Bills

Issue:  H.R. 2832 To extend the Generalized System of Preferences, and for other purposes [Trade Adjustment Assistance Extension Act of 2011].  Question:  On passage of the bill as amended [originally passed in House by voice vote (9-7-11)] (3/5 required).

Result:   Passed 70 to 27, 3 not voting. Became Public Law No: 112-40 (signed by the President 10-21-11).  GOP and Democrats scored.

Bill Summary:  Extends federal aid and retraining programs (trade adjustment assistance [TAA]) for workers whose jobs move overseas because of so-called free trade agreements.

Analysis:  This measure continues an unconstitutional function of the federal government and uses the aid stick to subject states to federal regulations over state matters.

Moreover, recent free trade agreements are misleadingly named.   They do not promote free trade, but heavily regulated trade, supervised by international and regional organizations (such as the WTO and the NAFTA tribunals) — an unconstitutional delegation of authority.

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.)

Issue:  S. 365 Budget Control Act of 2011.  Question: On the Motion  Concur in the House Amendment to S. 365 (3/5 required).

Result:  Motion agreed to 74 to 26. Became Public Law 112-25 (signed by the President 8-2-11).  Republicans scored.

Bill Summary:

• Raises the national debt ceiling in steps by $2.1 trillion (or more depending on the work of the Joint Committee on Deficit Reduction — see next) with an initial $400 billion increase.   Subsequent steps are subject to congressional disapproval (both chambers must disapprove to block an increase, and the president can veto the disapproval).

• Cuts spending by an equivalent amount over 1 decade, with $917 billion immediate. Sets up a 12-member House-Senate committee to come up the necessary additional cuts by November 23, 2011 (congressional approval required by December 23) under threat of a sequester producing $1.2 trillion in across-the-board cuts in discretionary spending.

• Requires both chambers to vote on a balanced-budget amendment by year-end.

• Makes changes to the Pell Grant and Student Loan program.

Analysis:  This measure was driven by federal deficit spending running up against the authorized debt ceiling. This last minute agreement to avoid default, worked out between congressional leaders and the White House, culminated weeks of political posturing. The Republican leadership demanded budget cuts to offset any increase in the debt ceiling.   Liberals argued for smaller cuts and tax increases on higher incomes.

This White House-endorsed “compromise” met with resistance from both sides of the aisle. Republicans supported it 174 to 66, whereas Democrats were split, 95 to 95.

The cuts were not nearly as dramatic as liberals suggested and nowhere near enough to contain the federal monster.   South Carolina Representative Mark Mulvaney, one of the Republicans who voted no, stated, “At the end of the day, Washington’s spending still has us sprinting toward a fiscal cliff. And this bill barely slows us down.”

Apparently, Standard and Poor agreed. Four days later, S&P lowered its long-term credit rating for U.S. debt from AAA to AA+.   An S&P press release accompanying its decision stated:

“The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government’s medium-term debt dynamics.”

         The title of the measure, the offsetting budget cuts, and the liberal howls undoubtedly misled many Americans into thinking that this was a serious step toward balancing the federal budget.   However, the spending reduction was to be spread over a decade, whereas the debt ceiling increase was designed to satisfy the federal appetite past the next election.

Unfortunately, the arguments of the opposition still centered on the need to get government to live within its means, not to live within the Constitution.   The latter is the real road to prosperity and freedom.

While no one should look forward to the government defaulting on its obligations, the periodic votes on raising the debt ceiling remain one of the best ways for representatives and senators to say, “enough is enough.”

We will comment on the balanced-budget amendment part of this measure when we consider the votes on those proposals later in the 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.)

Issue:  S.AMDT.501 (DeMint) Amends S. 679 to repeal the authority to provide certain loans to the International Monetary Fund, the increase in the United States quota to the Fund, and certain other related authorities, and to rescind related appropriated amounts.

Result:  Amendment rejected 44 to 55, 1 not voting (3/5 required). GOP and Democrat selected vote. 

Amendment Summary:  Stops the IMF from having access to $108 billion allocated by Congress in 2009 to bailout foreign countries.   Rejects an increase in the U.S. quota to the IMF.

Analysis:   In 2009, a Democratic-controlled Congress approved a request of the Obama administration to make $108 billion available to the IMF for loans to struggling European countries.

Amendment co-sponsor John Cornyn (R-TX) stated: “American taxpayers have seen more bailouts than they can stomach, and the last thing they should have to worry about are their hard-earned tax dollars being used to rescue a foreign government.”

There is no constitutional authority for preserving even the status quo re U.S. contributions to the Internationalists’ IMF scheme for managing the world (see Read more, below). However, the vote on this amendment sends a positive signal that American taxpayers come before unconstitutional international “obligations.”   Even though the amendment (requiring 3/5 to pass) was doomed to fail, the roll call nevertheless identifies those senators willing to support the right priorities on this issue.

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.)

Read more

Issue:  S. 990, PATRIOT Sunsets Extension Act of 2011.

Result: Bill passed 72 to 23, 5 not voting. Became Public Law 112-14 (signed by the President 5-26-11).

Bill Summary:  Amends the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 to extend until June 1, 2015, expiring provisions concerning roving electronic surveillance orders and requests for the production of business records and other tangible things.

Analysis:  In the wake of the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the Bush administration requested legislative authorization for unprecedented unconstitutional powers — aggressive wiretap authority, the ability to seize library and business records and wide-reaching surveillance power. Congress went along but excused the intrusion by including a sunset provision causing the authority to expire after a very limited time frame unless renewed.

As expected, each successive administration has insisted on renewal, and some politicians see an opportunity to make the unconstitutional grant of authority permanent.   President Obama signed the extension into law (PL 112-14) the same day.

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.)

Read more

Issue:  H.R. 1473  Latest title: Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act of 2011.  Question:  On passage (3/5 required).

Result:  Bill passed 81 to 19. Became Public Law 112-10 (signed by the President 4-15-11)  GOP selected vote.

Bill Summary:   This Boehner-Obama compromise continues appropriations through September 30, 2011 at almost the same level (a mere $38 billion cut) as fiscal year 2010.

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.)

Issue:  H.J. Res. 48 Additional Continuing Appropriations Amendments, 2011.

Result:  Passed 87 to 13. Became Public Law 112-6 (signed by the President 3-18-11).

Bill Summary:  A 3-week continuing resolution (CR).

Analysis:  The second stopgap spending measure this month. 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.)

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.)

Issue:  H.R. 1, Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011. [GOP Plan]  A bill making appropriations for the Department of Defense and the other departments and agencies of the Government for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2011, and for other purposes.  Question:   On passage (3/5 vote required).

Result:  Failed 44 to 56.  GOP selected vote.

Bill Summary:  Provides $1.028 trillion in discretionary funding for the remainder of FY 2011 (approximately 7 months) — an estimated $57 billion below current levels.

Analysis:  The leaders of both parties were fully aware that neither the GOP appropriations plan (this Senate vote) nor the Democrat plan (Senate vote 37) were going to pass. So the votes on both measures were primarily posturing. The GOP plan would trim discretionary spending a parsley $57 billion (out of $1.028 trillion!!). The GOP website hypes its fiscal conservatism by comparing this GOP bill to the president’s budget request.

The appropriations for discretionary spending in Fiscal Year 2011 ended up being funded entirely by a series of 8 continuing appropriations acts that made no tough choices or serious spending reductions. The 8th and final appropriations act for FY 2011, H.R. 1473, was passed in both the House and Senate on April 14, 2011 (see House Roll Call 268 and Senate Vote 61). President Obama signed it into law the following day.

Public reaction to the recession and heightened concern over reckless deficit spending and the rising national debt had focused the political debate on domestic spending reductions — anathema to the liberals. But the Establishment media and the political debate constantly deceived the public as to the nature of the partisan battle and the real options available to Congress.

The public was told that the House had to compromise, that “the only way to avoid a government shutdown this spring will be for those fiscally zealous and anti-establishment freshman Republicans to realize their limits in a divided government and agree to a classic legislative deal — one in which the bottom line is only barely palatable to either side.” (Roll Call Daily Briefing, 2-14-11.)

However, the GOP leaders in both chambers were part of the problem and not seriously interested in major cuts in spending, let alone restricting federal spending to constitutionally authorized limits. The proper way for the House to use its power of the purse leverage with the other branches is to break down the federal budget into pieces (at a minimum the 12 regular appropriations bills) and force the Senate and the president to make tough choices.   And if the Senate had the will, it could do the same.

The federal deficit for FY 2011 ended up recording a massive $1.3 trillion deficit. The following year, FY 2012, would turn in a deficit of $1.1 trillion, the fourth straight year of $1 trillion + deficits, and close to what President Obama had projected in his 2011 budget proposal. So much for any serious battle or even real compromise!

Three GOP Senators voted against the plan to show their support for further spending cuts.

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.)

Read more

Roll Call 659 (1/1/13, last vote of 112th) H.R.8  American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012.  On motion to concur in the Senate amendments.  Sponsor: GOP Rep. Dave Camp (MI-4).

Passed in House (agreed to Senate amendments): 257 to 167, 8 not voting. Became Public Law No: 112-240 (signed by the President 1-2-13).

Bill Summary:  A complex measure addressing multiple topics, including: The act made permanent the expiring “Bush-era” tax cuts, except for a top bracket of taxpayers — individuals with incomes over $250,000 and couples with $300,000.   The two-year old cut to Social Security payroll taxes was not extended. Federal unemployment benefits were extended for a year without a budget offset elsewhere. The “compromise” cancelled a 27 percent cut in Medicare payments to doctors. The act also delayed the budget sequestration created by the Budget Control Act of 2011 for two months.

Analysis:  This bi-partisan “compromise” followed days of negotiations by Senate leaders and the Obama administration to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff (a combination of expiring tax cuts, an expiring Social Security payroll tax cut, imposition of a sequester on spending, and pushing the debt ceiling).   The Senate gave the New Year’s Day “compromise” overwhelming support, 40 Republicans voting in favor, while only 3 Democrats and 5 Republicans voted against it.

While H.R. 8, as amended in the Senate, also subsequently passed that same day in the House (and was signed into law the next), a majority of the House Republicans opposed it. A substantial number of House Republicans were posturing as fiscal conservatives (unfortunately, not as constitutionalists), insisting on using House leverage to push through spending cuts. However, in the year-end 2012 fiscal cliff negotiations, the GOP leadership sold them (and America) out. According to CQ Roll Call (1-16-13):

“The tax bill that postponed the fiscal cliff got through on New Year’s Day with only 35 percent support from the GOP, and half as many Republicans voted for it (85) as did Democrats (172).”

         An obvious complaint was that the “compromise” did very little to address spending and caved in to President Obama’s socialist rhetoric that the “rich” needed to pay a greater share of the federal burden. Never mind that the burden came from an explosion in unconstitutional programs. Or that the proposal for a graduated, progressive income tax came straight from Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto.

The “compromise” failed entirely to address the federal government’s longer term financial crisis — the rapid rise in entitlement spending on health care and income security for the elderly.   And, of course, there was no effort to conform government programs to those authorized by the Constitution.

So after months of high-profile partisan squabbling, America was still on the road to fiscal disaster. Even the much-hyped scheduled sequester would make only a small dent in spending.

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

House Roll Call 636 (12-19-2012) H.R. 6655 Protect Our Kids Act of 2012.

Passed (2/3 required) 330 to 77, 24 not voting. Became Public Law No. 112-275 (signed by the President 1-14-13).  GOP and Democrat selected vote.

Bill Summary:  Establishes a commission to develop a national strategy and recommendations for reducing fatalities resulting from child abuse and neglect.

Analysis:  The federal government was not conceived as an institution to solve all problems.   The Constitution was designed to empower the federal government in very specific areas and forbid its meddling elsewhere.   And the Constitution does not give the federal government any authority or responsibility over child abuse.

Of course, voting to establish a commission merely to study a problem undoubtedly looked like a politically safe step to many representatives.   However, it is useful to look at the forces supporting this legislation to understand the real objectives.

Revolutionaries have long recognized that one of the best ways to win public acceptance for new government authority is to insist that government must act to combat a crisis — real or widely alleged. In endorsing the “Protect Our Kids Act,” Massachusetts Senator John Kerry stated before the Senate (12-21): “Child abuse fatalities are a national crisis that requires a collective solution.”

A much less obvious strategy for grabbing power was also at work with this measure.   In the nineteenth-century, the French statesman-economist Frederic Bastiat, described the strategy succinctly.   He observed that governments seek to increase their power by “concocting the antidote and the poison in the same laboratory.” What he meant was that governments often either create or exacerbate problems, which then require statist solutions.

As far back as the 1960s, the Insider-supported culture war targeted the traditional family and the values that supported it. Entertainment and opinion leaders condoned drug abuse, adultery, obscenity, abortion, divorce, teenage sex, rebellion and homosexuality while ridiculing Biblical standards of morality. And federal funding found its way to many of the organizations promoting the new values.

During the early 1970s, the federal government began to fund state and community welfare agencies under Title XX of the Social Security Act. One of the purposes of the grants was to help the agencies provide protective services to neglected and abused children.

Inevitably, federal control follows federal funds. By federalizing the problem, social workers achieved new power in pursuing allegations of parental child abuse.

Those representatives who understood that the new commission was merely a precursor to more unconstitutional legislation would have to vote no.

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.)

Roll Call 603 (9-21-12) H.R. 3409 Stop the War on Coal Act of 2012. (To limit the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to issue regulations before December 31, 2013, under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977.)

Passed in House, 233 to 175, 21 not voting. Died in Senate.

Bill Summary:  H.R. 3409 was comprised of five separate bills designed to protect coal-mining jobs. It would have blocked almost any new regulation of the coal industry, given the states control over coal waste disposal and mining runoff, and stopped the EPA from regulating most greenhouse gas emissions. It also would have repealed and nullified a number of EPA rules and actions.

Analysis:  The Obama administration’s war on coal mining and coal plants has threatened far more than jobs in Appalachia. Its war on coal is just one part of a much bigger war targeting all existing major energy sources, which is seriously undermining America’s prosperity, productivity, and energy independence.   However, this war, waged under the effective, but phony pretext of protecting the environment, did not start with the Obama administration.  

On December 2, 1970, “Republican” President Nixon, through executive order, created the Environmental Protection Agency.   Within five years, environmental pressure groups could list these major victories in new federal regulations: the Clean Air Amendments Act; the Clean Water Act; the Endangered Species Act of 1973; the Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act; the Water Pollution Control Act; the Forest and Rangelands Renewable Resources Planning Act; the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act; and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act.

Environmental groups succeeded with their legislative agenda not just because of well prepared lobbying in the halls of Congress, but more importantly because financial support from Establishment foundations enabled these groups to invest heavily in softening up the public with a barrage of doomsday propaganda.

In recent years, sufficient scientific dispute over the claims of Al Gore and company has reached the public to engender a healthy skepticism. Although that awakening may have slowed the green movement’s momentum, it has not undone the damage. And as long as the Insider Establishment dominates the leadership of both major political parties and the media of communications, we should not expect a reversal.

Indeed, H.R. 3409 was merely another GOP posturing measure clearly destined to go nowhere.   However, the roll call enabled one of the measure’s proponents to argue in its support:

“The true soldiers in this war are our coal miners who simply want to do their jobs and earn an honest living to provide for their families. I have been proud to stand in the trenches and fight with our miners and I was proud to stand with them in passing this legislation today.”

But merely passing legislation in the House is not enacting legislation. Perhaps the politicians who voted in favor of H.R. 3409 could stand proudly, but the miners and their families still had no relief.

Accordingly, we do not score the Republicans on this misleadingly empty attempt to address a real problem. But we do hold up the response of the House Democrats to scrutiny.

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