Bills

Issue: H.R. 761 National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act of 2013. Sponsor: Mark Amodei (R-NV2).

Result: Passed in House, 246 to 178, 8 not voting. Democrats scored.

Bill Summary:  Title 1 strives to speed up the approval process for responsible domestic mining permits, particularly for the mining of strategic and critical minerals, by streamlining paths through federal and environmentalist red tape. Title 2 seeks to limit the ability of environmentalist civil actions to tie up mining and exploration for long periods in court and to limit any judgments or relief granted in such actions.

Analysis: This roll call is one of several similar GOP posturing votes addressing a serious national concern — the subversive and unconstitutional federal overreach preventing the development of America’s abundant natural resources. This overreach has undermined U.S. prosperity and made the U.S. unnecessarily dependent on foreign suppliers for those resources.

The environmentalist movement, spawned with the financial help of Establishment Insiders, conducted the extensive campaign to tie up those resources in the first place.   However, leaders from both major parties responded to the orchestrated public pressure by supporting environmentalist legislation and regulation. It is unlikely that if the GOP in its current form were to regain control of the White House and Senate that the subversive policies would be effectively reversed, since the Internationalist Insiders dictate the real tune to which both parties currently march.

While respecting that common agenda when it counts, the parties do seek to position themselves differently to their respective constituencies. Accordingly, many of the votes cast in this Congress are designed to aid members on the campaign trail rather than to make real change. Yet uninformed voters are regularly betrayed, because real change in Washington will not come from purely partisan politics.

Instead, real change will require change in a substantial number of districts. What is needed in those districts is an electorate driven by opinion molders who understand the subversive agenda behind the counterproductive policies in Washington. Only then will we have sufficient representatives in Congress who will stand firm for the Constitution.

This House roll call does not identify which GOP representatives would act tough when it counts, so we do not score the GOP on this roll call. However, we can give kudos to those 15 Democrats who stood up to their party leaders and voted yea, whether out of commitment to principle or a recognition of what would play best in their districts.

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: S. 793 Organization of American States Revitalization and Reform Act. (Sponsor: Senator Robert Menendez, N.J.)  Question: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended (2/3 vote required).

Result: Passed/agreed to in House, 383 to 24, 25 not voting. Senate agreed to House amendments by unanimous consent. Became Public Law 113-41 (signed by president 10/2/13). GOP and Democrats scored. 

Congressional Research Service Summary:  Organization of American States Revitalization and Reform Act of 2013 — States that it is U.S. policy to: (1) promote democracy, the rule of law, and human rights in the Western Hemisphere; and (2) support the practices and principles expressed in the Charter of the Organization of American States, the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man, the Inter-American Democratic Charter, and other fundamental instruments of democracy. [Emphasis added.]

Expresses the sense of Congress that: (1) the Organization of American States (OAS) should be the primary multi-lateral diplomatic entity for regional dispute resolution and promotion of democratic governance; (2) the Summit of the Americas process should be formally and more effectively integrated into the work of the OAS, the Inter-American Development Bank, and other Members of the Joint Summit Working Group; (3) the OAS has historically accepted too many member state mandates creating unclear priorities and loss of institutional focus; and (4) it is in the interest of the United States and the OAS and its member states to move toward an assessed fee structure that assures financial sustainability and establishes, within five years, that no member state pays more than 50% of the organization’s assessed fees. [Emphasis added.]

Directs the Secretary of State to submit to Congress a multiyear strategy that: (1) leads to such assessed fee structure, (2) identifies a path toward the adoption of necessary reforms that prioritize the core competencies of the OAS, (3) outlines a results-based budgeting process to prioritize current and future mandates and transparent hiring and promotion practices, and (4) reflects the inputs and coordination from other executive branch agencies.

Directs the Secretary to: (1) carry out diplomatic engagement to build support for reforms and budgetary burden sharing among OAS member states and observers, and (2) promote donor coordination among OAS member states.

Analysis:  This “bipartisan” measure reinforces the common, but false notion that the CFR-dominated U.S. State Department and OAS have been opposing Communism and promoting freedom throughout the world.

Although both have feigned opposition to Communism, their record is quite different. For decades, the Internationalists in Washington have supported Communism while ostensibly opposing it and while hamstringing U.S. military opposition, as in Korea and Vietnam. The threat of Communism served as a useful foil for building their multi-lateral and international institutions in a global power grab.

[Former Stanford University researcher, Antony C. Sutton, documents this perverse strategy in action with his aptly named 1986 book, The Best Enemy Money Can Buy. For a thorough exposition of internationalist aims and strategy, we recommend Masters of Deception published by the Freedom First Society.]

This “bipartisan” measure was introduced by Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, ranking member Bob Corker (R-TN), along with committee members Tom Udall (D-NM) and Marco Rubio (R-FL). The full Senate approved the measure by unanimous consent.

The Senate bill was subsequently amended in the House Committee on Foreign Affairs to require the Secretary of State to develop a plan to move toward an assessed OAS fee structure in which the United States would not bear more than 50 percent of the burden.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor placed the bill on the House Schedule for consideration under a suspension of the rules (this roll call). Following House approval, the Senate agreed to the House amendment by unanimous consent and the president signed the bill into law on October 4th.

This innocent-sounding measure primarily serves to give added legitimacy to the subversive internationalism of an Insider Establishment that has a grip on the federal government.   Significantly, the measure did manage to become Public Law in a year when an unusually low number of bills made it that far.

The failure of most congressmen to oppose this foreign policy directive highlights the lack of backbone currently in Congress and the often-casual nature of voting when there are no obvious political consequences. Still the House roll call did offer those representatives with sufficient understanding and backbone the opportunity to stand up to the deceptions camouflaging the internationalist agenda. It is encouraging that 24 representatives did take the time to understand the measure and decided not to support it.

The overwhelming bipartisan support for revitalizing the OAS reminds us of another example of mindless support. In 1971, the Texas legislature unanimously passed a resolution honoring Albert DeSalvo [the Boston Strangler] for his innovative work in population control. The measure was introduced as an April Fool’s Day joke by one representative who sought to demonstrate that his colleagues were not putting due diligence into researching the legislation they were passing.

But whereas the Texas resolution/joke did no harm, this Act reinforces a very dangerous agenda. We will examine several of the Establishment deceptions in the OAS measure.

OAS History

The Organization of American States (OAS) was formed in 1948 at a hemispheric conference in Bogota led by U.S. Secretary of State George C. Marshall. 21 American countries signed the charter for the OAS. Out of the meeting came a pledge by members to fight Communism in the Western Hemisphere. The meeting also adopted the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (see below).

As Secretary of State, trusted Establishment Insider George C. Marshall had recently accomplished something similar in Europe. At the end of World War II, Congress approved the European Recovery Program (ERP) — a program of massive aid to Europe, popularly known as the Marshall Plan. The Marshall Plan was actually developed by a CFR study group — headed by Charles M. Spofford with David Rockefeller as secretary.

 

Recognizing American political sentiments, however, the foreign aid was cleverly sold as a means to help stop the spread of Communism. In general, American Insiders have used foreign aid to saddle recipient nations with socialist policies and governments. The ERP certainly followed that pattern. But in Europe the aid was also used to promote European unification.   The same game plan is now being executed in the Western Hemisphere and the OAS and the American Inter-Development Bank are part of the plan.

In the late 1970s, the OAS joined the Carter State Department in helping to topple the government of Nicaragua under President Anastasio Somoza and usher in the pro-Castro Sandanista regime.

Nicaraguan President Anastasio Somoza was one of our most friendly allies in Latin America, having been educated in the U.S. since early childhood and having graduated from West Point. Moreover, Nicaragua was a constitutional republic patterned after the U.S.

However, during the late 1970s, the Cuban- and Soviet-backed guerilla forces of the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) targeted the Somoza government. Concurrently, media reports began depicting Somoza as a corrupt dictator and gross violator of human rights

The OAS voted to recognize the FSLN as the legitimate government of Nicaragua. In doing so, the OAS stripped the government of Anastasio Somoza of its legitimacy

The overthrow of Somoza brought to power the brutal regime of Daniel Ortega, which immediately received substantial U.S. aid. The Ortega regime declared itself “a revolution without borders,” and began to support guerrilla forces in neighboring El Salvador.

Inter-American Development Bank

“With the full approval and concurrence of the U.S. government, money from a variety of sources poured into Nicaragua to aid the Sandinista regime. A gift of $500,000 was immediately forthcoming from the Organization of American States. The Inter-American Development Bank quickly granted the Sandinista government $107 million in grants, and pledged to extend another $120 million over a four-year period. By the end of 1979, the government of Daniel Ortega had been given a total of $89 million in gifts and offered $490 million in international loans.” — The New American, July 20, 1987.

The Inter-American Development Bank has been heavily subsidized by U.S. taxpayers, and many of its officers have been members of the Insiders’ Council on Foreign Relations.

In a November 29, 1993 memo to President Bill Clinton, National Security Adviser Anthony Lake suggested: Hemispheric institutions, including the OAS and Inter-American Development Bank and now the NAFTA institutions, can be forged into the vital mechanisms of hemispheric governance.

American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man

The international-socialists regularly promote their schemes under cover of terms they know to be popular with most Americans. The American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man is a good example. It was adopted by the nations of the Americas at the same 1948 international conference in Bogota that created the OAS.

The civil and political “rights” described in Chapter 1 of the Declaration would certainly have been anathema to our nation’s Founders.   For example, Article XII states:

“Every person has the right to an education, which should be based on the principles of liberty, morality and human solidarity.

“Likewise every person has the right to an education that will prepare him to attain a decent life, to raise his standard of living, and to be a useful member of society…..

“Every person has the right to receive, free, at least a primary education.”

And Article XVI reads: “Every person has the right to social security which will protect him from the consequences of unemployment, old age, and any disabilities arising from causes beyond his control that make it physically or mentally impossible for him to earn a living.”

But Chapter 2 should raise even greater alarm. Chapter 2 lists the duties of the individual corresponding to the “rights” identified in Chapter 1. While we need government to protect the rights of all, there is no place in a legitimate Bill of Rights for a collectivist prescription of the duties of man.

A similar principle was incorporated in the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the largely socialist UN general assembly a few months later. Contrary to the U.S. view of rights as inalienable, coming from God, not government, the UN’s Universal Declaration proceeds from the concept that government grants rights (and so can take them away).

Article 29, paragraph 3 of the UN’s Universal Declaration (referring to the supposed rights and freedoms specified elsewhere in the document) states: “These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.”

The Summit of the Americas

The Summits of the Americas are a series of meetings bringing together the leaders of the countries of North America, Central America, South America, and the Caribbean (except Cuba) ostensibly under the overall leadership of the Organization of American States.

In 1994, the formerly ad hoc summits were established as regular summits ostensibly to promote democracy and free trade throughout the hemisphere.

In reality, these regular summits were organized to promote the internationalist goal of merging nations into regional governments, a la the European Union, as a steppingstone to world government. As with the EU, the first steps toward political merger were misleadingly presented as mere free trade agreements.

The 1st (1994) Summit of the Americas was held in Miami a year following the U.S. ratification of NAFTA. The Miami Summit was entirely a David Rockefeller show. Out of this Summit came the proposal for expanding NAFTA to a 34-nation Free Trade Area of the Americas.

Each Summit would produce a Declaration and Plan of Action, committing the signatories to implementing UN treaties, conventions, and programs. The UN family of multilateral lending institutions — the IMF, World Bank and Inter-American Development Bank — as well as the U.S. government would offer financial incentives (read bribes) to the poorer nations to go along with the process.

Joint Summit Working Group

A “Joint Summit Working Group” chaired by an agency of the OAS coordinates the support of twelve Inter-American and international institutions to help implement the Summits “process.” Among the 12 members of the Working Group are the principle internationalist players organized to promote the long-term goal of political merger of the nations in this hemisphere. Much of the leadership for organizing this deceptive plan comes from members of the inner core of the Council on Foreign Relations.

The 12 participating organizations include: the OAS itself, the Inter-American Development Bank, the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) — one of the five regional commissions of the United Nations, the Central American Bank for Economic Integration, the World Bank, the International Organization for Migration, the UN’s International Labor Organization (ILO), and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), an agency that has supervised gun collection programs in scores of nations.

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. 3092 “E. Clay Shaw, Jr. Missing Children’s Assistance Reauthorization Act of 2013.”  Question: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended (2/3 vote required).

Result: Passed in House, 407 to 2, 23 not voting. Agreed to in Senate without amendment by unanimous consent, 9/25/13. Became Public Law 113-38 (signed by president on 9/30/13). GOP and Democrats scored.

From the Congressional Research Service Summary:

“[H.R. 3092] adds to the authorized uses of the annual federal grant to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children….

“Authorizes the Administration to make grants or enter into contracts with the Center and with public agencies or nonprofit private organizations for research, demonstration projects, or service programs designed to: (1) educate schools, school leaders, teachers, state and local educational agencies, homeless shelters, and service providers in ways to prevent the abduction and sexual exploitation of children; and (2) aid schools in the collection of materials useful to parents in assisting others in the identification of missing children.

“(Sec. 3) Authorizes appropriations for FY2014-FY2018, including specified funds each year for the annual grant to the Center.

“(Sec. 4) Subjects grant recipients to audits by the DOJ Inspector General for two of the fiscal years between FY2014 and FY2018.”

Analysis: H.R. 3092 provides an excellent example of legislation that uses a legitimate national concern — missing and exploited children — to perpetuate unconstitutional federal overreach.

Funding private non-profit corporations through federal grants is nowhere authorized in the Constitution. This practice began to flourish once the Federal government had acquired deep pockets through the Federal Reserve Act and the income tax. What the federal government terms “assistance” is just a step toward federal control.

The annual grants to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) raise a similar concern. H.R. 3082 authorized up to $32 million per year to the Center for five years. The United States Congress established the Center in 1984 as a private, non-profit organization through the Missing Children’s Assistance Act. It draws its funding primarily through appropriations for the Justice Department.

According to Wikipedia:

“NCMEC acts as an information clearinghouse and resource for parents, children, law enforcement agencies, schools, and communities to assist in locating missing children and to raise public awareness about ways to prevent child abduction, child sexual abuse, and child pornography….

“The Center provides information to help locate children reported missing (by parental abduction, child abduction, or running away from home) and to assist physically and sexually abused children.”

One of the tactics that has outflanked our traditional system of representative government is for a government-funded NGO to launch another NGO. In 1998, the federally established National Center founded a separate organization — the International Centre for Missing and Exploited Children. In 2008, the United Nations Economic and Social Council granted the International Centre “Special Consultative Status.”

Many American don’t understand how a vocal revolutionary minority is regularly able to impose its values on the majority. One part of the explanation is that many of the revolutionaries draw full time salaries from the federal programs, whereas the increasingly burdened American middle class must defend itself with after-tax dollars in its spare time.

In the months leading up to the September 1983 Soviet shoot down of the Korean airliner carrying Congressman Lawrence McDonald, McDonald had publicly charged that some 10,000 leftwing organizations were drawing money from the public trough.

While the regular extension of federal reach through quasi non-governmental organizations is one problem, many of the programs directly administered by the federal government also lack constitutional authority. They contradict the Constitution’s plan for a federal government that performs only the specifically authorized functions appropriate to the union of sovereign states, such as foreign relations. Lack of respect for these limits in Congress is directly responsible for the resulting federal monster.

Accordingly, we were disappointed to see that this act requires the “Administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention of the Department of Justice” to send annual reports to the president and [Committees of] Congress. We did not even know such an office existed.

The Act also requires the Administrator “to coordinate with the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness to ensure that homeless services professionals are aware of educational resources and assistance provided by the Center regarding child sexual exploitation.” (From CRS Summary.)

President George Washington in his Farewell Address gave excellent, but long ignored counsel to future generations of Americans:

“If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in once instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”

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. 1582 Energy Consumers Relief Act of 2013. (Sponsor: Rep. Bill Cassidy, LA-6.)

Result: Passed in House, 232 to 181, 20 not voting. Democrats scored.

Bill Summary: The Energy Consumers Relief Act is designed to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from promulgating final rules that regulate any aspect of the production, supply, distribution, or use of energy, if such rules would have significant negative impact on the economy.

Analysis:  This roll call is merely another GOP posturing step designed to showcase GOP opposition to the subversive and unconstitutional EPA strangulation of energy production, without actually providing any relief. Everyone knows that the measure will go nowhere in the Democrat-controlled Senate and that the president would never approve it.

Accordingly, this roll call is more about image building for GOP campaigning than it is about actually helping the energy consumer. Before Americans buy into the ruse and enthusiastically support pure partisan politics as the answer, they should remember the GOP contribution to building the regulatory monster.

In the midst of the media uproar over the 1969 Santa Barbara “ecological disaster,” Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson re-introduced his previously defeated bill to establish the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). Congress passed Jackson’s National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NERA) in December, and “Republican” President Nixon signed it into law on January 1, 1970.

The law, requiring federal environmental impact statements, was a dream come true for environmentalist attorneys.   The law would be used to tie up construction of the Alaskan oil pipeline for five years. Then on December 2, 1970, “Republican” President Nixon, through executive order, created the Environmental Protection Agency.

The record shows that the Republican leadership has followed the same Insider/Democratic tune when the chips were down. But, of course, posturing to the contrary when it does not seriously threaten the environmentalist agenda is fine with the Establishment.

Undoubtedly, some GOP congressmen are actually serious about regulatory rollback and would hang tough if they had the chance. However, this House roll call, enjoying the unanimous support of the entire GOP caucus (except 10 who did not vote), does not single out the genuine EPA opponents among the many who merely postured as such. So we score only the Democrats, giving credit to those 9 who ignored their party’s leadership and voted to restrain the EPA.

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. 2231 Offshore Energy and Jobs Act. (To amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to increase energy exploration and production on the Outer Continental Shelf, provide for equitable revenue sharing for all coastal States, implement the reorganization of the functions of the former Minerals Management Service into distinct and separate agencies, and for other purposes.) Sponsor: Rep. Doc Hastings (WA-4)

Result: Passed in House, 235 to 186, 13 not voting. Awaits consideration by the Senate. Democrats scored.

Bill Summary: The Offshore Energy and Jobs Act (H.R. 2231) would revise existing law to expand the leasing, operation, and development of oil and natural gas resources available in the Outer Continental Shelf.

From the CRS Summary: Amends the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to implement a leasing program that includes at least 50% of the available unleased acreage within each outer Continental Shelf (OCS) planning area considered to have the largest undiscovered, technically recoverable oil and gas resources, with an emphasis on offering the most geologically prospective parts of the planning area.

Analysis:   The bill is primarily supported by Republicans and is opposed by President Obama. According to the House Committee on Natural Resources, which developed the plan: “The bill removes federal government barriers that block production of our own U.S. energy resources. President Obama has effectively re-imposed an offshore drilling moratorium and imposed a lease plan that keeps 85 percent of our offshore areas off-limits to American energy production.”

For several decades, the Establishment Insiders and their child, the environmental movement, have sought to inhibit America’s domestic energy development and increase our nation’s dependence on foreign oil.

However, in 2008 political pressure due to escalating oil and gas prices caused the George W. Bush administration and Congress to overturn the two-decade long moratoria on new offshore drilling on most of the Outer Continental Shelf. It appeared that some relief was in sight.

However, the five-year leasing plan that the Secretary of the Interior was required to prepare under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act has been constantly trimmed and delayed.

Realistically, H.R. 2231 is pure posturing by the GOP as no one expected the measure to get by the Democrat-controlled Senate, let alone survive a presidential veto.   However, we score the House Democrats on their votes on H.R. 2231, giving credit to those 16 who stood against their party leadership in support of freeing up America’s energy resources.

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. 83 Latest Title: Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015.  Question: On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment with an Amendment.

Result: Passed in House, 219 to 206, 10 not voting. Became Public Law 113-235 (signed by the President, 12-16-14). Republicans scored.

Bill Summary:  As passed by the House (and 2 days later by the Senate) H.R. 83 brings together into 1 omnibus spending bill 11 of the 12 regular appropriations bills that fund the federal government through September 30, 2015 (the end of Fiscal Year 2015). H.R. 83 also contains a continuing resolution (CR) funding the Department of Homeland Security through February 27th — hence the measure’s description as a “cromnibus.”

That totals $1.014 trillion in discretionary spending. In addition, H.R. 83 included $5.4 billion of emergency funding to respond to the Ebola outbreak, $73.7 billion for Overseas Contingency Operations, and $6.5 billion of disaster aid, bringing the total to just under $1.1 trillion.

Note: As too often happens with important measures, the roll call is listed on the house.gov website under an unrelated bill title. The same was done on the senate.gov website.

Analysis: Within the House GOP, both supporters and opponents of H.R. 83 advanced “conservative” and “constitutional” arguments to sustain their position. Who was right?

Looking merely at the political line-up supporting the bill suggests strongly that the measure does little to rein in unconstitutional government.

According to The Hill (“Senate passes $1.1T funding bill,” 12-13-14):

“The package of appropriations bills, dubbed the “cromnibus,” narrowly passed the House on Thursday night in a 219-206 vote after Obama hit the phones to quell a Democratic uprising against it.

“Most Democrats followed House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) lead and voted against the package because of two riders she described as ‘egregious.’… Just after 9 p.m. Thursday, the House wound up passing the bill with the help of 57 Democrats.”

162 GOP members, including Speaker John Boehner and the House GOP leadership, voted for the “cromnibus,” whereas 67 Republicans voted against it. In the face of support from President Obama, House Democrats opposing the measure largely postured to a liberal constituency. In particular, they opposed a couple of conservative GOP policy initiatives that were included in the bill.

However, in the Senate the measure had the support of several top Democrats, including Majority Leader Harry Reid, Majority Whip Dick Durbin, Appropriations Chairwoman Barbara Mikulski, and Policy Committee Chair Chuck Schumer. GOP Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Minority Whip Jon Cornyn were also on board.

Appealing to Conservatives

In pushing the funding measure through the House, Speaker John Boehner was careful to cast it in conservative terms:

“The bill contains a number of important measures to fulfill the people’s priorities, including protecting jobs, stopping wasteful spending, reining in government overreach, and funding our national security.

“1. The bill abides by last year’s bipartisan budget agreement. As a result, overall discretionary spending has been reduced by $176 billion since FY 2010.” [Emphasis added] — John Boehner Press Release (12-10-14): “10 Things You Should Know About The Omnibus Appropriations Bill”

However, the modest spending restraint imposed by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (the “Ryan-Murray Agreement,” an earlier compromise with liberals), served primarily to mislead the public into thinking that the GOP leadership was doing the best it could to be fiscally responsible. While that deal did avert a public revolt, it totally failed to address seriously the frightening growth in the national debt. Nor did it attempt at all to roll back massive unconstitutional federal departments and programs, which constitute a large portion of federal spending today.

In sending H.R. 83 to the full House for a vote, Chairman of the Appropriations Committee Harold Rodgers (R-TX) issued the following statement:

“This bill will allow us to fulfill our Constitutional duty to responsibly fund the federal government and avoid a shutdown. The 11 Appropriations bills in this package reflect specific, thoughtful, line-by-line decisions to target funds to critical programs, make reductions to lower-priority areas, and wisely invest the taxpayers’ hard-earned money….

“It reflects conservative priorities, yet it is also a compromise bill that can and should have wide bipartisan support in both the House and Senate.” [Emphasis added.]

Congressmen who continue to support unconstitutional federal departments and programs are pushing the misleading notion that Congress has a “Constitutional duty” to fund these programs “responsibly” with taxpayer dollars or deficit spending. They are also pushing the completely false concept that responsible, constitutional government can be achieved with “wide bipartisan support” under the current political configuration in Washington.

GOP Opponents

A December 12th press release from the office of Congressman Walter Jones (NC-3) included this statement by the congressman:

“As the only member of Congress to vote against every debt ceiling increase in the last 11 years, I cannot in good conscience support a piece of legislation that does absolutely nothing to address the most pressing issue facing our country — out of control spending. President Obama got everything he wanted in this CRomnibus…. Instead of leading the way in trying to curb our reckless spending habit, Congress folded like a cheap suit to President Obama.”

Michigan Representative Justin Amash was interviewed by CNSNews in advance of the vote:

“Well, I’m voting no on the omnibus,” Amash said. “But I’m voting no because I don’t support most of the appropriations bills that make up the omnibus, not because of any one particular issue.”

Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) strongly denounced the measure during debate on the Senate floor:

“Since last night when it was taken up in the House of Representatives, supporters of the CRomnibus have couched their support in the language of compromise: ‘This isn’t a perfect bill,’ they say. But on the contrary, it is perfect. As a representation of everything wrong with Washington, DC, as an example of exactly the kind of unfair, unrepresentative legislating that triggered successive electoral waves of bipartisan condemnation in 2006, 2008, 2010, and again in 2014—the CRomnibus is perfect.

“Members of my party do not have the luxury of blaming this latest failure on the outgoing Senate majority. No. This one is on us….

“Americans just last month thought they went to the polls and voted for change to stop this kind of thing: unread, 1,000-plus page bills written in secret, filled with hidden favors for special interests while funding the lawlessness of an out-of-control President. Americans looking for that change will not find it in this bill. Rather, they will find what the discarded revolutionaries of ‘Animal Farm’ found at the end of George Orwell’s classic: ‘The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.’”

Omnibus Continues Big Government

Several GOP legislators complained about the common leadership tactics of advancing massive legislation with unnecessary last minute deadlines.

Congressman Walter Jones pointed out a major problem with H.R. 83, typical of such last-minute massive legislation: “How can you take a 1,600 page bill, get the rule on it today, and expect Members to cast a sensible vote on that kind of bill? You can’t do it. I don’t even know what’s in the bill.”

Prior to the vote, The Hill reported:

“House conservatives are griping that Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) is putting the squeeze on them by rushing through a $1 trillion spending bill in Congress’s last week in session.

“Appropriators are expected to roll out the legislation early next week, giving critics scant time to figure out what’s inside before they cast their votes by the end of the week….

“‘Here we are doing the appropriations bill the last couple days’” before a government shutdown, conservative Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kansas) said in an interview this week. ‘That’s not to squeeze Harry Reid. That’s to squeeze us.’…

“‘They don’t want you to read it, that’s why! You think they want you to analyze all the mischievous items in there?’ Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.)  told The Hill.

“Asked if the timing of the plan was aimed at jamming the Senate or House conservatives, Jones replied: ‘I think its aimed at screwing over the American people. You can quote me on that.’”

The Department of Education

We could examine the continued funding in H.R. 83 of several largely unconstitutional departments, such as the Department of Energy (further cuts to the budget of EPA were included, however), the Department of Labor, and the Department of Health and Human Services.   However, let’s look just at one — funding for the unconstitutional federal involvement in education.

According the House Appropriations Committee summary:

“Early Childhood Education and Care — Administration for Children and Families (ACF) — The bill provides $17.8 billion in discretionary resources for the ACF, which is a $108 million increase. This includes a $75 million increase for activities within the Child Care and Development Block Grant to improve the quality and safety of infant and toddler care. The bill also continues increased funding provided in fiscal year 2014 for the expansion of the Early Head Start program, providing additional early education opportunities for toddlers from low-income families throughout the country. [Emphasis added.]

“The bill funds the Department of Education at $70.5 billion. This is $133 million [0.2%] below the fiscal year 2014 enacted program level.

“• Title I Program – These basic grants to local school districts to help children become proficient in reading and math are funded at $14.4 billion, an increase of $25 million above the 2014 level.” [Emphasis added.]

Obama’s Usurpation of Authority re Immigration

Eleven of the 12 regular appropriations bills funded the federal government through September 30 —the end of Fiscal Year 2015. This effectively prevents the incoming GOP majority from fighting over spending in those areas during a large part of its term.

The 12th appropriations bill would normally fund the Department of Homeland Security and immigration policy. This time, however, the GOP leadership chose to fund the president’s executive actions regarding immigration only thru February 27, arguing that the 114th Congress would be in a better position to force the president to reverse his actions on immigration.

Some members objected to any postponement of a funding fight over immigration. However, the refusal of the GOP leadership to follow the same “strategy” regarding the 11 other appropriations bills demonstrates that it is not really serious about rolling back unconstitutional government.

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. 124 Making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2015, and for other purposes.

Result: Passed in House, 319 to 108, 4 not voting. Became Public Law 113-164 (signed by the president, 9-19-14). GOP and Democrats scored.

From the Congressional Research Service Summary:  

Provides continuing FY2015 appropriations to federal agencies at the current annual rate until December 11, 2014, or enactment of specified appropriations legislation.

(Sec. 101) Appropriates funds to federal agencies for continuing projects and activities at the rate and under the authority and conditions provided in the applicable divisions of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014:

***

(Sec. 147) Extends the operating authority of the Export-Import Bank through June 30, 2015.

***

The joint resolution also authorizes the Secretary of Defense (DOD) to provide assistance in Syria.

Analysis:   This appropriations measure illustrates that, despite GOP posturing, there really is little will in Washington to limit government. Once again, the House “postponed” tough action, blowing another opportunity to use its power of the purse to reduce unconstitutional spending.

The continuing resolution extended federal spending thru December 11, 2014 at the same level and for the same unconstitutional programs as the Congress had approved in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014 (see FFS Scorecard, House Roll Call 21, January 15, 2014).

The Export-Import Bank      

Buried within the continuing resolution was another extension, for one year, of the Export-Import Bank charter, due to expire on September 30th.   The Obama administration had sought a five-year reauthorization of the 80-year old bank and an increase in its lending cap from $140 billion to $160 billion.

In recent years, the Bank had become the target of weak conservative opposition, which merely characterized the Bank as a “bad idea”, as “promoting corporate welfare,” and as “crony capitalism.” In reality, the Export-Import Bank has served the internationalist Conspiracy for decades as a workhorse, funding America’s enemies and advancing internationalist objectives.

Earlier this year, political hype speculated that the House might refuse to renew the Bank’s charter.   This was nonsense, as any serious effort to force the Bank’s retirement would have to recognize the Conspiracy’s influence in Washington, something few politicians are willing to do.

Establishment Domination   

When considering the appropriations resolution, the primary issue debated by the House was neither federal spending nor the Ex-Im Bank renewal but an amendment to authorize the Obama administration to train and arm Syrian rebels.

On September 17, the House approved H.J. Res.124 with sizeable bipartisan majorities: Republicans voted in favor, 176 to 53, and Democrats, 143 to 55. The Senate approved the measure the next day (Senate vote 270) by a vote of 78 to 22, and President Obama signed it into law the following day.

When the Insider-Establishment agenda beckons, the president, senators, and congressmen, irrespective of party, dutifully fall in line.

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. 4923 Making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2015, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep. Michael Simpson (ID-2).

Result: Passed in House, 253 to 170, 9 not voting. Republicans scored.

Bill Summary: The legislation provides annual funding for national defense nuclear weapons activities, the Army Corps of Engineers, various programs under the Department of Energy, and other related agencies.

From the Congressional Research Service Summary:  

Makes appropriations for FY2015 to the Department of Energy (DOE) for energy and science programs, including: (1) energy efficiency and renewable energy, (2) electricity delivery and energy reliability … (8) the Energy Information Administration … (14) the Title 17 Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program … (15) the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program….

Analysis:   According to a June 9 House Appropriations Committee news release: “The bill totals $34 billion — a [paltry] $50 million reduction from the fiscal year 2014 enacted level and an increase of $327 million above the President’s request.” [Emphasis added.]

A principal objection to this appropriations bill is that it continues to fund the unconstitutional programs in the Department of Energy in support of a subversive agenda and in complete disregard of constitutional limits.

According to the Appropriations Committee news release: “Funding for energy programs within the Department of Energy (DOE) is $10.3 billion — an increase of $113 million above the fiscal year 2014 enacted level.”

Since President Jimmy Carter created the unconstitutional department, some constitutional defense functions related to nuclear weapons have been added, giving the department a cloak of respectability. However, the unconstitutional functions and subversive agenda continue unchallenged.

An excerpt from Freedom First Society’s Masters of Deception recounts the history of this misuse of government power:

         “The Carter energy policy can be summarized as a campaign to deny America use of its own energy resources, create dependence on foreign suppliers, and create shortages leading to government rationing. However, just as the effort to give away our Panama Canal didn’t begin with President Carter, so the federal government’s war on energy also started much earlier.

         “Indeed, actions of the Nixon administration precipitated the 1973 ‘energy crisis,’ with its attendant long lines at gasoline stations. ³⁹ Already in 1973 there was talk of rationing energy, as part of a plan to establish a federal Department of Energy headed by an ‘energy czar,’ who would have the power to decide the fate of every manufacturing and industrial enterprise in America.

         “Jimmy Carter merely took the anti-energy campaign one step further. Shortly after President Carter moved into the White House, the New York Times reported: ‘The Federal Energy Administrator, John F. O’Leary, told the American people today that the Carter Administration’s energy policy would call for higher prices, less comfort at home, and some way to take some of the fat out of the driving habits in this country.’ ⁴⁰

         “In August of 1977, Carter signed legislation establishing the Cabinet-level Department of Energy (DOE), and the following year he signed into law his National Energy Act.   James Schlesinger (secretary of defense under Nixon and Ford and CFR in 1986) became the nation’s first secretary of energy.

         “That same year (1977), a delegation of General Electric executives visited the new secretary in Washington. Edward Hood, G.E. vice president for power generation, reportedly told Schlesinger that without nuclear energy, we will have blackouts and brownouts. According to a G.E. executive, Schlesinger replied: ‘That’s what we want. It’s the only way to teach the people a lesson.’ ⁴¹

         “The new department would not produce any energy and instead would create a myriad of obstacles to domestic energy production. The Chicago Tribune reported in March of 1979:

‘For more than a century, the United States was the world’s leading oil producer. In fact, before the 1973 Arab embargo, the U.S. had oil to export, and maintained quotas to restrict imports of cheap foreign oil. While the U.S. continues to be the world’s biggest oil consumer, it has slipped to the position of No. 3 behind the Soviet Union and Saudi Arabia.’ ⁴²

         “In addition to creating policies that would lead to energy shortages, the new bureaucracy would come at a terrible cost to taxpayers. As the Wall Street Journal reported:

‘[T]he $10.6 billion budget of the proposed new Department of Energy … is about double the value of all the oil the U.S. imported from Saudi Arabia last year…. It is equivalent to about $3 a barrel of domestic crude oil production, which means … that you could decontrol all domestic crude oil prices and still end up paying less for oil than for the federal energy bureaucracy….’” ⁴³

39. Dan Smoot, “On The Created Energy Crisis,” The Review of the News, November 28, 1973. Also see Gary Allen, Tax Target: Washington (Seal Beach, Calif.: ’76 Press, 1978), Chapter 9.
40. Edward Cowan, “ENERGY CHIEF WARNS COMFORT WILL DROP AND PRICES WILL RISE; 65-DEGREE HOMES FORECAST: O’Leary Says Policy Will Include Change in Driving Habits; Rise in Gasoline Cost Is Hinted,” New York Times, February 14, 1977.
41. Alan Stang, “The Carter Energy Act,” American Opinion, October 1977.
42. Robert Young, “U.S. slips to No. 3 in production of oil,” Chicago Tribune, March 25, 1979, p. 16.
43. “What Baby DOE Will Cost,” Wall Street Journal, June 1, 1977, p. 16.

Moreover

Too often in the past, House appropriations subcommittees have failed to complete their appropriations measures in a timely manner, and so the House at large was presented with repeated continuing resolutions and omnibus or minibus appropriations legislation on a take it or leave it basis.

In 2014, the House had approved seven of the 12 individual appropriation bills for FY 2015 by the end of July.   However, as the September 30th deadline approached for the expiration of prior year appropriations, the House did not use its power of the purse to play hardball and insist that Senate and President accept or refuse these individual appropriations measures.

Instead, the House simply ignored all its previous work and passed a continuing appropriations resolution (see H.J. Res. 124, House Roll Call 509, 9-17-14, scored by FFS) to allow unconstitutional spending to continue thru mid-December at the inacceptable 2014 levels. In a spirit of bipartisan “cooperation,” the Senate and the president immediately approved the resolution.

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. 803 Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. An act to amend the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 to strengthen the United States workforce development system through innovation in, and alignment and improvement of, employment, training, and education programs in the United States, and to promote individual and national economic growth, and for other purposes. Question: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Concur in the Senate Amendments (2/3 required).

Result: Passed in House, 415 to 6, 11 not voting. Became Public Law 113-128 (signed by the president, 7-22-14). GOP and Democrats scored.

Bill History: The House approved H.R. 803 in early 2013 as the Skills Act (“Supporting Knowledge and Investing in Lifelong Skills Act”). In June 2014 (more than a year later), the Senate amended and retitled the measure and passed it back to the House, which voted above to accept the Senate changes. Two weeks later, President Obama signed the measure into law.

Bill Summary: The Act consists of five titles: TITLE I—WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES; TITLE II—ADULT EDUCATION AND LITERACY; TITLE III—AMENDMENTS TO THE WAGNER-PEYSER ACT; TITLE IV—AMENDMENTS TO THE REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973; and TITLE V—GENERAL PROVISIONS. The Act authorizes or reauthorizes appropriations for the described functions and programs.

Analysis: This measure purports to fix a broken 1998 federal unconstitutional intervention in the marketplace, purportedly designed to help people become employable and also help the private sector find qualified workers. However, proponents of the “fix” misrepresent the source of America’s unemployment and production problems.

The 19th Century French statesman Frederic Bastiat wrote that governments sought to increase their power by “creating the poison and the antidote in the same laboratory” — that is, by using government resources to exacerbate problems, which can then be used to justify statist “solutions.”

Similarly, America’s economic problems can be laid at the door of a massive unconstitutional federal bureaucracy and federal actions. For decades Establishment Insiders dominating both major parties have sought to export heavy industry and manufacturing overseas (e.g, build up Communist China), tie up America’s domestic resources, starve our nation of energy, and undermine competiveness thru heavy regulatory costs.

And the proposed solution — federal programs to retrain unemployed workers to meet the needs of the private sector — is a clear overreach of federal responsibility. Politicians of both parties, including President Obama, have criticized the 1998 system as ineffective.   But the system doesn’t need fixing — the problem is a federal government trying to manage something it has no business doing. Get the government out!

This 298-page bill is an incredible example of the bureaucracy and unconstitutional federal meddling that have become commonplace in Washington. Remember that only 3 senators and 6 representatives opposed this measure. “Liberal” Senators Dianne Feinstein and Charles Schumer supported it, as did Liberal Representatives John Conyers and George Miller.

Here are excerpts from Title I and Title II that illustrate the problem:

“TITLE I—WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES
Subtitle C—Job Corps SEC. 141. PURPOSES.

The purposes of this subtitle are—
(1) to maintain a national Job Corps program, carried out in partnership with States and communities, to—
(A) assist eligible youth to connect to the labor force by providing them with intensive social, academic, career and technical education, and service-learning opportunities, in primarily residential centers, in order for such youth to obtain secondary school diplomas or recognized postsecondary credentials leading to—

(i) successful careers, in in-demand industry sectors or occupations or the Armed Forces, that will result in economic self-sufficiency and opportunities for advancement; or ….

SEC. 143. ESTABLISHMENT.

There shall be within the Department of Labor a ‘‘Job Corps’’.

SEC. 144. INDIVIDUALS ELIGIBLE FOR THE JOB CORPS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—To be eligible to become an enrollee, an individual shall be—

(1) not less than age 16 and not more than age 21 on the date of enrollment, except that—

(A) not more than 20 percent of the individuals enrolled in the Job Corps may be not less than age 22 and not more than age 24 on the date of enrollment; and

(B) either such maximum age limitation may be waived by the Secretary, in accordance with regulations of the Secretary, in the case of an individual with a disability; (2) a low-income individual; and
(3) an individual who is one or more of the following:

(A) Basic skills deficient.
(B) A school dropout.
(C) A homeless individual (as defined in section 41403(6) of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14043e–2(6))), a homeless child or youth (as defined in section 725(2) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11434a(2))), a runaway, an individual in foster care, or an individual who was in foster care and has aged out of the foster care system.

(D) A parent.

(E) An individual who requires additional education, career and technical education or training, or workforce preparation skills to be able to obtain and retain employment that leads to economic self-sufficiency.

SEC. 145. RECRUITMENT, SCREENING, SELECTION, AND ASSIGNMENT OF ENROLLEES.

(a) STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall prescribe specific standards and procedures for the recruitment, screening, and selection of eligible applicants for the Job Corps, after considering recommendations from Governors of States, local boards, and other interested parties.

(2) METHODS.—In prescribing standards and procedures under paragraph (1), the Secretary, at a minimum, shall—

(A) prescribe procedures for informing enrollees that drug tests will be administered to the enrollees and the results received within 45 days after the enrollees enroll in the Job Corps;

(B) establish standards for recruitment of Job Corps applicants;

(C) establish standards and procedures for—
(i) determining, for each applicant, whether the educational and career and technical education and training needs of the applicant can best be met through the Job Corps program or an alternative program in the community in which the applicant resides; and (ii) obtaining from each applicant pertinent data relating to background, needs, and interests for determining eligibility and potential assignment;

(D) where appropriate, take measures to improve the professional capability of the individuals conducting screening of the applicants; and

(E) assure appropriate representation of enrollees from urban areas and from rural areas.

(3) IMPLEMENTATION.—The standards and procedures shall be implemented through arrangements with— (A) applicable one-stop centers;

(B) organizations that have a demonstrated record of effectiveness in serving at-risk youth and placing such youth into employment, including community action agencies, business organizations, or labor organizations; and

(C) child welfare agencies that are responsible for children and youth eligible for benefits and services under section 477 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 677)….

SEC. 147. JOB CORPS CENTERS.

(a) OPERATORS AND SERVICE PROVIDERS.— (1) ELIGIBLE ENTITIES.—

(A) OPERATORS.—The Secretary shall enter into an agreement with a Federal, State, or local agency, an area career and technical education school, a residential career and technical education school, or a private organization, for the operation of each Job Corps center.”

****

“TITLE II—ADULT EDUCATION AND LITERACY

SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ‘‘Adult Education and Family Literacy Act’’.

SEC. 202. PURPOSE.

It is the purpose of this title to create a partnership among the Federal Government, States, and localities to provide, on a voluntary basis, adult education and literacy activities, in order to—

(1) assist adults to become literate and obtain the knowledge and skills necessary for employment and economic self- sufficiency;

(2) assist adults who are parents or family members to obtain the education and skills that—

(A) are necessary to becoming full partners in the educational development of their children; and

(B) lead to sustainable improvements in the economic opportunities for their family;”

Is this how the United States became the most productive and prosperous nation on earth?

In reading the role mapped out for the federal government in this complex bill, one cannot help being reminded of the agenda outlined in Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto for building an all-powerful State. This State, if you are really gullible, would be created by and controlled by the people for their own benefit:

“The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the State … and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.”

In support of this objective, the tenth plank of the Manifesto calls for “Free education for all children in public schools” and “Combination of education with industrial production, etc.”

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. 4745 Making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2015, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep. Tom Latham (IA-03).

Result: Passed in House 229 to 192, 10 not voting. Republicans scored.

Bill Summary: If approved by the Senate and the president, H.R. 4745 would appropriate $17 billion in discretionary spending to the Department of Transportation and $40.3 billion to the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Analysis:   H.R. 4745 proposes to spend $1.8 billion less, due to an offset, in FY 2015 than in fiscal year 2014, and $7.8 billion below the President’s budget request, therefore drawing the strong opposition of the Obama White House: [H.R. 4745] “fails to make needed investments in our Nation’s infrastructure, provides insufficient support for critical housing programs for low-income Americans and the homeless, and includes objectionable language provisions.”

The White House opposition serves to make the House Republicans appear fiscally conservative, whereas in reality the proposed cuts amount to less than 3 percent (compared to the previous year) in a measure that approves massive unconstitutional federal spending (e.g., HUD, see below). If history is a guide, the House will not insist even on these modest cuts, but will compromise upward in an omnibus appropriations measure later.

Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD]

The Cabinet-level Housing and Urban Development Department was created in 1965 under the umbrella of President Johnson’s Great Society program, a massive program of federal spending that would greatly encourage state and individual dependence on Washington. It’s assault on constitutional restraints was even more damaging. In the years since, neither major party has been willing to call for a reversal of this federal overreach.

For example, HUD would provide funds for urban renewal of cities and open the door for federal rent assistance to low-income families. The House-approved measure above included $6.2 billion for Community Planning and Development programs.

When the Department of Housing and Urban Development was created, the Arizona Republic protested:

“Nowhere does the U.S. Constitution give the federal government any control over urban affairs….

 “Scarcely a week passes but some city or county department head goes from Phoenix to Washington to get the answer to a problem which, a few years ago, would have been solved in city hall or the court house.”

Norman Thomas, the Socialist Party leader, declared that he did not need to run for president in 1964, because Lyndon Johnson was carrying out his program. Regarding the Johnson “War on Poverty” program, Thomas declared: “I ought to rejoice and I do. I rub my eyes in amazement and surprise. His war on poverty is a Socialistic approach and may be the major issue of the 1964 campaign.”

Constitutional Authority Statement.

Congress typically uses misleading boiler plate language to give the appearance members are respecting the current House rule (Clause 7(c) of Rule XII) requiring that each bill or joint resolution introduced must be accompanied by a statement citing the constitutional authorization for such action.   This game allows representatives to give the impression that their measures respect the Constitution.

The reality, however, is that most of our representatives are using phony boiler plate justifications that permit business as usual in support of a massive unconstitutional bureaucracy, while hoping that uninformed voters won’t catch on.

The constitutional authority statement accompanying this appropriations bill serves as a good example of the subterfuge:

“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 . . . .’”

Citing this clause as justification is not only absurd, it’s intentionally deceptive.   The above procedural clause merely insists that federal money can only be spent when supported by an enacted appropriations bill. It does not say that Congress is authorized to appropriate money for anything it chooses, which would mean no constitutional restraint at all.

The limited areas authorized by the Constitution for federal spending are spelled out in section 8 of article I.   The sponsor’s authority statement continues by citing just the opening clause of that section:

“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.” [Emphasis added.]

Incredible! The bill’s sponsor claims that the Constitution gives Congress the power to spend money as it wishes. But such an unlimited grant of authority would negate the very purpose of a Constitution.

Instead, the rest of section 8 lists the specific purposes for which federal spending is allowed. Although Congress may determine which of those purposes a particular appropriations bill supports, the Constitution does not allow Congress to invent new purposes without a Constitutional amendment.

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.)