Bills

Issue:  S. 47 Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013.

Results:  Passed in House 286 to 138, 7 not voting. 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 Noes and (bad vote) to the Ayes. (P = voted present; ? = not voting; blank = not listed on roll call.)

Issue:  H.R. 325 No Budget, No Pay Act of 2013. 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 in House 285 to 144, 3 not voting. Became Public Law 113-3 (signed by the President 2-4-2013).

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

 

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. 3547 Latest Title: Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014.

Result:  Passed in House 359 to 67, 7 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.)