Bills

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.)

House Roll Call 608 (11-16-12) H.R. 6156 Russia and Moldova Jackson-Vanik Repeal Act of 2012.

Passed in House 365 to 43, 25 not voting. Became Public Law No: 112-208 (signed by the President 12-14-12).

Bill Summary:  Authorizes the president to lift the Jackson-Vanik discriminatory trade restrictions against the Russian Federation. Establishes permanent normal trade relations with the Russia Federation upon its ascension to the WTO. Calls for sanctions against whoever was involved with the death of anti-corruption activist Sergei Magnitsky.

Analysis:  This act would officially end restrictions on trade with Moscow that had been in place since January of 1975. Although regularly waived by the president, the Jackson-Vanik restrictions on trade with non-market economies had been established by Congress in large part to protest Soviet barriers to Jewish emigration.

Our primary objection to H.R. 6156 is not that it violates the Constitution. Our objection is to the ongoing influence of international elites to use trade to the benefit of favored corporations and America’s enemies.

Once Russia was slated to become a member of the WTO in August of 2012, the globalist corporate CEOs at the Business Roundtable began to champion the repeal of the 1974 Jackson-Vanik Act. Doug Oberhelman, Chairman of the Roundtable’s international engagement committee and CEO of Caterpillar Inc. (a CFR corporate member) argued that seizing trade opportunities with Russia would “support the U.S. economy and American jobs.”   Note: Oberhelman is also a director of the influential World Resources Institute, an eco-activist think tank created in 1982 with Insider foundation support.

The internationalist sponsors of this potentially sensitive issue put it off until the lame duck to insulate congressmen from any adverse voter reaction over the poor relations between Washington and Moscow. The lame-duck, GOP-led House initiated the repeal. On November 16, the House overwhelmingly supported the repeal, 365 to 43. Only six Republicans voted nay.   A few weeks later, the measure sailed through the Democratic-controlled Senate by a vote of 92 to 4. [See Senate Vote #223 (12-6-12).] On December 14, President Obama signed it into law

One representative who spoke against the normalization of trade relations was Minnesota Democrat Betty McCollum. McCollum argued that the “legislation sends the wrong message, rewarding [Russia’s] President Putin with trade privileges at a time when he is crushing pro-democracy voices at home and arming the murderous Assad regime in Syria.”

Americans, who have been told repeatedly that the Cold War is over, should also be concerned over Russia’s announced plans to modernize its navy with new aircraft carriers and ballistic missile submarines. The Russian navy says it intends to establish several resupply bases abroad and has been negotiating their reestablishment in Cuba and Vietnam.

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 117 Making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2013, and for other purposes.

Result: Passed in House 329 to 91, 9 not voting. Became Public Law 112-175 (signed by the President 9-28-12).

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

Issue:  H.R. 5949, To extend the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 for five years. Sponsor: Lamar Smith (R-TX).

Result: Passed in House 301 to 118, 10 not voting. Became Public Law 112-238 (signed by the President 12-30-12).

Bill Summary:  Extends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendments Act of 2008 from December 31, 2012 to December 31, 2017. The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 sets the rules for monitoring the electronic communications of suspected terrorists overseas who are talking with people in the United States.

Analysis:  This authority has permitted the warrantless eavesdropping on the domestic phone calls and email of American citizens.

If the federal government really needed such overreaching authority for a determined effort to protect America from terrorism, it would be one thing. But there are several reasons why the ostensible motivations and the war on terror are suspect.

For one, the original Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was introduced in 1977 by Senator Ted Kennedy, an opponent of the many layers of domestic internal security at the time. (The following year, the Kennedy bill was signed into law by President Carter –—who was conducting an all out war on our national security.) See Read more, below.

With the Republicans willing to carry this measure against principled opposition within their own ranks, most big-government liberals among the House Democrats chose to posture as civil libertarians and join the principled opponents.

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. 6233 Agricultural Disaster Assistance Act of 2012. Sponsor: Frank Lucas (R-OK-3).

Result: Passed in House, 223 to 197, 10 not voting. Republicans scored.

Bill Summary:  Indemnifies farmers and ranchers for drought-related (and other) losses in FY 2012 through the federal government’s Commodity Credit Corporation.

Note: FDR created the Commodity Credit Corporation in 1933 by executive order to “stabilize, support, and protect farm income and prices.” The congressional appropriations process periodically restores the CCC’s working capital, depleted through the inevitable net losses from its operations.

Analysis:  By late July 2012, the federal government had already designated 1,297 counties in 29 states as federal disaster areas because of lack of rain.   The broad impact of the drought ensured that a relief measure would have significant support from politicians, in both parties, who did not feel constrained by the limits of the Constitution.

Moreover, supporters could point to the fact that the costs of the aid were to be more than offset by reductions in the Conservation Stewardship and Environmental Quality incentives programs. (But these programs are also unconstitutional and should be eliminated, anyway.)

Although the total amount of this bill is modest ($383 million in aid), as federal expenditures go, H.R. 6233 is an excellent example of politics overriding long-forgotten principle. For almost a century, the federal government has promoted the idea that with its deep pockets it has the responsibility to insulate Americans from all kinds of problems.

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 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.

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.)

Read more

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.)  

Result: Passed in House, 373 to 52, 7 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.)

Issue: H.R. 5972 Making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes.

Result: Passed in House, 261 to 163, 8 not voting. Republicans scored.

Bill Summary:  This is the House’s FY 2013 appropriations bill for the Departments of Transportation (DOT) and Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

Analysis:  H.R. 5972 allocates $51.6 billion in non-trust-fund money for housing and transportation programs.

Virtually the entire Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD) and its programs are unconstitutional.   Nowhere does the Constitution give the federal government any authority over housing or urban affairs. Congress established the cabinet-level Housing and Urban Development Department as part of President Johnson’s Great Society program.

The Department of Transportation (DOT) was also established during the Johnson era. The Federal Aviation Administration was folded into the new department. Previously, an undersecretary in the Commerce Department carried out the responsibility of the new DOT.   Some of the DOT functions may be constitutional, but there is no serious attempt here in the combined bill to eliminate unconstitutional programs and spending.

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. 5855 Making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes.

Result: Passed House, 234 to 182, 15 not voting. Died in Senate. Superseded by September Continuing Resolution (Roll Call 579). Republicans scored.

Bill Summary:  H.R. 5855 proposed $5.5 billion for the disaster relief fund and $39.1 billion in discretionary budget authority for operations funded through the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for Fiscal Year 2013.

Discretionary budget authority in the bill was $484 million or 1.2 percent less than last year and $393 million or 1 percent below the President’s request.

Analysis:  With 230,000 employees, the Department of Homeland Security is now the third largest Cabinet department, after the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs.  The mission of DHS has been enlarged from its original objective of preventing terrorism to address all kinds of domestic emergencies and threats.

Department of Homeland Security appropriations include funding for all components and functions of DHS, including Customs and Border Protection (CBP); Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); the Transportation Security Administration (TSA); Coast Guard (USCG); Secret Service (USSS); the National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD), which includes Infrastructure Protection and Information Security (IPIS) and the Federal Protective Service (FPS); the Office of Health Affairs (OHA); the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS); the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC); the Science and Technology directorate (S&T); the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO); departmental management, Analysis and Operations (A&O), and the Office of the Inspector General (OIG).

H.R. 5855 would continue funding a mix of important constitutional and dangerous, unconstitutional programs, a common legislative tactic used to reduce political opposition to the unconstitutional part.

Congress was stampeded into establishing the federal Department of Homeland Security in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. But the federal power grab had long been in the planning by Establishment Insiders.   Indeed, Foundation support for plans to gain federal control over local police, such as the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, date back as least as far as the 1960s.

Writing in the F.B.I. Law Enforcement Bulletin for February 1968, F.B.I Director J. Edgar Hoover declared:

“Law-abiding citizens and local officials should vigorously oppose concerted attacks against law enforcement and the devious moves to negate local authority and replace it with Federal police power.”

In early May of 1969, Hoover warned against the danger of a national police force. He said: “We need to safeguard against encroachments upon the legitimate authority of state and local law enforcement agencies.”

Centralization of power may seem like the efficient way to get things done, but it also undermines accountability, and in the case of national security, centralization paves the way for a dangerous abuse of power.

The day before the House vote, the White House issued a “Statement of Administration Policy,” strongly objecting to the cuts in H.R. 5855 and threatening a veto.

The president and Democratic congressional leaders have insisted that any cuts below those agreed to in the Budget Control Act of 2011 were violations of a sacred agreement.   Most Republicans, on the other hand, insisted that the BCA was only a start and that much more needed to be done to reduce deficits and debt.

When the House voted on H.R. 5855, most Democrats seemed to side with the president. Only 17 Democrats voted for passage.

On the other hand, 16 Republicans apparently felt that the cuts proposed in H.R. 5855 were too modest and also objected to the bill.   Representative John Campbell of California had written a few months earlier that the biggest national security threat is debt and that DHS programs should not be immune from cuts.

All but two of the 16 Republicans voting against final passage of H.R. 5855 supported an amendment to trim the bill by 2 percent or $640 million. The amendment was rejected 88 to 316 (Roll Call 368).

We have only scored the Republican votes on H.R. 5855.

As noted above, the measure died in the Senate. Instead, the House agreed to fund the government through March 27, 2013 via H.J. Res. 117, a Continuing Appropriations Resolution.

In 2013, the new Congress approved the FY2013 Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, which the president signed into law on March 26. That Act restored DHS funding for FY2013 to approximately the level the president originally proposed.

So the House failed to defend even the inadequate cuts contained in its own appropriations bills.

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. 5325 Making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes.  

Result: Passed in House, 255 to 165, 11 not voting.  Republicans scored.

Bill Summary:  Appropriates $32 billion for FY 2013 for (Title I) the civil functions of the Army Corp. of Engineers; (Title II) Water Development by the Department of the Interior; the Department of Energy; (Title III) the Department of the Energy; and (Title V) various related independent agencies. Includes numerous prohibitions on the use of funds.

Analysis:  The discretionary budget authority for the agencies and programs funded through this bill is $87million or $0.3 percent below the FY2012 funding level — a miniscule cut for a nation in deep recession. However, the deeper issue is a continued willingness of both branches of government to fund programs and departments (such as Jimmy Carter’s Department of Energy) that are blatantly unconstitutional.

In this Republican bill, the largely unconstitutional Department of Energy would receive $345 million more than last year but $1.6 billion below the President’s request. There is no serious necessary course correction for America here.

Moreover, as usual, the House doesn’t play hardball with the Senate to enforce its small spending cuts. It regularly agrees to Continuing Resolutions to fund federal operations.

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: Amendment 46, H.R. 4310 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013.

Result: Amendment failed, 182 to 238, 11 not voting. Republicans scored.

Bill Summary:  This amendment to the FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act sought to eliminate indefinite military detention of persons under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF) in U.S. territories or possessions. It would provide for their immediate transfer to trial and proceedings by a court established under Article III of the Constitution of the United states or by an appropriate State court.

Analysis:  In the immediate wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Congress granted the president the authority to use “all necessary and appropriate force” against those whom he determined “planned, authorized, committed or aided” the attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups.

A major, little understood objective of terrorism is to provide the pretext for the government to become repressive.   Both true constitutionalists and liberals posing as constitutionalists have warned that the federal government has been given way too much authority to enter people’s homes, arrest them and hold them indefinitely — and that the proposed defense authorization bill for FY2013 would make matters worse.

Opponents noted that, unless amended, the bill would allow American citizens to be jailed indefinitely for even a one-time contribution to a humanitarian group that’s later linked to terrorism. Amendment 46, proposed by Republican Adam Smith of Washington, sought to correct that violation of rights the Constitution (in particular, the Bill of Rights) was designed to protect.

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.)