Bills

Issue:  S. 47 As Amended; A bill to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act of 1994.

Result:  Passed 78 to 22. Became Public Law 113-4 (signed by the president 3-7-13). GOP and Democrat selected vote.

Bill Summary: When it became public law, S. 47 revived and expanded the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA), which had lapsed in 2011.

According to Wikipedia: “The [2013] Act provides $1.6 billion toward investigation and prosecution of violent crimes against women, imposes automatic and mandatory restitution on those convicted, and allows civil redress in cases prosecutors chose to leave un-prosecuted. The Act also establishes the Office on Violence Against Women within the Department of Justice.”

In addition, VAWA reauthorized numerous grants for training of those dealing at the community level with all stages of the problem and for services for the victims.

Analysis:   The Violence Against Women Act is a good example of a federal power grab driven by revolutionary pressure from below. Under the guise of humanitarian concern over a very real problem — mistreatment of women — revolutionaries have long sought to advance the ambitions of a power hungry elite that seeks to dominate every aspect of human society. As with numerous other organized campaigns, they demand that the federal government assume dangerous new authority to solve a problem.

The original 1994 Act was drafted by the office of then-Senator Joe Biden and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. But support for the act had been developed by organized pressure from below. The revolutionary objectives of the organized movement supporting VAWA can be seen clearly in a much earlier initiative — the UN’s Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).

CEDAW example

The UN General Assembly adopted CEDAW in 1979. President Jimmy Carter signed the treaty for the United States and submitted it to the Senate for consideration. However, the U.S. has never ratified CEDAW. In the intervening years, revolutionary and internationalist pressures have coerced numerous national governments into signing the convention, but the signatories have often insisted on qualifying their approvals with serious reservations of authority and exceptions.

A 1979 U.S. State Department memorandum analyzing CEDAW noted that several provisions would “reach into the areas that are not regulated by the federal government.” For example, Article Two would require Congress to pass “appropriate corrective legislation” to regulate “membership in private clubs and organizations”; Article Five requires signatory nations “to modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women” and to monitor the content of “family education.” And Article Ten demands that the federal government take responsibility for the “elimination of any stereotyped concept of the roles in men and women at all levels and in all forms of education.”

Revolutionaries are forced to advance most of their objectives in stages (as with nationalizing health care and education). Years may elapse before they have the right opportunity and support to gain national attention and go to the next level.   That has certainly been the case with U.S. ratification of CEDAW.

In 2010, for example, activists organized to bring renewed pressure on the U.S. Senate to ratify the treaty. On November 18, a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law responded by holding hearings. Most of the testimony was pro-CEDAW and outside the hearing room a long line of women formed up wearing pink “Ratify CEDAW” stickers. Apparently, the Senators were not sufficiently impressed and soon turned to other matters.

Not surprisingly, President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have both indicated their support for CEDAW. However, at the moment neither seems inclined to push ratification to the forefront of their agendas.

Back to VAWA

In a 2000 case, the U.S. Supreme Court narrowly ruled against one of the provisions in the 1994 Violence Against Women Act as an intrusion on states rights (allowing victims the right to sue their attackers in federal court). However, major parts of the measure are clearly unconstitutional federal overreach into state matters. Federal dominance is often achieved through the strings attached to unconstitutional federal grants to the states.

More significantly, the revolutionary supporters of VAWA clearly regard the federal meddling as merely a steppingstone toward providing the federal government with the power and opportunity to restructure society to their liking.

Following typical revolutionary strategy, the 2000 and 2005 reauthorizations of the Violence Against Women Act have expanded its application. Originally VAWA focused on domestic violence and sexual assault. However, the reauthorized acts expanded the focus to include dating violence and stalking.

The 2013 reauthorization further expands federal “protections” to include “underserved populations” — in particular, gays, lesbians, transgender individuals, Native Americans and even “undocumented” immigrants who, as victims of violent crimes, may qualify for temporary visas (U-visas).

The Senate bill was also expanded to include the reauthorization of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. Broadening the scope of VAWA to include some legitimate federal concerns helped to undermine political opposition to the Act.

Although the House rejected the Senate version the year before, in 2013 the House overwhelmingly approved the 2013 Senate version without amendment. 87 Republicans sided with 199 Democrats to pass the measure. No House Democrat voted in opposition, and, although the majority of House Republicans opposed VAWA, 87 of their colleagues helped the Democrats carry the day.

In the Senate, Democrats voted 53 to 0 in support of the measure (more than enough for passage). All opposition came from the GOP (22 senators voting nay), however 23 GOP senators gave the measure bipartisan support.

The revolutionary agenda is always advanced in pieces so that the public does not become aware of its destination. And it uses appealing sophistry to justify ignoring the Constitution, historical experience, and religion-based morality.

The techniques employed in collectivist strategy are not new. Nineteenth-century French statesman Frederic Bastiat wrote that governments seek 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.”

In his 1969 book, Journey into Darkness, John Douglas, legendary FBI profiler and expert on the criminal personality, concluded:

“Unfortunately, no matter what we do with our criminal justice system, the only thing that is going to cut down appreciably on crimes of violence and depravity is to stop manufacturing as many criminals…. [T]he real struggle must be where it has always been: in the home.”

And the home has been the target of Establishment Insiders and the revolutionary agenda for decades. So, too, have been the religious and moral supports for a free and productive society.

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. 325, No Budget, No Pay Act of 2013.   A bill to ensure the complete and timely payment of the obligations of the United States Government until May 19, 2013, and for other purposes.

Result:  Passed 64 to 34, 2 not voting. Became Public Law 113-3 (signed by the president 2-4-2013). GOP and Democrat selected vote.

Bill Summary: The “No Budget, No Pay Act” temporarily suspended the United States debt ceiling from February 4, 2013 until May 18, 2013. Under the Act, on May 19 the debt ceiling would be reset to a level “necessary to fund commitment incurred by the Federal Government that required payment.”

The Act also required the withholding of congressional pay after April 15 in any house that had not agreed to a concurrent budget resolution for FY2014.

(Note: The potential congressional “No Pay” restrictions were overcome prior to April 15. On March 21, the House passed a FY 2014 budget, which was rejected by the Senate. On March 23, the Senate passed its own 2014 budget. The House refused to vote on the Senate budget.)

Analysis: The National Debt Ceiling has a long history dating back to World War I. Previously, Congress directly authorized each individual borrowing on the credit of the United States. With the Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917, Congress modified the method by which it authorized debt to the present system, whereby it would establish an aggregate limit.

Prior to the “No Budget, No Pay Act” the ceiling had been set at $16.4 trillion (in 2011). As authorized by this Act, on May 19 the debt ceiling was reinstated at just under $16.7 trillion to reflect borrowing during the three-and-a-half-month suspension period. The treasury was then forced again to resort to “extraordinary measures” to avoid default.

The next change (another suspension) in the debt ceiling came in October with the enactment of H.R. 2775, the Continuing Appropriations Act of 2014, to end the government “shutdown.” See Senate Vote 219 (10-16-13) and House Roll Call 550 (10-16-13).

The constitutional authority provided to Congress to borrow money on the credit of the United States (Article I, Section 8) does not prevent Congress from allowing the federal government to incur obligations or to run deficits that require additional borrowing. And so the requirement for debt authorization is not, by itself, an adequate instrument for politicians to enforce fiscal discipline. This has been particularly true once the Federal Reserve was created with the power to inflate the money supply while purchasing government debt.

However, requiring Congress to approve any increases in the debt ceiling does provide a very visible reminder to the American public that government spending is out of control. In the process, the debt ceiling puts needed public pressure on Congress and the president to confront the mounting debt.

Government spending and particularly unconstitutional government are seriously out of control. Together, they are the root cause of America’s recession, are destroying America’s middle class, are a threat to our freedom, and, if not soon brought under control, will produce a much greater financial crisis. While we don’t advocate that the federal government default on its obligations, responsible congressmen must use any leverage they can find to force government to change course.

President Obama has frequently sought to sway public opinion by arguing that is improper for the Congress to attach strings to raising the debt ceiling. He insists that the debt must be increased unconditionally to pay for whatever spending has been previously agreed upon. However, previously established budgets must often be revised when there is greater will or financial clarity.

Clearly, there is little determination in Washington to deal constructively with our debt problem and the partisan “compromises” in appropriations supporting it.   Liberal Democrats even argue that more government spending is the route to helping the poor, not less.

However, there is a much more serious problem preventing a true solution. The much-hyped partisan political charade obscures the fundamental collusion by both parties at the top in developing and sustaining Big Brother. The Establishment media constantly reinforces the false premise that we got into this mess as a result of compromise by political adversaries who merely differ in their views of what’s best for America. And that somehow compromise with socialists is not only a necessity but also a virtue.

In the House, both parties supported the final measure — the GOP by a vote of 199 to 33 and the Democrats 86 to 111, 3 not voting. Many of the most liberal House Democrats (e.g., Nancy Pelosi, John Conyers, George Miller) weren’t satisfied with a short-term increase (even though President Obama would sign the bill) and voted “no.” And so we do not score the House Democrats on this one (right vote, wrong reason).

In the Senate, the same bill carried by a vote of 64 to 34 with all but 1 (Manchin) of the “no” votes coming from Republican senators who properly wanted further spending cuts to accompany an increase in the limit. 12 GOP senators joined the Democrats in supporting the measure.

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

Issue:  H.R. 514 As Amended.  FISA Sunsets Extensions Act of 2011.

Result:  Passed 86 to 12, 2 not voting. Became Public Law 112-3 (signed by the President 2-25-11).  GOP and Democrat selected vote.

Bill Summary: FISA Sunsets Extension Act of 2011 — Amends the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 to extend until May 27, 2011, provisions concerning roving electronic surveillance orders and requests for the production of business records and other tangible things.

Analysis: In the wake of the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the Bush administration requested legislative authorization for unprecedented unconstitutional powers — aggressive wiretap authority, the ability to seize library and business records and wide-reaching surveillance power. Congress went along but excused the intrusion by including a sunset provision causing the authority to expire after a very limited time frame unless renewed.

As expected, each successive administration has insisted on renewal, and some politicians see an opportunity to make the unconstitutional grant of authority permanent.   President Obama signed this three-month measure into law (PL 112-3) on 2-25-11. On May 26, both Houses voted to extend the expiring authority for four years. (See House Roll Call 376 and Senate Vote 84.)

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

Read more

Issue:  H.R. 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 66 to 32, 2 not voting (3/5 required). Became Public Law No: 113-2 (signed by the president 1-29-2013). GOP and Democrat selected vote.

Bill Summary: This supplemental appropriations bill authorized $60 billion for disaster relief agencies. It is comprised of Division A: Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 and Division B: Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013. 

Analysis: Nothing in the Constitution authorizes the federal government to provide state and local disaster aid.   At one time in our nation’s history, that was understood. In one of his most famous vetoes, President Grover Cleveland rejected the “Texas Seed Bill” on constitutional grounds. The bill would have provided minimal disaster assistance to a number of drought-stricken Texas counties.

On February 16, 1886, President Grover Cleveland delivered his veto message on the “Texas Seed Bill” to the House of Representatives. The following excerpt speaks to principles long ignored by today’s collectivist-oriented media:

“I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadily resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the Government, the Government should not support the people.

“The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.”

         Instead of asserting an unconstitutional responsibility to provide disaster aid, government’s main responsibility should be to get us out of the unconstitutional mess it has created.

False advertising

Putting aside the constitutional objections for a moment, let’s look at the massive $60 billion package itself. Although this package was pushed through the House in the name of providing urgent relief to the victims of Hurricane Sandy, most of the spending (about 10 percent of the federal government’s likely domestic discretionary spending for the year) was anything but urgent. Moreover, the package was inflated to pay for other programs such as community development or modernizing Amtrak’s Northeast corridor having nothing to do with disaster relief.

After H.R. 152 had cleared the House, Heritage Action, the Establishment-recognized and necessarily shallow conservative advocacy group, called for a “no” vote in the Senate:

“The Senate will soon vote on the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 2013 (H.R. 152), which would provide $50.507 billion in “emergency” funding intended for disaster assistance for Hurricane Sandy relief.

“While Hurricane Sandy was a major disaster, the majority of the funds originally requested by the Obama Administration were to be spent beyond FY 2014.  Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that just 30% of the outlays in the House-passed bill would be spent over the next 20 months.  Even in 2021 estimated outlays are over a billion dollars.

“Furthermore, far too much of the funding goes toward superfluous programsthat are not related to Hurricane Sandy relief, from repairs to the Smithsonian Institution to upgrades to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration airplanes to more funding for the federal government’s epic educational failure known as Head Start, among myriad other extraneous items.  The inclusion of $16 billion in wasteful community development funds is also concerning, especially because the Department of Housing and Urban Development estimated it would need a comparatively much smaller $5.2 billion for its “unmet needs.”

            While the facts presented by Heritage Action are compelling, its limp-wrist conclusion that “using a natural disaster to spend more taxpayer money” proves “how irresponsible Washington has grown” irresponsibly understates and mischaracterizes the problem.

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

Issue: H.J. Res. 124 Making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2015, and for other purposes.

Result: Passed in Senate, 78 to 22. Became Public Law 113-164 (signed by the president, 9-19-14). GOP and Democrats scored.

From the Congressional Research Service Summary:  Provides continuing FY2015 appropriations to federal agencies at the current annual rate until December 11, 2014, or enactment of specified appropriations legislation.

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

***

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

***

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

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

The continuing resolution extended federal spending thru December 11, 2014 at the same level and for the same unconstitutional programs as the Congress had approved in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014 (see FFS Scorecard, Senate vote 13, January 16, 2014).

The Export-Import Bank      

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

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

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

Establishment Domination   

When H.J. Res. 124, the spending bill, arrived in the Senate, it included not only the Ex-Im Bank renewal but also the language to authorize the Obama administration to train and arm Syrian rebels. (See our analysis of the House Roll Call 509.) The Senate debated and approved the combined measure as such.

As one could expect with the issues combined, the war issue gained the primary attention and the Ex-Im bank renewal slipped through with little discussion.

The previous day, the House approved H.J. Res.124 with sizeable bipartisan majorities: Republicans voted in favor, 176 to 53, and Democrats, 143 to 55. On September 18, the Senate also approved the combined measure with heavy bipartisan majorities:   Republican senators voted 33 to 12 in favor, Democratic senators supported the measure 44 to 9 and the 2 independents were split.

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

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

 

Issue:  H.R. 803 (Originally the “Skills Act”). On passage, as amended in Senate with new title: Workforce Innovation and Opportunities 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.

Result: Agreed to in Senate 95 to 3, 2 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”). After more than a year of “negotiation,” the Senate amended and retitled the measure, approving it by an overwhelming bipartisan majority (see above) and passed it back to the House. Two weeks later, the House accepted the Senate changes (see House Roll Call 378, 7-9-14) by an equally overwhelming bipartisan majority of 415 to 6, 11 not voting. After a scant two more weeks, 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:  Menendez Amdt. No. 2867; In the nature of a substitute. H.R. 4152 Support for the Sovereignty, Integrity, Democracy, and Economic Stability of Ukraine Act of 2014.

Result: Passed in Senate 98 to 2. Became Public Law No: 113-95 (signed by president, 4-3-2014).  GOP and Democrat selected vote.

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.

Even without the evidence of direct Insider orchestration of the events in the Ukraine, senators should have refused to support the substitute H.R. 4152. The amended 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 a House roll call (#114) on an earlier version of 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 House 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:  S. 1086 Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 2014. A bill to reauthorize and improve the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Barbara A. Mikulski.

Result:  Passed Senate with an amendment, 96 to 2, 2 not voting. GOP and Democrat selected vote.

From Congressional Research Service Summary:  Revises and expands plan requirements to include, among others, compliance with state and local health and safety requirements, compliance with child abuse reporting requirements, protection for working parents, and coordination with other programs. Prescribes early learning and developmental guidelines….

Requires a state receiving funds under such Act to carry out at least two of specified activities affecting the quality of child care….

Directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to operate a national toll-free hotline and website. Defines “child with a disability” as one under age 13 who is eligible for early intervention services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

Analysis: This reauthorization measure provides a clear example of unconstitutional federal overreach that has been accepted by members of both parties.   The federal government has no authority to meddle in state functions regarding child care, child abuse, “protection for working parents,” or education. In fact, there is no constitutional basis for the federal department of Health and Human Services.

The overreach is far from benign. There are serious short-term and long-term consequences.   For example, we see in the above summary the principle that the federal government will try to control that which it funds. With its ability to run huge deficits, the federal government is acting to turn the states into its administrative agents, taking direction from an often destructive, collectivist-minded federal bureaucracy.

It is distressing that most politicians in both parties would continue to accept this overreach and that their constituents would allow them to do so.

Many politicians will posture as providing leadership to solve virtually any problem, whether or not they have any authority to do so.   Constitutional limits are simply ignored.   For example, Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) supported the measure on the Senate floor:

“Child care for working parents is essential to families throughout the nation, and Maine is no exception. For years, the CCDBG Program has assisted low-income parents in affording child care. The support provided by this program enables parents to obtain needed care for their children while working or improving their own skills and education.

“Twenty-six hundred children from 1,800 families in Maine received federal child care subsidies through the CCDBG program. Particularly during these difficult economic times, this program goes a long way in helping families in Maine and across the country.”

In a press release issued following Senate passage, the Senator’s office stated:

“The bill also includes provisions from legislation Senator Collins authored and introduced last fall, the Child Care Infant Mortality Prevent Act, which is intended to prevent Sudden Unexpected Infant Death (SUID) by increasing provider training in sleep practices, first aid, and CPR.”

         Nineteenth-century French statesman Frederic Bastiat wrote that governments seek 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.”

A major reason why both parents with children often work in today’s society is the economic burden placed on families and the economy by the “caring” federal monster, bloated with unconstitutional and misguided programs.

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. 540 Temporary Debt Limit Extension Act.  An act to temporarily extend the public debt limit, and for other purposes.  (Coopted S. 540 was originally a bill to designate the air route traffic control center located in Nashua, New Hampshire, as the “Patricia Clark Boston Air Route Traffic Control Center.”)  Question:  On the Cloture Motion (3/5 required). 

Result:  Agreed to 67 to 31, 2 not voting. Became Public Law No: 113-83 (signed by the president, 2-15-14). GOP and Democrat selected vote.

Bill Summary: This measure suspends the debt limit through March 15, 2015 and will set a new limit the following day based on debt increases due to normal borrowing.

Analysis: Last October (2013), Congress suspended the debt limit, then at $16.7 trillion, until February 7 of 2014, as part of the agreement to end the partial federal shutdown. On February 8, the debt limit was reset to $17.3 trillion. As expected, continued deficit spending immediately pushed the Treasury toward default, and Congress was confronted with administration demands to suspend (or raise) the debt limit once more.

And Congress agreed. However, Congress chose the ending date for this latest temporary suspension of the debt limit to fall well after the November elections, thus passing the buck to a newly elected Congress to bring federal spending under control or to raise the debt ceiling again.

President Obama had long taken the stand that he would not “bargain” for an increase in borrowing authority, insisting that the increase should be automatic, since it was necessary to finance spending already approved by prior Congresses.   House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi echoed the line: “The full faith and credit (of the United States) should be unquestioned and it is not negotiable.”

Never mind that the spending demands of President Obama himself had contributed to huge deficits, as had the agendas of prior presidents and prior Congresses. Responsible legislators must press for corrective action whenever they have the will and opportunity to do so and before economic reality completely destroys American prosperity and “the full faith and credit (of the United States).”

A “Clean” Debt-Limit Bill

The House acted first to approve S. 540, suspending the debt limit and preventing default.   In the days leading up to the vote, House Speaker John Boehner tried unsuccessfully to find enough GOP support for a debt-ceiling bill sweetened with any of several face-saving concessions to be demanded of the Senate and the president.

So the GOP leadership decided to put forward a “clean,” no-strings-attached debt-ceiling bill that would garner Democratic support.   Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi immediately applauded the GOP decision.

On February 11, the measure, which would suspend the limit for more than a year passed the House by a vote of 221 to 201. Relying on Democrats to carry the ball, only 28 House Republicans voted in favor of the suspension.

Drama in the Senate

The Senate approved the measure the following day, but not without drama. With the mid-term elections facing many, Senate Republicans had hoped to vote unanimously against the debt increase, allowing the Democrats to pass the measure on a strictly majority (51) vote. However, Texas Senator Ted Cruz put his fellow Republicans on the hot seat by insisting on a filibuster, requiring 60 votes to overcome.

So some of the Republicans who really wanted the bill to pass but did not want to go on record voting for it would have to step forward and vote to end debate. Who would they be?   The cliffhanger ended when Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Minority Whip John Cornyn took the lead in voting with the Democrats.

McConnell and Cornyn were joined by 10 other GOP senators: John Barrasso of Wyoming, Susan Collins of Maine, Bob Corker of Tennessee, Jeff Flake of Arizona, Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, Mike Johanns of Nebraska, Mark S. Kirk of Illinois, John McCain of Arizona, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and John Thune of South Dakota.

Following the 67 to 31 vote to end debate, the same 12 Republicans lined up to vote against passage, so they could all posture as opponents. The vote on final passage went strictly along party lines: 55 in favor to 43 against, with 2 not voting.   Here FFS scores the Senate on its votes to end debate, not the vote on final passage.

Speaking on conservative talk-radio later, Ted Cruz claimed that many Republicans were unhappy that they had to help the Democrats meet the 60-vote threshold to end debate:

“An awful lot of the Republicans wanted exactly what Barack Obama wanted … which was to raise the debt ceiling [without reining in spending], but they wanted to be able to tell what they view as their foolish, gullible constituents back [home] they didn’t do it and they’re mad because by [my] refusing to consent to that they had to come out in the open and admit what they are doing and nothing upsets them more.”

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. 3547 An act making consolidated appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2014, and for other purposes.  Question:  Motion to Concur in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment.

Result:  Agreed to in Senate 72 to 26, 2 not voting. Became Public Law No: 113-76 (signed by the president 1-17-14). GOP and Democrat selected vote.

Bill Summary: H.R. 3547 was transformed into the FY2014 consolidated appropriation bill, comprising the12 annual appropriations bills.   Authorized $1.1 trillion in spending for the Fiscal Year ending September 30, 2014.

Analysis:   A month earlier (December 2013), Congress passed the so-called budget deal, raising the sequester caps for FY 2014 and FY 2015. (See last scorecard selected vote in House — GOP only — and Senate for session 1.)

No Way to Spend the People’s Money

Once the budget deal established the FY 2014 spending level, four-dozen or so congressional appropriators from both parties and both sides of the Capitol were instructed to prepare a massive omnibus spending measure. They were given a January 15 deadline to avoid another government “shutdown.”

Their task was immense. In less than three weeks, they had to negotiate and write “legislation dictating all of the government’s discretionary spending for the final 37 weeks of this budget year.” — Roll Call (12-19-13)

The GOP’s Harold Rogers, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, and Democrat Barbara Mikulski, chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, led the appropriators in drafting the bill behind closed doors as a take-it-or-leave it package deal.

The final $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill was revealed to the public less than 72 hours before it sailed through the House and Senate with large bipartisan majorities. Intimidated by the adverse media-generated reaction to the recent “government shutdown,” many representatives held their noses and voted yea, even though some acknowledged that they had not read the 1,582 page bill.

During the floor debate in the House, Harold Rogers argued:

“This bill is a reflection of the need for members of Congress, under the Constitution, to decide how and when and why money is spent by the executive branch. The people elected us to fulfill that duty, and this bill does just that.”

         Immediately after the vote, Rogers told reporters: “I think it’s a really good demonstration of the worthiness of trying to work across the aisle and across the dome…. It was a good exercise in bipartisanship and working together for the common good.”

We emphatically disagree. There was obviously no serious effort in this bill to roll back unconstitutional programs and spending, and so a responsible vote had to be no.

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