Bills

Issue: H.R. 1213 To repeal mandatory funding provided to States in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to establish American Health Benefit Exchanges.

Result: Passed in House, 238 to 183, 11 not voting.  Democrats scored.

Bill Summary:  H.R. 1213 would repeal mandatory federal funding for state insurance exchanges and school-based medical construction. The mandatory funding was created in the 2009 “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act“ (Obamacare).

Analysis:  Passing this bill in the GOP-controlled House is designed to convince voters that GOP legislators are acting responsibly to repeal the most onerous portions of Obamacare.   However, it is difficult to regard these gestures as a serious effort to repeal a very unconstitutional (Supreme Court rulings to the contrary) federal power grab over the nation’s health care industry.

The enormous 2009 “Obamacare” power grab was a major gift from the president to the Insiders, repaying their support for him as a useful candidate for president. Insider-supported revolutionaries have been working to nationalize health care completely for almost a century.   The strong public GOP opposition to Obamacare has served to diffuse public resistance by convincing many voters that the GOP is waging a sincere battle on their behalf.

However, the leaders of both parties march to the Establishment tune. It is therefore unlikely that the GOP would actually challenge this power grab if it actually had the presidency and control of both houses. More likely, GOP leaders would try to substitute something a little more palatable on the surface but equally as intrusive in the long run.   Consider that the GOP leadership does not question other long-standing unconstitutional power grabs (e.g. Education and President Johnson’s Great Society) but merely advocates reform. This seems to pacify most conservatives.

Although we cannot give Republicans much credit for their vote, those few Democrats who voted for repeal against the position of their party leaders deserve our praise.

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.)

Issue: H.R. 1217 To repeal the Prevention and Public Health Fund.

Result: Passed in House, 236 to 183, 13 not voting.  Democrats scored.

Bill Summary:  Amends the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009 (Obamacare) to repeal provisions establishing and appropriating funds to the Prevention and Public Health Fund.

Analysis:  The Prevention and Public Health Fund is administered by the unconstitutional Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). A part of the 2009 health care law (Obamacare) established the Fund. The Fund has invested federal dollars in a broad range of community public health care activities — a clearly unconstitutional federal function.

The history of federal aid is that it comes with strings attached.   Although the hype supporting the new program stresses the needs the aid is to serve, the end product is increased federal control and a mushrooming bureaucracy.

Unanimous GOP support (except for 4 not voting) for this repeal measure was consistent with several other measures to repeal portions of Obamacare that the House GOP leadership brought to a vote. All these measures would die in the Senate.   We ignore the easy posturing vote for the Republicans. However, we give credit to the four Democratic representatives who bucked their party leadership to support this repeal.

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.)

Read more

Issue: H.R. 910 Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011. Sponsor Fred Upton (R-MI 6).

Result: Passed in House, 255 to 172, 5 not voting. Democrats scored.

Bill Summary:  Amends the Clean Air Act to prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from promulgating any regulation concerning, taking action relating to, or taking into consideration the emission of a greenhouse gas (GHG) to address climate change. Excludes GHGs from the definition of “air pollutant” for purposes of addressing climate change.

Analysis:  Following the break-up of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, the Internationalist Insiders decided to advance climate crises (real or imaginary) as a pretext for building their new world order. Through their UN tool they (and Al Gore) have invested heavily in asserting scientific support for dangerous manmade global warming.

The eco-lobby sought to use the Clean Air Act as a vehicle for regulating industrial carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions, alleging that greenhouse gases posed a danger to public health and should be regulated. (Of course, humans and all animals exhale CO₂ and plants thrive on it).

Following a 2007 Supreme Court decision, the EPA issued four regulations to curtail CO₂ emissions, which drew opposition from some industry groups and states, including Texas. In June of 2012, a U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. circuit handed the Obama administration a victory and upheld the EPA actions as authorized by existing law.

However, a significant portion of the public has finally become aware that the evidence for the claim that manmade greenhouse gases were causing global warming was flawed and that costly efforts to reduce CO₂ that hamper the economy were unjustified. Some conservative politicians climbed on board.

Although the ostensible purpose of H.R.910 to block the EPA regulations is sound, the sponsors still were not willing to stand up and yell foul.   A non-binding declaration in H.R. 910 still gives the power-grabbing environmentalists and their internationalist sponsors their due:

“It is the sense of Congress that — … (3) the United States has a role to play in resolving global climate change matters on an international basis; and (4) Congress should fulfill that role by developing policies that do not adversely affect the American economy, energy supplies, and employment.”

         The vote on this measure was primarily for the purpose of GOP posturing (following passage, the measure went nowhere in the Senate and would have been rejected by the President in any event). The easy GOP vote was 236 to 0, with 4 not voting.   We ignore those votes. But we give credit to those 19 Democrats who stood apart from their party’s leadership to register their disapproval of the oppressive EPA regulations.

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.)

Issue:  H.R. 839 The HAMP [Home Affordable Modification Program] Termination Act of 2011.

Results: Passed in House,  252 to 170, 1 present, 9 not voting. Democrats scored.

Bill Summary:  Terminates the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to provide new mortgage modification assistance under the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP).

Analysis:  HAMP is part of the Making Home Affordable Program, which was created by the Financial Stability Act of 2009.  The federal government has no constitutional authority to impose standard loan modification guidelines.

Give credit to those 18 Democrats who supported this Republican posturing vote.

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.)

Issue:  H.R. 861 NSP (Neighborhood Stabilization Program) Termination Act.

Result: Passed in the House, 242 to 182, 8 not voting. The GOP carried the measure, 237 to 2. Only five Democrats voted Aye.  Democrats scored.

Bill Summary:  Rescinds the third round of funding for the 2008 Neighborhood Stabilization Program [NSP].

Analysis:  The Neighborhood Stabilization Program was created during the 2008 mortgage crisis to help governments and nonprofit groups buy and redevelop foreclosed and abandoned houses — a totally unconstitutional function of the federal government.

According to the website of the equally unconstitutional Housing and Urban Development department, “The Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) was established for the purpose of stabilizing communities that have suffered from foreclosures and abandonment. Through the purchase and redevelopment of foreclosed and abandoned homes and residential properties, the goal of the program is being realized.”

Stabilizing neighborhoods is a totally unconstitutional function for the federal government.   Moreover, the NSP is an example of government concocting the poison and the antidote in the same laboratory — problems created by government involvement in the housing market are to be solved by more economically unsound government intervention.

Further funding of the NSP certainly deserves to be halted. Unfortunately, this is merely a House GOP posturing roll call, as the next $1 billion round of grants were slated to go out the door before the rescission could possibly be enacted (assuming the measure had Senate and White House support — not the case).   Nevertheless, we give credit to those House Democrats who stood tall in support of rescission.

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.)

Issue:  H.R. 2. Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act.

Result: Passed in House: 245 – 189, 1 not voting.

Bill Summary:  Repeals the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (commonly known as Obamacare, effective as of its enactment. Restores provisions of law amended by such Act. Repeals the health care provisions of the Health Care and Education and Reconciliation Act of 2010, effective as of the Act’s enactment. Restores provisions of law amended by the Act’s health care provisions.

Analysis:  Would repeal the major 2010 federal power grab, commonly known as Obamacare. Obamacare was designed to expand oppressive federal mandates, in stages over several years, to make public resistance more difficult.

Unfortunately, this Republican repeal bill was essentially Republican posturing, as the measure had no future in the Democratic-controlled Senate. However, we give credit to those House Democrats who put principle over party to vote for repeal.

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.)

Read more

Issue:  H.R. 836 To rescind the unobligated funding for the Emergency Mortgage Relief Program and to terminate the program. 

Result: Passed in House: 242 – 177, 13 not voting. Democrats scored.

Bill Summary:  Terminates the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Emergency Mortgage Relief Program (EHLP) and rescinds the unobligated funding. CBO CBO estimates the legislation would decrease federal budget deficits by $840 million over the 2011-2012 period.

Analysis:  The EHLP, authorized by the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, provides up to $50,000 in subsidized loans to homeowners who are at least three months delinquent on their mortgages because of the temporary loss of employment and income. A generous but unconstitutional response to a financial crisis caused by too much government.   A vote to terminate the EHLP is a principled, but posturing step for House Republicans, as there are not enough votes to override Obama’s threatened veto. However, we give credit to those Democrats who stood tall in support of the measure.

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.)

Issue: H.R. 830 FHA Refinance Program Termination Act.

Result: Passed in House: 256 – 171, 5 not voting.  Democrats scored.

Bill Summary:  Terminates the FHA Refinance Program.

Analysis:  The FHA refinance program is an unconstitutional program of the federal government. The program offers low-interest government loans to people who are “underwater” on their mortgages. Ending the program is a principled step.

However, this is a GOP posturing vote. The GOP leadership knows it will die in the Senate. Nevertheless, we give credit to those Democrats who have the backbone to buck their party leadership on this issue.

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.)

Issue:  H.Res. 38 Reducing non-security spending to fiscal year 2008 levels or less.

Result:  Passed in House: 256 to 165, 13 not voting.  Democrat selected vote.

Freedom First Society:   H.Res. 38 would reduce non-security spending to fiscal year 2008 levels or less for the final seven months of this fiscal year — a reduction of between $50 billion and $60 billion.  A small step in the right direction.

This was an easy GOP posturing vote since the measure was going nowhere. However, H.Res. 38 was more difficult for Democrats to support because in doing so they had to oppose their party leadership.  So we only score the Democrats on this one.

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.)

Roll Call 644 (12-20-12) H.R. 6684 Spending Reduction Act of 2012. Passed in House 215 to 209, without any Democratic support. Dead in Senate.

Bill Summary:  A complex measure that institutes a number of structural spending reforms, including tightening Food Stamp eligibility, providing some improvements in medical malpractice awards, ending the “too big to fail” provisions of Dodd-Frank, and halting abuse of the Child Tax Credit by illegal immigrants.

Projects a net ten-year reduction in spending, while allowing for an increase in 2013 and 2014 spending relative to the sequester.

Analysis:  This bill was part of the partisan wrestling match at the end of 2012 to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff.   One of the most prominent issues driving the “fiscal cliff” was the “Bush era tax cuts” due to expire at the end of 2012.

Prior to this roll call, GOP House Speaker John Boehner had been planning to advance legislation to continue the cuts on all incomes below $1 million. President Obama and the Democrats were arguing for a lower threshold — $250,000.   (Either plan accepted the socialist premise of the progressive tax on incomes advocated in Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto.)

However, many House Republicans objected that the Boehner plan did nothing to cut federal spending.   And so, at the last minute, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor introduced H.R. 6684, The Spending Reduction Act of 2012.

H.R. 6684 was an updated version of legislation passed by the House on May 10, 2012, as H.R. 5652, the Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act of 2012. The sponsor of that earlier measure was Paul Ryan, GOP chairman of the House Budget Committee, so both measures were essentially products of the GOP House leadership.

The GOP House leadership repeatedly postures as fiscally conservative by advocating plans to reduce the federal deficit by mandating future restraint in federal spending. That leadership in no way intends to use the House’s power of the purse effectively to challenge the Big Brother agenda of the Insider Establishment.

Rather than confronting the massive unconstitutional programs that are driving the nation into bankruptcy and seriously eroding America’s middle class, the GOP leadership distracts Americans by dramatizing arguments over the level of unconstitutional spending America can tolerate.

One of those who saw through the ruse in H.R. 6684 and voted “no” was Representative Justin Amash (R-Michigan). Amash wrote: “Contrary to its title, the bill
increases spending and debt by tens of billions of dollars.”

A number of structural spending reforms in the bill induced several normally tough conservatives, such as Tom McClintock of California, to support the measure “reluctantly.” In doing so, Mclintock admitted:

“Although the ten year budget savings are far greater than those anticipated under the sequester – and the reason for my aye vote — I am skeptical of provisions that reduce the first year savings mandated by the sequester. It is a short-term increase in spending (relative to the sequester) in exchange for much greater long-term savings.”

Note: The Bush-era tax cut issue was eventually resolved with H.R. 8, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 passed by Congress on January 1, 2013 (see Roll Call 659.)

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.)