Bills

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. 10 Success and Opportunity through Quality Charter Schools Act. Sponsor: Rep. John Kline (MN-2).

Result: Passed in House, 360 to 45, 27 not voting.   GOP and Democrats scored.

From the Congressional Research Service Summary:

(Sec. 4) Revises subpart 1 (Charter School Program) of part B (Public Charter Schools) of title V (Promoting Informed Parental Choice and Innovative Programs) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.

(Sec. 5) Replaces the current charter school grant program with a program awarding grants to state entities (state educational agencies, state charter school boards, Governors, or charter school support organizations) and, through them, subgrants to charter school developers to open new charter schools and expand and replicate high-quality charter schools….

Limits subgrantees to no more than one subgrant per charter school over a five-year period, unless the subgrantee demonstrates at least three years of improved educational results for students enrolled in the applicable charter school.

Requires the Secretary of Education and each grantee to use a peer review process to review applications for charter school grants and subgrants….

(Sec. 8) Requires states and LEAs to ensure that a student’s records are transferred as quickly as possible to a charter school or another public school when the student transfers from one such school to the other.

(Sec. 9) Allows charter schools to serve prekindergarten or postsecondary school students.

(Sec. 10) Reauthorizes appropriations under subpart 1 through FY2020.

Analysis: The federal government has no constitutional authority for involvement with education or for a Department of Education. The Insider-foundation supported drive to control the education of our youth overcame that obstacle following Sputnik.

Federal control predictably followed federal funding and a further decline in public education ensued. The educational establishment has capitalized on that decline to promote its own remedies, such as Charter Schools, that merely continue dangerous federal control.

The efforts of the federal educational establishment to manage public education through Charter Schools can be seen in several of the provisions cited above.

In his April 25, 2014 open memo House Republicans, Majority Leader Eric Cantor detailed the GOP Spring Legislative Agenda and touted the benefits of H.R. 10:

“This bipartisan bill will modernize our current charter school programs by consolidating two federal programs into one. Through conservative reforms, we will reward high-performing charter schools at the state and local level and permit states more flexibility to allocate federal funds to start charter schools. Under this legislation, states also will have the ability to expand and replicate high-performing charter schools.” [Emphasis added.]

         The concept that the federal government should have any role in funding or authorizing states to start charter schools violates the separation of state and federal powers recognized in the Constitution.

Moreover, the suggestion that a bipartisan coalition that includes arch-liberal George Miller (a cosponsor) and House minority leader, Nancy Pelosi (voted Aye), could agree on a measure to substantially improve education reveals the dishonesty of the House Republican leadership.

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. 2548 Electrify Africa Act of 2014. Sponsor: Ed Royce (D-Calif.).  Question:  On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended (2/3 vote required).

Result: Agreed to in House, 297 to 116, 17 not voting. GOP and Democrats scored.

From Congressional Research Service Summary:

(Sec. 5) Directs the President to establish a multiyear policy, partnership, and funding strategy to assist countries in sub-Saharan Africa develop an appropriate mix of power solutions to provide sufficient electricity access to people living in rural and urban areas in order to alleviate poverty and drive economic growth.

(Sec. 6) Expresses the sense of Congress that the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) should: (1) prioritize where loan guarantees to African financial institutions would facilitate involvement in African power projects, and where partnerships and grants would increase access to electricity; and (2) consider providing grants to develop national, regional, and local energy and electricity policy plans, and expand electricity access to the poorest.

(Sec. 8) Urges the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) to: (1) place a priority on supporting investment in the electricity sector of sub-Saharan Africa…. Amends the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to require OPIC’s Board of Directors to: (1) increase the loan, guarantee, and insurance programs, and financial commitments in sub-Saharan Africa, including through the use of an investment advisory council to assist the Board in developing and implementing policies, programs, and financial instruments with respect to sub-Saharan Africa; and (2) appoint an OPIC Inspector General.

Analysis: The Electrify Africa Act garnered massive bipartisan support for an incredible overreach of federal authority (only 1 Democrat — West Virginia’s Nick Rahall — opposed the measure, whereas Republicans were fairly evenly split —106 in favor to 116 against).

The Act would set development priorities for foreign nations and subsidize that development (through loans and loan guarantees).   There is absolutely no constitutional authority for such foreign meddling.

Moreover, the Act relies on two institutions, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the U.S. department that manages foreign aid, and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC). Both organizations were created to allow Internationalists to use the wealth of U.S. taxpayers and the full faith and credit of the U.S. government to advance their subversive plans for the world.

It should be the responsibility of foreign nations to create a favorable environment to attract private investment. Instead, Establishment Insiders maintain their grip on other nations through their control of the massive international aid dispensing institutions — the World Bank and the IMF, as well as the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).   These institutions wield enormous leverage over many governments, whose nations are in debt to these institutions, and they often serve to keep cooperative corrupt regimes in power.

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. 4152 Support for the Sovereignty, Integrity, Democracy, and Economic Stability of Ukraine Act of 2014. (To provide for the costs of loan guarantees for Ukraine.)  Question: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Concur in the Senate Amendment (2/3 required).

Result:  Passed in House 378 to 34, 19 not voting. Became Public Law No: 113-95 (signed by president, 4-3-2014).  GOP and Democrats scored.

From Congressional Research Service Summary: (Sec. 4) Makes available to Ukraine for loan guarantees specified funds under the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 and funds under prior Acts for the Department of State, foreign operations, and related programs.

States that such amounts shall not be considered “assistance” for the purposes of law limiting assistance to Ukraine.

(Sec. 6) Directs the Secretary of State to: (1) improve democratic governance and anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine, (2) support Ukrainian government efforts to foster national unity, (3) assist in diversifying Ukraine’s economy and energy supplies, (4) strengthen democratic institutions and political and civil society organizations in Ukraine, (5) expand free access to independent media in Ukraine and assist with the protection of journalists and civil society activists, (6) support political and economic reform initiatives by Eastern Partnership countries, and (7) support efforts to enhance the economic and political empowerment of women in Ukraine and to address violence against women and girls in Ukraine. [Emphasis added.]

Authorizes FY2015 appropriations for such activities.

Analysis:   International media reports of the violence in Kiev, leading to the 2014 Ukrainian revolution and the ouster of President Yanukovych, generated understandable American sympathy for the protestors and the new government. That sympathy increased when Russian forces seized control of the Crimea region of the Ukraine and threatened the new government.

However, there is strong evidence the Internationalists have been working both sides of the street and using an orchestrated conflict to advance their agenda.   Council on Foreign Relations influence can be seen both in the Euromaidan protest movement demanding closer ties between the Ukraine and the European Union and in the new government in the Ukraine.

A February 24th article in the Establishment’s New York Times, entitled “Ukrainian Protesters See Too Many Familiar Faces in Parliament After Revolution,” confirmed the old saying that the more things change the more they stay the same.

Even without the evidence of direct Insider orchestration of the events in the Ukraine, representatives should have refused to support H.R. 4152. H.R. 4152 calls for an unconstitutional meddling in the Ukraine’s affairs.   The purported justification for such intervention in violation of the U.S. Constitution is the need for Washington to help enforce “international law” and support the Ukrainian people.   Following an earlier House roll call (#114) on the measure, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor released the following statement:

“Today, House Republicans acted swiftly to provide the Administration with authority to issue loan guarantees to Ukraine. Russia’s invasion of a sovereign nation is a violation of international law and its legal commitments. Our actions today demonstrate that the United States stands in support of the Ukrainian people and their government. Time is of the essence, and I urge my colleagues in the Senate to pass this bill swiftly so we can provide the President with the tools he needs to help stabilize Ukraine.” [Emphasis added.]

         Incredibly, the Republican leadership would have us believe that it’s the president’s role to “help stabilize the Ukraine.”

Ever since World War II, the U.S. State Department has been under control of the Insiders who run the private Council on Foreign Relations. Accordingly, U.S. Secretaries of State and their Deputies and Assistant Secretaries have served the Internationalist agenda, whether or not as in many cases, they were actual members of the CFR.

Considering that the internationalist Insiders supported the Communist takeover of China and numerous other totalitarian governments, it is naive at best to expect the U.S. State Department to support the interests of freedom-loving Ukrainians. Recall also that the Establishment media, led by Walter Duranty of the New York Times, covered up Russia’s orchestration of the Ukrainian famine genocide in 1932 to 1933.

The intervening years have compounded that track record of duplicity. Americans have been fooled repeatedly by carefully chosen phrases to justify U.S. intervention that has actually favored tyranny around the world. (Example: the Carter State Department, while supposedly championing “human rights,” betrayed the Shah of Iran in favor of the Ayatollah Khomeni.)

Don’t expect anything different from the Obama State Department. Insider-supported NGOs — “civil society” in internationalist newspeak — have been heavily involved in the Ukraine. Americans should be concerned when H.R. 4152 openly calls on the Secretary of State to “strengthen democratic institutions and political and civil society organizations in Ukraine.”

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. 2641 Responsibility and Professionally Invigorating Development (RAPID) Act of 2014.

Result:  Passed in House 229 to 179, 22 not voting. Democrats scored.

From Congressional Research Service Summary:   (Sec. 2) States that the purpose of this Act is to establish procedures to streamline … the regulatory review, environmental decision making, and permitting process for … construction activities undertaken, reviewed, or funded by federal agencies….

Defines “environmental review” as federal agency procedures for preparing an environmental impact statement (EIS), environmental assessment (EA), categorical exclusion, or other document under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).

Analysis: This bill addresses a serious federal overreach problem — the stranglehold on private and state development projects created by federal agencies in the name of protecting the environment.

Unfortunately, the House vote on this measure is pure GOP posturing (the GOP vote was 217 to 0 in favor). The bill will go nowhere in the Senate and never even reach the president’s desk for a guaranteed veto.

If the GOP-led House is going to posture, voters would be better served if the measure addressed the foundations of the problem.   Rather than attempting to lessen the burden of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), a principled GOP would call for NEPA’s repeal and challenge the real agenda of the Insider-supported environmental movement. The real agenda is to pave the way for an immense unconstitutional power grab, supported by internationalist-controlled institutions, using the scares of Insider-subsidized “science” as a pretext.

Of course, few politicians have the support to challenge the Insider-managed news that emissions and greenhouse gases, in particular, are bad and that the federal government has some responsibility to regulate them.

We do not score the GOP on this one, but we give credit to the 12 House Democrats who broke with their party leadership to support the measure.

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

Issue:  H.R. 2126 Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of 2014. (To promote energy efficiency, and for other purposes.) Sponsor: Rep. David D. McKinley (WV-1).   Question:  On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended (2/3 vote required).

Result: Passed in House 375 to 36, 19 not voting. GOP and Democrat selected vote.

From the Congressional Research Service Summary:  

• Requires the Administrator of General Services (GSA) to develop and publish model leasing provisions for use in leasing documents that designate a federal agency as a landlord or tenant to encourage building owners and tenants to invest in cost-effective energy efficiency measures.

Requires the Administrator to: (2) make available such model leasing provisions and best practices to state, county, and municipal governments that manage owned and leased building space to encourage investment in such energy efficiency measures.

• [R]equires the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Assistant Secretary of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy to study the feasibility of: (1) significantly improving energy efficiency in commercial buildings through the design and construction of separate spaces with high-performance energy efficiency measures, and (2) encouraging owners and tenants to implement such measures in separate spaces. Requires the Secretary to publish such study on DOE’s website.

• Requires the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop a voluntary Tenant Star program within the Energy Star program to recognize tenants in commercial buildings that voluntarily achieve high levels of energy efficiency in separate spaces.

• Requires DOE’s Administrator of the Energy Information Administration to collect data on categories of building occupancy that consume significant quantities of energy and on other aspects of the property, building operation, or building occupancy determined to be relevant to lowering energy consumption.

Analysis: H.R. 2126 is a prime example of unconstitutional federal overreach in support of a subversive agenda. It is particularly disturbing to see such overwhelming bipartisan support for even a small building block in that agenda.

The federal government has no authority to promote domestic energy efficiency in buildings not occupied by federal agencies.   And the notion that the federal government must take the lead in promoting genuine economic efficiency in the marketplace is absurd. However, the greatest concern should be the real agenda driving such intervention.

For decades the federal government, with support from both parties, has supported unconstitutional programs that restrict America’s production of cheap, plentiful energy. There is no constitutional basis for a federal Department of Energy nor for an Environmental Protection Agency.   Contrary to their advertised objectives, both the DOE and EPA have been key participants in the subversive war to strangle and micromanage the American economy.

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. 45 To repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and health care-related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.   

Result:  Passed in House 229 to 195, 9 not voting.  Democrats scored.

Bill Summary: H.R. 45, as passed in the House amended, would repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and restore provisions of law amended by such Act.

H.R. 45 would also repeal the health care provisions of the follow-up Health Care and Education and Reconciliation Act of 2010 and restore provisions of law amended by that Act’s health care provisions. President Obama signed the latter Act a week after he signed the Obamacare measure.

Analysis: Government did not create the great medical breakthroughs of the previous century that spawned a health care industry.   However, government can claim responsibility for the skyrocketing costs of health care, particularly after it began processing Medicare and Medicaid claims.

Prior to the establishment of Medicaid in 1965, the poor in most areas were provided free medical care if they requested it, often from generous doctors. The socialist drive to nationalize health care, dating back almost a century, has nothing to do with caring for the poor and everything to do with building authoritarian government. The 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) represented a major advance in that power grab.

The principal features of Obamacare include: the requirement that almost all individuals carry federally approved health insurance or pay a penalty; federal standards of coverage for insurance plans; and subsidized insurance for individuals below a certain income level, to be paid for by the forced enlargement of the pool of insured healthy individuals. Then there is the employer mandate requiring employers with more than 50 employees to offer a prescribed minimum of health insurance coverage to employees who work 30 or more hours per week. Authority for none of this can be found in the Constitution.

Although Obamacare was advertised as making health care more universally affordable, the claim that costs in the free market must be controlled through legislation is a socialist myth. Legislative intervention merely adds new costs, forces one group to subsidize another, or leads to the cancellation of services that cannot survive the increased uneconomic burden.

Edward Annis, M.D., who became president of the American Medical Association, was a major opponent of the first successful federal inroads in controlling health care. His 1962 nationally televised rebuttal to President Kennedy from Madison Square Garden was the principal factor in killing congressional support for the Walter Reuther-driven King Anderson bill (Medicare). In the wake of the Kennedy assassination, President Johnson resurrected the dead measure as something Congress owed the late president and that’s how medicare became the law of the land.

In his 1993 Code Blue, Health Care in Crisis, Dr. Annis explained why health care had become so expensive: “There is no more efficient method of delivering health care than the private doctor serving the patient who pays a fee directly for the service rendered.”

In 2010 the Democratic majority accomplished the Obamacare power grab using typical socialist humanitarian pretexts. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership has no intention of rolling back the clock and getting the federal government totally out of the health care business.

The Republican acceptance of the federal role can be seen in the GOP leadership’s proposed alternatives to Obamacare. Moreover, few if any politicians are willing to risk media disparagement by informing Americans of the real agenda behind the socialist power grab — control the people by first making them dependent on government for basic necessities.

So the much-touted GOP efforts to repeal Obamacare or portions of it are just posturing. Everyone realizes that the legislation will not survive in the Senate, let alone on President Obama’s desk. Such posturing by the House doesn’t qualify as even a temporary fix. What America needs is sufficient support in Washington to reverse the power grab, and that can only come from a better informed electorate.

Accordingly, we do not give credit to the GOP for their posturing votes. However, the two Democrats, Matheson and McIntyre, who voted to repeal the socialist power grab in opposition to their party’s leaders, deserve recognition.

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

Issue:  H.R. 152 Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013.  (Making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, to improve and streamline disaster assistance for Hurricane Sandy, and for other purposes.)

Result:  Passed in House 241 to 180, 11 not voting. Became Public Law No: 113-2 (signed by the president 1-29-2013). GOP and Democrat selected vote. 

Freedom First Society: This supplemental appropriations bill authorized $60 billion for disaster relief agencies.  Nothing in the Constitution authorizes the federal government to provide state and local disaster aid.

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.J. Res. 59. Became vehicle for the “Budget Deal.” Includes the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 and the Pathway for SGR Reform Act of 2013.  Question: On the Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment.

Result:  Agreed to, 64 to 36. Became Public Law 113-67 (signed by the president 12-26-2013). GOP and Democrats scored.

Bill Summary: Title I raises the sequester caps for certain categories of security and non-security discretionary spending for FY2014 and FY2015. Title I also sets forth the congressional budget for the federal government for FY2014, including appropriate budgetary levels for FY2015-FY2023.

Other Titles (II thru VII) modify several other federal programs, including: Natural Resources (Title III); Federal Civilian and Military Retirement (Title IV); Higher Education (Title V); and Transportation (Title VI). Also included: the Pathway for SGR [sustainable growth rate] Reform Act of 2013, which prevents a scheduled payment reduction for physicians and other providers who treat Medicare patients from taking effect on January 1, 2014.

Analysis: The House passed the so-called budget deal brokered by House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Senate Budget Chairwoman Patty Murray (D-Wash.) with huge bipartisan majorities. Republicans supported the deal 169 to 62, whereas Democrats came on board 163 to 32.

A week later, the Senate concurred 64 to 36 (all 36 nays came from the GOP), and the day after Christmas President Obama signed the measure into law. The legislation amended the 2011 Budget Control Act that gave us the sequester cuts. The new plan raised the $967 billion sequester level to $1.012 trillion for FY2014 and $1.014 trillion for FY2015.

Although the increase was far less than what many Democrats wanted, the bipartisan deal still moved spending in the wrong direction. The sequester cuts themselves only came about because astute politicians knew that much of the public regarded excessive federal spending as a major problem.

Not surprisingly, House Speaker John Boehner defended the deal: “[T]he budget agreement Ryan helped orchestrate — which reduces the deficit, balances the budget in 10 years and doesn’t raise taxes — in no way compromises core conservative principles.” — Roll Call (12-12-13)

Some GOP Senators, however, were unusually candid about the typically misleading “conservative” spending agreements coming out of Washington. Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) stated:

“It’s the same old thing where …we’ll go ahead and spend the money now and in years nine and ten down the road we hope someone else will not.”

         And Senator Jeff Flake, R-Ariz. described the measure as “kind of the age-old spend now, save later.”

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: S. 815 Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2013 (ENDA). A bill to prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Result: Passed 64 to 32, 4 not voting. GOP and Democrats scored.

Bill Summary: ENDA prohibits covered entities (employers, employment agencies, labor organizations, or joint labor-management committees) from engaging in employment discrimination on the basis of an individual’s actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity.

ENDA defines non-covered entities, for which the non-discrimination provisions of the Act do not apply, as corporations, associations, educational institutions or institutions of learning, or societies exempt from the religious discrimination provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (thereby establishing a religious employer’s exemption).

Analysis: The same day’s Washington Post called the Senate’s passage of ENDA historic, noting:

“The effort to protect gays and lesbians in the workplace began nearly 17 years ago, and supporters have struggled for years to earn a vote on the measure in the House or Senate.”

         As expected, the Post accepted the revolution at face value, while ignoring the organization and real agenda driving the culture war: “In a sign of rapidly shifting opinions on gay rights, every member of the Senate Democratic caucus was joined by 10 Republican senators to approve the measure. The first time the Senate voted on a measure similar to ENDA, in 1996, Sens. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) voted no. On Thursday they voted yes.”

However, the revolutionaries in the culture war are never satisfied. They view each victory as merely another step toward a complete transformation of society. In a press release, the ACLU stated:

“While passage of ENDA is critical for LGBT people across the country, the legislation’s current, sweeping religious exemption must be narrowed. ENDA’s religious exemption could provide religiously affiliated organizations — far beyond houses of worship — with a blank check to engage in employment discrimination against LGBT people.”

In reality, the revolutionary ENDA attack has nothing to do with protecting the rights of “LGBT people.” And a battle over its exemptions will not mute the culture war.

With their victory in the Senate, the pro-ENDA forces didn’t wait long to crank up the pressure on the House. That same day, 10 cosponsors of companion legislation in the House, H.R. 1755, signed a public letter to Speaker John Boehner urging him “to bring this timely and commonsense legislation to a vote before the House of Representatives before the end of the 113th Congress.”

There are currently 200 cosigners of the companion House legislation, comprised of all but a dozen or so members of the Democratic delegation plus a handful of Republicans.

Among the ten signers of the November 7th letter to Boehner (and cosponsors of the House legislation) were the following 5 Republicans: Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, Richard Hanna of New York, Jon Runyan of New Jersey and Chris Gibson of New York.

Prior to the Senate vote, House Speaker John Boehner had objected to ENDA, claiming it would lead to a rash of frivolous lawsuits. His claim is certainly valid. However, arguing the issues raised by the revolutionaries at face value won’t even slow down the culture war.

Revolutionary leaders expect public resistance. Their ability to overcome that resistance is aided immeasurably by false leadership that respects the playing field mapped out by the revolutionaries, limits its opposition to debating “the issues,” and even caves into the pressure at an opportune moment.

The ENDA campaign has no real public support. However, the influential revolutionary minority strives to represent itself as reflecting the evolving opinion of the forward-thinking public. This contrived pressure from below allows the Establishment-controlled media to claim a shift in public attitudes.

Tragically, the Constitution’s limits on federal power are totally ignored in the public and political “debate” over ENDA. America desperately needs congressmen who will defend those limits.

And that means refusing to accept the perversion of the Interstate Commerce Clause that occurred during and after the FDR administration to justify federally mandated labor “reforms.” The federal government has no constitutional authority to regulate employer-employee relations, including employment discrimination or even the establishment of a federally mandated minimum wage.

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.)