Bills

Issue: S. 365, Budget Control Act of 2011.

Result: Passed in House 269 to 161, 3 not voting. Became Public Law No: 112-25 (signed by the President 8-2-11).

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

House Roll Call 606 (7-19-11) H.R. 2560 Cut, Cap and Balance Act.

Passed in House 234 to 190, 8 not voting.

Bill Summary:  Establishes the discretionary spending limits for FY2012 — a Cut of roughly $110 billion — and sets up procedures to enforce those limits.   Amends the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to establish for the next several years a Cap on total outlays as a percentage of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (initially 21.7 percent for FY 2013). And last, it conditions approval for a raise in the debt ceiling from $14.294 trillion to $16.7 trillion on the submission of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the states. (Hence, Cut, Cap, and Balance.)

Analysis:  Fortunately, this dangerously deceptive GOP posturing measure was tabled in the Senate as expected. The measure rides on understandable public abhorrence of massive federal spending, deficits, and debt, which many voters recognize as the root cause of America’s economic woes.   However, we must object to each of the three parts to this measure:

1. The cuts are too modest and need to be based on the Constitution not on some recent spending level before the latest recession. See our “Congress Is the Key!” introduction for James Madison’s judgment that the House, acting alone, can rein in spending.

2. Federal programs and spending must be cut back to authorized functions.   The implementation of a spending cap based on gross domestic product 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.

3. A Balanced Budget Amendment, while superficially appealing, is a bad and dangerous political copout.   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

There are two other problems with the BBA. The difficulty in getting Congress to propose a BBA continues to be used as a pretext to persuade the state legislatures, goaded by misguided conservatives, into calling for a constitutional convention.   Such a convention could not be limited to a single topic, but could rewrite our entire Constitution — a goal of the Insider Establishment, which dominates our media.

And second, the concept of a BBA supports the fantasy that establishing a rule can substitute for informed oversight.   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. We certainly don’t want an amendment that can be used to force a tax increase to balance the budget.

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 600 (7-15-11) H.R. 2354 Making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes.

Passed in House 219 to 196, 16 not voting. Following Senate amendments, approved again as part of the “megabus” (H.R. 2505), (see Roll Call 941, 12-16-11). The megabus became Public Law No: 112-74 (signed by the President 12-23-11).

Bill Summary:  Appropriates $31 billion for energy and water spending during FY 2012.

Analysis:  This is the fifth FY 2012 appropriations bill brought to the floor. Spending is 3.3 percent lower than FY 2011, but 16 percent below the president’s request. The $31 billion level was designed to conform to the GOP’s pledge to roll back government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels, with certain exceptions.

However, the political focus on merely constraining federal spending to the recent past, or to what the economy can presumably bear, does not address the real problem — a massive, unconstitutional bureaucracy that threatens our freedom.

The lion’s share of H.R. 2354 would go to fund the largely unconstitutional Department of Energy (DOE). DOE was established as a cabinet level department in 1977 at the request of President Jimmy Carter, who was marching to the tune of the radical environmentalist lobby (organized from the beginning with the support of the Insider Establishment to provide a clever pretext for a huge government power grab).

Not surprisingly, the Department of Energy has supported the green agenda that has hampered the production of energy and prevented America from restoring energy independence and achieving energy abundance.   It needs to be eliminated, not contained.

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. 2112 Making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes.

Result: Passed in House 217 to 203, 12 not voting. Following Senate amendments, approved again as part of the “Minibus” (see Roll Call 857, 11-17-11). Became Public Law 112-55 (signed by the President 11-18-11).  Republicans scored.

Bill Summary:  Makes appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for fiscal year 2012 (ending September 30, 2012).

Analysis:  The House voted separately on only half of the 12 regular annual appropriations bills for FY2012. And none of those passed the Senate. So discretionary funding was by continuing resolution until all of the regular appropriations were subsumed in two massive bills — a “Minibus” (see House Roll Call 857, 11-17-11)) and a “Megabus” (see House Roll Call 941, 12-16-11, H.R. 2055)

For the House to phase out and eliminate unconstitutional programs and spending it would need to send smaller bills to the Senate and then hang tough.   However, the political will for such a course doesn’t yet exist. This particular appropriations bill still contains massive spending for unconstitutional programs, despite virtually unanimous Democratic opposition (right vote, wrong reason).

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. 990, Patriot Extensions Act of 2011.

Result: Passed in House, 250 to 153, 28 not voting. Became Public Law 112-14 (signed by the President, 5-26-11).  Republicans scored.

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)

Several authoritative books document how proponents of Big Brother government made America vulnerable to a very real threat of terrorism, using the resulting catastrophes to advance totalitarian measures. In the 70s, for example, campaigns of the Left succeeded in stripping America of its multiple layers of decentralized internal security — state and congressional investigative committees, intelligence departments of major city police, and counter-intelligence departments of the various branches of the armed forces.

As a further reflection of the ulterior motives guiding those directing the war on terrorism, consider that the federal government has resisted using its constitutional authority to enforce our borders.

And, for decades, the Executive Branch bent over backwards to cover up the Soviet role in sponsoring the worldwide terrorist movement, while focusing exclusive public attention on the terrorist groups themselves. (See, for example, Claire Sterling, The Terror Network: The Secret War of International Terrorism (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston and Reader’s Digest Press, 1981.)

Issue: H.R. 1473, Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act of 2011.

Result: Passed in House 260 to 167, 6 not voting. Became Public Law 112-10 (signed by the President 4-15-11).  Republicans scored.

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:  Representatives need to play hardball in their own House 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.R. 514 FISA Extensions Act of 2011.

Result:  Passed in House 275 to 144, 14 not voting. Became Public Law No: 112-3 (signed by the President 2-25-11).  GOP selected vote.

Bill Summary:  Amends the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 to extend until December 8, 2011, 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. Although the House voted here to extend the authority until December, Senate Democrats insisted on a shorter three-month period to permit a more expansive debate on the Patriot Act’s future. The House went along on 2-17-11. President Obama signed the three-month measure into law (PL 112-3) on 2-25-11.

On May 26, both Houses voted to extend the expiring authority for four years. (See House Roll Call 376 and Senate Vote 84.)

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

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.J. Res 48 Additional Continuing Appropriations Amendments, 2011.

Result: Passed in House, 271 to 158, 3 not voting. Became Public Law 112-6 (signed by the President 3-18-11).  Republicans scored.

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

Issue: H.R. 2775 as amended. Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014. An act making continuing appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2014, and for other purposes. Question: Resolving differences — House actions: On motion that the House agree to the Senate amendments.

Result: Agreed to, 285 to 144, 3 not voting. Became Public Law 113-46 (signed by the president 10/17/13). GOP and Democrats scored.

Bill Summary:  This final version of H.R. 2775 (amended by the Senate) makes continuing appropriations through January 15, 2014, thus ending the government shutdown, and increases the debt limit for essential borrowing through February 7, 2014.

The final version also retains the household-income verification requirement for Obamacare subsidies that was the substance of the original version of H.R. 2775 passed by the House on September 12, 2775 (Roll Call 458) as the “No Subsidies Without Verification Act.”

Analysis: This Senate-forged “compromise” continued federal spending at the levels both parties had agreed to under the Budget Control Act of 2011. Liberals especially continued to scream that those cuts were deep and intolerable. In commenting on the final passage of this measure, the Establishment’s Washington Post (10-16-13): reinforced that illusion, thus giving many Americans concerned over out-of-control spending a false sense of comfort:

“Meanwhile, federal agencies are funded through Jan. 15, when they might shut down again unless lawmakers resolve a continuing dispute over deep automatic spending cuts known as the sequester.” [Emphasis added.]

A more honest view was expressed by Alabama’s Senator Jeff Sessions, one of the 18 GOP senators to vote against the amended H.R. 2775. In a prepared statement, Sessions, the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, correctly decried the lack of federal restraint:

“In the last five years, Washington spent more than $15 trillion and added more than $6 trillion to the debt. Never has so great a sum been spent for so little in return. Despite this huge stimulus spending, wages are lower than in 1999 and nearly 60 million working-age Americans aren’t working. Fewer people are employed today than in 2007.”

Sessions was joined in his opposition by fellow Alabama Senator Richard Shelby, vice chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Shelby also “firmly opposed” the legislation:

“We should fund the government and safeguard the full faith and credit of the United States. We should do both, however, by putting our nation on a more responsible fiscal path. This legislation fails to do so. Once again, we are kicking the can down the road. In the meantime, the spending continues and our national debt grows unabated. The American people deserve better.”

We agree with Shelby and Sessions, up to a point. Continuing federal spending and racking up debt are certainly prescriptions for disaster. And choosing between business-as-usual and shutting down the government or defaulting on government debt are false alternatives.

However, our problems won’t be solved by political leadership that refuses to recognize the forces that have taken America off course and the real agenda driving their power grab. What is needed is leadership that takes the offensive and works to reverse the unconstitutional, socialist inroads destroying the American dream.

Even when House and Senate leaders present their members with the tough choice members had in this Roll Call (or Senate Vote) and the Establishment media places responsibility for the shutdown on congressmen unwilling to compromise, congressmen should still remember their oath to support the Constitution. They simply cannot in good conscience vote for continued spending on unconstitutional programs.

What is necessary to put America on a sound fiscal path is a “more responsible constitutional path.” Unconstitutional programs must be phased out and eliminated. Compromise with socialists won’t preserve either freedom or prosperity.

Pressure for such a change in course must come from outside Congress. Once that outside informed pressure builds a majority in either the House or Senate committed to upholding the Constitution, that majority can refuse omnibus bills and play strategic hardball: Present the other branches with the tough choice of accepting a responsible rollback of smaller packages of government programs or refusing to allow any of the 12 regular appropriations bills to fund any department of government at reduced levels.

In the absence of such a majority, a responsible congressman will still set the example and not buckle to false alternatives.

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. 2848 Department of State Operations and Embassy Security Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2014. Question: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended (2/3 required).

Result: Passed in House, 384 to 37, 10 not voting. Died in Senate. GOP and Democrats scored.

Bill Summary:  Section 101 (of Title I) authorizes FY2014 appropriations for the expenses of the Department of State and the Foreign Service, including personnel costs; worldwide security protection; information technology systems; the construction, maintenance, and security of U.S. embassies and overseas facilities; educational and cultural exchange programs; conflict stabilization operations; the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor; protection of foreign missions and officials; and for the Office of the Inspector General.

Other sections authorize assessed contributions to International Organizations (Section 102) of $1.4 billion; contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities (Section 103) of $1.9 billion; funding for International Commissions (Section 104); and full funding ($118 million) is authorized for the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) (Section 105).

Analysis:  According to the executive summary posted on the GOP.gov’s website, “H.R. 2848 authorizes overall reduced appropriations for the Department of State at fiscally responsible levels, while fully funding critical embassy security enhancements.” [Emphasis added.]

In light of the Benghazi fiasco, H.R. 2848 does place a proper emphasis on improving embassy security. However, embassy security is only one component of the vast internationalist operation run by the State Department.

Although conducting foreign affairs is a proper function of the federal government, authorized by the Constitution (Article II, Section 2), much of the State Department’s program is unconstitutional. With the outbreak of World War II, the Establishment’s Council on Foreign Relations was able to take working control of the State Department and has maintained that control ever since. (See Freedom First Society’s Masters of Deception.) Following the War, the State Department has expanded primarily to support the Internationalist agenda of making the U.S. subservient to Insider-dominated “world authorities” (such as the CFR’s creation, the United Nations) — in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

National Endowment for Democracy

The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) receives only a minor part of the spending authorized in this act for unconstitutional internationalist purposes. However, the overwhelming bipartisan acceptance of the internationalist, leftist NED demonstrates that our current political leadership is deceiving America.

The National Endowment for Democracy was created in 1983 by an act of Congress as a bipartisan, private, non-profit corporation, ostensibly to promote democracy abroad. The U.S. government would provide the primary funding for NED through annual appropriations.

The NED was structured to perform as a grant-making foundation to provide support to other private NGOs. Half of its funding goes to four U.S. organizations: the American Center for International Labor Solidarity (ACILS), the Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE), the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI), and the International Republican Institute (IRI) (formerly the National Republican Institute for International Affairs). The NED awards the other half of its funding to hundreds of NGOs abroad.

Although this structure is designed to create the impression that the federal government is not making the decisions, you can bet that the NED and the NGOs it funds with taxpayers’ money serve the Internationalist Establishment. Indeed, the NED’s longtime president, Carl Gershman, was for several years a member of the Establishment’s Council on Foreign Relations.

A Yale and Harvard graduate, Gershman began his career as a socialist, serving from 1970 to 1974 as a national leader of the Young People’s Socialist League. From 1975 to 1980 he was the executive director of Social Democrats, USA. During the Reagan administration, Gershman served as the U.S. Representative to the United Nation’s Committee on human rights.

In its early years, the NED supported Communist revolution in South Africa through pro-ANC groups. Among the internationalist NGOs, the NED supports today is Search for Common Ground, with headquarters in Washington, DC and Brussels. Search for Common Ground also receives funding from the Rockerfeller Brothers Fund, the Rockefeller family, the United Nations Development Programme, the U.S. State Department, and the World Bank.

What a sham! An internationalist Establishment that helped the Soviets seize and maintain power, enabled the Chinese Reds to take control of mainland China, and even helped Castro come to power in Cuba wants to promote democracy abroad.

In the absence of a long overdue housecleaning conducted by constitutionalists, the functions of the State Department should be cut back severely.   Authorizing the Department at “fiscally responsible” levels simply hides the problem.

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.)