 the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000.”

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analyzed the financial impact of H.R. 2. From the CBO summary:

“Over the 2015–2025 period, CBO estimates, enacting H.R. 2 would increase both direct spending (by about $145 billion) and revenues (by about $4 billion), resulting in a $141 billion increase in federal budget deficits (see table on page 2). Although the legislation would affect direct spending and revenues, it would waive the pay-as-you-go procedures that otherwise apply.”

Analysis: The passage of H.R. 2, with overwhelming support in both parties, was heralded in the media as a great example of bipartisanship. Americans are supposed to be reassured, because both parties found common ground.   When political adversaries agree, there shouldn’t be anything to worry about, right? Wrong!

Bipartisanship on significant matters today generally means that the leaders of the two parties have combined to slip a subversive socialist power grab over on the American people under false colors. It also means that the leadership figures the deception is strong enough so that the people won’t catch on.

Any federal involvement in the health care business is flatly unconstitutional and for good reason. America did not become a beacon of hope to the world because of paternalistic government, but because government got out of the way and let the people produce and keep the fruits of their labors.

The debate over health care further illustrates that even the most “conservative” politicians regularly deceive the American public by keeping the debate focused on symptoms, while ignoring the revolutionary socialist agenda driving the nationalization of healthcare. Conservative opponents of the liberal/socialist agenda regularly debate the false pretext of humanitarianism advanced by proponents of the government take over.

In so doing, they ignore the real driver of the power grab — elites who see federal control of health care as a route for controlling people by making them dependent on the federal government for essential services.   Ignoring this deceptive socialist strategy in order to make socialism more efficient does not help America return to a path to greater prosperity and freedom.

H.R. 2 is actually another significant step forward on the path to complete nationalization of health care.  In 1965, following extensive lobbying by radical union boss Walter Reuther and the (Fabian Socialist) Americans for Democratic Action, President Johnson was finally able to overcome decades of constitutional objections and public opposition to this power grab and saddle America with Medicare and Medicaid.

President Johnson was only able to do so by playing on emotion following the assassination of President Kennedy and arguing that this is what the young president has wanted. The American health care system does need reform — the real reform of getting the federal government out of the system.

The “Doc-fix” Pretext

Healthcare costs skyrocketed as soon as the Medicare bureaucracy was established. Huge paperwork expense became associated with even the simplest of treatments. And federal intrusion further entrenched the third-party payer system, which undermines natural cost control.

In his outstanding 1993 exposé Code Blue: Health Care in Crisis, Dr. Edward Annis, past president of the American Medical Association and a leader in blocking the federal takeover for many years, described the reason health care costs skyrocketed:

“All of the current problems in the medical marketplace — hyperinflation, millions of uninsured Americans, excessive administrative costs — carry a “MADE IN WASHINGTON” label. Yet the truth remains hidden to most Americans….

“Finagle all they will, bureaucrats and entrepreneurs will never overcome the problem of excessive cost without correcting the basic flaw: the system of third-party payers, whether government or corporate. There is no more efficient or effective method of delivering health care than the private doctor serving the patient who pays directly for the service provided.”

In 1997, Congress passed the Balanced Budget Act. Part of that plan revised the formula for reimbursing physicians who treated Medicare patients with something called the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) System. Essentially Congress was trying to control rising costs by blaming doctors. Naturally, many doctors threatened to quit treating Medicare patients. Congress has responded to its created “crisis” 17 times by delaying the SGR temporarily — the so-called “doc fix.”

Merit-based Incentive Payment (MIPS) system

The new system to be phased in following the enactment of H.R. 2 is being heralded by Republicans, Democrats, and especially President Obama, as a permanent “doc fix.”

However, the pretext of fixing a flawed plan for reimbursement of doctors obscures a further advance in federal control. In reality, the new law provides the Medicare bureaucracy with great new financial power over health care providers by tying reimbursement level to performance in implementing its wishes. Instead of being accountable to patients, health care providers must increasingly view the feds as their bosses.

And concurrently, the enormous Medicare cost burden on society is merely shifted where it is less visible.

Look at the Text!

Although everyone knows that the federal bureaucracy is huge, that fact really doesn’t come home until one looks at the enormous scope and variety of the federal undertaking today.

We urge readers to peruse the text of H.R 2 and see for themselves the complexity of federal regulation. We think many will be astonished at what our lawmakers attempt to understand and what the billing department of a doctor’s office must be trained to understand.

Keep in mind there are many hundreds of similar unconstitutional programs and overreaches in the federal budget.   Overseeing such a monster responsibly exceeds the ability of Congress, even when subdivided into a dozen appropriations subcommittees.

The solution: a much better informed electorate must force Congress to cut back the federal government to constitutionally authorized limits.

Bill Summary: H.R. 240 authorized appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security through the remainder of the 2015 fiscal year. The original House bill sent to the Senate in January had prohibited any spending to implement President Obama’s executive orders providing “temporary” amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants.On February 27, the Senate voted to amend the House bill by deleting that restriction (see Senate Vote 61, Senate Amendment #255, introduced by Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) on behalf of Senator Thad Cochran (R-MS) and Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)).

Senate Vote 62 (this vote) is on the full appropriations bill as amended, which was subsequently approved in the House on March 3 (see Roll Call 109 and our analysis) and signed into law by the President. 

Analysis: The entire dispute over H.R. 240 centered on the House use of that appropriations bill to block the President from implementing his unconstitutional executive orders regarding temporary amnesty. The Senate Democrats supported this amended “clean” version, 43 to 0 with 1 not voting. Both independents voted Yea.

The Republicans were split, with most opposing this capitulation to the President. The GOP vote was 23 in favor of this “stripped” version to 31 against.   Even though the GOP controlled the House and the Senate, in both chambers the leadership pushed this “stripped” measure through on the backs of Democratic support. We present here a few relevant quotes from the Congressional Record:

Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) summarized the dispute well:

“Madam President, in November 2014, the President of the United States issued a series of Executive orders effectively granting amnesty to millions of people who were in the United States unlawfully, outside of what our laws allow — laws passed by Congress and signed into law by the President of the United States.

“In other words, under article I, section 8, we, as a Congress, are given power to establish a uniform system of laws governing immigration and naturalization. If our laws allow someone to come in, they may come in, but if they do not, then those people need to make sure they go about getting into the country legally and lawfully.

“If and when the President of the United States, or anyone else for that matter, thinks these laws are inadequate, there is a way to change them. The way to change them is to go back to the Congress of the United States, go back to the lawmaking body, go back to that entity recognized in article I, section 1 of the Constitution, to the very first substantive line which says, ‘All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.’

“Unfortunately, the President of the United States chose not to change the law that way. Unfortunately, the President of the United States, contradicting his own prior statements, chose to take Executive action to legalize millions of people currently in the United States illegally.

“Ultimately, this is an issue that ought to be of concern to every one of us. It is an issue that is neither Republican nor Democratic. It is neither liberal nor conservative. It is simply an American issue. It is simply an issue that flows from the rule of law, flows from the notion that ours is a system that runs under the rule of law and not under the rule of individuals.

“There is a means by which we as a Congress can resist the encroachments of an overreaching Chief Executive. It is the same means identified by James Madison in the Federalist papers, and that means involves the use of the power of the purse. Congress, of course, funds the operations of the Federal Government. The President of the United States cannot do that all on his own. So should we choose to do so, as Congress has chosen to do on so many other occasions — when we see something within the government, whether implemented legally at the outset or not, when we see something we don’t like, we can choose not to fund that.

“We have, over the last few weeks, tried to do precisely that in response to this Executive action. One month ago the House of Representatives passed a bill to keep the Department of Homeland Security funded, with the understanding that at midnight tonight that funding stream would expire. At the time the House of Representatives passed that legislation, the House of Representatives — a body most accountable to the people at the most frequent intervals — made a decision. They said, We are going to keep everything else within the Department of Homeland Security funded, and the House of Representatives said, We will, however, direct the Department of Homeland Security not to spend any money implementing certain Executive orders issued by the President, in November 2014 and previously, dealing with Executive amnesty.

“The Senate has been trying to proceed to that bill for nearly 4 weeks. Unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have refused to allow us to proceed to that bill. They have blocked our attempts. They have engaged in obstruction and they have not allowed us to proceed to it. Why? Because they didn’t like that appropriations rider. They didn’t like that spending restriction. Apparently, they do not think we should be exercising that power described by James Madison and foreseen by our Founding Fathers as that last great protection against an overreaching Executive. So they refused to allow us to get onto the bill.” [Emphasis added.]

Senator David Vitter (R-LA) echoed Senator Lee: “Madam President, I rise in strong opposition to stripping off all of the House language from the Homeland Security funding bill and proceeding with a ‘clean bill.’

“I do so because I took a constitutional oath, and I take that oath very seriously. The language which we are debating in the Homeland Security funding bill from the House goes directly to that oath and goes directly to that responsibility. It does so for two reasons.

“First of all, this Executive amnesty, which has about 5 million illegal aliens getting blanket significant amnesty because of the President’s Executive action, is a big deal. It is a big deal in terms of policy. It is a big deal regarding his overreaching his legal and constitutional authority.

“First, policy. It is a fundamental rule of economics — it is a fundamental rule of life — that when you reward behavior, you get more of it. When you penalize certain behavior, you get less of it.

“A blanket overarching amnesty which gives about 5 million illegal aliens in the country here amnesty is rewarding behavior. It is rewarding behavior we say we want to curtail, we say we want to stop, but we are rewarding it, and we are going to get more of it. That is not just me saying that theoretically. We have lived that over and over again….

“The second concern I have is even far more fundamental, because it goes to his constitutional power and authority, and the fact that he is going well beyond that constitutional power and authority, I think, clearly.

“Presidents have significant authority. They are the Executive. They need to execute the law. In executing the law, they often have to fill in the blanks, fill in the details that Congress has not fully provided. But that is very different from acting contrary to the law — 180 degrees contrary to statutory law — and that is what the President is doing in this instance.

“No President has that authority. If they want to do that, they need to change the law. As every school kid knows, that goes through Congress, and then the President obviously has a role in terms of a veto. But the President doesn’t want to do that. He can’t do that. Congress disagrees with him. So he is just changing the law with the stroke of a pen. That is what is clearly illegal and unconstitutional, because he is acting contrary to statutory law.

“Some of his apologists — including Loretta Lynch, for example — say:  Well, every President can set prosecution priorities. We are simply setting priorities. We are simply saying this class of folks is not a priority for legal action, deportation prosecution.

“I asked Ms. Lynch directly after she said that: Isn’t it true the President is going beyond that? Isn’t it true he is giving this entire class of illegal aliens a new legal status? She had no substantive response.

“I said: Isn’t it true the President is going beyond that? He is creating a new document out of thin air, with ‘work permit’ at the top, and handing it to these illegal aliens and suggesting they now have a right to work legally in this country, even though statutory law makes it crystal clear they do not. She had no substantive answer to that.

“I urge my colleagues not to strip out this important House language. The President’s action is bad policy that will grow the illegal immigration problem, and it is acting clearly beyond his legal constitutional authority.”

To allow more time for a House-Senate conference, the House agreed that same day to a continuing resolution extending funding for the Department through March 6.

However, after having stripped out the language prohibiting “amnesty,” the Senate refused to go to conference with the House (see Senate Vote 64, 3/5 vote required, March 2, 2015). 

Senator John Hoeven (R-ND): “Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle filibustered H.R. 240. Only when amendments were limited to one amendment did they allow us to proceed to the bill. That is unfortunate, but clearly it was done to protect the President’s Executive order on immigration.

“The irony is that the President’s overreach should not be a partisan issue. Our forefathers created a system of checks and balances in our Constitution to protect the rights of our citizens. The legislative, the executive, and the judicial branches all have a role to play in this system of checks and balances. When one branch exceeds its authority, the others have an obligation to check that overreach, an obligation to protect the rights of our citizens.

“That is exactly what has happened in this situation. The President’s Executive order on immigration exceeds his authority as the leader of the executive branch. Now a Federal district court in Texas has issued an injunction to stay the President’s action, and that stay is in place while the lawsuit against the President’s action which has been filed by 26 States is adjudicated. That is our role too. Just like the States stepping up when the President has overreached his authority, just like the Federal court stepping up when the President has exceeded his authority, that is our role too — to protect the legislative power, which is solely the power of the legislative branch, solely the power of Congress.

“So I call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to send H.R. 240 to conference to see if we can find common ground. That is, after all, regular order for the Congress.”

See also our analysis of House Roll Call 109 (March 3, 2015). 

Bill Summary: H.R. 240 authorized appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security through the remainder of the 2015 fiscal year. The original House bill sent to the Senate in January had prohibited any spending to implement President Obama’s executive orders providing “temporary” amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants.On February 27, the Senate voted to amend the House bill by deleting that restriction (see Senate Vote 61, Senate Amendment #255, introduced by Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) on behalf of Senator Thad Cochran (R-MS) and Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)).

Senate Vote 62 (this vote) is on the full appropriations bill as amended, which was subsequently approved in the House on March 3 (see Roll Call 109 and our analysis) and signed into law by the President.

Analysis: The entire dispute over H.R. 240 centered on the House use of that appropriations bill to block the President from implementing his unconstitutional executive orders regarding temporary amnesty. The Senate Democrats supported this amended “clean” version, 43 to 0 with 1 not voting. Both independents voted Yea.

The Republicans were split, with most opposing this capitulation to the President. The GOP vote was 23 in favor of this “stripped” version to 31 against.   Even though the GOP controlled the House and the Senate, in both chambers the leadership pushed this “stripped” measure through on the backs of Democratic support.  We present here a few relevant quotes from the Congressional Record:

Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) summarized the dispute well:

“Madam President, in November 2014, the President of the United States issued a series of Executive orders effectively granting amnesty to millions of people who were in the United States unlawfully, outside of what our laws allow — laws passed by Congress and signed into law by the President of the United States.

“In other words, under article I, section 8, we, as a Congress, are given power to establish a uniform system of laws governing immigration and naturalization. If our laws allow someone to come in, they may come in, but if they do not, then those people need to make sure they go about getting into the country legally and lawfully.

“If and when the President of the United States, or anyone else for that matter, thinks these laws are inadequate, there is a way to change them. The way to change them is to go back to the Congress of the United States, go back to the lawmaking body, go back to that entity recognized in article I, section 1 of the Constitution, to the very first substantive line which says, ‘All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.’

“Unfortunately, the President of the United States chose not to change the law that way. Unfortunately, the President of the United States, contradicting his own prior statements, chose to take Executive action to legalize millions of people currently in the United States illegally.

“Ultimately, this is an issue that ought to be of concern to every one of us. It is an issue that is neither Republican nor Democratic. It is neither liberal nor conservative. It is simply an American issue. It is simply an issue that flows from the rule of law, flows from the notion that ours is a system that runs under the rule of law and not under the rule of individuals.

“There is a means by which we as a Congress can resist the encroachments of an overreaching Chief Executive. It is the same means identified by James Madison in the Federalist papers, and that means involves the use of the power of the purse. Congress, of course, funds the operations of the Federal Government. The President of the United States cannot do that all on his own. So should we choose to do so, as Congress has chosen to do on so many other occasions — when we see something within the government, whether implemented legally at the outset or not, when we see something we don’t like, we can choose not to fund that.

“We have, over the last few weeks, tried to do precisely that in response to this Executive action. One month ago the House of Representatives passed a bill to keep the Department of Homeland Security funded, with the understanding that at midnight tonight that funding stream would expire. At the time the House of Representatives passed that legislation, the House of Representatives — a body most accountable to the people at the most frequent intervals — made a decision. They said, We are going to keep everything else within the Department of Homeland Security funded, and the House of Representatives said, We will, however, direct the Department of Homeland Security not to spend any money implementing certain Executive orders issued by the President, in November 2014 and previously, dealing with Executive amnesty.

“The Senate has been trying to proceed to that bill for nearly 4 weeks. Unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have refused to allow us to proceed to that bill. They have blocked our attempts. They have engaged in obstruction and they have not allowed us to proceed to it. Why? Because they didn’t like that appropriations rider. They didn’t like that spending restriction. Apparently, they do not think we should be exercising that power described by James Madison and foreseen by our Founding Fathers as that last great protection against an overreaching Executive. So they refused to allow us to get onto the bill.” [Emphasis added.]

Senator David Vitter (R-LA) echoed Senator Lee: “Madam President, I rise in strong opposition to stripping off all of the House language from the Homeland Security funding bill and proceeding with a ‘clean bill.’

“I do so because I took a constitutional oath, and I take that oath very seriously. The language which we are debating in the Homeland Security funding bill from the House goes directly to that oath and goes directly to that responsibility. It does so for two reasons.

“First of all, this Executive amnesty, which has about 5 million illegal aliens getting blanket significant amnesty because of the President’s Executive action, is a big deal. It is a big deal in terms of policy. It is a big deal regarding his overreaching his legal and constitutional authority.

“First, policy. It is a fundamental rule of economics — it is a fundamental rule of life — that when you reward behavior, you get more of it. When you penalize certain behavior, you get less of it.

“A blanket overarching amnesty which gives about 5 million illegal aliens in the country here amnesty is rewarding behavior. It is rewarding behavior we say we want to curtail, we say we want to stop, but we are rewarding it, and we are going to get more of it. That is not just me saying that theoretically. We have lived that over and over again….

“The second concern I have is even far more fundamental, because it goes to his constitutional power and authority, and the fact that he is going well beyond that constitutional power and authority, I think, clearly.

“Presidents have significant authority. They are the Executive. They need to execute the law. In executing the law, they often have to fill in the blanks, fill in the details that Congress has not fully provided. But that is very different from acting contrary to the law — 180 degrees contrary to statutory law — and that is what the President is doing in this instance.

“No President has that authority. If they want to do that, they need to change the law. As every school kid knows, that goes through Congress, and then the President obviously has a role in terms of a veto. But the President doesn’t want to do that. He can’t do that. Congress disagrees with him. So he is just changing the law with the stroke of a pen. That is what is clearly illegal and unconstitutional, because he is acting contrary to statutory law.

“Some of his apologists — including Loretta Lynch, for example — say: Well, every President can set prosecution priorities. We are simply setting priorities. We are simply saying this class of folks is not a priority for legal action, deportation prosecution.

“I asked Ms. Lynch directly after she said that: Isn’t it true the President is going beyond that? Isn’t it true he is giving this entire class of illegal aliens a new legal status? She had no substantive response.

“I said: Isn’t it true the President is going beyond that? He is creating a new document out of thin air, with ‘work permit’ at the top, and handing it to these illegal aliens and suggesting they now have a right to work legally in this country, even though statutory law makes it crystal clear they do not. She had no substantive answer to that.

“I urge my colleagues not to strip out this important House language. The President’s action is bad policy that will grow the illegal immigration problem, and it is acting clearly beyond his legal constitutional authority.”

To allow more time for a House-Senate conference, the House agreed that same day to a continuing resolution extending funding for the Department through March 6.

However, after having stripped out the language prohibiting “amnesty,” the Senate refused to go to conference with the House (see Senate Vote 64, 3/5 vote required, March 2, 2015).

Senator John Hoeven (R-ND): “Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle filibustered H.R. 240.  Only when amendments were limited to one amendment did they allow us to proceed to the bill. That is unfortunate, but clearly it was done to protect the President’s Executive order on immigration.

“The irony is that the President’s overreach should not be a partisan issue. Our forefathers created a system of checks and balances in our Constitution to protect the rights of our citizens. The legislative, the executive, and the judicial branches all have a role to play in this system of checks and balances. When one branch exceeds its authority, the others have an obligation to check that overreach, an obligation to protect the rights of our citizens.

“That is exactly what has happened in this situation. The President’s Executive order on immigration exceeds his authority as the leader of the executive branch. Now a Federal district court in Texas has issued an injunction to stay the President’s action, and that stay is in place while the lawsuit against the President’s action which has been filed by 26 States is adjudicated. That is our role too. Just like the States stepping up when the President has overreached his authority, just like the Federal court stepping up when the President has exceeded his authority, that is our role too — to protect the legislative power, which is solely the power of the legislative branch, solely the power of Congress.

“So I call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to send H.R. 240 to conference to see if we can find common ground. That is, after all, regular order for the Congress.”

See also our analysis of House Roll Call 109 (March 3, 2015).

Bill Summary: H.R. 240 authorized appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security through the remainder of the 2015 fiscal year. The original House bill sent to the Senate in January had prohibited any spending to implement President Obama’s executive orders providing “temporary” amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants.This roll call was on accepting the Senate version, which had stripped out the language prohibiting such spending.

Background: In December of 2014, the previous Congress passed H.R. 83, “The Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015,” which the President signed and became public law.

That measure brought together into one omnibus spending bill 11 of the 12 regular appropriations bills that fund the federal government through September 30, 2015 (the end of Fiscal Year 2015). H.R. 83 also contained a continuing resolution (CR) funding the Department of Homeland Security through February 27th — hence the measure’s description as a “cromnibus.”

The GOP plan, announced at that time, was to allow the new 114th Congress, with the GOP controlling both the House and the Senate, to finish the appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security by including language to block President Obama’s executive orders regarding immigration and temporary amnesty.   The House sent such a measure to the Senate on January 14, 2015 (Roll Call 35). On February 27th, the Senate refused to go to conference and voted instead to approve H.R. 240 without the language to defund execution of the President’s amnesty order (Senate Vote 62).

A further Continuing Resolution in late February extended funding for a few more days to permit action to break the House-Senate impasse.

Analysis: On March 3, the House GOP leadership threw in the towel and allowed the stripped Senate version to come to a vote (this roll call) and urged its passage. (See also our analysis of the Senate action in Senate Vote 62).

This GOP leadership action angered many conservative Republicans, who protested that there was still time to negotiate a better deal. House Democrats unanimously supported the capitulation (182 to 0) against the opposition of the majority of rank and file GOP representatives (75 to 167).

Representative Mike Simpson (R-ID) managed the floor debates for the House GOP leadership. Simpson argued: “There is no funding in this bill for the President’s actions. Everybody knows that, don’t we?”

Simpson’s remark may be strictly true, as much of the bureaucracy necessary to enforce the President’s action appeared to be funded largely by fees rather than congressional appropriations. However, Simpson ignored the fact that the Aderholt amendment to the original House-passed bill explicitly prohibited the use of any of those fees, as well as appropriations, to implement the president’s orders.

Moreover, Simpson continued with a deplorable copout:

“Mr. Speaker, there is a difference of opinion between the Republicans and Democrats and between the administration and Congress as to whether the actions that the President made were constitutional or not….

“When there are differences of opinion as to what is constitutional and what is not constitutional, a court makes that determination.”

 Absolutely false. Court decisions are the law of the case, not the law of the land. All branches of the government, and especially the people, are responsible for enforcing the people’s contract with government — the U.S. Constitution.

In support of this copout, Simpson went on to cite the Supreme Court’s decision in the famous 1803 Marbury v. Madison case, which helped to establish the doctrine of judicial supremacy under which the nation suffers today.

While several proponents of capitulation argued that Congress should let the courts work it out, as one judge had already ruled against the administration, it was encouraging to see other representatives denounce that approach on correct constitutional grounds.

Notable opposition quotes

•  Representative Ron DeSantis (FL): “Mr. Speaker, I hear that we just need to let the courts work their will to defend the Constitution, as if we don’t have an independent obligation to do that. We took the oath that we would support it. We didn’t say we would be in Congress, pass bills, and let the courts support and defend the Constitution.

“Here is the problem, though, beyond just that basic insight. If I were representing the Department of Justice in front of the fifth circuit to try to get this injunction overturned, the first sentence in my brief would be that the United States Congress has voted, knowing this program was in existence, to fully fund all operations. Courts, you should step out of this dispute. It is between the political branches, and they have settled it.”

•  Representative Matt Salmon (AZ): “Mr. Speaker, I think this is a very, very sad day when we have to make a Hobson’s choice of either funding our national security or standing for the Constitution.

“We actually took an oath just a few short weeks ago to defend this Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. That is our role; that is our responsibility. If not now, then when? It is never going to be easy. It is never going to be easy. It has never been easy to stand up for freedom.

“I have heard some people say: Well, you Republicans, you just need to learn how to govern. If it was just about governing, then I think that the American people can just close shop and let the President just run everything, but we actually have a Constitution that we have to adhere to.

“Despots all over the world, they govern. They keep the trains running on time. But we stand for something different. We stand for a constitutional republic, where we have three coequal branches that all have an equal say. The Founding Fathers gave us a tool to deal with [at] a time just like this. It is called the power of the purse.” [Emphasis added.]

•  Representative Jeff Duncan (SC): “Mr. Speaker, last week, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown) said, Why are we here? She got all upset.

“Let me tell you why we are here: because the President of the United States violated the constitutional separation of powers. Regardless of how you feel about immigration or immigration reform or even amnesty, surely you believe in the United States Constitution that you swore an oath to. Surely you believe in this institution that we are debating in today.

“He said 22 times that he did not have the power to unilaterally make law or change the law, yet that is, in fact, what he did. That is why this debate is so important today. It really has nothing to do with DHS funding, amnesty, or immigration. That is the vehicle that we are using, sure. But it has everything to do with the United States Constitution and the sacred separation of powers that says the executive branch executes the laws. We make the law in this Chamber. We are the only ones to have the constitutional authority to do that.”

•  Representative Louie Gohmert (TX): “Mr. Speaker, last December, we were told that the best way to approach the matter — despite some of us thinking to the contrary — was to fund everything but DHS. We were told, ‘This is the play.’

“Well, some of us were afraid that if we did that, that we would come to this point and totally cave and would allow at least a congressional statement that we are not going to take action to defund illegal, unconstitutional amnesty….

“[T]oday we are being told by our leadership that the only alternative to this bad deal is a government shutdown. That is not true. The alternative to this bad deal today is a better deal. It is to force the Senate to actually go to conference so both the House and the Senate can speak the will of the American people.” [Emphasis added.]

•  Representative David Schweikert (AZ): “One of my heartbreaks here is I believe there were creative things we could have done, but we are completely dearth of the willingness to try.

“Mr. Speaker, this is about trying to defend the U.S. Constitution that we all raised our hands to uphold, and yet are we going to allow a vote to go forward to walk away from that fight?

“This should break everyone’s heart in this body.”

•  Representative Ted Yoho (FL): “We are asking to put safeguards in there so that we don’t move with an executive order that has been deemed illegal by a Federal judge. That is all we are asking. And we need to have that language in this bill.

“I don’t know anybody in here who doesn’t want to fund DHS.

“Mr. Speaker, for us to vote for this … without that language in there blocking what this President wants to do, and if we vote for that, we are voting against our Constitution. Article I, section 8 is very clear that we have the authority for naturalization, and I say we vote against funding without that safeguard.”

•  Representative Jody B. Hice (GA): “Mr. Speaker, as we all know, we are in this predicament and in this mess because of the unconstitutional and unilateral decisions from the President to ignore our Constitution, and the only thing standing in the way of that progressing is a stay from the courts. As thankful as I am for the courts, the reality is we must stand up and defend our Constitution. It is a constitutional issue, Mr. Speaker, and we have the responsibility to stand for that cause.

“This is not a time to watch this body be obstructed from multiple attempts to make it dysfunctional. It is a constitutional issue. This is a time to stand upon the Constitution, and I urge this body to do so.”

•  Representative Thomas Massie (KY), who managed the opposition team floor arguments: “Mr. Speaker, in closing, the Congress and, in particular, the House of Representatives has the power of the purse. Our Constitution gives this power to the legislative branch, not the executive branch. This means that the President cannot fund his illegal executive actions on immigration unless we, the House of Representatives, let him.

“If today we agree to just give the President all the taxpayer funds he wants so that he can implement his illegal actions, why should the American people ever trust us again? They will realize that all our bluster about border security is just that, bluster. They will realize that we don’t actually care about the best interests of the American people and that, instead, we just care about going along to get along, even if that means going along with the unconstitutional and illegal actions of the executive branch….

“We need to stand up, use the power of the purse, and exercise our constitutional duty to fund only legal and constitutional activities.” [Emphasis added.]

House Power of the Purse

In The Federalist, No. 58, Father of the Constitution James Madison explained the awesome unused power of the purse, which the Constitution assigns to the House of Representatives:

“The House of Representatives can not only refuse, but they alone can propose the supplies requisite for the support of the government. They, in a word, hold the purse — that powerful instrument [for] finally reducing … all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of the government. This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.”

Of course, effective use of this power presumes that the House of Representatives has the backbone to roll back an out-of-control federal government, using the Constitution as its guide.   That backbone has to come from an informed public back home. (The challenge is to create that informed electorate in the face of a big-government promoting Establishment media.)

In order to force the other branches to accept the roll back, in the face of a hostile press, it is necessary for the House to send individual trimmed appropriations bills to the Senate and insist that the Senate deal with those.

With so many Americans now dependent on various federal programs, the House habit of passing a last-minute omnibus appropriations bill forfeits this leverage. Any House-passed omnibus bill that included serious program and spending cuts would allow the Senate or President to refuse the entire package as unacceptable. As recent experience shows, a cooperative media would put the blame on a House that is unwilling to compromise as responsible for shutting the entire government down.

Although with H.R. 240, as expected, the House failed in the end to follow a strategy to capitalize on its power of the purse, the successful GOP action of separating out the DHS funding from last year’s massive omnibus provided a useful reminder of what could be done with sufficient will and good strategy. It showed us that, even in modern times, a House truly determined to enforce the Constitution and phase out unconstitutional departments and programs could do so.

Of course, such a determined House majority does not yet exist. Nevertheless, each representative needs to honor his or her oath to uphold the Constitution and, by not compromising on that oath, set the example for future reinforcements to follow.

Bill Summary: H.R. 240 authorized appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security through the remainder of the 2015 fiscal year. The original House bill sent to the Senate in January had prohibited any spending to implement President Obama’s executive orders providing “temporary” amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants.This roll call was on accepting the Senate version, which had stripped out the language prohibiting such spending.

Background:  In December of 2014, the previous Congress passed H.R. 83, “The Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015,” which the President signed and became public law.

That measure brought together into one omnibus spending bill 11 of the 12 regular appropriations bills that fund the federal government through September 30, 2015 (the end of Fiscal Year 2015). H.R. 83 also contained a continuing resolution (CR) funding the Department of Homeland Security through February 27th — hence the measure’s description as a “cromnibus.”

The GOP plan, announced at that time, was to allow the new 114th Congress, with the GOP controlling both the House and the Senate, to finish the appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security by including language to block President Obama’s executive orders regarding immigration and temporary amnesty.  The House sent such a measure to the Senate on January 14, 2015 (Roll Call 35). On February 27th, the Senate refused to go to conference and voted instead to approve H.R. 240 without the language to defund execution of the President’s amnesty order (Senate Vote 62).

A further Continuing Resolution in late February extended funding for a few more days to permit action to break the House-Senate impasse.

Analysis: On March 3, the House GOP leadership threw in the towel and allowed the stripped Senate version to come to a vote (this roll call) and urged its passage. (See also our analysis of the Senate action in Senate Vote 62).

This GOP leadership action angered many conservative Republicans, who protested that there was still time to negotiate a better deal. House Democrats unanimously supported the capitulation (182 to 0) against the opposition of the majority of rank and file GOP representatives (75 to 167).

Representative Mike Simpson (R-ID) managed the floor debates for the House GOP leadership. Simpson argued: “There is no funding in this bill for the President’s actions. Everybody knows that, don’t we?”

Simpson’s remark may be strictly true, as much of the bureaucracy necessary to enforce the President’s action appeared to be funded largely by fees rather than congressional appropriations. However, Simpson ignored the fact that the Aderholt amendment to the original House-passed bill explicitly prohibited the use of any of those fees, as well as appropriations, to implement the president’s orders.

Moreover, Simpson continued with a deplorable copout:

“Mr. Speaker, there is a difference of opinion between the Republicans and Democrats and between the administration and Congress as to whether the actions that the President made were constitutional or not….

“When there are differences of opinion as to what is constitutional and what is not constitutional, a court makes that determination.”

Absolutely false. Court decisions are the law of the case, not the law of the land. All branches of the government, and especially the people, are responsible for enforcing the people’s contract with government — the U.S. Constitution.

In support of this copout, Simpson went on to cite the Supreme Court’s decision in the famous 1803 Marbury v. Madison case, which helped to establish the doctrine of judicial supremacy under which the nation suffers today.

While several proponents of capitulation argued that Congress should let the courts work it out, as one judge had already ruled against the administration, it was encouraging to see other representatives denounce that approach on correct constitutional grounds.

Notable opposition quotes

•  Representative Ron DeSantis (FL): “Mr. Speaker, I hear that we just need to let the courts work their will to defend the Constitution, as if we don’t have an independent obligation to do that. We took the oath that we would support it. We didn’t say we would be in Congress, pass bills, and let the courts support and defend the Constitution.

“Here is the problem, though, beyond just that basic insight. If I were representing the Department of Justice in front of the fifth circuit to try to get this injunction overturned, the first sentence in my brief would be that the United States Congress has voted, knowing this program was in existence, to fully fund all operations. Courts, you should step out of this dispute. It is between the political branches, and they have settled it.”

•  Representative Matt Salmon (AZ): “Mr. Speaker, I think this is a very, very sad day when we have to make a Hobson’s choice of either funding our national security or standing for the Constitution.

“We actually took an oath just a few short weeks ago to defend this Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. That is our role; that is our responsibility. If not now, then when? It is never going to be easy. It is never going to be easy. It has never been easy to stand up for freedom.

“I have heard some people say: Well, you Republicans, you just need to learn how to govern. If it was just about governing, then I think that the American people can just close shop and let the President just run everything, but we actually have a Constitution that we have to adhere to.

“Despots all over the world, they govern. They keep the trains running on time. But we stand for something different. We stand for a constitutional republic, where we have three coequal branches that all have an equal say. The Founding Fathers gave us a tool to deal with [at] a time just like this. It is called the power of the purse.” [Emphasis added.]

•  Representative Jeff Duncan (SC): “Mr. Speaker, last week, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown) said, Why are we here? She got all upset.

“Let me tell you why we are here: because the President of the United States violated the constitutional separation of powers. Regardless of how you feel about immigration or immigration reform or even amnesty, surely you believe in the United States Constitution that you swore an oath to. Surely you believe in this institution that we are debating in today.

“He said 22 times that he did not have the power to unilaterally make law or change the law, yet that is, in fact, what he did. That is why this debate is so important today. It really has nothing to do with DHS funding, amnesty, or immigration. That is the vehicle that we are using, sure. But it has everything to do with the United States Constitution and the sacred separation of powers that says the executive branch executes the laws. We make the law in this Chamber. We are the only ones to have the constitutional authority to do that.”

• Representative Louie Gohmert (TX): “Mr. Speaker, last December, we were told that the best way to approach the matter — despite some of us thinking to the contrary — was to fund everything but DHS. We were told, ‘This is the play.’

“Well, some of us were afraid that if we did that, that we would come to this point and totally cave and would allow at least a congressional statement that we are not going to take action to defund illegal, unconstitutional amnesty….

“[T]oday we are being told by our leadership that the only alternative to this bad deal is a government shutdown. That is not true. The alternative to this bad deal today is a better deal. It is to force the Senate to actually go to conference so both the House and the Senate can speak the will of the American people.” [Emphasis added.]

•  Representative David Schweikert (AZ): “One of my heartbreaks here is I believe there were creative things we could have done, but we are completely dearth of the willingness to try.

“Mr. Speaker, this is about trying to defend the U.S. Constitution that we all raised our hands to uphold, and yet are we going to allow a vote to go forward to walk away from that fight?

“This should break everyone’s heart in this body.”

•  Representative Ted Yoho (FL): “We are asking to put safeguards in there so that we don’t move with an executive order that has been deemed illegal by a Federal judge. That is all we are asking. And we need to have that language in this bill.

“I don’t know anybody in here who doesn’t want to fund DHS.

“Mr. Speaker, for us to vote for this … without that language in there blocking what this President wants to do, and if we vote for that, we are voting against our Constitution. Article I, section 8 is very clear that we have the authority for naturalization, and I say we vote against funding without that safeguard.”

•  Representative Jody B. Hice (GA): “Mr. Speaker, as we all know, we are in this predicament and in this mess because of the unconstitutional and unilateral decisions from the President to ignore our Constitution, and the only thing standing in the way of that progressing is a stay from the courts. As thankful as I am for the courts, the reality is we must stand up and defend our Constitution. It is a constitutional issue, Mr. Speaker, and we have the responsibility to stand for that cause.

“This is not a time to watch this body be obstructed from multiple attempts to make it dysfunctional. It is a constitutional issue. This is a time to stand upon the Constitution, and I urge this body to do so.”

•  Representative Thomas Massie (KY), who managed the opposition team floor arguments: “Mr. Speaker, in closing, the Congress and, in particular, the House of Representatives has the power of the purse. Our Constitution gives this power to the legislative branch, not the executive branch. This means that the President cannot fund his illegal executive actions on immigration unless we, the House of Representatives, let him.

“If today we agree to just give the President all the taxpayer funds he wants so that he can implement his illegal actions, why should the American people ever trust us again? They will realize that all our bluster about border security is just that, bluster. They will realize that we don’t actually care about the best interests of the American people and that, instead, we just care about going along to get along, even if that means going along with the unconstitutional and illegal actions of the executive branch….

“We need to stand up, use the power of the purse, and exercise our constitutional duty to fund only legal and constitutional activities.” [Emphasis added.]

House Power of the Purse

In The Federalist, No. 58, Father of the Constitution James Madison explained the awesome unused power of the purse, which the Constitution assigns to the House of Representatives:

“The House of Representatives can not only refuse, but they alone can propose the supplies requisite for the support of the government. They, in a word, hold the purse — that powerful instrument [for] finally reducing … all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of the government. This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.”

Of course, effective use of this power presumes that the House of Representatives has the backbone to roll back an out-of-control federal government, using the Constitution as its guide.   That backbone has to come from an informed public back home. (The challenge is to create that informed electorate in the face of a big-government promoting Establishment media.)

In order to force the other branches to accept the roll back, in the face of a hostile press, it is necessary for the House to send individual trimmed appropriations bills to the Senate and insist that the Senate deal with those.

With so many Americans now dependent on various federal programs, the House habit of passing a last-minute omnibus appropriations bill forfeits this leverage. Any House-passed omnibus bill that included serious program and spending cuts would allow the Senate or President to refuse the entire package as unacceptable. As recent experience shows, a cooperative media would put the blame on a House that is unwilling to compromise as responsible for shutting the entire government down.

Although with H.R. 240, as expected, the House failed in the end to follow a strategy to capitalize on its power of the purse, the successful GOP action of separating out the DHS funding from last year’s massive omnibus provided a useful reminder of what could be done with sufficient will and good strategy. It showed us that, even in modern times, a House truly determined to enforce the Constitution and phase out unconstitutional departments and programs could do so.

Of course, such a determined House majority does not yet exist. Nevertheless, each representative needs to honor his or her oath to uphold the Constitution and, by not compromising on that oath, set the example for future reinforcements to follow.