Bills

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.)

Senate Vote 219 (10-16-13) H.R. 2775 as amended. Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014. An act making continuing appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2014, and for other purposes.

Passed 81 to 18, 1 not voting. Became Public Law No: 113-46 (signed by the President 10-17-13).   GOP and Democrat selected vote.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Issue:  S. 744 Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act. (A bill to provide for comprehensive immigration reform and for other purposes.) (Sponsor: Charles Schumer, D-NY.)

Result:  Passed in Senate, 68 to 32, 0 not voting. GOP and Democrats scored.

Bill Summary: S. 744 would make broad changes to U.S. immigration law.   It would allow most of the country’s estimated 11 million illegal immigrants to gain legal status and eventual citizenship. At the same time, it seeks to enhance border security by adding high-tech surveillance equipment, constructing double-layer fencing, and doubling the number of border patrol agents. It also makes substantial changes to the existing system of legal immigration. And it creates a $1.5 billion youth jobs program.

Some of the specifics include:

• The bill would make many of an estimated 11 million illegally in the United States eligible to apply for a new legal Registered Provisional Immigrant (RPI) status. To be eligible, they must have been physically present in the U.S. continuously since December 31, 2011. To receive RPI status they would need to pay a $500 fine and fees, any back taxes owed, learn English, and pass a background check. Those with RPI status could work lawfully in the United States.   RPI status would be good for 6 years and renewable for another 4 years.
• After 10 years, immigrants who have RPI status can apply for permanent resident status (green cards), provided other border security triggers in the bill are met. After 13 years, if those same triggers are met, the immigrants can apply for citizenship.
• The bill includes the DREAM Act and the AgJOBS Act. The DREAM Act (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act of 2013) provides for adjusting the immigration status of illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as minor children.
• S. 744 would require all employers to use an upgraded version of the E-Verify system, equipped with a photo matching system, to determine the eligibility of their employees to work in the United States. This requirement would be phased in over five years based on company size. All job applicants (including U.S. citizens) would be required to show their employers an official photo ID, and employers would need to compare the photo with the photo provided in the E-Verify database.

Analysis:  The Senate’s comprehensive immigration “reform” bill, S. 744, was written and negotiated by a bipartisan group of U.S. Senators — 4 Democrats and 4 Republicans — often referred to as the “Gang of Eight.”

S. 744 was introduced by radical Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), a member of the group, and cosponsored by the other seven members: Michael Bennet (D-CO); Richard Durbin (D-IL), Jeff Flake (R-AZ); Lindsey Graham (R-SC), John McCain (R-AZ), Bob Menendez (D-NY); and Marco Rubio (R-FL).

Before we highlight our objections to specific provisions of the package, it is important to look at the big picture —to understand the forces and agendas that have encouraged and permitted the massive illegal immigration invasion. We will find that the same forces that have fomented the problem in the first place, for subversive purposes, are currently gatekeepers for the “solution” we are now supposed to accept.

Deception rules

Americans are generally unaware that the Internationalist Establishment has supported the massive U.S. immigration invasion — legal, illegal, and legalized through amnesty — of the past several decades.

We can point to the Insider-supported open borders movement (see, for example, the Wall Street Journal’s call for open borders in an editorial entitled “Open NAFTA Borders? Why Not?” for July 2, 2001), Ford foundation funding of revolutionary immigrant organizations and legal challenges to border enforcement, and even the Conspiracy’s support for revolution and poverty in Mexico.

The internationalists see the immigration invasion as a prime opportunity to destroy America’s middle class and transform our nation into something easier to merge into their new world order.

In 1996, syndicated columnist Georgie Ann Geyer wrote Americans No More: The Death of Citizenship.   Her book should have been a wake-up call, as it included admissions against interest by someone with both radical liberal and Establishment credentials.   Georgie Ann Geyer was (and is) a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and an open disciple of the late Marxist and radical organizer Saul Alinsky. Let’s see what Geyer had to say.

Geyer’s book described how radicals were following the strategy of infiltration advocated by Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci to render impotent every tenet of our culture. Geyer claims that, in pursuit of this strategy, Marxists have infected “American universities, unions, churches, bureaucracies, and corporations…. Three whole generations, often its best students and thinkers and even labor leaders, were formed with a Marxist component to their thoughts and actions, often without even knowing it.”

Americans No More didn’t just focus on the visible activists.   Geyer documented how Insider tax-exempt foundations had helped to create ethnic grievance groups. She even provided personal testimony. In the early 1980s, Geyer met with “two representatives of one of the major and supposedly representative ‘Hispanic’ groups, the National Council of La Raza.” When Geyer asked, “How many members do you have?,” one of the representatives admitted, “Well, we don’t have members.”

An incredulous Geyer demanded to know how an organization without members could fund and support its activities. The representatives replied, almost in unison, “The Ford Foundation!” As Geyer tells the story: “The two smiled as though they did not have a care in the world, and, indeed, financially, they did not. To promote and push through their programs and policies, they needed no elections, no campaign strategies, and none of that bothersome business of fund-raising or member-seeking. At the same time, of course, they basically suffered accountability neither to disparate sources of funding nor to the fickle interests of individuals.” With such support, La Raza could boast 150 organizations in 36 states!

By examining the flow of funds, one quickly discovers that the Ford Foundation virtually created the radical Chicano movement, which seeks open borders, uncontrolled immigration from Mexico, and the de facto reconquest by Mexico of the Southwest portion of the United States (termed Atzlan by the radicals).

The revolutionary/Insider agenda driving the immigration “reform” movement was apparent in the nationwide May Day demonstrations in 2013. In Los Angeles, for example: “Police and downtown commuters braced Wednesday for clogged streets and blocked intersections as tens of thousands of immigration supporters planned to march in annual May Day demonstrations.” (latimes.com 5-1-13)

The mainstream media never informs the public how these demonstrations are organized. Neither is the public told of the socialist/Communist significance of May Day demonstrations, what the organizers expect their demonstrations to accomplish, and certainly not why the organizers are really demanding immigration “reform.”

Specific objections

Although S. 744 provides for increased border security as a precondition for allowing illegal aliens to earn either permanent resident status or citizenship, skepticism is well justified. Those familiar with the history of U.S. border enforcement over the past several decades, the frequent amnesties and political promises not kept, and the “open borders” agenda of the Establishment should regard these provisions as merely bait that will be circumvented later.

Incredibly, Charles Schumer revealed the lack of Democratic commitment to border security: “Schumer said the [Boehner proposed] strategy of passing smaller-scale bills would not work. He said, for instance, that Democrats would not support an enforcement bill without the promise of a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.” — Foxnews.com (6-30-13)

We also strongly object to the effort to shift the blame for the refusal of the federal government to carry out its constitutionally authorized function of securing our borders on to the backs of employers and turn employers into federal enforcers. The proposed E-Verify system mandate on employers would require all employees, citizens or not, to receive approval from the government before they could work in the United States.

This is an incredibly dangerous power grab by Big Brother government.

Even though we regard the ACLU’s support for civil liberties as a deception, we have to agree with their analysis of the proposed system:

“In an attempt to stop the tiny percentage of those starting jobs in the United States each year who are unauthorized workers, E-Verify would force everyone to obtain affirmative permission from government bureaucracies before engaging in the core life functions of working and earning a living.”

The fact that the goals of S. 744 have the support of the Obama White House should also alarm.

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:  Thune (R-SD) Amdt. No. 1197 to S. 744, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act (Immigration “Reform”). (Bill sponsor Charles Schumer (D-NY)).  Question: On the Thune amendment (3/5 required).

Result:  Amendment rejected 39 to 54, 7 not voting. GOP and Democrats scored.

Bill Summary. Would amend S. 744 to require the completion of additional border fencing before any changes in the status for illegal immigrants can take place. Specifically, the Thune amendment would:

• Require the completion of the 350 miles of reinforced, double-layered fencing described in section 102(b)(1)(A) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 before registered provisional immigrant status may be granted; and

• Require the completion of 700 miles of such fencing before the status of registered provisional immigrants may be adjusted to permanent resident status (green cards).

Analysis: In a June 18 press release issued following the defeat of the his proposed amendment, Senator John Thune (R-S.D.) stated:

“Unfortunately, each time Congress has tried to fix our immigration system, promises to secure our border are never upheld. The completion of the fence required by current law would be a tangible demonstration that Congress and this administration are serious about border security. I am disappointed the Senate missed this important opportunity to communicate to the American people that we are serious about securing our border and enforcing the laws that we pass.”

The press release further noted:

“Of the 700 miles of fencing required by current law, less than 40 miles of the reinforced, double-layer fencing required by the Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 have been constructed to date, despite this requirement being reiterated by the Secure Fence Act of 2006.”

Although we applaud the amendment, Thune should have known it was an uphill battle against Establishment influence in Congress. The Establishment and its foundations (such as the Ford Foundation) have long supported open borders, not secure borders.

Consider just one Establishment figure, the late Robert L. Bartley, who served as the editorial page editor of the Wall Street Journal for 30 years (from 1972 to 2002).   Adopting the image of a conservative free-market Republican, Bartley would use the Journal to promote internationalism (NAFTA, WTO, the IMF and World Bank) to its mostly conservative readership.

Bartley was invited to join the CFR in 1979. He also showed up on the membership roles of the even more selective Trilateral Commission and attended the internationalist Bilderberg meetings.

In later years, Bartley would become even more open in his advocacy of internationalist goals: In an editorial for July 2, 2001, entitled “Open NAFTA Borders? Why Not?” Bartley wrote:

“Reformist Mexican President Vicente Fox raises eyebrows with his suggestion that over a decade or two NAFTA should evolve into something like the European Union, with open borders for not only goods and investment but also people. He can rest assured that there is one voice north of the Rio Grande that supports his vision. To wit, this newspaper….

“Indeed, during the immigration debate of 1984 we suggested an ultimate goal to guide passing policies — a constitutional amendment: ‘There shall be open borders.’”

Even after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the federal government refused to enforce our southern border.

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:  S. 954 Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2013 (Farm bill), as amended. An original bill to reauthorize agricultural programs through 2018. (Sponsor: Debbie Stabenow, D-MI.)

Result:  Passed 66 to 27, 7 not voting. GOP and Democrats scored.

Bill Summary: This massive, complex measure would set agriculture, food, conservation, and forestry policy for the federal government for 5 years. Here is a sample of the provisions as described in a lengthy Congressional Research Summary:

• Makes adverse market payments available for the 2014-2018 crop years to producers on farms where the actual price for a covered commodity is less than the reference price for such commodity.

• Establishes the agriculture risk coverage program for crop years 2014-2018 to make payments to producers for each planted crop when actual farm or county-wide crop revenue is below the agriculture risk coverage guarantee.

• Authorizes: (1) nonrecourse marketing assistance loans, (2) loan deficiency payments, (3) payments in lieu of loan deficiency payments for grazed acreage, (4) programs for upland cotton and extra long staple cotton, (5) assistance for peanuts, and (6) recourse loans for high moisture feed grains and seed cotton.

• Establishes a dairy production margin protection program under which participating dairy operations are paid: (1) basic production margin protection program payments when production margins are less than threshold levels, and (2) supplemental production margin protection program payments if purchased by a participating dairy operation.

• Extends the environmental quality incentives program through FY2018.

• Extends specified programs and authorizations of appropriations under the Food for Peace Act through FY2018. Prohibits assistance to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea).

• Amends the Rural Electrification Act of 1926 to reauthorize through FY2018 guarantees for bonds and notes issued for electrification or telephone purposes as well as expansion of 911 access.

• Amends the Rural Electrification Act of 1926 to reauthorize through FY2018 guarantees for bonds and notes issued for electrification or telephone purposes as well as expansion of 911 access.

Analysis: Congressional wrangling over a new farm bill provides important lessons in how conservatives are being deceived into relying on a political solution in Washington.

Background

Congress sets agriculture, food, conservation, and forestry policy for the federal government every five years or so with an omnibus measure commonly called the “farm bill.” Since the seventies, these bills have included mandatory spending for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), more commonly known as food stamps.

The 2008 farm bill (the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008) expired on September 30, 2012, although some programs continued through the end of the year.   By the end of 2012, Congress had failed to agree on a replacement bill, so as part of the “fiscal cliff” agreement in January, a partial extension of then current farm law was approved for the balance of the 2013 crop year.

Ever since the Great Depression, farm bills have been full of unconstitutional federal welfare and counterproductive intervention in the economy. One subdivision, the “Food for Peace Act,” has even been used to provide substantial aid to America’s enemies.

The “Food for Peace” program continues to this day in each of the farm bills introduced in this session of Congress.

The U.S. farm program has enjoyed the support of Democratic and Republican administrations alike — even those the Establishment would have us believe are conservative.   In December 1985, President Reagan signed the costliest farm bill in our nation’s history up to that time. The bill called for $169 billion in spending over five years, including $85 billion for income and support payments to farmers.

Although President Reagan insisted that he wanted to get farming free of the “heavy hand of government,” he nevertheless “reluctantly” signed the measure, because it “provides new hope for America’s hard-working farmers and our rural communities.”

Modern farm bills have been designed as temporary replacements to permanent law, so that if Congress fails to pass a new farm bill when the old one expires then farm policy reverts to earlier permanent law. The suspended permanent law, enacted primarily in 1938 and 1949, as subsequently amended, is quite different from today and would be particularly disruptive. This system forces Congress to pass new legislation (or extend prior legislation).

Reauthorization in 2013

On June 10th, the U.S. Senate took the lead in passing its version of a Farm Bill (this Senate vote).

On June 20th, House GOP leaders brought their version of a farm bill (H.R. 1947) to the floor, expecting passage. It was defeated by conservative who wanted more cuts and Democrats who objected to the bill’s cuts in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) more commonly known as “food stamps.”

The defeated House bill, H.R. 1947, was tagged at $500 billion over 5 years, a reduction in spending of a mere $3.8 billion annually. The Senate bill offered only a $2.4 billion reduction annually. Neither bill provided any real challenge to established unconstitutional programs and each proposed new ones.

On July 11, House leaders brought a new version, H.R. 2642, to a vote. The new version was very similar to H.R. 1947, but to win conservative support, the new version separated out the food stamp (SNAP) program. Many realized that this was just a ruse to get to conference. However, H.R. 2642 squeaked by 216 to 208.

The Senate’s response to H.R. 2642 was to replace it with its own version and send it back to the House. With more back and forth, the two versions were never reconciled.

Ignoring the real game plan

Socialist proponents of U.S. farm policy argue that the federal government must provide financial assistance to farmers and rural America for these groups to prosper. Many politicians have difficulty challenging that fundamental fallacy.

However, merely advocating correct principles, while ignoring the tune to which politicians are marching, won’t get the job done.   Too many groups labeled as “conservative” simply portray our problems as stemming from bad policies that can be corrected individually by reasonable men.

This deception is deadly. Instead, Americans must be told why unconstitutional government has been fastened on us in the first place, if we hope to reverse the tide.

It’s not naive humanitarianism that drives socialist rhetoric and the expansion of unconstitutional government programs. The ultimate driver is a power-seeking Conspiracy that targets our freedoms.   Groups organized to oppose the socialist forces in Washington as though this Conspiracy does not exist ultimately deceive Americans, whether they intend to or just don’t care.

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. 933 As Amended; “An Act making consolidated appropriations and further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013.”

Result:  Passed 73 to 26, 1 not voting. Became Public Law 113-6 (signed by the President 3-26-13).   GOP and Democrat selected vote.

Bill Summary: H. R. 933, as initially passed by the House, included the full-year FY 2013 appropriations bills for the Department of Defense, military construction, and Department of Veterans Affairs. It also contained a continuing resolution for the remainder of the federal government. In this amended version, which became public law, the Senate has added full-year appropriations bills for Agriculture; Commerce, Justice, Science; and Homeland Security.

Remaining government operations would continue to be funded at FY 2012 levels as provided by H.J. Res. 117 (enacted 9-28-12) and amended by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012.  H.R. 933 was written to conform to the discretionary spending caps in the Budget Control Act of 2011. It also contains a general provision enforcing the sequester, as required by the Budget Control Act of 2011. The automatic across the board cuts imposed by the sequester went into effect on March 1, 2013.

Analysis: Prior to the enactment of H.R. 933, FY 2013 operations had been funded under a continuing resolution that passed the House on September 13, 2012. The House passed H.R. 933 on March 6, (Roll Call 62) and sent the measure to the Senate. The Senate subsequently amended H.R. 933 and passed the amended version (this vote) and returned the measure to the House. The House approved the Senate changes without amendment (House Roll Call 89) and sent the bill to the president for his signature.

We object to H.R. 933, as passed by the Senate and accepted by the House, on constitutional grounds.

H.R. 933 continues to appropriate taxpayer moneys for massive unconstitutional government. It offers no serious effort to roll back unconstitutional programs

Although the spending caps in the Budget Control Act do crimp the liberal style, they are far short of what’s needed to allow Americans to build a prosperous future. Instead, the partisan wrestling match over trifles (a sop to public frustration over our horrible economy) misleads voters into thinking that Congress is engaged in a serious battle to limit government. Massive cuts, according to the Constitution, are desperately needed. Minor fiscal restraint, conveniently mandated for future years, that preserves socialist inroads just won’t cut it.

Moreover, consolidated appropriations are no way for a responsible Congress to spend the public’s money. And passing an appropriation bill in the middle of its fiscal year is also irresponsible government. In 1976, the federal fiscal year was shifted 3 months from July 1 to October to give appropriators more time to develop the increasingly complex federal appropriations bills. Responsible representatives and senators should insist on voting on individual committee bills in a timely manner and not allow them to be consolidated for a stampeded compromise.

Relief from time pressure will come when the massive explosion in unconstitutional federal programs is rolled back. For example, one of the few Public Laws Congress enacted in 2013 was the Community Fire Safety Act, passed essentially unanimously by both Houses.   Of course, the federal government should have no involvement in Community Fire Safety. However, the first paragraph of the bill’s summary, prepared by the Congressional Research Service, somewhat explains the title and the incredible necessity for such a measure in the first place:

• “Community Fire Safety Act of 2013 — Amends the Safe Drinking Water Act to exempt fire hydrants from certain prohibitions against the use of lead pipes, solder, and flux.”

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

Issue:  S. 601 Water Resources Development Act of 2013, As Amended. (A bill to provide for the conservation and development of water and related resources, to authorize the Secretary of the Army to construct various projects for improvements to rivers and harbors of the United States, and for other purposes.) (Sponsor: Barbara Boxer, D-CA.)

Result:  Passed 83 to 14, 3 not voting. GOP and Democrats scored. 

Bill Summary: A comprehensive water development authorization bill consisting of 13 Titles including: Title I: Water Resource Projects; Title II: Water Resources Policy Reforms; Title VII: Inland Waterways; Title VIII: Harbor Maintenance; Title IX: Dam Safety; and Title XII: National Endowment for the Oceans.

Analysis: According to the Congressional Budget Office, S. 601 would authorize $12.2 billion in spending over the Fiscal Years 2014 thru 2023.

This Act would continue the federal practice of using federal tax dollars to pay for projects that are properly the responsibility of state and local entities (and even the private sector) and should be decided at those levels.

S. 601 would prohibit Congress from reducing the budget for the Civil Works Program below the level for the previous year. In addition to respecting the Constitution, the federal government needs to live within its means. Making more spending areas immune to budget cuts undermines that responsibility.

We also take particular exception to Title XII The National Endowment for the Oceans. Title XII would authorize the executive branch to a permanent endowment fund making grants to the States for federally approved programs within the scope of the Act. In the previous century, Congress created the Federal Reserve with the unconstitutional power to finance federal deficits through monetary inflation. In the intervening years, the federal government has made the States dependent on its “deep pockets” and thereby greatly undermined our system of federalism and its checks and balances. 

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

Issue:  S. 743 Marketplace Fairness Act, as amended. A bill to restore States’ sovereign rights to enforce State and local sales and use tax laws, and for other purposes.

Result: Passed in Senate, 69 to 27, 4 not voting. GOP and Democrats scored.

Bill Summary: S. 743 authorizes state governments to collect sales and use taxes from remote retailers, particularly online retailers, with no physical presence in their state. To exercise such authority, a state must either be a member of the multi-state Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement and that Agreement comply with minimum simplification requirements of the Act, or a non-member state must adopt those minimum simplification requirements.

Analysis: S. 743, often referred to as the “internet sales tax” would require all “remote sellers” (including online stores) with $1 million or more annual gross receipts to collect taxes for every state and jurisdiction where they have customers.

We object to the “internet sales tax” on both constitutional and policy grounds.

The “Interstate Commerce Clause” (Article 1, Section 8, clause 3) states that Congress shall have the power “to regulate commerce … among the several States….” Federal officials have abused this clause, perhaps more than any other, to enlarge their authority, claiming the clause gives them power over virtually every area of private business.

Under the Articles of Confederation states had often sought to prevent competition by restricting interstate commerce via taxes and by other means. The framers put the clause in the Constitution for the exclusive purpose of preventing this practice of the states. They certainly did not intend to authorize the federal government to interfere in private business activities.   Extending state taxing authority beyond state lines is a step backwards to the days prior to the Constitution.

Policy grounds

According to Forbes (6-22-13): “The legislation in its current form does not require the various states to use the same definition of what is taxable and what is not, the same tax holidays, tax forms, etc. This puts the burden on retailers to comply with the laws of 9,600 jurisdictions, to file monthly tax returns with 46 states, and to be subject to audits by states and localities in which they have no physical presence or representation…. Right now, every state and many municipalities set their own sales tax rates, and rules for what is taxable, as well as reporting requirements.”

If a company has a physical presence in a jurisdiction, it normally collects any taxes due from the purchaser and remits them to the taxing authority. If it does not, the individual consumer in most states is obligated to pay the tax, as a use tax, often when the consumer files an annual state income tax return. However, many consumers fail to do this, which supplies one impetus for states to ask the federal government to intervene and authorize states to collect from the out-of-state companies doing interstate business.

The “Marketplace Fairness Act” is advertised as “leveling the playing field” between local retailers and online giants. However, as so often happens with legislation today, the reality can be quite different. The administrative burden of this law on small and medium-sized businesses would be huge, not to mention its negative impact on start-ups. (A $1 million sales exemption is not very large given business profit margins.) As with so much government regulation, the effect is to consolidate power in the big guys who can afford an army of accountants and a department to comply with complex regulation.

Although the proposed small business exemption is already onerously low, history suggests that future government action (such as with the income tax) would inevitably lower the exemption. And inflation would automatically serve to bring more small businesses under the regulation.

In addition to the desire of states for more revenue, there is another factor that Americans should consider — the century-old drive to build a regulatory state. The enormous cost to the American economy of government regulation has been well documented. However, corporate giants often support more government regulation, as it tends to eliminate the competition of smaller companies that are less able to handle the administrative burden.

In his important 1963 classic, The Triumph of Conservatism — A Reinterpretation of American History, 1900–1916, economic historian Gabriel Kolko wrote:

“Competition was unacceptable to many key business and financial interests …. As new competitors sprang up, and economic power was diffused through out an expanding nation, it became apparent to many important businessmen that only the national government could ‘rationalize’ the economy. Although specific conditions varied from industry to industry, internal problems that could be solved by political means were the common denominator in those industries whose leaders advocated greater federal regulation.” (Emphasis added.)

Industry gets the monopoly, while government gets the power. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who voted against the measure, agrees:

“Make no mistake: Big business supports this bill because it will drive smaller competitors off the Internet and out of business.

“And it wouldn’t help small brick-and-mortar retailers, as its proponents claim, because the sales they are losing today are mostly going to big-box stores and giant online retailers — both of whom are already paying sales taxes.

“The largest online retailers already have physical business presences in most states. Meaning, they are already collecting and paying the state taxes. Right now, nine of the top 10 Internet retailers collect taxes in every state. Big businesses can afford to hire accountants and attorneys to pay the taxes properly and navigate audits.

“Instead, this bill would just impose crushing new costs on small and mid-size Internet retailers.” — realclearpolitics.com (May 5, 2013)

Indeed, some have suggested that the excessive burden in complying with the tax requirements could induce businesses to relocate outside the United States. As a result, another opponent of the measure, Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) termed the tax the “Shop China Bill.”

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

Issue:  S. 743 Marketplace Fairness Act, as amended. A bill to restore States’ sovereign rights to enforce State and local sales and use tax laws, and for other purposes.

Result: Passed in Senate, 69 to 27, 4 not voting. GOP and Democrats scored.

Bill Summary: S. 743 authorizes state governments to collect sales and use taxes from remote retailers, particularly online retailers, with no physical presence in their state. To exercise such authority, a state must either be a member of the multi-state Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement and that Agreement comply with minimum simplification requirements of the Act, or a non-member state must adopt those minimum simplification requirements.

Analysis: S. 743, often referred to as the “internet sales tax” would require all “remote sellers” (including online stores) with $1 million or more annual gross receipts to collect taxes for every state and jurisdiction where they have customers.

We object to the “internet sales tax” on both constitutional and policy grounds.

The “Interstate Commerce Clause” (Article 1, Section 8, clause 3) states that Congress shall have the power “to regulate commerce … among the several States….” Federal officials have abused this clause, perhaps more than any other, to enlarge their authority, claiming the clause gives them power over virtually every area of private business.

Under the Articles of Confederation states had often sought to prevent competition by restricting interstate commerce via taxes and by other means. The framers put the clause in the Constitution for the exclusive purpose of preventing this practice of the states. They certainly did not intend to authorize the federal government to interfere in private business activities.   Extending state taxing authority beyond state lines is a step backwards to the days prior to the Constitution.

Policy grounds

According to Forbes (6-22-13): “The legislation in its current form does not require the various states to use the same definition of what is taxable and what is not, the same tax holidays, tax forms, etc. This puts the burden on retailers to comply with the laws of 9,600 jurisdictions, to file monthly tax returns with 46 states, and to be subject to audits by states and localities in which they have no physical presence or representation…. Right now, every state and many municipalities set their own sales tax rates, and rules for what is taxable, as well as reporting requirements.”

If a company has a physical presence in a jurisdiction, it normally collects any taxes due from the purchaser and remits them to the taxing authority. If it does not, the individual consumer in most states is obligated to pay the tax, as a use tax, often when the consumer files an annual state income tax return. However, many consumers fail to do this, which supplies one impetus for states to ask the federal government to intervene and authorize states to collect from the out-of-state companies doing interstate business.

The “Marketplace Fairness Act” is advertised as “leveling the playing field” between local retailers and online giants. However, as so often happens with legislation today, the reality can be quite different. The administrative burden of this law on small and medium-sized businesses would be huge, not to mention its negative impact on start-ups. (A $1 million sales exemption is not very large given business profit margins.) As with so much government regulation, the effect is to consolidate power in the big guys who can afford an army of accountants and a department to comply with complex regulation.

Although the proposed small business exemption is already onerously low, history suggests that future government action (such as with the income tax) would inevitably lower the exemption. And inflation would automatically serve to bring more small businesses under the regulation.

In addition to the desire of states for more revenue, there is another factor that Americans should consider — the century-old drive to build a regulatory state. The enormous cost to the American economy of government regulation has been well documented. However, corporate giants often support more government regulation, as it tends to eliminate the competition of smaller companies that are less able to handle the administrative burden.

In his important 1963 classic, The Triumph of Conservatism — A Reinterpretation of American History, 1900–1916, economic historian Gabriel Kolko wrote:

“Competition was unacceptable to many key business and financial interests …. As new competitors sprang up, and economic power was diffused through out an expanding nation, it became apparent to many important businessmen that only the national government could ‘rationalize’ the economy. Although specific conditions varied from industry to industry, internal problems that could be solved by political means were the common denominator in those industries whose leaders advocated greater federal regulation.” (Emphasis added.)

Industry gets the monopoly, while government gets the power. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who voted against the measure, agrees:

“Make no mistake: Big business supports this bill because it will drive smaller competitors off the Internet and out of business.

“And it wouldn’t help small brick-and-mortar retailers, as its proponents claim, because the sales they are losing today are mostly going to big-box stores and giant online retailers — both of whom are already paying sales taxes.

“The largest online retailers already have physical business presences in most states. Meaning, they are already collecting and paying the state taxes. Right now, nine of the top 10 Internet retailers collect taxes in every state. Big businesses can afford to hire accountants and attorneys to pay the taxes properly and navigate audits.

“Instead, this bill would just impose crushing new costs on small and mid-size Internet retailers.” — realclearpolitics.com (May 5, 2013)

Indeed, some have suggested that the excessive burden in complying with the tax requirements could induce businesses to relocate outside the United States. As a result, another opponent of the measure, Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) termed the tax the “Shop China Bill.”

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. 933 As Amended; “An Act making consolidated appropriations and further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013.”

Result:  Passed 73 to 26, 1 not voting. Became Public Law 113-6 (signed by the President 3-26-13).   GOP and Democrat selected vote. 

Bill Summary: H. R. 933, as initially passed by the House, included the full-year FY 2013 appropriations bills for the Department of Defense, military construction, and Department of Veterans Affairs. It also contained a continuing resolution for the remainder of the federal government. In this amended version, which became public law, the Senate has added full-year appropriations bills for Agriculture; Commerce, Justice, Science; and Homeland Security.

Remaining government operations would continue to be funded at FY 2012 levels as provided by H.J. Res. 117 (enacted 9-28-12) and amended by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012.  H.R. 933 was written to conform to the discretionary spending caps in the Budget Control Act of 2011. It also contains a general provision enforcing the sequester, as required by the Budget Control Act of 2011. The automatic across the board cuts imposed by the sequester went into effect on March 1, 2013.

Analysis: Prior to the enactment of H.R. 933, FY 2013 operations had been funded under a continuing resolution that passed the House on September 13, 2012. The House passed H.R. 933 on March 6, (Roll Call 62) and sent the measure to the Senate. The Senate subsequently amended H.R. 933 and passed the amended version (this vote) and returned the measure to the House. The House approved the Senate changes without amendment (House Roll Call 89) and sent the bill to the president for his signature.

We object to H.R. 933, as passed by the Senate and accepted by the House, on constitutional grounds.

H.R. 933 continues to appropriate taxpayer moneys for massive unconstitutional government. It offers no serious effort to roll back unconstitutional programs responsibly.

Although the spending caps in the Budget Control Act do crimp the liberal style, they are far short of what’s needed to allow Americans to build a prosperous future. Instead, the partisan wrestling match over trifles (a sop to public frustration over our horrible economy) misleads voters into thinking that Congress is engaged in a serious battle to limit government. Massive cuts, according to the Constitution, are desperately needed. Minor fiscal restraint, conveniently mandated for future years, that preserves socialist inroads just won’t cut it.

Moreover, consolidated appropriations are no way for a responsible Congress to spend the public’s money. And passing an appropriation bill in the middle of its fiscal year is also irresponsible government. In 1976, the federal fiscal year was shifted 3 months from July 1 to October to give appropriators more time to develop the increasingly complex federal appropriations bills. Responsible representatives and senators should insist on voting on individual committee bills in a timely manner and not allow them to be consolidated for a stampeded compromise.

Relief from time pressure will come when the massive explosion in unconstitutional federal programs is rolled back. For example, one of the few Public Laws Congress enacted in 2013 was the Community Fire Safety Act, passed essentially unanimously by both Houses.   Of course, the federal government should have no involvement in Community Fire Safety. However, the first paragraph of the bill’s summary, prepared by the Congressional Research Service, somewhat explains the title and the incredible necessity for such a measure in the first place:

• “Community Fire Safety Act of 2013 — Amends the Safe Drinking Water Act to exempt fire hydrants from certain prohibitions against the use of lead pipes, solder, and flux.”

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.)