Bills

Issue:  PN921 Confirmation Janet L. Yellen, to be Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Question: On the nomination (1/2 required).

Result: Confirmed 58 to 26, 18 not voting. GOP and Democrat selected vote.

Vote Summary: On confirmation of Janet L. Yellen to be Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.   President Obama nominated Yellen, then vice chair of the Board of Governors, to succeed Ben Bernanke, whose second 4-year term as Fed chairman expired on January 31, 2014. (Bernanke’s board membership lasts until January 31, 2020.)

Analysis: Pursuant to the Banking Act of 1935, presidents appoint replacements for the seven-member Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve to staggered 14-year terms. The president also appoints a chairman and a vice chair from among the sitting governors to 4-year terms. The Senate must approve each of these appointments.

In view of the Fed’s role in supporting Insider goals, Dr. Yellen’s Establishment credentials are hardly surprising. Like two of her colleagues on the Board of Governors (Daniel K. Tarullo and Jerome H. Powell) Janet Yellen is a member of the Establishment’s Council on Foreign Relations.

Dr. Yellen earned her Ph.D. in economics at Yale in 1971. From 1971 to 1976, she found employment as an assistant professor at Harvard. From 1978 to 1980, Dr. Yellen served on the faculty of the Fabian Socialist London School of Economics and Political Science. In 1980, she joined the faculty of the University of California at Berkeley, where she is listed as a professor emeritus.

Any constitutionalist or free-market conservative has plenty of grounds for opposing the Federal Reserve and presidential appointments to its Board of Governors. Presidential appointments can be expected to support: open market purchases of government debt with funny money (federal reserve notes); manipulation of interest rates; and the ostensible function of a Central Bank in fighting recession through monetary inflation.

Historically, the lack of serious opposition to Fed appointees speaks volumes regarding Senate subservience to Wall Street and the get-along attitude of “top conservative groups” acceptable to the Establishment. According to Roll Call (11-13-13): “[N]o nominee to lead the Fed has ever been filibustered or rejected by the Senate.” And Janet Yellen was no exception.

According to the same Roll Call (“Conservative Groups Taper Views on Yellen Confirmation”):

“[I]t looks like Republicans may be able to vote for her without tarnishing their records with top conservative groups, helping to ensure she’ll have the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster.

“The Club for Growth and Heritage Action for America, two prominent organizations that have not shied away from battles with the pro-business wing of the Republican party, appear ready to spend the Yellen fight on the sidelines.

“‘There’s no mystery and it’s not complicated. We just almost never take a position on monetary policy,’ said Club for Growth spokesman Barney Keller in an email. ‘Thus, we probably won’t be involved in the Yellen nomination.’”

         No position on monetary policy? Okay. But how about a position that there shouldn’t be a Federal Reserve buying unlimited government debt? Perhaps, the “respectable conservative” Club for Growth should rename itself, the Club for Growth in Government.

Here’s what Roll Call had to say about the other “prominent organization”:

“Salim Furth, an economist with the Heritage Foundation, which is affiliated with Heritage Action, said he is skeptical of quantitative easing and other Fed policies, but that inside his organization economists take different views.

“The Fed, he said, is ‘reinventing monetary policy. Clearly, there’s a lot we don’t know about what’s being tried now.’”

         So the economists at Heritage cannot agree that secret monetary management is bad. We are not surprised. Although Heritage claims to support the principles of limited government and a sound economy, any organization regularly heralded by the Insider Establishment as a major conservative player should be suspect.

Indeed, a principled economist should be more than skeptical of the Fed’s $85-billion-a-month buying spree in Treasury and mortgage-backed securities, commonly known as quantitative easing. In a November 11th op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, Andrew Huiszar, the former manager of the Federal Reserve’s $1.15 trillion agency mortgage-backed security purchase program, wrote:

“I can only say: I’m sorry, America. As a former Federal Reserve official, I was responsible for executing the centerpiece program of the Fed’s first plunge into the bond-buying experiment known as quantitative easing. The central bank continues to spin QE as a tool for helping Main Street. But I’ve come to recognize the program for what it really is: the greatest backdoor Wall Street bailout of all time.”

         In 2010, President Obama appointed Dr. Yellen to a 14-year term on the Board and a 4-year term as vice chair. She has supported the Fed’s monetary stimulus program.

Looking closer at the lack of Senate opposition to the Yellen nomination, we saw 16 senators sit this one out, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and, surprisingly, Senator Rand Paul, the current champion of an audit of the Fed.

While an audit of the Fed, promoted by Senator Rand Paul, might uncover scandalous actions and influences, the real objective of constitutionalists should be to abolish the Fed — on principle. If opinion leaders don’t champion the principle, then the Establishment can easily redirect outrage over scandals into harmless calls for reform, not abolition, as it has with scandals uncovered at the United Nations.

No Democrat challenged the Yellen nomination on the Senate floor. However, 11 Republicans broke ranks and joined the Democrats in support. Earlier, three GOP senators serving on the Senate Banking Committee voted to advance her nomination to the full Senate: Republicans Bob Corker of Tennessee, Mark S. Kirk of Illinois and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma.

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. 83 Latest Title: Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015.

Result: Passed in Senate, 56 to 40, 4 not voting. Became Public Law 113-235 (signed by the president 12-16-14).  Republicans scored.

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

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

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

Analysis: Both supporters and opponents of H.R. 83 advanced “conservative” and “constitutional” arguments to sustain their position. Who was right? 

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

According to The Hill (“Senate passes $1.1T funding bill,” 12-13-14): “The package of appropriations bills, dubbed the “cromnibus,” narrowly passed the House on Thursday night in a 219-206 vote after Obama hit the phones to quell a Democratic uprising against it.

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

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

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

Appealing to Conservatives

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

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

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

However, the modest spending restraint imposed by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (the “Ryan-Murray Agreement,” an earlier compromise with liberals), served primarily to mislead the public into thinking that the GOP leadership was doing the best it could to be fiscally responsible.

While that 2013 deal did avert a public revolt, it failed totally to address seriously the frightening growth in the national debt. Nor did it attempt at all to roll back massive unconstitutional federal departments and programs, which constitute a large portion of federal spending today.

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

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

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

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

GOP Opponents

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

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

Michigan Representative Justin Amash was interviewed by CNSNews in advance of the vote: “Well, I’m voting no on the omnibus,” Amash said. “But I’m voting no because I don’t support most of the appropriations bills that make up the omnibus, not because of any one particular issue.”

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

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

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

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

Omnibus Continues Big Government

Several GOP legislators complained about the common leadership tactic of advancing massive legislation facing unnecessary last-minute deadlines.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Department of Education

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

According the House Appropriations Committee summary:

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

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

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

Obama’s Usurpation of Authority re Immigration

Eleven of the 12 regular appropriations bills funded the federal government through September 30 —the end of Fiscal Year 2015. This effectively prevents the incoming GOP House and Senate majorities from fighting over spending in those areas during a large part of 114th Congress — likely a major reason why President Obama was so eager to support H.R. 83.

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

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

Following a vote to limit debate on H.R. 83, Senator Ted Cruz raised a point of order challenging the constitutionality of the section that would continue to fund the president’s amnesty actions. Ahead of the vote on his point of order, Cruz stated: “If we agree it is indeed unconstitutional, we have no business funding it when the GOP controls Congress. The Constitution matters, and we must defend it.”

Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., disagreed: “‎While the president’s executive actions on immigration are reprehensible and deserve a strong response, I value the oath I took to support and defend the Constitution too much to exploit it for political expediency. The Constitution gives Congress the power to fund the government so to assert that the House-passed spending bill is unconstitutional is not only inaccurate but irresponsible.” — Roll Call (12-13-14): “Senate Rejects Cruz Point of Order on Obama’s Immigration Action”

Of course, it is absurd to suggest that the Constitution gives Congress the power to fund unconstitutional federal programs. In fact, most congressmen regularly violate their oath to support and defend the Constitution by approving unconstitutional programs and spending.   That one fact is America’s great problem that must be reversed. Fortunately, Senator Corker did subsequently stand with those who cast their votes against H.R. 83.

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.)

Title:  H.R. 2642 Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013 (“Farm Bill”). (Sponsor: Rep. Frank D. Lucas (OK-3).) A bill to provide for the reform and continuation of agricultural and other programs of the Department of Agriculture through fiscal year 2018, and for other purposes.  Question:  On Agreeing to the House-Senate Conference Report.

Result:  Agreed to in Senate 68 to 32. Became Public Law No: 113-79 (signed by the president, 2-7-2014).  GOP selected vote.

Bill Summary: This nearly $1 trillion authorization measure sets farm policy for the next five years. It also reauthorizes “nutrition” programs, i.e., food stamps, provides rural community assistance, extends “food for peace” and much more.

Analysis: An early version of this legislation passed the House on a close 216–208 vote last July (see Scorecard, 113th Congress, Session 1 — House Roll Call 353, 7-11-13). However, the House and Senate could not resolve their differences until further negotiations after the start of the new session (2014).

For all the hoopla over Congress getting something done, this bipartisan “compromise” is merely another victory for continuing massive unconstitutional government.   Even Establishment Republican Senator John McCain blasted the bloated measure in a February 3rd floor speech:

“How are we supposed to restore the confidence of the American people with this monstrosity? A few weeks ago we crammed down their throats a $1.1 trillion omnibus appropriations bill loaded with wasteful spending. Tomorrow we will wash the omnibus down with another trillion dollars. The only policy that gets bipartisan traction in Congress is Washington’s desire to hand out taxpayer money like it is candy.”

The Wall Street Journal (1-28-14) called the “Farm Bill” “A Bipartisan Taxpayer Raid.”   This bipartisan “victory” demonstrates the unwillingness of the GOP-led House to deal seriously with unconstitutional programs and spending.

President Obama signed the farm bill into law at Michigan State University, the alma mater of Senate Agriculture Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., the lead negotiator on the Senate side. At the signing ceremony, the president proudly touted the many ongoing unconstitutional overreach programs in this massive piece of legislation.

As Obama pointed out, the measure addresses much more than just farming. The president described it as:

“A jobs bill, an innovation bill, an infrastructure bill, a conservation bill, a research bill. It’s like a Swiss Army knife.

“This bill helps rural communities by investing in hospitals and schools, affordable housing, broadband infrastructure – all the things that help attract more businesses and make life easier for working families. This bill helps support businesses that are developing cutting-edge bio-fuels like some of the work that’s being done here at Michigan State.” — Michigan Radio (2-8-14)

Also present at the signing ceremony was U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, who praised Congress for keeping cuts to food stamps smaller than they might have been.

Nevertheless, many liberal Democrats in both the House and Senate postured as opponents to the measure because of the promised cuts in food stamp spending — really just “projected” savings over a 10 year period.   Fellow Democrat Stabenow defended the compromise against liberal criticism:

“We have done nothing that changes eligibility or eliminates anyone from food assistance help. We have gone after waste, fraud and abuse and we are tightening up this connection with [the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program.]” — Roll Call (1-27-14) “Farm Bill Is Latest Breakthrough for Congress”

Associated press was surprisingly candid in its assessment of the measure:

“After more than two years of partisan squabbles over food and farm policy, the House passed and sent to the Senate Wednesday an almost $100 billion-a-year, compromise farm bill containing a small cut in food stamps and preserving most crop subsidies….

“For those seeking reform of farm programs, the legislation would eliminate a $4.5 billion-a-year farm subsidy called direct payments, which are paid to farmers whether they farm or not. But the bill nonetheless would continue to heavily subsidize major crops — corn, soybeans, wheat, rice and cotton — while shifting many of those subsidies toward more politically defensible [but still unconstitutional] insurance programs.” — AP (1-29-14) “House passes farm bill, crop subsidies preserved”

Rather than give credit to liberals who voted correctly but for clearly the wrong reason we choose not to score the Democrats in either the House or Senate on this important 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. 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.)

House Roll Call 640 (12-12-13) H.J. Res. 59 Became vehicle for the “Budget Deal.” Includes the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 and the Pathway for SGR Reform Act of 2013. On Motion to Recede and Concur in the Senate Amendment with Amendment.

Agreed to by 332 to 94, 7 not voting.   Became Public Law 113-67 (signed by the president 12-26-13).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We do not score the House Democrats for their vote on the “budget deal” as some liberals who generally want to spend more (e.g., John Conyers) voted no (House minority leader Nancy Pelosi voted aye).   We score both parties in the Senate (no Senate Democrats opposed the deal).

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

Read more