Freedom First Society

199/H.J. Res. 117

Issue: H.J. Res. 117 Making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2013, and for other purposes.

Result: Passed 62 to 30, 8 not voting. Became Public Law 112-175 (signed by the President 9-28-12). GOP and Democrats scored.

Bill Summary: A deal reached by Obama, Reid, and Boehner to extend current spending levels for six months, with a 0.6 percent increase over the fiscal year just ending.

Analysis: This deal throws out the window all the work of the appropriations committees to trim agency-by-agency spending. It also throws in the towel over any further floor opportunities to curtail unconstitutional spending in appropriation bills until after a new administration takes office the following year.

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

172/H.R. 4348

Issue: H.R. 4348 Latest title: Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act or MAP-21. (Combines Highway with Student Loan and Flood Insurance.) Question: On the Conference Report (3/5 required).

Result: Conference Report agreed to: 74 – 19, 1 present, 6 not voting. Became Public Law 112-141 (signed by the President 7-6-12). GOP and Democrats scored.

Bill Summary: Combines a 27-month highway bill with a one-year extension of the 3.4 percent subsidized student loan rate and a revamp of the federal flood insurance program for the next five years.

Analysis: The House-Senate Conference Committee on H.R. 4348, a largely highway measure, tacked on unrelated appropriations for two controversial programs — the Flood Insurance Program and the Stafford Student Loan Interest Rate Expansion Program. The combination of unrelated measures, with tradeoffs, made it politically easier to win bipartisan support. However, the tactic was guaranteed to perpetuate spending for unconstitutional programs.

The highway bill contains massive, intrusive direction to the states in return for receiving financial aid. For example, the bill requires that 10% of amounts made available for federal-aid highways and public transportation programs be contracted to “small business concerns owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals.”

The two other programs — flood insurance and Stafford student loans at subsidized rates — are unconstitutional, revamped or otherwise, and should be phased out.

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

164/S. 3240

Issue: S. 3240, Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2012 as Amended; An original bill to reauthorize agricultural programs through 2017, and for other purposes. Question: On passage (3/5 required).

Result: Passed in Senate, 64 to 35, 1 not voting. GOP and Democrats scored.

Bill Summary: This omnibus $969 billion measure sets federal agriculture, rural development, and food stamp policy for five years. Trims projected crop subsidy and food aid spending 2.4 percent over five years.

Analysis: Congress sets agriculture and food policy for the federal government every five years or so with an omnibus measure commonly called the farm bill. Since the seventies, these bills have included mandatory spending for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), more commonly known as food stamps.

The 2008 farm bill (the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008) was due to expire on September 30, 2012, although some programs would continue through the end of the year.

The Senate attempt at enacting a new farm bill recognized the deficit-reduction pressure in Congress and included some reductions in conservation spending and rural development.

The full Senate deliberations lasted a week. Reflecting the partisan nature of agriculture policy, there were roll call votes on 42 amendments and voice votes on dozens more. Washington politicians are able to feign a great partisan divide by arguing over trifles, while America continues to be smothered in big government.

The end product is what counts. The farm bill passed by the Senate failed to initiate any serious effort to phase out the long established, but unconstitutional, federal overreach in regulating and subsidizing farm production or the unconstitutional aid for rural development and food stamps.

Socialist proponents of U.S. farm policy argue that the federal government must provide financial assistance to farmers and rural America for these groups to prosper. And without any principled pressure from back home, many politicians have difficulty challenging that fundamental fallacy.

Note: By the end of 2012, Congress had failed to agree on a replacement bill, so as part of the “fiscal cliff” agreement, current farm law was extended for the rest of fiscal (and in come cases calendar) 2013.

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

Ever since the Great Depression, farm bills have been full of unconstitutional federal welfare and counterproductive intervention in the economy. One subdivision, the “Food for Peace Act,” has even been used to provide substantial aid to America’s enemies. In 1973, the Los Angeles Herald Examiner reported:

“Congressional conferees Thursday tentatively agreed to authorize low-interest, long-term credit sales of food to Russia, China, Cuba and other Communist countries….

“The conferees accepted a Senate provision to lift, except for North Vietnam, the ban on Food For Peace sales to Communist countries. Repayment under such deals can extend 20 years with interest rates as low as 2 percent.” —”Russia, China, Cuba To Get Food Credits” (7-27-1973)

Washington correspondent Paul Scott revealed more of the travesty:

“This windfall provides for Russia’s obtaining U.S. food through PL-480, the original food for peace program, for virtually nothing. Russia would pay for the grain in its own currency which would have to be used on projects within the Soviet Union.

“Members of Congress and the nation’s farm leaders are being privately told that if the Nixon Administration has its way there will be no reversal of this policy of furnishing cut-rate and free food to Moscow and Peking.”

The “Food for Peace” program continues to this day.

The U.S. farm program has enjoyed the support of Democratic and Republican administrations alike — even those the Establishment would have us believe are conservative. In December 1985, President Reagan signed the costliest farm bill in our nation’s history. The bill called for $169 billion in spending over five years, including $85 billion for income and support payments to farmers.

Although Mr. Reagan insisted that he wanted to get farming free of the “heavy hand of government,” he nevertheless “reluctantly” signed the measure, because it “provides new hope for America’s hard-working farmers and our rural communities.”

Modern farm bills have been designed as temporary replacements to permanent law, so that if Congress fails to pass a new farm bill when the old one expires then farm policy reverts to earlier permanent law. The suspended permanent law, enacted primarily in 1938 and 1949, as subsequently amended, is quite different from today and would be particularly disruptive. This system forces Congress to pass new legislation (or extend prior legislation).

096/H.R. 2012

Issue: H.R. 2012 Export-Import Bank Reauthorization Act of 2012. Question: On passage (3/5 required).

Result: Passed 78 to 20, 2 not voting. Became Public Law No: 112-122 (signed by the President 5-30-12). GOP and Democrat selected vote.

Freedom First Society: Since 1934 the Ex-Im Bank has played a significant part in internationalist plans to redistribute the world’s wealth and build up America’s enemies. The current charter for the bank, which ostensibly helps finance U.S. exports of goods and services, was set to expire May 31.

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

Bill Summary: Reauthorizes the Export-Import Bank until September 30, 2014. Raises the Bank’s lending limit from $100 billion to $140 billion over that period.

Analysis: The current charter for the bank, which ostensibly helps finance U.S. exports of goods and services, was set to expire May 31.

In March of 2011, Washington observers were forecasting a looming “battle” in Congress over the Export-Import Bank. The Bank was nearing its $100 billion lending limit, and the administration was pushing lawmakers to raise the cap and reauthorize the agency. That “battle” confirmed that political “leadership” won’t solve America’s problems.

A deeper look at the battle also puts the lie to many popular political images. According to a CQ [Congressional Quarterly] Today article:

“Senate Democrats are turning up the heat on Republicans to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank, as House Majority Leader Eric Cantor seeks to satisfy the credit financing agency’s business advocates and the more ideological, free-market elements in his caucus.” — “Ex-Im Bank Puts House GOP in a Tight Spot,” CQ Today 3-14-12

But opposition to the Ex-Im Bank should be based on much more than its violation of free-market economics. Indeed, any principled program to enforce the Constitution, protect freedom, or create prosperity must call for the “Bank’s” abolition.

Since 1934 the Ex-Im Bank has played a significant part in internationalist plans to redistribute the world’s wealth and build up America’s enemies. And since Council on Foreign Relation (CFR) Insiders have dominated every presidential administration since World War II, presidential support for the Bank has not been an option. The Obama administration’s claim that reauthorizing the Bank will ensure a level playing field for U.S. businesses, at no cost to American taxpayers, does not reflect historical experience.

The network of CFR influence on behalf of the Ex-Im Bank has not been limited to the presidency. An overwhelmingly bi-partisan majority in both chambers of Congress approved the reauthorization.

Indeed, H.R. 2072 was introduced in the House by Republican Representative Gary Miller of California. Democrats supported the measure unanimously (with 7 not voting). In the Senate, Miller’s measure also received unanimous Democratic support (with the exception of 1 Democrat who did not vote).

In 1934, President Franklin Roosevelt created the Ex-Im Bank by executive order to underwrite trade with Joseph Stalin’s troubled regime. (In 1945 Congress established the Ex-Im Bank as an independent agency of the Executive branch.)

But it was not until 1972 that President Nixon opened the Ex-Im Bank’s financing spigot with the Soviets. Exposed Soviet spy-ring leader Victor Perlo, a former high official on the War Production Board, commented approvingly that the federal government was finally using the Export-Import Bank “for its original purpose of financing trade with socialist countries.”

Under President Nixon, the Ex-Im Bank became a cornerstone of Insider strategy for the deindustrialization of America, the international redistribution of wealth, and the development of Communist power. The Soviets would use Ex-Im bank credits to purchase equipment for their Kama River truck factory, designed to produce 150,000 heavy trucks per year (subsequently used to support the invasion of Afghanistan).

A division of the Pullman Company built the $2 billion plant. The Soviets supplied 10 percent of the financing. The other 90 percent was divided equally between the Export-Import Bank and David Rockefeller’s Chase Manhattan.

The importance of the Ex-Im Bank to Insider plans can be seen in Nixon’s appointment of William J. Casey (CFR) in 1974 to head up the Bank. CFR heavyweight Henry Kissinger, Nixon’s Secretary of State at the time, had recommended Casey for the job.

The previous year, Kissinger had also arranged Casey’s appointment as Under Secretary of State. National security expert Frank Capell slammed the assignment:

“Under State Department security of the [Otto] Otepka era, it is very doubtful that William Casey would have been granted clearance. His past known associations with Communists in Europe, his questionable financial dealings, and his pro-Soviet outlook would have raised many questions about the propriety of his holding a position as Undersecretary of State.”

Nevertheless, in 1980 Ronald Reagan tapped Casey to manage his successful campaign for the presidency, and, as president, Reagan appointed Casey to the post of Director of the CIA (see Chapter 11 in Masters of Deception). Further bringing the Reagan image into question, in 1966 Casey had run unsuccessfully for a New York congressional seat as a “Javits Republican.” (Senator Jacob Javits represented the far left-wing of the GOP.)

The programs of the Ex-Im Bank are ostensibly designed to encourage the foreign purchase of American goods. However, in the December 1997 issue of The Freeman, syndicated columnist Doug Bandow exposed the hype by demonstrating that the Ex-Im Bank “redistributes rather than creates jobs — after extracting an administrative charge.”

But aside from the economic tampering, Bandow noted that the Bank “has never found a government too brutal to subsidize.” Indeed, as The New American magazine reported in 2005:

“Since 1985, Communist China has become the largest Asian beneficiary of Ex-Im Bank loans and loan guarantees. Additional billions have been provided by the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, and the International Monetary Fund, all of which draw on U.S. taxpayer subsidies.”

Missed Opportunity

So what was the House Majority Leader’s response to the opportunity to remove this cornerstone of Insider plans? According to CQ:

“Cantor is proposing, among other things, that before any increase in the lending cap, the bank be required to submit a plan justifying the [proposed] $40 billion increase and assessing the risks it could pose. The Government Accountability Office would audit the plan.

“Cantor also would require the bank to notify Congress if it reaches certain default thresholds, and to put in place plans to reduce defaults by beneficiaries.”

Which confirms that political “defense” merely paves the way for our continued demise.

235/H.R. 2055

Issue: H.R. 2055, Latest title: Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 [Megabus]. Vehicle: A bill making appropriations for military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes. Question: On the Conference Report (3/5 vote required).

Result: Passed, 67 to 32, 1 not voting. Became Public Law 112-74 (signed by the President 12-23-11). GOP and Democrats scored.

Bill Summary: Funds the majority of the federal government through the remainder of the fiscal year (ending September 2012). Provides for $915 billion in discretionary spending and $126 billion in military funding — maintaining the cap of $1.043 trillion laid out in the debt ceiling deal worked out between Boehner and President Barack Obama in August.

Analysis: In November, Congress approved a “minibus” consisting of three of the 12 regular annual appropriations bills. The remaining bills were lumped into this $1.043 trillion, business-as-usual “megabus.”

Lumping so many diverse programs together undermines fiscal responsibility and any serious effort, if there were one, to begin defunding unconstitutional programs.

Accordingly, it was encouraging to see 32 senators (30 Republicans, 1 Democrat, and 1 Independent) vote against the megabus. Note: In the Senate, 16 Republicans joined 50 Democrats to pass this measure under a 3/5 rule.

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

Within the minibus and megabus packages the following individual appropriations bills consist largely of unconstitutional “discretionary” spending: Agriculture ($19.8 Billion); Energy and Water ($32.0 Billion); Interior and Environment (most of $27.5 Billion); Labor, HHS, and Education ($139.2 Billion). Total: $218.5 Billion.

Then there are the “mixed” appropriation bills that contain significant constitutional spending along with massive unconstitutional spending: Transportation & HUD ($47.7 Billion); Commerce, Justice, Science ($50.2 Billion).

Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) argued that the conference megabus represented a real cut in federal spending:

“After weeks of tough negotiations with our Senate counterparts — and several tenuous days this past week — we were able to complete a bipartisan, bicameral compromise that rolls back federal budgets, makes smart investments in programs people rely on, and implements policy changes that will bolster American business and our economy….

“As with any compromise, this bill isn’t perfect, but it represents the kind of responsible governing that will help move our country forward.” — “86 House Republicans Vote Against $1 Trillion-Plus Megabus Bill,” CNSNews.com 12-19-11.

We most definitely disagree. After including $10.4 billion in disaster aid not considered in the Budget Control Act cap, the Heritage Foundation calculates that “discretionary” spending actually went up a billion dollars compared to FY 2011.

And FY 2011 turned in a $1.3 trillion deficit. (Of course, a good share of that deficit is generated by shortfalls in revenue collected for “mandatory” multi-year programs, such as Medicare.)

Representative Jeff Flake also complained: “Whenever we come to an impasse, our leadership says, we canʼt shut the
government down. We havenʼt had the leverage in any negotiation weʼve gone into. Thatʼs whatʼs frustrating to me.”

What Flake may not realize is that the fix is in. The leaders of both parties are committed to increasing the size and reach of the federal government. The partisan battles over small changes in spending levels serve to camouflage that fact.

What America needs is for Congress to use the Constitution as its yardstick to phase out and eliminate decades of unconstitutional programs. Much of the leverage for that course has to come from an informed constituency back home.

However, more Congressmen who refuse to accept minibus and megabus packages as a substitute for the individual appropriations bills would be a healthy step in the right direction.

233/H.R. 3672

Issue: H.R. 3672; A bill making appropriations for disaster relief requirements for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes. Question: On passage (3/5 required).

Result: Passed 72 to 27, 1 not voting. Became Public Law 112-77 (signed by the President 12-23-11). GOP and Democrats scored.

Bill Summary: Provides $8.1 billion in disaster relief funding.

Analysis: Appropriations for FY2012 disaster relief were considered separately from the minibus and megabus. Commenting on an earlier House vote, the Establishment’s New York Times reported:

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

If the Times is correct, then both parties agree that the Constitution is irrelevant. Nothing in the Constitution authorizes the federal government to provide state and local disaster aid. At one time in our nation’s history, that was understood. In one of his most famous vetoes (1886), President Grover Cleveland rejected the “Texas Seed Bill” on constitutional grounds (see the excerpt from his veto message below). The bill would have provided minimal disaster assistance to a number of drought-stricken Texas counties.

In 2011, both parties publicly disagreed over whether disaster relief appropriations should be subject to the cap laid out in the debt ceiling deal worked out between Boehner and President Barack Obama in August. However, the House gave opponents of funding offsets a gift by incorporating them in a separate bill. The Senate easily defeated that bill in the roll call (234) following this one.

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

On February 16, 1886, President Grover Cleveland delivered his veto message on the “Texas Seed Bill” to the House of Representatives. The following excerpt speaks to principles long ignored by today’s collectivist-oriented media:

“I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadily resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the Government, the Government should not support the people.

“The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.”

Instead of asserting an unconstitutional responsibility to provide disaster aid, government’s main responsibility should be to get us out of the unconstitutional mess it has created.

Correcting the mess doesn’t necessarily mean going “cold turkey” on all unconstitutional spending. In some cases, it just means letting programs run their course and expire. But restoring constitutional government does means slashing the enormous borrowing, taxing, and spending of the federal government, so the states can acquire the revenue to do what the voters want their states to do and the voters have the means to provide private charity and “strengthen the bonds of a common brotherhood.”

229/S.J. Res. 10

Issue: S.J. Res. 10 Joint resolution proposing a balanced budget amendment (BBA) to the Constitution of the United States. Sponsor: Orin Hatch. Question: On the Joint Resolution (2/3 required).

Result: Defeated, 47 to 53, 0 not voting. Republicans scored.

S.J. Res. 10 (Constitutional Amendment) Summary:

Prohibits outlays for a fiscal year (except those for repayment of debt principal) from exceeding total receipts for that fiscal year (except those derived from borrowing) unless Congress, by a two-thirds roll call vote of each chamber, authorizes a specific excess of outlays over receipts.
Prohibits total outlays for any fiscal year from exceeding 18% of the gross domestic product (GDP) for the preceding calendar year unless Congress, by a two-thirds roll call vote of each chamber, authorizes a specific excess over such 18%.
Directs the President to submit a balanced budget to Congress annually.
Prohibits any bill from becoming law that imposes a new tax or increases the statutory rate of any tax or the aggregate amount of revenue, unless approved by a two-thirds roll call vote of each chamber.
Requires a three-fifths roll call vote of each chamber to increase the federal debt limit.
Authorizes waivers of these requirements: (1) when a declaration of war is in effect against a nation-state and Congress, by a majority roll call vote of each chamber, authorizes a specific excess; or (2) under other specified circumstances involving military conflict, if Congress, by a three-fifths roll call vote of each chamber, authorizes such waiver.

Analysis: As part of the August Budget Control Act of 2011, both houses of Congress agreed to vote on balanced budget amendment (BBA) resolutions before the end of the year. The House did so in November, while the Senate waited until just prior to its holiday recess.

On December 14th, the Senate voted on two BBA proposals — S. J. Res. 10, introduced by Orin Hatch (R-Utah), and S. J. Res. 24, introduced by Mark Udall (D-Colo.). S.J. Res. 10 was defeated 47 to 53 on a strictly party line vote (all 47 Republicans voting “yea”). The Udall alternative, S. J. Res. 24, garnered only 21 votes (including 1 GOP).

We will not explore the similarities and differences between the two proposals, as we object to any BBA. We score here the roll call for the Republican proposal.

Admittedly, the idea of amending the Constitution to require a balanced budget is superficially appealing. It’s appeal rides on the natural desire for a quick fix and the understandable public abhorrence of massive federal spending, deficits, and debt, which many voters recognize as the root cause of America’s economic woes.

However, the notion that merely establishing a rule can substitute for informed oversight is pure fantasy. An ill-informed American public has not insisted that Congress enforce the Constitution we already have. Another measure to ignore, or worse yet, to misuse is not the answer.

The proposals for a Balanced Budget Amendment are actually political copouts (such as mandating cuts in “future” spending). The Constitution isn’t broke; it’s merely ignored. A majority of either house of Congress can balance the budget any time it has the political will to do so.

By contrast, it requires a two-thirds vote of both the House and Senate to send a proposed amendment to the states for ratification. The states are frequently allowed up to 10 years for three-quarters of them to ratify the amendment. In the meantime, we have business as usual.

Proposals for amending the Constitution to achieve a balanced budget serve as a dangerous distraction from the real problem — insufficient backbone in Congress to vote the Constitution.

The above proposal requires the president to submit a balanced budget prior to the start of each fiscal year. Instead, why not include wording requiring the president to submit a constitutional budget and a provision requiring the Congress to vote only for constitutional programs?

Silly, isn’t it? How can we expect a constitutional amendment to enforce compliance by those who regularly refuse to abide by the Constitution’s clear provisions?

Of special concern, experience shows that a blocked BBA aids those forces working to persuade state legislatures to call a constitutional convention. Unknown to most Americans, in 1983 sponsors of a constitutional convention came within two states of achieving that goal. Such a convention could not be limited to a single topic, but could rewrite our entire Constitution .

The Insiders would love to get their hands on the Constitution in a convention, and they have viewed measures disguised as conservative as providing the only practical route to such an outcome.

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

Federal programs and spending must be cut back to authorized functions. The implementation of a spending cap based on gross domestic product, as proposed in S.J. 10, would tend to legitimize existing and future unconstitutional programs as long as some political economists tell us we can afford them.

A strict enforcement of the Constitution we already have, not some new arbitrary spending limit that forgives violations, is the key to unleashing American productivity and achieving unprecedented prosperity.

208/H.R. 2112

Issue: H.R. 2112 Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act (“Minibus” package), 2012. (Uses bill number for Agriculture, Rural Development, and FDA portion of the package.) Question: On the Conference Report (3/5 required).

Result: Passed 70 to 30. Became Public Law 112-55 (signed by the President 11-18-11). GOP and Democrats scored.

Bill Summary: A $128 billion “minibus” package of three FY 2012 appropriations bills:

Agriculture, Rural Development, and FDA (H.R. 2112);
Commerce, Justice and Science (H.R. 2596); and
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development (S. 1596).

Analysis: While a “minibus” is an improvement over the last-ditch omnibus appropriations bills used all too frequently to fund the federal government, it still falls way short of responsible control of the purse.

The above roll call was on the House-Senate conference report developed following passage of a Senate substitute on 11-1-11. Each of the three bills in this “minibus” was replete with unconstitutional programs and spending — business as usual.

When pushing through the “minibus,” the reported plan of leaders in both parties was to group all of the remaining FY 2012 appropriations bills into one omnibus measure. (In fact, Congress did so in December and passed a “megabus” — the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 — see Senate Vote #235 (12-17-11) H.R. 2055).

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

189/H.R. 2112

Issue: Senate Amdt. 800 (Coburn) to H.R. 2112 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2012. S. Amdt. 800: To reduce funding for the Rural Development Agency. Question: On the Amendment.

Result: Rejected: 13 to 85, 2 not voting. GOP and Democrats scored.

Amendment Summary: Proposed amendment to the appropriations bill for the department of agriculture (H.R. 2112) To reduce funding for the Rural Development Agency by an estimated $1 billion, or 41 percent.

Analysis: Funding for rural development is just one clearly unconstitutional overreach of the federal government. And a budget cut of 41 percent would be a positive step toward eliminating the functions altogether.

Under conservative pressure some years ago, House rules now require that a statement of constitutional authority accompany submitted bills. The rule, however, has provided little effective restraint on politicians. Consider this typical copout put forward by Representative Jack Kingston, sponsor of H.R. 2112:

“Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: The principal constitutional authority for this legislation is clause 7 of section 9 of article I of the Constitution of the United States (the appropriation power), which states:

‘No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law….’

“In addition, clause 1 of section 8 of article I of the Constitution (the spending power) provides: ‘The Congress shall have the Power . . . to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States . . . .’

“Together, these specific constitutional provisions establish the congressional power of the purse, granting Congress the authority to appropriate funds, to determine their purpose, amount, and period of availability, and to set forth terms and conditions governing their use.”

With his reference to Section 8 of Article I, Kingston implies that the Constitution gives Congress the authority to spend money on anything it pleases. By merely quoting the introductory clause, the legislators ignore the list of specific areas in which Section 8 authorizes federal activity. Of course, federal programs for rural development are not in the list (nor is urban development, launched in 1965 as part of President Johnson’s “Great Society.”).

It is wishful thinking to expect that a House or Senate rule will change Congress. Instead, an informed constituency is essential for forcing Congress to comply with the Constitution.

The proposed Coburn amendment drew the opposition of the majority on both sides of the aisle. This roll call is a good indication of the work that has to be done in building an informed electorate before we can expect Congress to change its stripes.

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

153/H.R. 2608

Issue: Amdt. No. 665, H.R, 2608 An Act making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2012, and for other purposes. Question: Motion to Concur in the House Amdt. to the Senate Amdt. with an Amdt. No. 665 (3/5 required).

Result: Passed 79 to 12, 9 not voting. Became Public Law 112-36 (signed by the President 10-5-11). GOP and Democrats scored.

Bill Summary: A stopgap 45 day extension of all appropriations with a 1.5 percent haircut to non-defense spending.

Analysis: Senators need to play hardball in the Senate and with the other branches in curtailing massive unconstitutional spending. Extending the current spending level with only minor cuts is unsupportable, as there is no serious movement to curtail unconstitutional spending in the works.

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

Default title

Receive Alerts