Bills

Congressional Research Service Summary for S. 3422 (which replaced H.R. 1957 thru amendment): 
Shown Here:
House agreed to Senate amendment (07/22/2020)

Great American Outdoors Act

This bill establishes the National Parks and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund to support deferred maintenance projects on federal lands.

For FY2021-FY2025, there shall be deposited into the fund an amount equal to 50% of energy development revenues credited, covered, or deposited as miscellaneous receipts from oil, gas, coal, or alternative or renewable energy development on federal lands and waters. Deposited amounts must not exceed $1.9 billion for any fiscal year.

The fund must be used for priority deferred maintenance projects in specified systems that are administered by

the National Park Service,

the Forest Service,

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

the Bureau of Land Management, and

the Bureau of Indian Education.

The Government Accountability Office must report on the effect of the fund in reducing the backlog of priority deferred maintenance projects for the specified agencies.

Additionally, the bill makes funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) permanent. The President shall annually report to Congress specified details regarding the allocation of funds to the LWCF. Congress may provide for alternate allocations using specified procedures.

Analysis:  According to Senator Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), the bill’s sponsor: “The Great American Outdoors Act combines two pieces of legislation:  the crown jewel of our conservation programs across the Nation, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and the Restore Our Parks Act. The  Restore Our Parks Act focuses on the catching up with the maintenance backlog in our national park systems.”

Our primary focus will be on the Gardner “crown jewel,” the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), which enables the Federal government to purchase land.  The fund was originally established in 1965 and reauthorized last year by Congress (see Senate Vote 22 on S. 47,  National Resources Management Act, officially titled as the “John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act”).  President Trump signed the “National Resources Act” into law on 3-12-19.

The National Resources Act provided permanent authorization of the deposit provisions of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which the Sierra Club claimed “may be the most important federal conservation program that you’ve never heard of.”  This year’s Great American Outdoors Act would permanently fund the LWCF at $900 million per year.

Subversive objective
What is not advertised, however, is the underlying subversive campaign that the Land and Water Conservation fund supports and the forces behind the campaign.  To understand the campaign, we need to review a little history (a book could be written).

In 1848, Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto as a program for Communists and socialists.   In it, he listed ten planks that were designed to transform the most advanced countries into Communist (totalitarian) States.  The first plank calls for “Abolition of property in land and application of all rents in land to public purposes.”

But the Manifesto was even more explicit re the importance of targeting private property to the socialist/Communist movement.  According to the Manifesto, “the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: abolition of private property.”

That goal has been adopted by all varieties of collectivists: communists, socialists, fascists.  The leaders of the most the most ruthless and bloody totalitarian regimes of the past century (e.g., Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot) implemented that program with a vengeance.  In so doing, they liquidated millions.

Many great minds rejected that agenda and explained why the right to private property provides essential support for freedom.  Justice Joseph Story, whom President James Madison appointed to the Supreme Court, argued:  “That  government can scarcely be deemed to be free when the rights of property are left solely dependent upon the will of a legislative body, without any restraint. The fundamental maxims of a free government seem to require that the rights of personal liberty and private property should be held sacred.”

More recently, in his 1944 classic The Road to Serfdom, economist Friedrich A. Hayek wrote:  “What our generation has forgotten is that the system of private property is the most important guaranty of freedom, not only for those who own property, but scarcely less for those who do not. It is only because the control of the means of production is divided among many people acting independently that nobody has complete power over us, that we as individuals can decide what to do with ourselves.”

So it’s easy to see why would-be totalitarians target private property.

Radicals convene at Rio
It recent decades, socialists and Communists, with Establishment and Internationalist support, have championed that goal under the masquerade of environmentalism and conservation.  (Recounting their various schemes to eviscerate property rights could easily fill books.  So here we highlight just a few of the developments.)

We will start by looking at the UN’s 1992 Earth Summit in Rio.  Rio brought together socialist and Communist leaders (UN members) from around the world (plus U.S. Internationalists) to forge a totalitarian agenda under the pretext of saving the planet from environmental catastrophe.  In particular, the Summit gave us Agenda 21, a massive environmental manifesto.  We cite two of its statements:

• “All countries should undertake a comprehensive national inventory of their land resources in order to establish a system in which land will be classified according to its most appropriate uses….”
• “All countries should also develop national land-management plans to guide development.”

Agenda 21 was far from the only environmentalist “fruit” from Rio. The Global Biodiversity Assessment (GBA) also crossed swords with the rights of property.

The Rio Earth Summit took place during the administration of George H.W. Bush (the senior), a former Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) director and Trilateral Commission member.  His main representative at the Earth Summit was EPA Administrator William Reilly, also CFR.  Previously, Reilly had served as executive director of a land-use task force chaired by Laurance S. Rockefeller. (Of course, the task force promoted land-use controls and expropriation.)

More examples of the attack
In 1991, Congress was considering the Northern Forest Lands Act.  The Act would have empowered a Northern Forest Lands Council to exercise “greenlining authority” over 26 million acres in Northern New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine.  At stake were the homes, property and livelihood of one million people.  Thankfully, the measure was scrapped as a result of strong informed grassroots opposition.

 In November 1991, leading up to Rio, Reed Noss and Dave Foreman launched the Wildlands Project.  Reed Noss was an environmental journalist and Dave Forman the leader of the radical Earth First!  Their Wildlands Project was based on a brainchild of the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the foundation-funded environmental lobbyist community. The Wildlands Project proposed “re-wilding” literally half of the U.S. land area.

In the January/February 1974 issue of The Center magazine, Tom McCall, governor of Oregon at the time, wrote approvingly:

The Rockefeller Task Force on Land Use … has said that, beginning now, development rights on private property must be regarded as being vested in the community and its well being rather than the fact of ownership.

Constitutionality
The Constitution does authorize Congress (Article 1, Section 8) to acquire land, with the consent of the state in which the land is located, “for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings.”  But the Great American Outdoors Act passed by the Senate violates that provision by not requiring the consent of the state.

It is well also to recall the 9th and 10 amendments to the Constitution, part of the Bill of Rights.  They affirm that rights not specifically delegated to the federal government are retained by the States or the people.

America’s Founding Fathers never intended for the federal government to become a gigantic landowner.  Yet despite clear intent, the federal government is a major landholder in the 13 western states.  And land grab schemes, for which there is no constitutional authorization, have targeted the other states.

Excerpts from the Congressional Record (7-22-20) [Emphasis added]:

Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah 01), Ranking Member House Committee on Natural Resources:
“Let’s get a couple of things very clear.  First of all, this is not about the Land and Water Conservation Fund. We reauthorized permanently the Land and Water Conservation Fund in the last Congress, and in doing that, in a House Republican bill, I might add, we took the State-side projects–these are the kinds of things like easements and picnic grounds and roads and parks that your constituents are all telling you that they like, those are called the State-side projects–and we actually increased the funding for those programs.

“We also put in that act a limitation on the amount of money that could be used to buy more land. This bill is about that concept, the limitation of land acquisition. The special interest groups have been putting pressure on you and are giving you misinformation about this particular thing. They simply want to circumvent the limits that were pushed in that bill that was there earlier.

Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-WA 04):
“Mr. Speaker, the hunters and anglers, farmers and ranchers, and hikers and recreationists of central Washington are passionate advocates for access to public lands.

“I strongly stand behind my constituents in supporting the restoration of our national parks, our public lands, and Federal infrastructure. That is why I am proud to cosponsor the Restore Our Parks and Public Lands Act to address our country’s deferred maintenance backlog in those areas. If that bill were brought to the floor before us today, I would be a resounding ‘yes.’

“Unfortunately, that is not the bill that we are debating here this afternoon. So while I agree with many provisions within the Great American Outdoors Act, I fear that the sweeping nature of this legislation will have unintended consequences for rural communities like mine in Washington’s Fourth District….

“We have already determined the Federal Government’s culpability in creating a $20 billion maintenance backlog problem on our public lands. So the response is to permanently spend $900 million a year, most of which will be spent on what? Get this, Mr. Speaker: purchasing more Federal land.

“The farmers, ranchers, and hardworking men and women of my district support local management and control of our lands. We have seen firsthand the delinquency of the Federal Government, and I think we should work to continue to support our national parks but vote this bill down.”

Rep. Kevin Hern (R-OK 01), Member House Committee on Natural Resources:
“Mr. Speaker, in the wake of a global pandemic unlike anything we have seen in our lifetime, we have spent unprecedented amounts of money this year. We have already saddled the next generation with unthinkable debt. Digging our way out of this hole is going to take time and targeted effort. We cannot continue to spend as if our debts don’t exist.

“This legislation needlessly increases the deficit. The Land and Water Conservation Fund, which is already incredibly well-funded, does not need an additional $900 million a year in perpetuity. With immediate health needs and economic recovery our top priorities, increasing the Federal real estate holding shouldn’t be on anyone’s to-do list.

“A recent report showed that 40 percent of LWCF funds went to projects that failed to advance any agency objectives. The oversight and accountability of the fund is laughable, but this bill seeks to exacerbate the lack of transparency by removing elected officials from the situation altogether and handing unilateral power to political appointees and unelected bureaucrats.

“There are more productive ways that we should spend our time this week, and I urge my colleagues to vote ‘no’ on this bill.”

Rep. Cedric L. Richmond (D-LA 02), member House Committee on the Judiciary:
“Mr. Speaker, let me say that the goal of the bill is positive, but how it is achieved is just flat wrong.

“To pay for this legislation, what we do is go straight to Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas and take $1.9 billion a year of potential revenue to those States to uplift their people to pay for this bill.

Rep. Garrett Graves (D-LA 06), Member House Committee on Natural Resources:
“I have been sitting here listening to this debate over the last several minutes, and I have no idea what planet people are on right now.

“There is a global pandemic right now. What this legislation does is it takes everything else and puts it on the back burner. That is right. Unemployment assistance goes behind this; job opportunities go behind this; improving our schools and getting our kids actually educated go behind this; medical care for our seniors goes behind this because this is mandatory spending.

“Mr. Speaker, I have heard Members sit here and say that we have a $20 billion maintenance backlog. Do you know why that is? Because we failed to appropriate the money because we have determined it is not a priority in the appropriations process.

“Why are we now stepping in and circumventing that whole process again, Mr. Speaker, in the middle of a pandemic to determine that this is the greatest priority?

“Mr. Speaker, let me give you an analogy of what this bill really does. This is like someone going over to their neighbor’s house, taking their credit card, and going out there and using that credit card to get a new address sign in their front yard and maybe to get a new coating of paint on their house. Meanwhile, that person who took the credit card has multiple cars and has an expansive real estate holding and never thought once about their own financial situation but instead took the credit card of their neighbor who is maybe up to their neck in medical bills because their spouse is on their deathbed. That is what this bill does.

“I have heard people say: ‘Well, oh, this is not taxpayers’ money.’

“Whose money is this? What dream world are you living in? This absolutely is funds that are taxpayer funds.

“‘Oh, but it comes from energy revenues.’

“Where do those go? They go into the general treasury. This isn’t excess money. This isn’t some money tree.

“Mr. Speaker, let me tell you about one of the most offensive things about this bill that my friend Cedric Richmond, Congressman Richmond, talked about. And he tried to address this in committee by proposing a bipartisan amendment with Congresswoman Sewell, with Congressman Bennie Thompson, with Congressman Scalise, with myself, and others, a bipartisan amendment to fix this.

“Virtually all of the money that this bill is spending comes from energy production off the coast of Louisiana. This bill, as many have said, this goes on in perpetuity. In 5 years, we are spending $1 billion a year; in 10 years, $1 billion a year; in 50 years, $1 billion a year; in 100 years, $1 billion a year.

“Mr. Speaker, do you realize that today 28 percent of this country is owned by the Federal Government–28 percent?

“The sensible thing to do is to look at those assets, determine which of, for example, the nearly 75,000 different National Park’s units and assets still make sense today. You just heard my friend talk about how 40 percent of these funds historically have been used for projects that don’t advance the mission of the very agency they are supposed to be advancing.

“This is a tone-deaf piece of legislation. It is mandatory spending. It is putting this as a higher priority than everything else, including that we are in a global pandemic. We have record unemployment.

“Whose idea was it to do this? This is absolutely crazy.

“Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to this legislation. I urge common sense, and I urge that we sit down and actually address some of the priorities.”

Rep. Russ Fulcher (R-Idaho 01), Member House Committee on Natural Resources:
“Currently, about two-thirds of Idaho’s land mass is controlled by the Federal Government. That means less property tax, more D.C. bureaucracy, reliance on grant programs like Secure Rural Schools, Payments in Lieu of Taxes, and the ramifications of associated strings inevitably attached.

“I am also concerned about our growing national debt, now over $24 trillion. And while I appreciate that this bill utilizes revenue streams from future oil and gas receipts, it is still ultimately taxpayer money. That authorizes permanent funding, and any time there is permanent funding, that also raises a red flag.

“Mr. Speaker, to be a wise steward of the people’s money, Congress should regularly reevaluate programs that it funds, not automatically renew appropriations.”

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif. 12), Speaker of the House:
“Mr. Speaker, as a Californian, as an American, as Speaker of the House, I proudly rise in support of the Great American Outdoors Act, one of the most important conservation and public lands bills in decades.

“This legislation builds on the progress made here by House Democrats and others earlier in our majority when we passed the John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act, named for our former colleague, a fitting testament to Chairman Dingell’s legacy, which made permanent the authorization for the Land and Water Conservation Fund….

“House Democrats are proud to pass this bill and send it on to the President’s desk. We hope to do so in the strongest possible bipartisan way, as it passed the United States Senate.”

Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz. 04), Member House Committee on Natural Resources:
“Mr. Speaker, today is a very swampy day, and I am not talking about the weather. Today, Congress will pass a bill that is, frankly, a demonstration of everything that is wrong with Washington.

“The Great American Outdoors Act is a product of special interests, written not by committees, but in back rooms, full of special interest provisions, and now being forced through this Chamber without the opportunity for us to amend it.

“This is permanent legislation, yet we can’t take an extra hour in the House to consider amendments to make this legislation better? Why? Because the special interests that have paid nearly $100 million in lobbying can’t be denied another day from their victory. Well, I guess they got what they bought.”

Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif. 04), Member House Committee on Natural Resources:
“Mr. Speaker, I represent the Sierra Nevada of California. Yosemite Valley, Sequoia and Kings Canyon, and Lake Tahoe are all within my district.

“The Yosemite Land Grant Act signed by President Lincoln in 1864 was the first time the Federal Government set aside land for ‘public use, resort, and recreation . . . for all time.’

“Today, the Federal estate has grown to 640 million acres. That is 28 percent of the land area of our Nation. While the Federal Government owns just seven-tenths of 1 percent of New York State and 1.8 percent of Texas, it owns 46 percent of my home State of California and 93 percent of Alpine County in my district.

“Now, we in the Sierra revere our public lands, and we are proud to share them with the world. But the Federal Government now holds far more land than it can take care of. The Federal lands now face a $20 billion backlog of deferred maintenance, which makes tourism less desirable.

“Now, this is all land that is off the local tax rolls, denying our local governments vital revenues. Federal restrictions on productive use of these lands has devastated local economies and, worst of all, the Federal Government has utterly neglected the management of our forests to the point that they have become morbidly overgrown and now present a constant threat of catastrophic fire.

“Now, shouldn’t we take care of the land we already hold before we acquire still more land? And when we have already taken two-thirds of Alaska and Utah and four-fifths of Nevada, shouldn’t we pause and ask for some balance around the country?

“Now, this measure does provide enough money over the next 5 years to address about half of our current deferred maintenance needs, and that is very good. But then that funding disappears, and we are left with locked-in, billion-dollar-a-year mandatory spending in perpetuity for new land acquisitions placed outside of Congress’ control, while removing the requirement that future acquisitions be focused where the Federal Government owns very little land.

“It means that unelected bureaucrats will have a billion-dollar-a-year slush fund to take private property off the tax rolls with no accountability to our local communities, no provisions for long-term maintenance, and no reforms to protect our people from the scourge of wildfire produced by the continuing neglect of our Federal forests.”

Rep. Garrett Graves (D-LA 06), Member House Committee on Natural Resources:
“Mr. Speaker, I want to introduce another dose of reality, something you have not heard many folks talk about today.

“Where is this money coming from? How are we paying for this initially–what is it?–$1.9 or $2.9 billion a year in mandatory spending?

“This is coming from offshore energy revenues. That is where the majority of these moneys are coming from, from oil and gas production. I want to be clear: from oil and gas production.

“Now, the majority at the same time and in the same breath is taking step after step to decimate or eliminate the domestic energy industry, therefore not making us get oil and gas from the United States but getting it from places like Russia, as we have seen over and over again when these drastic policies have been put forth.

“Now, Mr. Speaker, the other thing is, any time you have energy revenues like this produced on Federal land under the Mineral Leasing Act, 50 percent of the money goes to those States that host that production, and they can use it for whatever they want. They can use it for whatever they want to use it for.

“In this case, the Gulf States, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Texas, we get about 4 percent right now.

“So, Mr. Speaker, I have a question. I have a question for my friends on the majority. Can they tell me what they are going to say to the residents of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida next time we have a huge hurricane come through because you have refused, under the bipartisan amendment that the Congressional Black Caucus and others advocated, you have refused to allow for a larger percentage of money to be invested back in the resilience of this ecosystem, the resilience of these communities?

“Tell me what you are going to say to them whenever we have another Hurricane Katrina, Rita, Gustav, Ike, Harvey, Irma, Maria, Michael, Florence. Tell me what you are going to say to them because you are taking their money, and you are spending it in other places, and you are saying this is for the environment, these environmental groups out there advocating for this, when it is a greater environmental investment to make it in the Gulf.

“Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to the bill.

“Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record statements from the U.S. Farm Bureau Association and the Cattlemen’s Association in opposition to this, from the American Energy Alliance in opposition to this, as well as the CRS report that analyzes from whence this money comes, whence it is going, and how much we probably won’t have in the future.

Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah 01), Ranking Member House Committee on Natural Resources:
“Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

“We have heard all sorts of platitudes about this bill today. Whether it passes or not is actually irrelevant. It is not bipartisan, and it has all sorts of flaws. There are questions about the future source of funding.

“We have heard speaker after speaker come up and say: We are not talking about taxpayers’ money. This is only royalties that are off there.

“One of the problems we have to face is that all the royalties that come from offshore development and onshore development from energy and gas, those royalties are placed in the general fund. In fact, the second largest source of funds that go into the general fund is from these royalties, second only to the IRS taxes that go in there. If these revenues weren’t deposited in LWCF, they would be deposited in the general fund of the U.S. Treasury. If that is not taxpayer money, I don’t know what is.

“We have talked about the need for, actually, urban recreation areas. We would like to do it, but unfortunately, this bill diminishes that opportunity and puts it in limbo, which is not good.

“I have heard speaker after speaker come up here with pretty pictures about our national parks, reservation lands, BLM land, resource lands, all these things that need to be helped. A lot of them talked about all the wonderful programs that are on State lands, that are parks, roads, picnic areas, and all those things which we are already doing.

“When we permanently reauthorized the LWCF last Congress, that is when we put more money into those types of things everyone says is wonderful.

“What we didn’t put more money into is buying Federal land, buying more land to put into the Federal estate. As everyone talks about how important it is actually to now start putting money into park maintenance, into maintenance of the backlog, what this bill does is put that at the very lowest rung on priorities of where this royalty money is spent.

“You will spend it first on GOMESA. You will send it to the States. It will go to historic preservation. You will spend it on buying up more land before you ever come to anything that helps the parks and helps the public lands. That is because we have disproportionately done this.

“This bill is not about funding our public lands. This bill is about circumventing the limitations that we put in in the last Congress on buying more land. The only thing this bill is about is how we can find another way to buy more property.

“We can’t even afford the property we already have. There is a $20 billion maintenance backlog. But what this is attempting to do is find a way to put more money into buying more land so we can exacerbate that problem.

“Now, you can say all you want to about how wonderful it is, how good it is, and, I am sorry, most of those platitudes were misstated. They were talking about things that either already exist or are actually being de-emphasized by this particular bill.

“What this bill is about is: Are you going to put more money into buying more land before you put more money into actually maintaining the land we already have? That is really the only issue of this bill, and that is why we are fighting this strongly about it.

“Last year, when we did the Dingell Act, that was bipartisan. We had worked together to come up with a lot of bipartisan stuff. This was not a bipartisan bill. Mr. Kilmer, I appreciated his work with me on the parks. That was bipartisan. This is not bipartisan. It is still about how do we buy more land. That is the goal of this piece of legislation.

“Mr. Speaker, I urge a ‘no’ vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.”

Congressional Research Service Summary for S. 3422 (which replaced H.R. 1957 thru amendment): 
Shown Here:
House agreed to Senate amendment (07/22/2020)

Great American Outdoors Act

This bill establishes the National Parks and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund to support deferred maintenance projects on federal lands.

For FY2021-FY2025, there shall be deposited into the fund an amount equal to 50% of energy development revenues credited, covered, or deposited as miscellaneous receipts from oil, gas, coal, or alternative or renewable energy development on federal lands and waters. Deposited amounts must not exceed $1.9 billion for any fiscal year.

The fund must be used for priority deferred maintenance projects in specified systems that are administered by

the National Park Service,

the Forest Service,

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

the Bureau of Land Management, and

the Bureau of Indian Education.

The Government Accountability Office must report on the effect of the fund in reducing the backlog of priority deferred maintenance projects for the specified agencies.

Additionally, the bill makes funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) permanent. The President shall annually report to Congress specified details regarding the allocation of funds to the LWCF. Congress may provide for alternate allocations using specified procedures.

Analysis:  According to Senator Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), the bill’s sponsor: “The Great American Outdoors Act combines two pieces of legislation:  the crown jewel of our conservation programs across the Nation, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and the Restore Our Parks Act. The  Restore Our Parks Act focuses on the catching up with the maintenance backlog in our national park systems.”

Our primary focus will be on the Gardner “crown jewel,” the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), which enables the Federal government to purchase land.  The fund was originally established in 1965 and reauthorized last year by Congress (see Senate Vote 22 on S. 47,  National Resources Management Act, officially titled as the “John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act”).  President Trump signed the “National Resources Act” into law on 3-12-19.

The National Resources Act provided permanent authorization of the deposit provisions of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which the Sierra Club claimed “may be the most important federal conservation program that you’ve never heard of.”  This year’s Great American Outdoors Act would permanently fund the LWCF at $900 million per year.

Subversive objective
What is not advertised, however, is the underlying subversive campaign that the Land and Water Conservation fund supports and the forces behind the campaign.  To understand the campaign, we need to review a little history (a book could be written).

In 1848, Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto as a program for Communists and socialists.   In it, he listed ten planks that were designed to transform the most advanced countries into Communist (totalitarian) States.  The first plank calls for “Abolition of property in land and application of all rents in land to public purposes.”

But the Manifesto was even more explicit re the importance of targeting private property to the socialist/Communist movement.  According to the Manifesto, “the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: abolition of private property.”

That goal has been adopted by all varieties of collectivists: communists, socialists, fascists.  The leaders of the most the most ruthless and bloody totalitarian regimes of the past century (e.g., Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot) implemented that program with a vengeance.  In so doing, they liquidated millions.

Many great minds rejected that agenda and explained why the right to private property provides essential support for freedom.  Justice Joseph Story, whom President James Madison appointed to the Supreme Court, argued:  “That  government can scarcely be deemed to be free when the rights of property are left solely dependent upon the will of a legislative body, without any restraint. The fundamental maxims of a free government seem to require that the rights of personal liberty and private property should be held sacred.”

More recently, in his 1944 classic The Road to Serfdom, economist Friedrich A. Hayek wrote:  “What our generation has forgotten is that the system of private property is the most important guaranty of freedom, not only for those who own property, but scarcely less for those who do not. It is only because the control of the means of production is divided among many people acting independently that nobody has complete power over us, that we as individuals can decide what to do with ourselves.”

So it’s easy to see why would-be totalitarians target private property.

Radicals convene at Rio
It recent decades, socialists and Communists, with Establishment and Internationalist support, have championed that goal under the masquerade of environmentalism and conservation.  (Recounting their various schemes to eviscerate property rights could easily fill books.  So here we highlight just a few of the developments.)

We will start by looking at the UN’s 1992 Earth Summit in Rio.  Rio brought together socialist and Communist leaders (UN members) from around the world (plus U.S. Internationalists) to forge a totalitarian agenda under the pretext of saving the planet from environmental catastrophe.  In particular, the Summit gave us Agenda 21, a massive environmental manifesto.  We cite two of its statements:

• “All countries should undertake a comprehensive national inventory of their land resources in order to establish a system in which land will be classified according to its most appropriate uses….”
• “All countries should also develop national land-management plans to guide development.”

Agenda 21 was far from the only environmentalist “fruit” from Rio. The Global Biodiversity Assessment (GBA) also crossed swords with the rights of property.

The Rio Earth Summit took place during the administration of George H.W. Bush (the senior), a former Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) director and Trilateral Commission member.  His main representative at the Earth Summit was EPA Administrator William Reilly, also CFR.  Previously, Reilly had served as executive director of a land-use task force chaired by Laurance S. Rockefeller. (Of course, the task force promoted land-use controls and expropriation.)

More examples of the attack
In 1991, Congress was considering the Northern Forest Lands Act.  The Act would have empowered a Northern Forest Lands Council to exercise “greenlining authority” over 26 million acres in Northern New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine.  At stake were the homes, property and livelihood of one million people.  Thankfully, the measure was scrapped as a result of strong informed grassroots opposition.

 In November 1991, leading up to Rio, Reed Noss and Dave Foreman launched the Wildlands Project.  Reed Noss was an environmental journalist and Dave Forman the leader of the radical Earth First!  Their Wildlands Project was based on a brainchild of the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the foundation-funded environmental lobbyist community. The Wildlands Project proposed “re-wilding” literally half of the U.S. land area.

In the January/February 1974 issue of The Center magazine, Tom McCall, governor of Oregon at the time, wrote approvingly:

The Rockefeller Task Force on Land Use … has said that, beginning now, development rights on private property must be regarded as being vested in the community and its well being rather than the fact of ownership.

Constitutionality
The Constitution does authorize Congress (Article 1, Section 8) to acquire land, with the consent of the state in which the land is located, “for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings.”  But the Great American Outdoors Act passed by the Senate violates that provision by not requiring the consent of the state.

It is well also to recall the 9th and 10 amendments to the Constitution, part of the Bill of Rights.  They affirm that rights not specifically delegated to the federal government are retained by the States or the people.

America’s Founding Fathers never intended for the federal government to become a gigantic landowner.  Yet despite clear intent, the federal government is a major landholder in the 13 western states.  And land grab schemes, for which there is no constitutional authorization, have targeted the other states.

Excerpts from the Congressional Record (7-22-20) [Emphasis added]:

Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah 01), Ranking Member House Committee on Natural Resources:
“Let’s get a couple of things very clear.  First of all, this is not about the Land and Water Conservation Fund. We reauthorized permanently the Land and Water Conservation Fund in the last Congress, and in doing that, in a House Republican bill, I might add, we took the State-side projects–these are the kinds of things like easements and picnic grounds and roads and parks that your constituents are all telling you that they like, those are called the State-side projects–and we actually increased the funding for those programs.

“We also put in that act a limitation on the amount of money that could be used to buy more land. This bill is about that concept, the limitation of land acquisition. The special interest groups have been putting pressure on you and are giving you misinformation about this particular thing. They simply want to circumvent the limits that were pushed in that bill that was there earlier.

Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-WA 04):
“Mr. Speaker, the hunters and anglers, farmers and ranchers, and hikers and recreationists of central Washington are passionate advocates for access to public lands.

“I strongly stand behind my constituents in supporting the restoration of our national parks, our public lands, and Federal infrastructure. That is why I am proud to cosponsor the Restore Our Parks and Public Lands Act to address our country’s deferred maintenance backlog in those areas. If that bill were brought to the floor before us today, I would be a resounding ‘yes.’

“Unfortunately, that is not the bill that we are debating here this afternoon. So while I agree with many provisions within the Great American Outdoors Act, I fear that the sweeping nature of this legislation will have unintended consequences for rural communities like mine in Washington’s Fourth District….

“We have already determined the Federal Government’s culpability in creating a $20 billion maintenance backlog problem on our public lands. So the response is to permanently spend $900 million a year, most of which will be spent on what? Get this, Mr. Speaker: purchasing more Federal land.

“The farmers, ranchers, and hardworking men and women of my district support local management and control of our lands. We have seen firsthand the delinquency of the Federal Government, and I think we should work to continue to support our national parks but vote this bill down.”

Rep. Kevin Hern (R-OK 01), Member House Committee on Natural Resources:
“Mr. Speaker, in the wake of a global pandemic unlike anything we have seen in our lifetime, we have spent unprecedented amounts of money this year. We have already saddled the next generation with unthinkable debt. Digging our way out of this hole is going to take time and targeted effort. We cannot continue to spend as if our debts don’t exist.

“This legislation needlessly increases the deficit. The Land and Water Conservation Fund, which is already incredibly well-funded, does not need an additional $900 million a year in perpetuity. With immediate health needs and economic recovery our top priorities, increasing the Federal real estate holding shouldn’t be on anyone’s to-do list.

“A recent report showed that 40 percent of LWCF funds went to projects that failed to advance any agency objectives. The oversight and accountability of the fund is laughable, but this bill seeks to exacerbate the lack of transparency by removing elected officials from the situation altogether and handing unilateral power to political appointees and unelected bureaucrats.

“There are more productive ways that we should spend our time this week, and I urge my colleagues to vote ‘no’ on this bill.”

Rep. Cedric L. Richmond (D-LA 02), member House Committee on the Judiciary:
“Mr. Speaker, let me say that the goal of the bill is positive, but how it is achieved is just flat wrong.

“To pay for this legislation, what we do is go straight to Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas and take $1.9 billion a year of potential revenue to those States to uplift their people to pay for this bill.

Rep. Garrett Graves (D-LA 06), Member House Committee on Natural Resources:
“I have been sitting here listening to this debate over the last several minutes, and I have no idea what planet people are on right now.

“There is a global pandemic right now. What this legislation does is it takes everything else and puts it on the back burner. That is right. Unemployment assistance goes behind this; job opportunities go behind this; improving our schools and getting our kids actually educated go behind this; medical care for our seniors goes behind this because this is mandatory spending.

“Mr. Speaker, I have heard Members sit here and say that we have a $20 billion maintenance backlog. Do you know why that is? Because we failed to appropriate the money because we have determined it is not a priority in the appropriations process.

“Why are we now stepping in and circumventing that whole process again, Mr. Speaker, in the middle of a pandemic to determine that this is the greatest priority?

“Mr. Speaker, let me give you an analogy of what this bill really does. This is like someone going over to their neighbor’s house, taking their credit card, and going out there and using that credit card to get a new address sign in their front yard and maybe to get a new coating of paint on their house. Meanwhile, that person who took the credit card has multiple cars and has an expansive real estate holding and never thought once about their own financial situation but instead took the credit card of their neighbor who is maybe up to their neck in medical bills because their spouse is on their deathbed. That is what this bill does.

“I have heard people say: ‘Well, oh, this is not taxpayers’ money.’

“Whose money is this? What dream world are you living in? This absolutely is funds that are taxpayer funds.

“‘Oh, but it comes from energy revenues.’

“Where do those go? They go into the general treasury. This isn’t excess money. This isn’t some money tree.

“Mr. Speaker, let me tell you about one of the most offensive things about this bill that my friend Cedric Richmond, Congressman Richmond, talked about. And he tried to address this in committee by proposing a bipartisan amendment with Congresswoman Sewell, with Congressman Bennie Thompson, with Congressman Scalise, with myself, and others, a bipartisan amendment to fix this.

“Virtually all of the money that this bill is spending comes from energy production off the coast of Louisiana. This bill, as many have said, this goes on in perpetuity. In 5 years, we are spending $1 billion a year; in 10 years, $1 billion a year; in 50 years, $1 billion a year; in 100 years, $1 billion a year.

“Mr. Speaker, do you realize that today 28 percent of this country is owned by the Federal Government–28 percent?

“The sensible thing to do is to look at those assets, determine which of, for example, the nearly 75,000 different National Park’s units and assets still make sense today. You just heard my friend talk about how 40 percent of these funds historically have been used for projects that don’t advance the mission of the very agency they are supposed to be advancing.

“This is a tone-deaf piece of legislation. It is mandatory spending. It is putting this as a higher priority than everything else, including that we are in a global pandemic. We have record unemployment.

“Whose idea was it to do this? This is absolutely crazy.

“Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to this legislation. I urge common sense, and I urge that we sit down and actually address some of the priorities.”

Rep. Russ Fulcher (R-Idaho 01), Member House Committee on Natural Resources:
“Currently, about two-thirds of Idaho’s land mass is controlled by the Federal Government. That means less property tax, more D.C. bureaucracy, reliance on grant programs like Secure Rural Schools, Payments in Lieu of Taxes, and the ramifications of associated strings inevitably attached.

“I am also concerned about our growing national debt, now over $24 trillion. And while I appreciate that this bill utilizes revenue streams from future oil and gas receipts, it is still ultimately taxpayer money. That authorizes permanent funding, and any time there is permanent funding, that also raises a red flag.

“Mr. Speaker, to be a wise steward of the people’s money, Congress should regularly reevaluate programs that it funds, not automatically renew appropriations.”

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif. 12), Speaker of the House:
“Mr. Speaker, as a Californian, as an American, as Speaker of the House, I proudly rise in support of the Great American Outdoors Act, one of the most important conservation and public lands bills in decades.

“This legislation builds on the progress made here by House Democrats and others earlier in our majority when we passed the John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act, named for our former colleague, a fitting testament to Chairman Dingell’s legacy, which made permanent the authorization for the Land and Water Conservation Fund….

“House Democrats are proud to pass this bill and send it on to the President’s desk. We hope to do so in the strongest possible bipartisan way, as it passed the United States Senate.”

Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz. 04), Member House Committee on Natural Resources:
“Mr. Speaker, today is a very swampy day, and I am not talking about the weather. Today, Congress will pass a bill that is, frankly, a demonstration of everything that is wrong with Washington.

“The Great American Outdoors Act is a product of special interests, written not by committees, but in back rooms, full of special interest provisions, and now being forced through this Chamber without the opportunity for us to amend it.

“This is permanent legislation, yet we can’t take an extra hour in the House to consider amendments to make this legislation better? Why? Because the special interests that have paid nearly $100 million in lobbying can’t be denied another day from their victory. Well, I guess they got what they bought.”

Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif. 04), Member House Committee on Natural Resources:
“Mr. Speaker, I represent the Sierra Nevada of California. Yosemite Valley, Sequoia and Kings Canyon, and Lake Tahoe are all within my district.

“The Yosemite Land Grant Act signed by President Lincoln in 1864 was the first time the Federal Government set aside land for ‘public use, resort, and recreation . . . for all time.’

“Today, the Federal estate has grown to 640 million acres. That is 28 percent of the land area of our Nation. While the Federal Government owns just seven-tenths of 1 percent of New York State and 1.8 percent of Texas, it owns 46 percent of my home State of California and 93 percent of Alpine County in my district.

“Now, we in the Sierra revere our public lands, and we are proud to share them with the world. But the Federal Government now holds far more land than it can take care of. The Federal lands now face a $20 billion backlog of deferred maintenance, which makes tourism less desirable.

“Now, this is all land that is off the local tax rolls, denying our local governments vital revenues. Federal restrictions on productive use of these lands has devastated local economies and, worst of all, the Federal Government has utterly neglected the management of our forests to the point that they have become morbidly overgrown and now present a constant threat of catastrophic fire.

“Now, shouldn’t we take care of the land we already hold before we acquire still more land? And when we have already taken two-thirds of Alaska and Utah and four-fifths of Nevada, shouldn’t we pause and ask for some balance around the country?

“Now, this measure does provide enough money over the next 5 years to address about half of our current deferred maintenance needs, and that is very good. But then that funding disappears, and we are left with locked-in, billion-dollar-a-year mandatory spending in perpetuity for new land acquisitions placed outside of Congress’ control, while removing the requirement that future acquisitions be focused where the Federal Government owns very little land.

“It means that unelected bureaucrats will have a billion-dollar-a-year slush fund to take private property off the tax rolls with no accountability to our local communities, no provisions for long-term maintenance, and no reforms to protect our people from the scourge of wildfire produced by the continuing neglect of our Federal forests.”

Rep. Garrett Graves (D-LA 06), Member House Committee on Natural Resources:
“Mr. Speaker, I want to introduce another dose of reality, something you have not heard many folks talk about today.

“Where is this money coming from? How are we paying for this initially–what is it?–$1.9 or $2.9 billion a year in mandatory spending?

“This is coming from offshore energy revenues. That is where the majority of these moneys are coming from, from oil and gas production. I want to be clear: from oil and gas production.

“Now, the majority at the same time and in the same breath is taking step after step to decimate or eliminate the domestic energy industry, therefore not making us get oil and gas from the United States but getting it from places like Russia, as we have seen over and over again when these drastic policies have been put forth.

“Now, Mr. Speaker, the other thing is, any time you have energy revenues like this produced on Federal land under the Mineral Leasing Act, 50 percent of the money goes to those States that host that production, and they can use it for whatever they want. They can use it for whatever they want to use it for.

“In this case, the Gulf States, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Texas, we get about 4 percent right now.

“So, Mr. Speaker, I have a question. I have a question for my friends on the majority. Can they tell me what they are going to say to the residents of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida next time we have a huge hurricane come through because you have refused, under the bipartisan amendment that the Congressional Black Caucus and others advocated, you have refused to allow for a larger percentage of money to be invested back in the resilience of this ecosystem, the resilience of these communities?

“Tell me what you are going to say to them whenever we have another Hurricane Katrina, Rita, Gustav, Ike, Harvey, Irma, Maria, Michael, Florence. Tell me what you are going to say to them because you are taking their money, and you are spending it in other places, and you are saying this is for the environment, these environmental groups out there advocating for this, when it is a greater environmental investment to make it in the Gulf.

“Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to the bill.

“Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record statements from the U.S. Farm Bureau Association and the Cattlemen’s Association in opposition to this, from the American Energy Alliance in opposition to this, as well as the CRS report that analyzes from whence this money comes, whence it is going, and how much we probably won’t have in the future.

Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah 01), Ranking Member House Committee on Natural Resources:
“Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

“We have heard all sorts of platitudes about this bill today. Whether it passes or not is actually irrelevant. It is not bipartisan, and it has all sorts of flaws. There are questions about the future source of funding.

“We have heard speaker after speaker come up and say: We are not talking about taxpayers’ money. This is only royalties that are off there.

“One of the problems we have to face is that all the royalties that come from offshore development and onshore development from energy and gas, those royalties are placed in the general fund. In fact, the second largest source of funds that go into the general fund is from these royalties, second only to the IRS taxes that go in there. If these revenues weren’t deposited in LWCF, they would be deposited in the general fund of the U.S. Treasury. If that is not taxpayer money, I don’t know what is.

“We have talked about the need for, actually, urban recreation areas. We would like to do it, but unfortunately, this bill diminishes that opportunity and puts it in limbo, which is not good.

“I have heard speaker after speaker come up here with pretty pictures about our national parks, reservation lands, BLM land, resource lands, all these things that need to be helped. A lot of them talked about all the wonderful programs that are on State lands, that are parks, roads, picnic areas, and all those things which we are already doing.

“When we permanently reauthorized the LWCF last Congress, that is when we put more money into those types of things everyone says is wonderful.

“What we didn’t put more money into is buying Federal land, buying more land to put into the Federal estate. As everyone talks about how important it is actually to now start putting money into park maintenance, into maintenance of the backlog, what this bill does is put that at the very lowest rung on priorities of where this royalty money is spent.

“You will spend it first on GOMESA. You will send it to the States. It will go to historic preservation. You will spend it on buying up more land before you ever come to anything that helps the parks and helps the public lands. That is because we have disproportionately done this.

“This bill is not about funding our public lands. This bill is about circumventing the limitations that we put in in the last Congress on buying more land. The only thing this bill is about is how we can find another way to buy more property.

“We can’t even afford the property we already have. There is a $20 billion maintenance backlog. But what this is attempting to do is find a way to put more money into buying more land so we can exacerbate that problem.

“Now, you can say all you want to about how wonderful it is, how good it is, and, I am sorry, most of those platitudes were misstated. They were talking about things that either already exist or are actually being de-emphasized by this particular bill.

“What this bill is about is: Are you going to put more money into buying more land before you put more money into actually maintaining the land we already have? That is really the only issue of this bill, and that is why we are fighting this strongly about it.

“Last year, when we did the Dingell Act, that was bipartisan. We had worked together to come up with a lot of bipartisan stuff. This was not a bipartisan bill. Mr. Kilmer, I appreciated his work with me on the parks. That was bipartisan. This is not bipartisan. It is still about how do we buy more land. That is the goal of this piece of legislation.

“Mr. Speaker, I urge a ‘no’ vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.”

Congressional Research Service Summary for S. 3422 (which replaced H.R. 1957 thru amendment): 

Shown Here:
Introduced in Senate (03/09/2020)

Great American Outdoors Act

This bill establishes the National Parks and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund to support deferred maintenance projects on federal lands.

For FY2021-FY2025, there shall be deposited into the fund an amount equal to 50% of all federal revenues from the development of oil, gas, coal, or alternative or renewable energy on federal lands and waters. Deposited amounts must not exceed $1.9 billion for any fiscal year.

The fund must be used for priority deferred maintenance projects in specified systems that are administered by

• the National Park Service,
• the Forest Service,
• the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
• the Bureau of Land Management, and
• the Bureau of Indian Education.

The Government Accountability Office must report on the effect of the fund in reducing the backlog of priority deferred maintenance projects for the specified agencies.

Additionally, the bill makes funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) permanent. The President shall annually report to Congress specified details regarding the allocation of funds to the LWCF. Congress may provide for alternate allocations using specified procedures.

Analysis:  According to Senator Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), the bill’s sponsor: “The Great American Outdoors Act combines two pieces of legislation:  the crown jewel of our conservation programs across the Nation, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and the Restore Our Parks Act. The Restore Our Parks Act focuses on the catching up with the maintenance backlog in our national park systems.”

Our primary focus will be on the Gardner “crown jewel,” the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), which enables the Federal government to purchase land.  The fund was originally established in 1965 and reauthorized last year by Congress (see Senate Vote 22 on S. 47,  National Resources Management Act, officially titled as the “John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act”).  President Trump signed the “National Resources Act” into law on 3-12-19.

The National Resources Act provided permanent authorization of the deposit provisions of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which the Sierra Club claimed “may be the most important federal conservation program that you’ve never heard of.”  This year’s Great American Outdoors Act would permanently fund the LWCF at $900 million per year.

Subversive objective
What is not advertised, however, is the underlying subversive campaign that the Land and Water Conservation fund supports and the forces behind the campaign.  To understand the campaign, we need to review a little history (a book could be written).

In 1848, Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto as a program for Communists and socialists.   In it, he listed ten planks that were designed to transform the most advanced countries into Communist (totalitarian) States.  The first plank calls for “Abolition of property in land and application of all rents in land to public purposes.”

But the Manifesto was even more explicit re the importance of targeting private property to the socialist/Communist movement.  According to the Manifesto, “the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: abolition of private property.”

That goal has been adopted by all varieties of collectivists: communists, socialists, fascists.  The leaders of the most the most ruthless and bloody totalitarian regimes of the past century (e.g., Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot) implemented that program with a vengeance.  In so doing, they liquidated millions.

Many great minds rejected that agenda and explained why the right to private property provides essential support for freedom.  Justice Joseph Story, whom President James Madison appointed to the Supreme Court, argued:  “That government can scarcely be deemed to be free when the rights of property are left solely dependent upon the will of a legislative body, without any restraint. The fundamental maxims of a free government seem to require that the rights of personal liberty and private property should be held sacred.”

More recently, in his 1944 classic The Road to Serfdom, economist Friedrich A. Hayek wrote:  “What our generation has forgotten is that the system of private property is the most important guaranty of freedom, not only for those who own property, but scarcely less for those who do not. It is only because the control of the means of production is divided among many people acting independently that nobody has complete power over us, that we as individuals can decide what to do with ourselves.”

So it’s easy to see why would-be totalitarians target private property.

Radicals convene at Rio
It recent decades, socialists and Communists, with Establishment and Internationalist support, have championed that goal under the masquerade of environmentalism and conservation.  (Recounting their various schemes to eviscerate property rights could easily fill books.  So here we highlight just a few of the developments.)

We will start by looking at the UN’s 1992 Earth Summit in Rio.  Rio brought together socialist and Communist leaders (UN members) from around the world (plus U.S. Internationalists) to forge a totalitarian agenda under the pretext of saving the planet from environmental catastrophe.  In particular, the Summit gave us Agenda 21, a massive environmental manifesto.  We cite two of its statements:

• “All countries should undertake a comprehensive national inventory of their land resources in order to establish a system in which land will be classified according to its most appropriate uses….”
• “All countries should also develop national land-management plans to guide development.”

Agenda 21 was far from the only environmentalist “fruit” from Rio. The Global Biodiversity Assessment (GBA) also crossed swords with the rights of property.

The Rio Earth Summit took place during the administration of George H.W. Bush (the senior), a former CFR director and Trilateral Commission member.  His main representative at the Earth Summit was EPA Administrator William Reilly, also CFR. Previously, Reilly had served as executive director of a land-use task force chaired by Laurance S. Rockefeller. (Of course, the task force promoted land-use controls and expropriation.)

More examples of the attack
In 1991, Congress was considering the Northern Forest Lands Act.  The Act would have empowered a Northern Forest Lands Council to exercise “greenlining authority” over 26 million acres in Northern New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine.  At stake were the homes, property and livelihood of one million people. Thankfully, the measure was scrapped as a result of strong informed grassroots opposition.

In November 1991, leading up to Rio, Reed Noss and Dave Foreman launched the Wildlands Project.  Reed Noss was an environmental journalist and Dave Forman the leader of the radical Earth First!  Their Wildlands Project was based on a brainchild of the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the foundation-funded environmental lobbyist community. The Wildlands Project proposed “re-wilding” literally half of the U.S. land area.

In the January/February 1974 issue of The Center magazine, Tom McCall, governor of Oregon at the time, wrote approvingly: “The Rockefeller Task Force on Land Use … has said that, beginning now, development rights on private property must be regarded as being vested in the community and its well being rather than the fact of ownership.”

Constitutionality
The Constitution does authorize Congress (Article 1, Section 8) to acquire land, with the consent of the state in which the land is located, “for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings.”  But the Great American Outdoors Act passed by the Senate violates that provision by not requiring the consent of the state.

It is well also to recall the 9th and 10 amendments to the Constitution, part of the Bill of Rights.  They affirm that rights not specifically delegated to the federal government are retained by the States or the people.

America’s Founding Fathers never intended for the federal government to become a gigantic landowner.  Yet despite clear intent, the federal government is a major landholder in the 13 western states.  And land grab schemes, for which there is no constitutional authorization, have targeted the other states.

Congressional Record
On June 11, Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) took the floor to denounce many of the features of the Great American Outdoors Act as well as the process for its consideration in the Senate.  Here are some of Senator Lee’s remarks:

“Mr. President, it is telling that the bill we are considering this week called the Great American Outdoors Act was  written behind closed doors and has now been hermetically sealed,  walled off from amendments, by the people’s elected representatives.   Forget the theatrics in Seattle; this bill is the real Capitol Hill  autonomous zone. In its current form, this bill enables the Federal  Government, if it is enacted, to purchase new lands in perpetuity,  without accountability and without oversight or any measures to make sure that it can actually care for the land that it owns, perpetuating  and worsening our already highly problematic Federal public lands policy….

“This is not the way the Senate is supposed to run. The point of this  body, its whole reason for existence, is to take imperfect bills, bring  them to the floor of the Senate, and then come together so that we can  hone and fine-tune them, so that we can debate them and discuss them,  so that we can identify their weak points and make them stronger–or at  least less weak.   The Senate is supposed to have an open debate and amendment process  precisely so that we can raise concerns and we can find solutions and  arrive at genuine, rather than forced, compromise and consensus. This  week, I have been encouraged to discover just how many of my colleagues  want to do just that. Many of my colleagues from different States and  from both parties are filing amendments in response to this bill. Some  of those amendments would significantly change it; others would present  simply small tweaks to tighten up the language or to provide for better  congressional oversight so that the American people are guaranteed that  what it says in the law is going to reflect what happens on the ground.  These amendments have already been written. They are waiting for  consideration.

“Anyone watching C-SPAN 2 today will notice there is nothing else happening on the Senate floor — I mean, literally nothing else happening  on the Senate floor. In fact, I would note for the record that there  are exactly three Members of the Senate in the Chamber right now — two  on the floor and one at the Presiding Officer’s desk. There is  literally nothing else happening on the Senate floor. There is  literally no other business with pressing deadlines pending before this  body right now. The House of Representatives is adjourned and is apparently set to remain adjourned until June 30, so it is not as  though we have any realistic deadline with the other side of the Capitol.

“The Senate, right now, would simply rather do nothing than vote on amendments that those of us from the West, Senators from the gulf coast  and from various States around the country, would like to propose and  have, in fact, proposed.   I myself have proposed several. One of my amendments would require  State legislative approval for any land acquisition proposed in that  State so that  [[Page S2917]]  land acquisition would be something Washington does with the States  rather than to the States.   Many people don’t realize there is a big disparity among and between  the States with regard to how much Federal land is owned. In every  State east of Colorado, the Federal Government owns less than 15  percent. In every State Colorado and west, the Federal Government owns  more than 15 percent. The average is more like 50 percent in the  Western United States, and in many of those States, including my own,  it is more like two-thirds of the land.   In these States and particularly the rural communities and those  rural communities in particular where there is the highest  concentration of Federal land, there is also poverty —poverty that is not just correlated with or coincidental to the Federal land ownership,  but it is causally connected to its widespread existence.   Another of my amendments would require the Federal Government to  dispose of current Federal lands before acquiring new ones, forcing  land agencies to exercise fiscal responsibility and prioritize which  lands they want to keep under their control….

“It is really easy for my colleagues from certain parts of the  country–particularly those living east of the Rocky Mountains–to  suggest that, you know, Federal land ownership is a great thing. First  of all, a lot of people who say that do live east of the Rocky  Mountains, and a lot of people who say that also incorrectly imagine that Federal public lands are more or less just national parks or  declared wilderness areas. They are not.   In my State, most of the Federal land is not a national park, is not  a national recreation area, is not a declared wilderness area; it is  just garden-variety BLM or Forest Service land that is chronically  environmentally mismanaged, and that leads to chronic environmental and  economic problems….

“After speaking with my colleagues all week, and, frankly, all of last  week on these topics, I believe the consensus concerns about this bill  are as follows: one, the inequity of natural resource revenue-sharing  between the Federal Government and the States; two, the cost of the  National Parks and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund; three, the cost  of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, or LWCF; four, the  implications of an ever-expanding Federal land ownership; and, five,  transparency for the Land and Water Conservation Fund….

“The Senate has long called itself the world’s greatest deliberative  body. These days, when it doesn’t debate, when it shuts out amendments  from individual Members — keeping in mind that this is supposed to be  one of the two fundamental rules of the Senate, where each Member has  access to unlimited debate and unlimited amendments — when it does this,  it is neither great nor deliberative. It is not living up to its name,  to its history, to its traditions, to its capacity, nor to its  constitutional purpose….

“We know that the Senate in the past has functioned in such a way as  to allow every Member of this body to represent his or her State. We  also know that can’t really happen in a way that our system has always  contemplated unless every Senator has a chance to weigh in on and to  propose improvements to each bill and not be shut out of a process.  What we get when we jettison that is, instead, a process by which a  small handful of individuals will write legislation, that legislation  gets airdropped on to the Senate floor in a hermetically sealed  Chamber, and then Members are told: You have to vote for this entire  package or against this entire package. You have a simple binary  choice: Take it all or leave it all.   That isn’t fair. The American people deserve better….

“Mr. President, I would like to note now for the record that  there are exactly two Senators remaining in the Senate Chamber. It is  now 4:38 p.m. Now we are three again–now four. We have four Senators  in the Chamber at 4:39 p.m. on a Thursday. This is not the end of the  week, unless perhaps you are in the U.S. Senate.  There is no reason why the Senate shouldn’t be convening and debating  amendments right now in order to do this. There is no valid reason why Members who understand and appreciate the legitimate concerns that are  the focus of this or any other piece of legislation ought not be able  to raise concerns with that legislation and offer up amendments to  improve the legislation in question, especially as is the case here.   There are particular States, including my own, that would be  disproportionately disadvantaged and harmed by this legislation. It is  interesting to note that the Federal Government owns more of my State  than in almost any other State, than it does in any of the States of  any of the sponsors or prominent cosponsors of this legislation. Some  of the cosponsors, in fact, are people who live in States where the  Federal Government owns very little land….

“I regard each of the people behind  this legislation as beloved friends and colleagues and as people who I  deeply respect and trust and admire. They are people with whom I have  agreed and cooperated with on countless instances on many wide-ranging  topics.  They are not wrong to want to pass legislation that they believe is  correct. They are, however, grossly mistaken in believing that it is  appropriate in this circumstance to shut out Members of this body who  have a different point of view, to exclude them from the debate  process.   One could argue and some might argue in connection with this: Fine,  let’s debate it. We are debating it right now. What is debate after all  other than giving speeches in a legislative body?   That is what we are doing, and that statement is true as far as it goes. Nevertheless, in order for that debate to have full meaning, we  need to follow our own rules, and we need to allow Members, pursuant to  our rules — and not just our rules, but also our precedents — our time-honored traditions and the spirit of comity that once inhabited and  pervaded every corner of this room.

“It is that spirit of comity, those  traditions, and those rules that really contemplate a much more  collegial environment, one in which we don’t come to the floor with  legislation and say: That is it. There is no more. That is it. This  legislation was written as if on stone tablets. There is no more to be  written. This book is sealed. You can’t have anything more to say.   That is not how colleagues treat each other. That is how one would  treat a subordinate, and frankly, I think it is insulting–not to me  but to those I represent and to those represented by my colleagues  doing it.   What I find also offensive is the notion that it is so important  somehow and so urgent to pass this legislation that we do so now, and  that we not wait until next week to consider it. But it is apparently  not important enough to allow individual Members to introduce amendments — even amendments crafted in good faith, amendments that  wouldn’t do any structural damage to the bill, amendments that may or  may not pass, but that haven’t been written by the principal authors  and principal proponents of this legislation. This institution is  better than that, and I thought we were. I think we owe each other more  than that.

“Look, this isn’t always going to be the case in every single piece of  legislation. There are a number of things that are passed by this body  by unanimous consent. Others that come to the floor will receive an  overwhelming vote one way or another and don’t necessarily, in every circumstance, trigger the need for amendments. Those are, in some  cases, matters that are relatively noncontroversial. I see no reason  for an open amendment process if we were, for example, to declare June  2020 to be National Sofa Care Awareness Month. I don’t think anybody is  going to care that much about that legislation, certainly not enough to  care deeply about filing amendments. In other cases, some legislation  might have been adequately vetted through a process of committee action  and public debate to the point where maybe no one really sees the need  for additional amendment by the time it gets to the floor. But that is  not always going to be the case. It should come as no surprise with a  piece of legislation like this one, sweeping in its effect, adding to  our already unaffordable mandatory spending, putting Federal land  acquisition on an equal footing with programs like Social Security and  Medicare by making it mandatory. Any time you trigger any of these  alarm bells, it ought to send a signal that this is not an appropriate  moment to expect that no Member from any State will have any different perspective. It is not right. Deep down they know it is not right.   I have seen each of my most vocal proponents of this legislation on  the receiving end of this very kind of strategy….

“I will note that other than the Presiding Officer, at 4:53 p.m. on a  Thursday, I remain the only Member of the U.S. Senate within this  Chamber–just the Presiding Officer and me. That is it.  We could be voting now. We could have started voting hours ago. We  could have started voting yesterday. We could have voted on all of  these amendments. For all I know, all of the amendments that I am proposing could have been considered and voted down and they would have  had their way. So what difference would it make? I am not certain  whether they would all fail. It is not up to me for all to fail.  Thirdly, even if they did all fail–every last one of them–at least  then Members of this body would be able to face their constituents at  the end of that process and be able to say: Look, I liked this  legislation. Even though it had these problems, the reasons to support  it outweighed those for opposing it.   Or they would be able to say: Look, I tried to make it better. I  failed. These problems remained. So I voted against it.  That increases accountability, rather than decreasing. That is good.  That is good for a constitutional republic like ours. It is essential  for the U.S. Senate. It is how it is supposed to work.”

The following day, Senator Gardner followed a common practice by inserting letters of support for his proposed act in the Congressional Record. This excerpt is from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, dominated by corporate globalists:

“To the Members of the United States Senate: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce strongly supports S. 3422, the “Great American Outdoors Act,’” an important, bipartisan bill that would provide funding certainty for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) and address the pressing maintenance and construction backlog on public lands.”

Congressional Research Service Summary for S. 3422 (which replaced H.R. 1957 thru amendment): 

Shown Here:
Introduced in Senate (03/09/2020)

Great American Outdoors Act

This bill establishes the National Parks and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund to support deferred maintenance projects on federal lands.

For FY2021-FY2025, there shall be deposited into the fund an amount equal to 50% of all federal revenues from the development of oil, gas, coal, or alternative or renewable energy on federal lands and waters. Deposited amounts must not exceed $1.9 billion for any fiscal year.

The fund must be used for priority deferred maintenance projects in specified systems that are administered by

• the National Park Service,
• the Forest Service,
• the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
• the Bureau of Land Management, and
• the Bureau of Indian Education.

The Government Accountability Office must report on the effect of the fund in reducing the backlog of priority deferred maintenance projects for the specified agencies.

Additionally, the bill makes funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) permanent. The President shall annually report to Congress specified details regarding the allocation of funds to the LWCF. Congress may provide for alternate allocations using specified procedures.

Analysis:  According to Senator Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), the bill’s sponsor: “The Great American Outdoors Act combines two pieces of legislation:  the crown jewel of our conservation programs across the Nation, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and the Restore Our Parks Act. The Restore Our Parks Act focuses on the catching up with the maintenance backlog in our national park systems.”

Our primary focus will be on the Gardner “crown jewel,” the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), which enables the Federal government to purchase land.  The fund was originally established in 1965 and reauthorized last year by Congress (see Senate Vote 22 on S. 47,  National Resources Management Act, officially titled as the “John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act”).  President Trump signed the “National Resources Act” into law on 3-12-19.

The National Resources Act provided permanent authorization of the deposit provisions of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which the Sierra Club claimed “may be the most important federal conservation program that you’ve never heard of.”  This year’s Great American Outdoors Act would permanently fund the LWCF at $900 million per year.

Subversive objective
What is not advertised, however, is the underlying subversive campaign that the Land and Water Conservation fund supports and the forces behind the campaign.  To understand the campaign, we need to review a little history (a book could be written).

In 1848, Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto as a program for Communists and socialists.   In it, he listed ten planks that were designed to transform the most advanced countries into Communist (totalitarian) States.  The first plank calls for “Abolition of property in land and application of all rents in land to public purposes.”

But the Manifesto was even more explicit re the importance of targeting private property to the socialist/Communist movement.  According to the Manifesto, “the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: abolition of private property.”

That goal has been adopted by all varieties of collectivists: communists, socialists, fascists.  The leaders of the most the most ruthless and bloody totalitarian regimes of the past century (e.g., Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot) implemented that program with a vengeance.  In so doing, they liquidated millions.

Many great minds rejected that agenda and explained why the right to private property provides essential support for freedom.  Justice Joseph Story, whom President James Madison appointed to the Supreme Court, argued:  “That government can scarcely be deemed to be free when the rights of property are left solely dependent upon the will of a legislative body, without any restraint. The fundamental maxims of a free government seem to require that the rights of personal liberty and private property should be held sacred.”

More recently, in his 1944 classic The Road to Serfdom, economist Friedrich A. Hayek wrote:  “What our generation has forgotten is that the system of private property is the most important guaranty of freedom, not only for those who own property, but scarcely less for those who do not. It is only because the control of the means of production is divided among many people acting independently that nobody has complete power over us, that we as individuals can decide what to do with ourselves.”

So it’s easy to see why would-be totalitarians target private property.

Radicals convene at Rio
It recent decades, socialists and Communists, with Establishment and Internationalist support, have championed that goal under the masquerade of environmentalism and conservation.  (Recounting their various schemes to eviscerate property rights could easily fill books.  So here we highlight just a few of the developments.)

We will start by looking at the UN’s 1992 Earth Summit in Rio.  Rio brought together socialist and Communist leaders (UN members) from around the world (plus U.S. Internationalists) to forge a totalitarian agenda under the pretext of saving the planet from environmental catastrophe.  In particular, the Summit gave us Agenda 21, a massive environmental manifesto.  We cite two of its statements:

• “All countries should undertake a comprehensive national inventory of their land resources in order to establish a system in which land will be classified according to its most appropriate uses….”
• “All countries should also develop national land-management plans to guide development.”

Agenda 21 was far from the only environmentalist “fruit” from Rio. The Global Biodiversity Assessment (GBA) also crossed swords with the rights of property.

The Rio Earth Summit took place during the administration of George H.W. Bush (the senior), a former CFR director and Trilateral Commission member.  His main representative at the Earth Summit was EPA Administrator William Reilly, also CFR. Previously, Reilly had served as executive director of a land-use task force chaired by Laurance S. Rockefeller. (Of course, the task force promoted land-use controls and expropriation.)

More examples of the attack
In 1991, Congress was considering the Northern Forest Lands Act.  The Act would have empowered a Northern Forest Lands Council to exercise “greenlining authority” over 26 million acres in Northern New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine.  At stake were the homes, property and livelihood of one million people. Thankfully, the measure was scrapped as a result of strong informed grassroots opposition.

In November 1991, leading up to Rio, Reed Noss and Dave Foreman launched the Wildlands Project.  Reed Noss was an environmental journalist and Dave Forman the leader of the radical Earth First!  Their Wildlands Project was based on a brainchild of the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the foundation-funded environmental lobbyist community. The Wildlands Project proposed “re-wilding” literally half of the U.S. land area.

In the January/February 1974 issue of The Center magazine, Tom McCall, governor of Oregon at the time, wrote approvingly: “The Rockefeller Task Force on Land Use … has said that, beginning now, development rights on private property must be regarded as being vested in the community and its well being rather than the fact of ownership.”

Constitutionality
The Constitution does authorize Congress (Article 1, Section 8) to acquire land, with the consent of the state in which the land is located, “for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings.”  But the Great American Outdoors Act passed by the Senate violates that provision by not requiring the consent of the state.

It is well also to recall the 9th and 10 amendments to the Constitution, part of the Bill of Rights.  They affirm that rights not specifically delegated to the federal government are retained by the States or the people.

America’s Founding Fathers never intended for the federal government to become a gigantic landowner.  Yet despite clear intent, the federal government is a major landholder in the 13 western states.  And land grab schemes, for which there is no constitutional authorization, have targeted the other states.

Congressional Record
On June 11, Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) took the floor to denounce many of the features of the Great American Outdoors Act as well as the process for its consideration in the Senate.  Here are some of Senator Lee’s remarks:

“Mr. President, it is telling that the bill we are considering this week called the Great American Outdoors Act was  written behind closed doors and has now been hermetically sealed,  walled off from amendments, by the people’s elected representatives.   Forget the theatrics in Seattle; this bill is the real Capitol Hill  autonomous zone. In its current form, this bill enables the Federal  Government, if it is enacted, to purchase new lands in perpetuity,  without accountability and without oversight or any measures to make sure that it can actually care for the land that it owns, perpetuating  and worsening our already highly problematic Federal public lands policy….

“This is not the way the Senate is supposed to run. The point of this  body, its whole reason for existence, is to take imperfect bills, bring  them to the floor of the Senate, and then come together so that we can  hone and fine-tune them, so that we can debate them and discuss them,  so that we can identify their weak points and make them stronger–or at  least less weak.   The Senate is supposed to have an open debate and amendment process  precisely so that we can raise concerns and we can find solutions and  arrive at genuine, rather than forced, compromise and consensus. This  week, I have been encouraged to discover just how many of my colleagues  want to do just that. Many of my colleagues from different States and  from both parties are filing amendments in response to this bill. Some  of those amendments would significantly change it; others would present  simply small tweaks to tighten up the language or to provide for better  congressional oversight so that the American people are guaranteed that  what it says in the law is going to reflect what happens on the ground.  These amendments have already been written. They are waiting for  consideration.

“Anyone watching C-SPAN 2 today will notice there is nothing else happening on the Senate floor — I mean, literally nothing else happening  on the Senate floor. In fact, I would note for the record that there  are exactly three Members of the Senate in the Chamber right now — two  on the floor and one at the Presiding Officer’s desk. There is  literally nothing else happening on the Senate floor. There is  literally no other business with pressing deadlines pending before this  body right now. The House of Representatives is adjourned and is apparently set to remain adjourned until June 30, so it is not as  though we have any realistic deadline with the other side of the Capitol.

“The Senate, right now, would simply rather do nothing than vote on amendments that those of us from the West, Senators from the gulf coast  and from various States around the country, would like to propose and  have, in fact, proposed.   I myself have proposed several. One of my amendments would require  State legislative approval for any land acquisition proposed in that  State so that  [[Page S2917]]  land acquisition would be something Washington does with the States  rather than to the States.   Many people don’t realize there is a big disparity among and between  the States with regard to how much Federal land is owned. In every  State east of Colorado, the Federal Government owns less than 15  percent. In every State Colorado and west, the Federal Government owns  more than 15 percent. The average is more like 50 percent in the  Western United States, and in many of those States, including my own,  it is more like two-thirds of the land.   In these States and particularly the rural communities and those  rural communities in particular where there is the highest  concentration of Federal land, there is also poverty —poverty that is not just correlated with or coincidental to the Federal land ownership,  but it is causally connected to its widespread existence.   Another of my amendments would require the Federal Government to  dispose of current Federal lands before acquiring new ones, forcing  land agencies to exercise fiscal responsibility and prioritize which  lands they want to keep under their control….

“It is really easy for my colleagues from certain parts of the  country–particularly those living east of the Rocky Mountains–to  suggest that, you know, Federal land ownership is a great thing. First  of all, a lot of people who say that do live east of the Rocky  Mountains, and a lot of people who say that also incorrectly imagine that Federal public lands are more or less just national parks or  declared wilderness areas. They are not.   In my State, most of the Federal land is not a national park, is not  a national recreation area, is not a declared wilderness area; it is  just garden-variety BLM or Forest Service land that is chronically  environmentally mismanaged, and that leads to chronic environmental and  economic problems….

“After speaking with my colleagues all week, and, frankly, all of last  week on these topics, I believe the consensus concerns about this bill  are as follows: one, the inequity of natural resource revenue-sharing  between the Federal Government and the States; two, the cost of the  National Parks and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund; three, the cost  of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, or LWCF; four, the  implications of an ever-expanding Federal land ownership; and, five,  transparency for the Land and Water Conservation Fund….

“The Senate has long called itself the world’s greatest deliberative  body. These days, when it doesn’t debate, when it shuts out amendments  from individual Members — keeping in mind that this is supposed to be  one of the two fundamental rules of the Senate, where each Member has  access to unlimited debate and unlimited amendments — when it does this,  it is neither great nor deliberative. It is not living up to its name,  to its history, to its traditions, to its capacity, nor to its  constitutional purpose….

“We know that the Senate in the past has functioned in such a way as  to allow every Member of this body to represent his or her State. We  also know that can’t really happen in a way that our system has always  contemplated unless every Senator has a chance to weigh in on and to  propose improvements to each bill and not be shut out of a process.  What we get when we jettison that is, instead, a process by which a  small handful of individuals will write legislation, that legislation  gets airdropped on to the Senate floor in a hermetically sealed  Chamber, and then Members are told: You have to vote for this entire  package or against this entire package. You have a simple binary  choice: Take it all or leave it all.   That isn’t fair. The American people deserve better….

“Mr. President, I would like to note now for the record that  there are exactly two Senators remaining in the Senate Chamber. It is  now 4:38 p.m. Now we are three again–now four. We have four Senators  in the Chamber at 4:39 p.m. on a Thursday. This is not the end of the  week, unless perhaps you are in the U.S. Senate.  There is no reason why the Senate shouldn’t be convening and debating  amendments right now in order to do this. There is no valid reason why Members who understand and appreciate the legitimate concerns that are  the focus of this or any other piece of legislation ought not be able  to raise concerns with that legislation and offer up amendments to  improve the legislation in question, especially as is the case here.   There are particular States, including my own, that would be  disproportionately disadvantaged and harmed by this legislation. It is  interesting to note that the Federal Government owns more of my State  than in almost any other State, than it does in any of the States of  any of the sponsors or prominent cosponsors of this legislation. Some  of the cosponsors, in fact, are people who live in States where the  Federal Government owns very little land….

“I regard each of the people behind  this legislation as beloved friends and colleagues and as people who I  deeply respect and trust and admire. They are people with whom I have  agreed and cooperated with on countless instances on many wide-ranging  topics.  They are not wrong to want to pass legislation that they believe is  correct. They are, however, grossly mistaken in believing that it is  appropriate in this circumstance to shut out Members of this body who  have a different point of view, to exclude them from the debate  process.   One could argue and some might argue in connection with this: Fine,  let’s debate it. We are debating it right now. What is debate after all  other than giving speeches in a legislative body?   That is what we are doing, and that statement is true as far as it goes. Nevertheless, in order for that debate to have full meaning, we  need to follow our own rules, and we need to allow Members, pursuant to  our rules — and not just our rules, but also our precedents — our time-honored traditions and the spirit of comity that once inhabited and  pervaded every corner of this room.

“It is that spirit of comity, those  traditions, and those rules that really contemplate a much more  collegial environment, one in which we don’t come to the floor with  legislation and say: That is it. There is no more. That is it. This  legislation was written as if on stone tablets. There is no more to be  written. This book is sealed. You can’t have anything more to say.   That is not how colleagues treat each other. That is how one would  treat a subordinate, and frankly, I think it is insulting–not to me  but to those I represent and to those represented by my colleagues  doing it.   What I find also offensive is the notion that it is so important  somehow and so urgent to pass this legislation that we do so now, and  that we not wait until next week to consider it. But it is apparently  not important enough to allow individual Members to introduce amendments — even amendments crafted in good faith, amendments that  wouldn’t do any structural damage to the bill, amendments that may or  may not pass, but that haven’t been written by the principal authors  and principal proponents of this legislation. This institution is  better than that, and I thought we were. I think we owe each other more  than that.

“Look, this isn’t always going to be the case in every single piece of  legislation. There are a number of things that are passed by this body  by unanimous consent. Others that come to the floor will receive an  overwhelming vote one way or another and don’t necessarily, in every circumstance, trigger the need for amendments. Those are, in some  cases, matters that are relatively noncontroversial. I see no reason  for an open amendment process if we were, for example, to declare June  2020 to be National Sofa Care Awareness Month. I don’t think anybody is  going to care that much about that legislation, certainly not enough to  care deeply about filing amendments. In other cases, some legislation  might have been adequately vetted through a process of committee action  and public debate to the point where maybe no one really sees the need  for additional amendment by the time it gets to the floor. But that is  not always going to be the case. It should come as no surprise with a  piece of legislation like this one, sweeping in its effect, adding to  our already unaffordable mandatory spending, putting Federal land  acquisition on an equal footing with programs like Social Security and  Medicare by making it mandatory. Any time you trigger any of these  alarm bells, it ought to send a signal that this is not an appropriate  moment to expect that no Member from any State will have any different perspective. It is not right. Deep down they know it is not right.   I have seen each of my most vocal proponents of this legislation on  the receiving end of this very kind of strategy….

“I will note that other than the Presiding Officer, at 4:53 p.m. on a  Thursday, I remain the only Member of the U.S. Senate within this  Chamber–just the Presiding Officer and me. That is it.  We could be voting now. We could have started voting hours ago. We  could have started voting yesterday. We could have voted on all of  these amendments. For all I know, all of the amendments that I am proposing could have been considered and voted down and they would have  had their way. So what difference would it make? I am not certain  whether they would all fail. It is not up to me for all to fail.  Thirdly, even if they did all fail–every last one of them–at least  then Members of this body would be able to face their constituents at  the end of that process and be able to say: Look, I liked this  legislation. Even though it had these problems, the reasons to support  it outweighed those for opposing it.   Or they would be able to say: Look, I tried to make it better. I  failed. These problems remained. So I voted against it.  That increases accountability, rather than decreasing. That is good.  That is good for a constitutional republic like ours. It is essential  for the U.S. Senate. It is how it is supposed to work.”

The following day, Senator Gardner followed a common practice by inserting letters of support for his proposed act in the Congressional Record. This excerpt is from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, dominated by corporate globalists:

“To the Members of the United States Senate: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce strongly supports S. 3422, the “Great American Outdoors Act,’” an important, bipartisan bill that would provide funding certainty for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) and address the pressing maintenance and construction backlog on public lands.”

Bill Summary:   From The Hill (3-25-20): “White House, Senate reach deal on $2 trillion stimulus package”:

The White House and Senate leaders reached a deal early Wednesday morning on a massive stimulus package they hope will keep the nation from falling into a deep recession because of the coronavirus crisis.

The revamped Senate proposal will inject approximately $2 trillion into the economy, providing tax rebates, four months expanded unemployment benefits and a slew of business tax-relief provisions aimed at shoring up individual, family and business finances.

The deal includes $500 billion for a major corporate liquidity program through the Federal Reserve, $367 billion for a small business loan program, $100 billion for hospitals and $150 billion for state and local governments.

It will also give a one-time check of $1,200 to Americans who make up to $75,000. Individuals with no or little tax liability would receive the same amount, unlike the initial GOP proposal that would have given them a minimum of $600.

Analysis:   The Senate voted on the massive CARES Act, before even all of the language had been drafted.  Undoubtedly, many of the senators and their staff only understood the touted features of the Act.

And so, the Senate debate barely touched on the details.  But in news reports, leaders of both parties were pleased to tout this bipartisan agreement.  In particular we heard how they were proud to be spending unprecedented sums of Federal Reserve-created money to deal with an economic crisis that government itself had created.  Roll Call (3-25-50) reported:

“It’s good news for families all across America,” McConnell says….

“After five days of arduous negotiations … we have a bipartisan agreement on the largest rescue package in American history,” added Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer, D-NY.

It is infuriating that politicians think they can get away with hoaxing the public that the federal government can spend as much as it wants with no consequences.

While the Federal government may appear to have deep pockets, due to the Federal Reserve’s control of the money supply, that is an illusion.  Government has no wealth of its own.  It can only spend the wealth of Americans.

Financing deficit-spending thru the federal reserve is just a less obvious means of taxation by debauching the currency.  The initial recipients of the money may benefit, but at the expense of those who see the value of their fixed assets decline.

Creating the Poison and the “Antidote”
It is also infuriating that government has created the poison (the government-forced recession and massive unemployment from the lockdowns and shutdowns) and is now ostensibly coming to the rescue with its version of a big-government antidote.

But check-book money is no substitute for production.  Prosperity requires production.

We could also mention that most of this spending is unconstitutional, despite its common acceptance in recent decades.  The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to bail out businesses, provide gifts to individuals, subsidize and manage health care, or prop up state governments.

Note: The states have become dependent on federal handouts, because the federal government has looted much of the tax base upon which states could rely.

A Hidden Agenda
Even worse is the hidden motive for the imposed financial crisis.  It is difficult to believe that a government that puts us in plastic cars and has created the abortion holocaust really cares about our health and safety.

The well established, but hidden motive of those driving the crisis is to gain more unaccountable power over the people.  Posts on the Freedom First Society website, examine the supporting crises in detail.  In particular, see “Where’s the Data, Dr. Fauci?”

Instead of embracing the stampede to bankrupt the nation, a Congress genuinely trying to serve the people should have questioned the necessity of quarantining the general population that was not infected.  Several other nations handled the epidemic quite differently and successfully (see, for example, the Freedom First Society post: “Three COVID-19 Counterexamples: Taiwan, Singapore, and Sweden”).

House Voice Vote
Incredibly, 2 days later, after three-hours of breast-beating “debate,” the House approved the Senate version by (unrecorded) voice vote since many of its members were not present.  Indeed, the following statements regarding the House vote were posted on Congress.gov:

OBJECTION TO VOTE – At the conclusion of debate on the motion to concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 748, the Chair put the question on the motion and by voice vote, announced that the ayes had prevailed. Mr. Massie demanded a recorded vote, and the Chair determined that an insufficient number of Members having arisen, the demand for a recorded vote was refused. Mr. Massie made a point of order that a quorum was not present and the Chair counted for a quorum. Subsequently, the Chair announced that a quorum was present.

And on March 31, after H.R. 748 had been signed into law, the following was posted on Congress.gov:

POSITION STATEMENTS FOR THE RECORD — The Chair announced that all Members may have five legislative days in which to include their stated position on the voice vote on the motion to concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 748, and those statements will appear in the appropriate point in the Record. Agreed to without objection.

 

Bill Summary:   From The Hill (3-25-20): “White House, Senate reach deal on $2 trillion stimulus package”:

The White House and Senate leaders reached a deal early Wednesday morning on a massive stimulus package they hope will keep the nation from falling into a deep recession because of the coronavirus crisis.

The revamped Senate proposal will inject approximately $2 trillion into the economy, providing tax rebates, four months expanded unemployment benefits and a slew of business tax-relief provisions aimed at shoring up individual, family and business finances.

The deal includes $500 billion for a major corporate liquidity program through the Federal Reserve, $367 billion for a small business loan program, $100 billion for hospitals and $150 billion for state and local governments.

It will also give a one-time check of $1,200 to Americans who make up to $75,000. Individuals with no or little tax liability would receive the same amount, unlike the initial GOP proposal that would have given them a minimum of $600.

Analysis:   The Senate voted on the massive CARES Act, before even all of the language had been drafted.  Undoubtedly, many of the senators and their staff only understood the touted features of the Act.

And so, the Senate debate barely touched on the details.  But in news reports, leaders of both parties were pleased to tout this bipartisan agreement.  In particular we heard how they were proud to be spending unprecedented sums of Federal Reserve-created money to deal with an economic crisis that government itself had created.  Roll Call (3-25-50) reported:

“It’s good news for families all across America,” McConnell says….

“After five days of arduous negotiations … we have a bipartisan agreement on the largest rescue package in American history,” added Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer, D-NY.

It is infuriating that politicians think they can get away with hoaxing the public that the federal government can spend as much as it wants with no consequences.

While the Federal government may appear to have deep pockets, due to the Federal Reserve’s control of the money supply, that is an illusion.  Government has no wealth of its own.  It can only spend the wealth of Americans.

Financing deficit-spending thru the federal reserve is just a less obvious means of taxation by debauching the currency.  The initial recipients of the money may benefit, but at the expense of those who see the value of their fixed assets decline.

Creating the Poison and the “Antidote”
It is also infuriating that government has created the poison (the government-forced recession and massive unemployment from the lockdowns and shutdowns) and is now ostensibly coming to the rescue with its version of a big-government antidote.

But check-book money is no substitute for production.  Prosperity requires production.

We could also mention that most of this spending is unconstitutional, despite its common acceptance in recent decades.  The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to bail out businesses, provide gifts to individuals, subsidize and manage health care, or prop up state governments.

Note: The states have become dependent on federal handouts, because the federal government has looted much of the tax base upon which states could rely.

A Hidden Agenda
Even worse is the hidden motive for the imposed financial crisis.  It is difficult to believe that a government that puts us in plastic cars and has created the abortion holocaust really cares about our health and safety.

The well established, but hidden motive of those driving the crisis is to gain more unaccountable power over the people.  Posts on the Freedom First Society website, examine the supporting crises in detail.  In particular, see “Where’s the Data, Dr. Fauci?”

Instead of embracing the stampede to bankrupt the nation, a Congress genuinely trying to serve the people should have questioned the necessity of quarantining the general population that was not infected.  Several other nations handled the epidemic quite differently and successfully (see, for example, the Freedom First Society post: “Three COVID-19 Counterexamples: Taiwan, Singapore, and Sweden”).

House Voice Vote
Incredibly, 2 days later, after three-hours of breast-beating “debate,” the House approved the Senate version by (unrecorded) voice vote since many of its members were not present.  Indeed, the following statements regarding the House vote were posted on Congress.gov:

OBJECTION TO VOTE – At the conclusion of debate on the motion to concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 748, the Chair put the question on the motion and by voice vote, announced that the ayes had prevailed. Mr. Massie demanded a recorded vote, and the Chair determined that an insufficient number of Members having arisen, the demand for a recorded vote was refused. Mr. Massie made a point of order that a quorum was not present and the Chair counted for a quorum. Subsequently, the Chair announced that a quorum was present.

And on March 31, after H.R. 748 had been signed into law, the following was posted on Congress.gov:

POSITION STATEMENTS FOR THE RECORD — The Chair announced that all Members may have five legislative days in which to include their stated position on the voice vote on the motion to concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 748, and those statements will appear in the appropriate point in the Record. Agreed to without objection.

 

 

Bill Summary:  The Senate-amended H.R. 266 has two divisions:  Division A for Small Business Loans (the Paycheck Protection Program) and Division B Additional Emergency Appropriations for Coronavirus Response (supplemental appropriations.) See below for the complete Congressional Services Research Summary.

Analysis:   This is the fourth COVID-19 response measure, spending a massive, nearly $500 billion the federal government doesn’t have.

Note: The even more massive third measure (H.R. 748, the CARES Act) spent $2 trillion (see Senate Vote 80, 3-25-20).  Incredibly, the CARES Act was approved by the House by voice (unrecorded) vote.

Moreover, this fourth response is regarded by both Parties as only an interim-response, while they negotiate another aid measure.

• It is infuriating that politicians think they can get away with hoaxing the public that the federal government can spend as much as it wants with no consequences.

While the Federal Government may appear to have deep pockets, due to the Federal Reserve’s control of the money supply, that is an illusion.  Government has no wealth of its own.  It can only spend the wealth of Americans.

Financing deficit-spending thru the federal reserve is just a less obvious means of taxation by debauching the currency.  The initial recipients of the money may benefit, but at the expense of those who see the value of their fixed assets decline.

• It is also infuriating that government has created the poison (the government-forced recession and massive unemployment from the lockdowns and shutdowns) and is now ostensibly coming to the rescue with its version of a big-government antidote.

But check-book money is no substitute for production.  Prosperity requires production.

• We could also mention that most of this spending is unconstitutional, despite its common acceptance in recent decades.The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to bail out businesses, provide gifts to individuals, subsidize and manage health care, or prop up state governments.

Note: The states have become dependent on federal handouts, because the federal government has looted much of the tax base upon which states could rely.

• Even worse is the hidden motive for the imposed financial crisis.It is difficult to believe that a government that puts us in plastic cars and has created the abortion holocaust really cares about our health and safety.

The well established, but hidden motive of those driving the crisis is to gain more unaccountable power over the people.  Posts on the Freedom First Society website, examine the supporting crises in detail.  In particular, see “Where’s the Data, Dr. Fauci?”

Instead of embracing the stampede to bankrupt the nation, a Congress genuinely trying to serve the people should have questioned the necessity of quarantining the general population that was not infected.  Several other nations handled the epidemic quite differently and successfully (see, for example, the Freedom First Society post: “Three COVID-19 Counterexamples: Taiwan, Singapore, and Sweden”).

One of the four dissenting GOP representatives, Andy Biggs from Arizona, was given one minute during the floor “debate” to registered his concerns:

 Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.  The current bill provides $12 billion to jurisdictions that specifically authorize and encourage the use of surveillance and contact tracing. The bill does not define these terms.  Does it allow big tech companies to surveil and trace American citizens and then turn that accumulated information over to the government?   How will this data be secured, stored, et cetera?   There are many questions that go unanswered. Not the least of these,  however, is the question of how much longer the American people acquiesce to unconstitutional and crushing government action.  We need to open up America now. I call on our Governors to free their citizens immediately.

Congressional Research Services Summary:
Shown Here:
House agreed to Senate amendment (04/23/2020)

Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act

This bill responds to the COVID-19 (i.e., coronavirus disease 2019) outbreak by providing additional funding for small business loans, health care providers, and COVID-19 testing.

DIVISION A–SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAMS

(Sec. 101) This division provides additional lending authority for certain Small Business Administration (SBA) programs in response to COVID-19.

Specifically, the division increases the authority for (1) the Paycheck Protection Program, under which the SBA may guarantee certain loans to small businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic; and (2) advances on emergency economic injury disaster loans made in response to COVID-19. The division also expands eligibility for such disaster loans and advances to include agricultural enterprises.

Additionally, the division requires the SBA to guarantee no less than a specified amount of paycheck protection loans made by certain insured depository institutions, community financial institutions, and credit unions.

(Sec. 102) The amounts provided under this division are designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (PAYGO) and the Senate PAYGO rule.

DIVISION B–ADDITIONAL EMERGENCY APPROPRIATIONS FOR CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE

Additional Emergency Appropriations for Coronavirus Response

This division provides FY2020 supplemental appropriations for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the SBA in response to COVID-19.

The supplemental appropriations are designated as emergency spending, which is exempt from discretionary spending limits.

TITLE I–DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

This title provides $100 billion in FY2020 supplemental appropriations to HHS for the Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund, including

• $75 billion to reimburse health care providers for health care related expenses or lost revenues that are attributable to the coronavirus outbreak; and
• $25 billion for expenses to research, develop, validate, manufacture, purchase, administer, and expand capacity for COVID-19 tests to effectively monitor and suppress COVID-19.

The title allocates specified portions of the $25 billion for COVID-19 testing to

• states, localities, territories, and tribes;
• the Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention;
• the National Institutes of Health;
• the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority;
• the Food and Drug Administration;
• community health centers;
• rural health clinics; and
• testing for the uninsured.

The title also establishes several reporting requirements for HHS, including requirements to submit to Congress details regarding COVID-19 cases and a strategic testing plan

(Sec. 101) This section specifies that certain authorities, conditions, and requirements included in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act apply to the funds provided by this division to HHS.

(Sec. 102) This section sets forth authorities and restrictions that apply to transferring funds provided by this title.

(Sec. 103) This section requires specified funds provided by this title for the Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund to be transferred to the HHS Office of Inspector General for oversight of activities supported with funds appropriated to HHS to respond to the COVID-19 outbreak.

TITLE II–INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

This title provides FY2020 supplemental appropriations to the SBA, including

• $2.1 billion for salaries and expenses to administer programs related to COVID-19,
• $50 billion for the Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) program, and
• $10 billion for Emergency EIDL grants.

TITLE III–GENERAL PROVISIONS–THIS ACT

(Sec. 301) This section specifies that the funds provided by this division are in addition to funds otherwise appropriated for the fiscal year involved.

(Sec. 302) Funds provided by this division may not remain available beyond the current fiscal year, unless this division provides otherwise.

(Sec. 303) Unless otherwise specified by this division, the funds provided by this division are subject to the authorities and conditions that apply to the applicable appropriations account for FY2020.

(Sec. 304) This section specifies that certain funds provided or transferred by this division may only be used to prevent, prepare for, and respond to the coronavirus outbreak.

(Sec. 305) For the purposes of this division, the term coronavirus means SARS-CoV-2 or another coronavirus with pandemic potential.

(Sec. 306) This section provides that amounts designated by this division as emergency requirements are only available (or rescinded, if applicable) if the President subsequently designates the amounts and transmits the designations to Congress.

(Sec. 307) This section specifies that the emergency funds that are transferred pursuant to this division retain the emergency designation.

(Sec. 308) This section exempts the budgetary effects of this division from the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (PAYGO), (2) the Senate PAYGO rule, and (3) certain budget scorekeeping rules.

Congressional Research Service (CRS) Summary 
Shown here:
As passed in the House (2/13/20):

“This joint resolution eliminates the deadline for the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment, which prohibits discrimination based on sex. The amendment was proposed to the states in House Joint Resolution 208 of the 92nd Congress, as agreed to in the Senate on March 22, 1972. The amendment shall be part of the Constitution whenever ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states.”

Freedom First Society Analysis: We will amplify each of our three objections, drawing heavily on the House debates in the Congressional Record.

1) H.J. Res. 79 is blatantly unconstitutional, attempting to revive the long-dead ERA with a simple majority vote (Article V requires a 2/3 majority of both Houses to propose amendments):

Two days earlier, on February 11th, by strict party line vote, the House passed H.Res. 844 the rule for consideration and passage of this measure, H.J. Res. 79.  The rule itself was a deception.

First it embraced two completely different topics:  1) consideration of H.R. 2546 “Protecting America’s Wilderness Act” — a federal land grab (mostly in Colorado); and 2) consideration and passage of H.J. Res. 79 to remove the deadline for ERA ratification.

Particularly sneaky, passage of H.Res. 844 was deemed to also pass H.Res. 842 and remove it from challenge during the debate on ERA extension (H.J. Res. 79).  The complete text of H.Res. 842 is as follows: “Resolved, That an affirmative vote of a majority of the Members present and voting, a quorum being present, shall be required on final passage of House Joint Resolution 79.”

From the Congressional Record, 2-11-20, re H.Res. 844, the rule for considering H.Res. 79 [Emphasis added]:

Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-Arizona), member, House Committee on Rules: “Madam Speaker, to begin, I would like to clarify what H.J. Res. 79 is.  It is not the equal rights amendment. It is a date change. The  legislation is a joint resolution removing the deadline for ratification of the equal rights amendment in States that the amendment shall be valid and adopted as part of the Constitution whenever ratified by the legislatures of three-quarters of the States.   Democrats say this is about equal rights for women. Well, I am a  woman, and so I, obviously, support equal rights for women. But I oppose H.J. Res 79 for the following reasons:

“First: The bill is totally unconstitutional.  When the ERA originally passed on March 22, 1972, Congress explicitly set a deadline for ratification stating that the amendment shall be valid when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within 7 years from the date of its submission by the Congress.  That meant that the final deadline was March 22, 1979, almost 41 years ago.   By the end of this initial deadline, only 35 of the 38 States needed had ratified it, so Congress with a simple majority vote, which is questionable, extended the deadline once to 1982, but no other States  joined in ratification. Thus, the equal rights amendment was dead.   It is also imperative to note that five of the 35 States rescinded  their ratifications. So then the count was down to only 30 States.

“In fact, the U.S. Department of Justice issued a legal opinion just  last month reiterating that the ERA ratification timeline is expired.   Ultimately, when the 1972 ERA’s deadline passed without ratification  by three-fourths of the States, the proposed amendment expired and is,  therefore, no longer pending. The 1972 ERA, therefore, can no longer be  ratified because it no longer exists.   In one of its works, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, which we all turn to, states that the ERA formally died on June 30,  1982. The U.S. Supreme Court also dismissed all cases related to the  ERA because it held the cases to be moot, saying that the ERA ratification date had expired.

“Regardless of one’s view on whether or not the equal rights amendment  should be adopted, the fact remains that the equal rights amendment was not ratified by the necessary 38 States by the deadline set forth in  the text of the amendment itself.

“Just last night, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, certainly  not known as a conservative, said Virginia’s recent adoption of an ERA resolution was long after the deadline passed. She went on to say, ‘I  would like to see a new beginning. I’d like it to start over. There’s  too much controversy about latecomers. Virginia — long after the  deadline passed. Plus, a number of States have withdrawn their  ratification.’ Remember the five I talked about. ‘So if you count a  latecomer on the plus side, how can you disregard States that said  we’ve changed our minds?’ And deratified.

“In addition, the Democrats’ sneaky act to slip into this resolution  language that would deem that a mere majority vote instead of the two-thirds vote needed on a constitutional amendment, has significant constitutional and legal ramifications.  Should my Democratic colleagues wish to proceed with seeking to add the ERA to the Constitution, the appropriate method would be to follow the procedure outlined in the Constitution:  Passage by a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Congress, followed by ratification by three-quarters of the States. And it seems as recently as last night, Supreme  Court Justice Ginsburg agrees.”

Rep. Ann Wagner (R-Missouri): “Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to oppose H.J. Res. 79. This resolution seeks to unconstitutionally remove the deadline for ratification of the equal rights amendment.

“In 1972, Madam Speaker, when I was 10 years old, Congress originally  set the deadline for ratification at 7 years by two-thirds vote. Before  the original time period expired, Congress then passed a 3-year extension, which also passed before the necessary number of States ratified the amendment.

“Today, 37 years after the constitutional time has expired, it is quite clear that, because of a new focus on a so-called right to taxpayer-funded abortion, the equal rights amendment does not have support from a two-thirds majority of Congress or, likely, from two-thirds of the States, certainly, as we have seen at least five States have already rescinded.”

2) the ERA itself was a revolutionary attack on our Federal system, continuing the erosion of states rights, as with the 14th Amendment:

The ERA would have interjected the Federal government into all kinds of domestic and social issues, in violation of the role the Founding Fathers mapped our for the Federal government.  In addition, the nice-sounding ERA was designed to remove all legal distinctions between men and women and restructure society. even subjecting women to a future draft.  Although promoted by revolutionary groups supporting the women’s liberation movement, the ERA also drew political support and funding from Establishment Insiders at the top, such as John D. Rockefeller, III and Nelson Rockefeller.

During the debates re H.J. Res. 79, opponents pointed out several significant problems with the resolution and shared a great deal of wisdom.  But clearly no representative was willing to point to the conspiratorial forces driving the ERA or their totalitarian agenda.  Right now, that critical perspective has to be supplied from outside government by informed activists organized under responsible leadership (e.g., Freedom First Society).

From the Congressional Record, 2-13-20, re H.J. Res. 79 [Emphasis added]:

Rep. Jerold Nadler (D-New York), Chairman, House Committee on the Judiciary:“The ERA offers a basic and fundamental guarantee: Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or  by any State on account of sex.

“That is it. Very simple.

“In the years since it was passed by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in the House and the Senate, we have made great strides to  secure that equality, including through existing case law decided under the14th Amendment.

“The ERA would enshrine those principles and take the final critical step of ensuring that laws disadvantaging women and gender minorities are subject to the most rigorous form of constitutional scrutiny.

“In recent years, we have seen a series of breakthroughs for women’s  rights and gender equality. We have seen millions of women march in support of their rights and dignity as equal citizens. Through the #MeToo movement, we have had long-overdue and sometimes painful conversationsabout the violence and harassment that women and gender minorities experience, whether in the workplace, at home, or in schools  and universities.”

Freedom First Society:  Here Rep. Nadler employs revolutionary deception. He ignores the revolutionary organization and its real hidden goals behind orchestrated demonstrations and their chosen pretexts.  And he advances that there have been honest conversations in the media about the deceptions.

Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif), sponsor of H.J. Res. 79:  “The ERA is about equality. The ERA is about sisterhood, motherhood,  survival, dignity, and respect.

“The world recognizes this. Of the 193 countries in the United  Nations, 165 have put this kind of language in their constitutions, but not the United States of America.  

“From the Women’s March to the #MeToo movement to the pink wave, the  outrage we have seen among women is because we have been disrespected,  devalued, and diminished in our society.And we are fed up.

“It is no wonder recent votes to ratify the ERA came in 2017, 2018, and 2020, because we want the ERA now. We have waited for almost a  century for the ERA.

“I want to thank my Republican cosponsors of this resolution, including Congressmen Reed, Fitzpatrick, and Van Drew.”

Freedom First Society:  Rep. Speier is clearly a tool of revolutionary deception.  She ignores the revolutionary orchestration and agendas behind demonstrations she would have us believe are motivated by their purported pretexts.  Does she want to suggest that women are better off in the 165 countries that have put ERA language in their constitutions?  How was that uniformity orchestrated?

Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-Arizona), member, House Committee on Rules: “The third reason I oppose this bill: If ratified, the ERA would be used by pro-abortion groups to undo pro-life legislation and lead to  more abortions and taxpayer funding of abortions.

“But don’t take my word for it. Let’s look at what pro-abortion groups have done and what they say.

“In 1998, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the  State’s ERA required the State to fund abortions. NARAL Pro-Choice  America, which supports abortions, asserted that the ERA would  reinforce the constitutional right to abortion and would require judges  to strike down anti-abortion laws.

“In a 2019 letter to the House Judiciary Committee, the ACLU stated:  The equal rights amendment could provide an additional layer of  protection against restrictions on abortion.”

Rep. Vicki Hartzler (R-Missouri): “I rise today to commend the women who have gone before us to  celebrate the achievements that women have made and to reaffirm the  fact that we are equal in the eyes of God and in law.

“Women make up 51 percent of the population, comprise over half of the college students, make up most of today’s medical and law school  students and own the majority of new businesses.

“Women are not victims in need of validation. Little girls can be whatever they want to be, whether that be an astronaut, a doctor, a  full-time mom working at home, or a member of Congress.

“In addition, Federal law and court precedent uphold our rights. That  is something to applaud, and I do. However, today’s legislation is problematic on several fronts….

“Besides being unconstitutional and shredding State and Federal pro-life protections, the ERA would also erase decades of progress which have  provided opportunities for women, advance women’s progress through  Federal programs, and secure necessary protections for women and girls.

“How? By incorporating gender identity in the definition of sex, jeopardizing private spaces for women, girls’ sports programs, and  women’s educational institutions.

“The ERA endangers laws, programs, and funding designed to benefit  women providing a pathway for legal challenges to welfare programs,  grants for battered women’s shelters, efforts to bolster women  participating in STEM programs, as well as State laws governing child support, alimony, and custody. These outcomes are anything but pro women.

“Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ‘no.’”

Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin), member, House Committee on the Judiciary: “Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this  resolution.

“Listening to people on the other side say that there is a cornucopia  of benefits awaiting women should the ERA become a part of the  Constitution. I am here to ask Members on both sides of the aisle to  look past what looks nice on a bumper sticker or a 40-second sound bite to realize that there are going to be many consequences that will hurt women should this be ratified. I will just talk about insurance, because insurance is regulated by the States.

“Girls get substantially lower rates on auto insurance because they are better drivers. With the ERA and the State regulation, that would become unconstitutional, and girls are going to have to pay boy drivers’ rates for auto insurance, which really does not reflect the actuarial exposure of that at all.

“Secondly, look at life insurance. Women live longer than men and, as a result, in life insurance, also regulated by the States, you see women’s rates being lower than men’s rates becoming unconstitutional, and women are going to be paying more to life insurance companies for  the coverage that they decide on.

“I could go on and on and on.”

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), member, House Committee on the Judiciary: “I rise enthusiastically to support H.J. Res. 79 and to say to my  colleagues there is no constitutional prohibition for passing this.

“We are grandly involved because this is the 1972 passage by the State of Texas of the equal rights amendment. And here, in 1977, Betty Friedan and Bella Abzug were in Houston at the 1977 National Women’s Conference that our predecessor, Barbara Jordan, was at.   Let us pass H.J. Res. 79, because, as Abigail Adams said, let’s  remember the ladies.”

Freedom First Society:   Rep. Lee may not be aware, but Communists were heavily involved in the women’s movement, and not because they were interested in women’s rights, but because they saw it as an opportunity to advance totalitarian government.

During the 70’s, Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, and Bella Abzug led a demonstration down New York’s Fifth Avenue, behind a banner reading “International Women’s Day Coalition — March 8, 1975.” Among the 50 or so “women’s groups” represented were Puerto Rican Socialist Party and the Communist Party.

In her book, It Changed My Life: Writings on Woman’s Movement, Friedan wrote that as a college student she frequently went to “Marxist discussion groups and rallies….” At the Women’s Strike for Equality march in 1970, she concluded an ERA speech by saying, “We are all the Karl Marxes of this revolution.”

As recorded in the Congressional Record for October 12, 1971, Rep. Bella Abzug stated: “The equal rights amendment would make voluntary, as well as compulsory, military service available to women and men on the same basis….” [Emphasis added.]

Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas):  “Madam Speaker, we have heard my Democratic colleagues say that passing the equal rights amendment is necessary to secure  basic rights under the law for women.  Not only is this untrue, it obscures a fundamental fact. This ERA actually denies the most basic human right: the right to life. This ERA uses gender equality as a smokescreen to create an unlimited constitutional right to abortion.

“Instead of working to craft legislation that protects women’s rights without trampling on the right to life, Democrats have put forward, today, an unconstitutional, partisan measure.

“Not only would this result in on-demand abortions across all 50 States, but it would also clear the way to provide taxpayer-funded abortions throughout all 9 months of pregnancy, costing millions of  dollars every year.

“This measure is not about advancing women’s rights, especially as  women across the country, Republicans and Democrats alike, are increasingly horrified by the practice of late-term abortion and by recent comments made in New York and Virginia that lifesaving treatment should be denied to some newborns.

“Allowing women to discard their unborn children at taxpayer expense is not ensuring gender equality. It is not protecting women. It is not empowering women. It is not providing women equal pay for equal work. It is simply another step down the path of devaluing all human life and dignity.   Madam Speaker, I oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to vote  ‘no’ on this measure.”

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Speaker of the House: “This is a historic day, a happy day, as the House takes action to  move our Nation closer to our founding ideal that all are created  equal. I salute Congresswoman Jackie Speier for her leadership on this resolution and for her lifetime of work to advance equality in America….

“Let me also salute Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney, our longtime lead  sponsor of the equal rights amendment in the House, for her great  leadership, and Chairman Nadler, the members of the Judiciary Committee, and all the Members who came to Congress committed to  finishing this fight for the equal rights amendment….

“Fifty years ago, soon after becoming the first African American woman  to serve in the Congress, Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm stood on this  House floor to urge passage of the ERA, calling it ‘one of the most  clear-cut opportunities we are likely to have to declare our faith in  the principles that shaped our Constitution.’

“But today, in this year that marks the centennial of women having the right to vote, it is a shameful reality that the equal rights amendment  still has not been enshrined in the Constitution. As a result, millions  of American women still face inequality under the law and injustice in  their careers and lives….

“Madam Speaker, I urge a ‘yes’ vote.”

3) H.J. Res. 79 was simply a Democratic campaign stunt, typical of Congress wasting its time with measures that have no possibility of becoming law:

The original ERA was ratified by many states when the ERA was miscast, according to its name, as merely about equal rights for women.  While that understanding was widespread, few legislators could withstand the pressure to pass the ERA.  But a tremendous grassroots campaign led by several organizations created widespread understanding of the real implications of the ERA and ratifications stopped, with even 5 states rescinding their earlier ratifications.

But that was several decades ago, and much of the public is again vulnerable to the Democrat claim that opposition to the ERA is a stand against women.  And so the Democrats arranged to force Republicans to vote on H.J. Res. 79.   In doing so, we see much of the same deceptive shallow rhetoric employed that created the initial momentum for the ERA:

From the Congressional Record, 2-11-20, re H.Res. 844, the rule for considering H.Res. 79 [Emphasis added]:

Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon (D-Penn.), member, House Committee on Rules: “In this year, as we celebrate the 100th anniversary of women winning the right to vote in this country, it defies logic that we are still in a holding pattern when it comes to recognizing the equal rights of women under the United States  Constitution….

“The ERA had broad  bipartisan support from Members of Congress and Presidents Nixon, Carter, and Ford but was unable to cross the finish line in the brief  time allowed.

“Why the ERA did not become a constitutional amendment in the  seventies is up for debate, but it was in large part due to vicious,  antifeminist rhetoric and actions by conservative activists who sought  to trample on the rights of all women to work for an equal wage, to  control their own reproductive health, and to participate as equal  members of our society, in the name of protecting the traditional  values of a privileged few.

“In the years that followed, courts have recognized and protected  various aspects of women’s equality under the law through  interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. But as  even Justice Antonin Scalia famously recognized, nothing in our Constitution, as currently written, forbids discrimination on the basis  of sex….

“The equal rights amendment would permanently and explicitly prohibit  discrimination on the basis of sex….

“We hear from the other side of the aisle that discrimination against women is already illegal. This argument might be more persuasive if it  was not being presented by a party that is, if anything, less diverse  than it was in the 1970s. When a party reflects a predominantly White,  male, and conservative voter base, it is easy to see why that party  might not understand the need for basic additional constitutional  protections.

“Women continue to face obstacles to full equality, including unequal pay, pregnancy discrimination, sexual and domestic violence, and inadequate healthcare access….

“Women are paid less than their male counterparts for equal work. Women are treated differently in job interviews and can be determined a burden for a company if they are pregnant or planning on becoming pregnant….

Freedom First Society:  Scanlon’s claims point to the dangerous revolutionary power grab in the ERA.  She advances the politically expedient collectivist viewpoint that government is the source of a nation’s progress.

But a federal government powerful enough to force society to accept that men and women are equal in all areas, including pregnancy, or to ignore that many women leave the workforce to raise a family is powerful enough to oppress us all.

The ERA controversy spawned a slogan, mostly now forgotten: “Free men are not equal and equal men are not free.”  And we don’t want the federal government to require that both sexes share the same bathrooms in the name of liberal “political correctness.”

Rep. Scanlon resumes: “Although the ERA was passed with bipartisan support, and strong  support from Republican women, we saw in the Rules Committee last night  and in debate about this rule and bill that the spirit of the late Phyllis Schlafly has overtaken today’s Republican Party, which now seeks to cloak deep-seated misogyny in anti-choice rhetoric.

“Passing the equal rights amendment is long overdue. I am excited to  bepart of a Democratic majority that will remove this arbitrary  deadline for ratification and finally allow States to exercise their constitutional authority to pass this critical and fundamentally  American amendment.”

Freedom First Society:  But Scanlon knows that the Senate will not pass H.J. Res. 79.  So it will die at the end of this Congress.

Rep. Scanlon concludes with more demand for federal management of the states and society: “It is necessary that Congress consider this amendment to the  Constitution to help women achieve pay equality, require States to intervene in cases of domestic violence and sexual harassment, and guard against discrimination based on pregnancy and motherhood.”

From the Congressional Record, 2-13-20, re H.J. Res. 79 [Emphasis added]:

Rep. Doug Collins (R-Georgia), Ranking Member, House Committee on the Judiciary: “Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield  myself such time as I may consume….

“I was really worried at one point in the discussion that it was said  on multiple occasions that there was no protection in the Constitution  for women. I was almost scared for a moment that the 14th Amendment had  been repealed and I didn’t know it.

“It is in there and still is in there. I checked just a few minutes  ago. It is safe….

“But, at the end of the day, the question really becomes: Why are we doing this? Why are we bringing this forth when there is absolutely no  legal precedent, no constitutional precedent, no anything out there — including some of the founders who actually started this whole process  40-plus years ago, who said this is not the way you do it….

“But let me also say — and it has been talked about a great deal, so I  think we just need to come to the real scenario why this is happening.  It is not that we believe it will actually happen. For anybody here who  believes that today is actually going to put it in part of the  Constitution, that is not going to happen.

“So what is it? It is a political nod to the understanding of those  who are speaking for this.

“As we have heard earlier, NARAL Pro-Choice America: ‘With its ratification, the ERA would reinforce the constitutional right to abortion by clarifying that the sexes  have equal rights, which would require judges to strike down anti-abortion laws.’…

“Codirector of Reproaction: ‘Abortion restrictions amount to sex discrimination because they single out people for unfair treatment on the basis of sex.’

“The senior counsel of National Women’s Law Center: ‘The ERA would help create a basis for challenging abortion restrictions.’

“This is what this is actually about. This is what the basis has  needed because there has been a shifting in this country to understand that, in our opinion — in the opinion of many — abortion is simply murder in the womb. It is not about life.

“It is interesting, we are talking about the rights of women today — which, again, this bill doesn’t have anything to do with — but we are  not concerned if the young women in the womb are even able to have a  birthday. That is not a concern.

“So what would happen from these folks who are supporting your  resolution today? Why do they want it? Because it gives a claim, from  start to finish, unfettered abortion.

“So what does that mean? That means let’s bring back partial-birth  abortion, which, if I have to remind anybody here, means the delivery  of the child all the way until the moment the chin comes almost out,  and then actually crushing their skull. That is what that is.

“If that is a right we are protecting, I don’t want any part of it,  and neither do most Americans. They don’t want a part of it. But that  is one of those restrictions that will be laid back.

“It would also continue to allow unlimited abortions in any State for  any reason, including sex selection.

“It is interesting that we would talk about this today, the ERA, and  use this, yet a family could choose to abort a child because it is a male or a female. Let’s be honest about this.

“But the bottom line for me, what really bothers me the most about  when it is unlimited, unfettered access to abortion that this bill opens up, if it were to have passed, is one that hits close to home for  me.

“You see, a European country recently stated that a geneticist in  Iceland said: We have almost basically eradicated Down syndrome people.

“I thought to myself, for a second: That would be great. I mean, if we could actually remove Down syndrome and help those and cure that, that would be an amazing medical discovery for all people. Except there is one portion.    “Do you know how they have done it? Through genetic testing and killing the children in the womb. They don’t even let them have a  birthday.

“One Icelandic counselor counsels mothers as follows:  “This is your life. You have the right to choose how your life will look. She said: We don’t look at abortion as murder. We look at it as a  thing that we ended.

“Do you want to know why this has opened up, America? This is why.

“And for those of us like myself who have a disabled child, I do not  want to hear that we are protecting disabled rights and other rights when we are not even allowing them to be born in certain arenas.   Every day, I get a text on this phone. It is from my daughter. Jordan is 27 years old. She has spina bifida. She cannot walk and has never  taken a step, and I believe it probably, given the medical condition, will not happen this side of Heaven. But she rolls and she smiles. She goes to work 3 days a week. She gets herself up early to put her clothes on and take her shower and get a bus that she calls, and she goes to work.

“The folks in Sweden, do you know what they want to do? Kill her.  Because she is not as valuable, as a Down syndrome child is not as  valuable.

“Do you want to open this Pandora’s box of no abortion restrictions?  Then own what you are doing.

“But when Jordan texts me, she texts me: Good morning, Daddy. I love  you. How was your day?

“Madam Speaker, when we found out 27 years ago — a week ago, 27 years  ago — that Jordan was going to have spina bifida, we were a young couple  just happy that God gave us a child, and to find out that she had a disability only kept our hearts more in tune to what God had given.

“My wife went to school the next week, and she was telling the teacher about what was going on. She said: We are trying to figure out where we need to go to have Jordan, help when she is born and get some more  medical attention.

“This person looked at her and said: ‘You know you have choices,  correct?’

“And my wife said: Well, yes. There is Northside Hospital and others.   She said: ‘No. Oh, no, dear. You don’t have to go through with this.  That is your choice.’

“In other words, as my wife looked at her and said: ‘You’re talking  about my baby.’

“You see, when we go down this path, don’t flower this bill up. Look  at the ones who actually talk about it and say this is an open door to  abortion on demand, with no restrictions, no government interference– in fact, government pays for it.

“But before you do that, America, as we look around, I want you to  think of the picture on the new Gerber baby ad of the young person with  Down syndrome, who is now the face of Gerber baby food. If he was in  Iceland, he would have been one of those that, as it said: Oh, we ended.

“Think about my daughter, who, when we allow it out there for people  who are struggling — and to get news that you have a child with a  disability, that is one of the most amazingly devastating things that  you can hear because you don’t know what the future holds.

“But what you do know is life is a gift from God, and that it is my  joy to take care of her. We had 30 major surgeries before she was 5  years old, three of which were 9 hours in length. Tell me her life doesn’t matter.

“For someone who doesn’t have the possibility of understanding, and they are given a choice because they have a disability, and somebody  tells them and gets to them and says: Don’t worry. Disabilities are  bad. Just go ahead and end that life, and go on with your life.

“This is what this opens up.

“So don’t give me a bill that is going nowhere for the reasons that  have been given. The true reasons are found in your own supporters. The  true reasons are found in what we know to be true.

“When you understand what this is about, then I will stand till I have  no more breath in my body for the rights of those who can’t speak for  themselves.   It is amazing to me that it was said: What would I be saying to my  daughter if I voted against this?

“I would be saying to Jordan, as I will: Jordan, the 14th Amendment is  still there. Protections in law are still there. And by the way,  restrictions on abortion will not be done away with, and your life  matters.

“So if you want a picture of this, picture Jordan.

“Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.”

Analysis:  The arguments in the Senate debate over the USMCA had the wrong focus — trade benefits and stronger enforcement — much like those in the House.   So we refer readers especially to our analysis of H.R. 5430 and the USMCA in scoring the House vote last year (House Roll Call 701, 12-19-19). 

The USMCA steppingstone to regional government is not theory.  The European Union is a fact.  David Rockefeller, a late leader of the U.S. Establishment, gave strong support to NAFTA, and earlier U.S. Insiders supported Jean Monnet who would earn the title “Father of Europe” for his “leadership in the drive to build a united Europe.  Indeed, Monnet would subsequently acknowledge that U.S. Marshall funds were “used with the intention of encouraging European unity.”

The European Union is not the final stage in European integration.  But it has already established its authority in overturning British laws and in opening national borders to unwanted migration. However, to avoid duplication of the record of Internationalist totalitarian aims with regionalism, we again refer readers to our analysis of H.R. 5430 when scoring the House vote last year (House Roll Call 701, 12-19-19).  Even more of the record is present in Chapter 7 “Progressive Regionalization” of Masters of Deception — The Rise of the Council on Foreign Relations.

What is not discussed in the House and Senate debates are the real reasons we had manufacturing and industry flight.  U.S. Insiders promoted that flight with carrots and sticks, in particular to build up Communist China as an economic powerhouse.

Although trade is good for countries, it is not usually the major origin of prosperity.  An increase in capital investment per worker is the key, and that requires a stable environment.  Prosperity is not accomplished through legislation or enforcement of provisions in a trade pact; it requires efficient production.  Mexico’s relatively low-wage scale cannot be equalized with her neighbors to the North merely by legislation.  She needs to get rid of the socialism that has been promoted by U.S. Insiders throughout Latin America (e.g., there was an old quip that Fidel Castro got his job through the New York Times).

Also, we must reject the socialist class-warfare deception.  Corporate interests and labor interests aren’t necessarily opposed to each other.

Although we refer readers to our critique of the House debate, we include below a couple of excerpts from the Senate debates. Despite the overwhelming support for the agreement in the Senate, the remarks of opponents are equally instructive.

Congressional Record Senate (1-15-20 & 1-16-20)

Senator Bernie Sanders (Independent from Vermont): “Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the NAFTA 2.0  trade agreement negotiated by President Trump.   This agreement is opposed by labor unions like the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, as well as by the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union. It is opposed by numerous environmental organizations, including the Sunrise Movement, the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, the League of  Conservation Voters, and virtually every major environmental organization in the country….

“I am proud to stand with these labor unions, with the environmental  groups, and family farmers against President Trump’s NAFTA 2.0.   I not only voted against NAFTA in 1993, but I marched against it….

“There is a reason why virtually every major environmental group is opposed to Trump’s NAFTA 2.0. This agreement does nothing to stop fossil fuel companies like ExxonMobil and Chevron from dumping their waste and pollution into Mexico and destroying the environment….

“The scientific community has been very clear. If we do not act boldly and aggressively to transform our energy system  away from fossil fuel and into energy efficiency and sustainable energy, the future of this planet is in doubt, and there is no question but that the Nation and planet we leave to our children and to our  grandchildren will be increasingly unhealthy and uninhabitable.   We have a major climate crisis and no trade deal should be passed that does not address that issue.”

Freedom First Society:  Socialist Bernie Sanders certainly carries forth the propaganda of the Left. But let us remember the wisdom of the great 20th Century historian Oswald Spengler. Spengler had it figured out when he wrote in his classic Decline of the West:

There is no proletarian, not even a Communist, movement, that has not operated in the interest of money, in the directions indicated by money, and for the time permitted by money — and that, without the idealist amongst its leaders having the slightest suspicion of the fact.

The major environmental groups were funded by the Establishment (e.g., see our review of Steve Milloy’s Green Hell).  So it should not be surprising that they support the Establishment-funded climate models that project doomsday from man-made climate change.  Their solution to their hyped-crisis is more power to government and the UN to address the crisis. See, for example, our post “Crisis-Hyping — What’s at Stake!”

Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon): “[The USMCA] now has the strongest trade enforcement system ever written into a trade agreement. There are significant new resources put into  protecting American workers….

“For decades, there has been a lot of happy talk in Washington  about enforcing trade laws, but the government just moved too slowly and did too little to protect American workers when trade cheats came after their jobs….

“The original NAFTA was a part of the problem. It made strong  enforcement almost impossible and was particularly a problem with labor rights in Mexico. The same government that allowed corporations to undercut American jobs by paying rock bottom wages and abusing rights in Mexico had the power to actually block our country from fighting  back for the workers. So it was a head-scratcher when the Trump administration proposed essentially a new NAFTA that kept the old NAFTA  enforcement system. It ought to have been the first part of the  original NAFTA that they threw in the trash can, but, sure enough, in 2018, the Trump administration agreed to language on trade enforcement that really did not enforce anything.

“So Senator Brown, who has fought for years for tough trade law enforcement, said: We are going to get together, and we are going to change this. We put together a proposal that makes the U.S. enforcement  system faster, tougher, and directly responsive to American workers and businesses that are targeted by the trade cheats. Our approach puts  trade enforcement boots on the ground to identify when factories in Mexico break the labor standards we should insist on. It will be a lot easier to penalize the violators and protect the jobs they threaten to undercut. Senator Brown and I worked with our colleagues, Democratic colleagues on the Finance Committee, but we talked to plenty of Republicans as well. We took our ideas to the House leadership. We got their input and support.

“We told the Trump administration that tough enforcement with what has come to be known as the Brown-Wyden proposal  was going to be a prerequisite to getting the new NAFTA through Congress. As I said, I think this is the toughest labor enforcement  measure that our country has seen, and that is a big reason why the  AFL-CIO has endorsed the bill.   When you combine this all-in approach to enforcement with significant new standards on labor and environmental protection, you also get the  benefit of beginning to stop the race to the bottom. You raise other  countries to the standards set by our country instead of forcing  American workers to compete in a game that is rigged against them.  These have been core Democratic trade policies for a long time.  Commitments on labor and the environment weren’t a part of the original  NAFTA.

“I think it is only appropriate to have a special Senate shout-out for Ambassador Lighthizer, who has been straight with members of our  committee.”

Freedom First Society:  1) It is instructive that during the House and Senate “debates,” Democrats often paid respect to U.S. Trade Rep. Robert Lighthizer, a member of the Establishment’s powerful Council on Foreign Relations, even though they regularly assailed President Trump who had selected Lighthizer to negotiate the agreement. 2) American workers need protection from the socialists in our government and the Establishment elite who are working to steal our freedom and destroy American middle-class opportunity.  Low-wage foreign workers do not threaten American prosperity.  Instead, middle-class opportunity has been undermined by the U.S. government’s carrots [e.g., the Export-Import bank] and sticks [taxes and regulatory burden] that have caused American capital — heavy industry and manufacturing — to move to socialist and Communist countries.

Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), president pro-tempore of the Senate and Chairman of the Senate Committee on Finance: Mr. President, before I start my remarks, I think it is  important for all Senators to know that when there were negotiations going on between the White House and the Democrats in the House of  Representatives, one of the real sticking points was enforcement.  I  think everybody expects a trade agreement to be enforced, but a lot  more had to be done than what was originally agreed to when the  agreement was signed.   I want to recognize Senator Wyden and Senator Brown because months before, maybe even years before — I don’t want to take away from how hard they were working on some ways of improving enforcement — but at  least they had an idea out there that was salable to both sides. I  don’t know whether it was 100 percent or 90 percent or 80 percent that was incorporated in this bill, but their laying the groundwork was the basis for getting an agreement between the White House and the House of  Representatives so we could move this to the point where the Senate is going to pass it tomorrow, I hope. So I thank Senator Wyden and Senator  Brown, who is not here, but maybe you can tell him I said thank you….

“With the passage of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement by what will be an overwhelming margin here in the U.S. Senate, America’s  economy will continue to thrive and drive prosperity for hard-working  American farmers, workers, and taxpayers all across our economy.   You have heard the old saying: ‘A rising tide lifts all boats.’ The  new NAFTA, the bill that we are working on, puts a bigger oar in the water for our trilateral trade relationship with our northern and southern neighbors. It is important to point out that we wouldn’t be  here without the bold leadership and the determination of President Trump. The President is doing exactly what he said he would do….

“We heard,  during the campaign, that it was the President’s opinion that it is the worst agreement that has ever been made. I might not agree with the extreme of that, but I do know, as Senator Wyden has pointed out, that there were a lot of things that weren’t even negotiable 30 years ago when we first sought NAFTA, and at least an updating needed to be done.   The President has done more than update. As the President promised during his campaign, at the end of the day, President Trump  successfully steered that final trade pact into the 21st century. He  did so with a tireless and tenacious team of advisers, especially the  leadership of the U.S. Trade Representative, Bob Lighthizer.  Senator Wyden just gave more adjectives to Bob Lighthizer’s work, and I  associate myself with the remarks and the description that Senator Wyden gave to Bob Lighthizer’s heavy lift to get this job done because Bob Lighthizer worked in good faith to broker and fine-tune the USMCA

“Mr. Lighthizer built a broad and sweeping coalition to improve  labor and environmental protections in a balanced fashion, and Mr. Lighthizer built a broad and sweeping coalition that will end up  growing wages for our workers. He ensured that all of this would be subject to strong enforcement, which is the bedrock of any good trade  agreement, and it is in that enforcement that he took good ideas from Wyden and Brown….

“According to the U.S. International Trade Commission, the USMCA will raise real GDP by more than $68 billion, and USMCA will create nearly 176,000 jobs. So, all told, the trade pact is forecast to boost farm and food exports by at least $2.2 billion….

“Under the Trump economy, the United States is enjoying the longest economic expansion in U.S. history. Ratification of the USMCA will help America’s economic engine fire on all cylinders and refuel prosperity  in rural America.”

Freedom First Society:  1) Here we see a Republican leader endorsing the efforts of Leftist Democrats to ramp up enforcement.  But neither party was willing to discuss the delegation of North American enforcing authority to unelected bodies. 2) The Internationalists who orchestrate these trade agreements do not seek greater prosperity for America. Indeed, they have long been at war with America’s middle class, a crucial bulwark of opportunity.  The middle class won’t be rescued without an understanding of the forces seeking its demise (see our booklet The Marxist Attack on the Middle Class).

Analysis: We divide our analysis of the USMCA into several topics. Our first and major concern is the path the USMCA is designed to lead us down — ending in totalitarian world government. We follow that topic by examining some of the deceptive claims made during the House debates that completely ignore that threat.

Internationalist Attack on U.S. Sovereignty

By design, the USMCA follows the multi-decade deception that trapped the nations of Europe in the European Union.  Most ominously, the Internationalists seek to establish regional governments they control as steppingstones to totalitarian world government.

The enrolled copy of  H.R. 5430 starts off with: “To implement the Agreement between the United States of America, the United Mexican States, and Canada attached as an Annex to the Protocol Replacing the North American Free Trade Agreement.”

But only the “implementation act” itself was presented for this vote.  And, as one of the Democratic opponents, Ohio’s Marci Kaptur, objected: “[I]t is being rushed through at the last moments of this session without the majority of Members even able to read it or participate in hearings on it.”   So much for transparency.

To find the referenced massive 2,000 plus page “Annex,” which is also approved by H.R. 5430, one needs to go to the U.S. Trade Representative’s website.  There we find  the “Agreement between the United States of America, the United Mexican States, and Canada 12/13/19 Text.”

By contrast, H.R. 5430, the “implementation act,” appears sanitized with regard to much of the impact of the USMCA on U.S. sovereignty.  For example, there is no mention of the World Trade Organization in H.R. 5430, but WTO agreements are accommodated in the Annex. And the House and Senate debates carefully ignore the impact on U.S. sovereignty.

H.R. 5430 does refer to some of the regional bodies that play a role in the agreement.  For example, in H.R. 5430 we find mention of a “Secretariat”:

SEC. 105. ADMINISTRATION OF DISPUTE SETTLEMENT PROCEEDINGS.

(a) United States Section Of Secretariat.—

(1) ESTABLISHMENT OR DESIGNATION OF OFFICE.—The President is authorized to establish or designate within the Department of Commerce an office to serve as the United States Section of the Secretariat established under article 30.6 of the USMCA.

(2) FUNCTIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANCE.—The office established or designated under paragraph (1), subject to the oversight of the interagency group established under section 411(c)(2), shall—

(A) carry out its functions within the Secretariat to facilitate the operation of the USMCA, including the operation of section D of chapter 10 and chapter 31 of the USMCA;

And  H.R. 5430 authorizes the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury to support the North American Development Bank, created with NAFTA, with an additional $1.5 billion, subject to future appropriation:

Subtitle C—North American Development Bank

SEC. 831.GENERAL CAPITAL INCREASE.

Part 2 of subtitle D of title V of Public Law 103–182 (22 U.S.C. 290m et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

“SEC. 547.FIRST CAPITAL INCREASE.

“(a) Subscription Authorized.—

“(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to subscribe on behalf of the United States to, and make payment for, 150,000 additional shares of the capital stock of the Bank.

“(2) LIMITATION.—Any subscription by the United States to the capital stock of the Bank shall be effective only to such extent and in such amounts as are provided in advance in appropriations Acts.

“(b) Limitations On Authorization Of Appropriations.—

“(1) IN GENERAL.—In order to pay for the increase in the United States subscription to the Bank under subsection (a), there are authorized to be appropriated, without fiscal year limitation, $1,500,000,000 for payment by the Secretary of the Treasury.

“(2) ALLOCATION OF FUNDS.—Of the amount authorized to be appropriated under paragraph (1)—

“(A) $225,000,000 shall be for paid in shares of the Bank; and

“(B) $1,275,000,000 shall be for callable shares of the Bank.”.

SEC. 832.POLICY GOALS.

(a) In General.—To the extent consistent with the mission and scope of the North American Development Bank on the day before the date of the enactment of this Act and pursuant to section 2 of article II of the Charter, the Secretary of the Treasury should direct the representatives of the United States to the Board of Directors of the Bank to use the voice and vote of the United States to give preference to the financing of projects related to environmental infrastructure relating to water pollution, wastewater treatment, water conservation, municipal solid waste, stormwater drainage, non-point pollution, and related matters.

(b) Charter Defined.—In this section, the term “Charter” means the Agreement Concerning the Establishment of a Border Environment Cooperation Commission and a North American Development Bank, signed at Washington and Mexico November 16 and 18, 1993, and entered into force January 1, 1994 (TIAS 12516), between the United States and Mexico.

With the current Congress, it is hard to imagine that the $1.5 billion won’t be appropriated below the radar screen. Notice also, in the previous paragraph, the continuation of a “Border Environment Cooperation Commission,” created as part of NAFTA.

Open Borders Lead to Union

It is hard to imagine a step with greater impact on U.S. sovereignty and our unique freedom-supporting culture than opening our southern border to unrestricted migration by populations accustomed to socialism.  But that’s the Internationalists’ goal.

As far back as 2001, in a September 7 house editorial, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution openly endorsed the Internationalist objective of open borders:

The ultimate goal of any White House policy ought to be a North American economic and political alliance similar in scope and ambition to the European Union. Unlike the varied landscapes and cultures of European Union members, the United States, Canada and Mexico already share a great deal in common, and language is not as great a barrier.

And the editorial mentioned approvingly that then-Mexican-President Vicente Fox “envisions a North American economic alliance that will make the border between the United States and Mexico as unrestricted as the one between Tennessee and Georgia.”

This was not the first editorial revealing such Internationalist aims.  A few months earlier (July 2, 2001), the editorial page editor for the Wall Street Journal,  Robert L. Bartley, went even further:  In an editorial entitled “Open NAFTA Borders? Why Not?” Bartley wrote:

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

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

As recorded in Masters of Deception: “Bartley was invited to join the CFR [the Internationalists’ world-government promoting Council on Foreign Relations] in 1979.  He also showed up on the membership roles of the even more selective Trilateral Commission and attended the internationalist Bilderberg meetings.”

The House “Debates”

In the House, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Maryland) opened the “debates” for the Democratic side and Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) for the Republican side.  Subsequently, the Democratic side of the debates was controlled by the Chairman of House Ways and Means Committee, Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.) and the Republican side by the Ranking Member of the Committee, Rep. Kevin Brady (R–Texas).

These “debate” managers invited more that 70 representatives to make short campaign statements for the Congressional Record.  Most of these statements followed a few themes, using very similar language.  After excerpts from the opening statements by the debate leaders, we provide examples of the common issues addressed in support of the USMCA, as well as a few unique issues raised by opponents.  And, of course, we include our comments.

From the Congressional Record House (12-19-19) [Emphasis added.] :

Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Maryland), House Majority Leader: “This USMCA agreement before us is a vast improvement over the first  version shown to us by President Trump and his team. We worked  together, and it now includes critically important changes offered by  Democratic members in order to ensure that its enforcement mechanisms are stronger, that it protects American workers, and that it will help  lower prescription drug costs and improve access to medications…. I am glad that our House Democratic working group was able to secure new provisions to ensure that America’s trading partners uphold the rights of workers to unionize and bargain collectively. And I am glad  that this agreement includes strong, rapid-response enforcement  mechanisms that will allow us to block imports produced in facilities  where these commitments are violated…. This agreement, Madam Speaker, is truly the product of bipartisanship with many victories for Democrats, of which all Americans can be proud, and obviously, victories for Republicans, as well.

Freedom First Society:  American workers need protection from the socialists in our government and the Establishment elite who are working to steal our freedom and destroy American middle-class opportunity.  Low-wage foreign workers do not threaten American prosperity.  Instead, middle-class opportunity has been undermined by the U.S. government’s carrots [e.g., the Export-Import bank] and sticks [taxes and regulatory burden] that have caused American capital — heavy industry and manufacturing — to move to socialist and Communist countries.

Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), House Minority Leader: “We understood months ago that the United States-Mexico-Canada  agreement would deliver a much-deserved win for the American worker.  Today is for them.”

Freedom First Society:  No, the agreement was developed to serve the Internationalists who are striving for unaccountable power to rule the world.

Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.), Chairman House Ways and Means Committee:  “When we assumed the majority this year, we were asked to consider a  renegotiated NAFTA that had structural flaws in a key number of areas:  enforcement, labor rights, environment, and access to medicines…. During these past 25 years, we have seen the shortcomings of the original agreement, much of which comes down to a lack of  enforcement, in my view.   House Democrats, working with Ambassador Lighthizer, fixed many of  those issues. The improvements to the USMCA that we negotiated finally make the agreement enforceable by preventing a country from being able to block the formation of a dispute settlement panel….

“On the rules, we strengthened certain provisions and addressed  obstacles to enforcement in many others. On monitoring, for the first time we have created a proactive monitoring regime for labor obligations in a trade agreement. The implementing bill establishes an Interagency Labor Committee that will actively monitor Mexico’s compliance, and report back to Congress.

“On enforcement, we negotiated a historic mechanism never included in  a trade agreement before. As a result of Democratic efforts, we will  now have a facility-specific, rapid-response mechanism to address violations of key labor obligations.

“We have made great improvements to environmental provisions. The  USMCA will now include the highest environmental standards of any trade  agreement in history and will include a new customs verification  agreement to enhance enforcement.

“The implementing bill, and I hope our colleagues in this Chamber will  hear this, also secures more than $600 million in funding for environmental problems in the NAFTA region and reauthorizes the North  American Development Bank….

“These changes set a new standard for U.S. trade agreements, and demonstrate that trade agreements can achieve broad, bipartisan support if they empower workers, protect patients, provide access to affordable  healthcare, and improve our shared environment.   I am proud of what we did here. After 14 months of negotiating on every conceivable front, we have improved the old NAFTA… I hope that today we can say at the end of the time limits that this was a successful negotiation of the largest trade agreement in American  history, a hemispheric agreement that I think we can stand in support of with great pride today.”

Rep. Kevin Brady (R–Texas), Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee:  “Today is a momentous day. We will finally consider the implementing bill that brings the trade relationship between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico into the 21st century.   This trade agreement is sorely needed. It has been over 25 years since we first established this trade relationship through NAFTA. So much has changed since then…. [W]e now have a trade agreement that will deliver historic wins for the economy, and that is because this trade agreement is all about growth.   USMCA will set the stage for billions more in economic activity….

“It  improves the competitive position of our manufacturers, our service  companies, and our small businesses. It ends the race to the bottom  created by what had been Mexico’s poor labor laws.  The agreement, best of all, is enforceable, allowing us to challenge violations and to stop countries from blocking these challenges, holding Mexico and Canada accountable for these new rules….

“Independent experts predict this new agreement will spur over $68  billion in new economic activity.   We are always looking to create more U.S. jobs, and this will create more than 176,000 jobs here in America, including 76,000 in our auto sector. That is good news for everyone.  Best of all for the American people, USMCA is a truly bipartisan agreement….

“We are so glad to see so many Republican priorities were retained.   In the agreement before us today, we have labor and environmental rules that are realistic, they are measurable, they are enforceable.   What is not in this agreement are provisions for which there is no  consensus, like the Paris climate accord.”

Freedom First Society:  We will refute many of Rep. Brady’s claims for the USMCA under the topics to follow.

Heavily Regulated Trade, Not Free Trade

The so-called House and Senate debates (campaigning masquerading as debates) focused heavily on the alleged trade benefits from the massive 2,082-page agreement.  But trade was the bait.  Similar claims enticed the nations of Europe into the Common Market, a steppingstone to the European Union. At the time, proponents of the Common Market repeatedly insisted that there would be no delegation of sovereignty.  Here are comments from several of those who championed the bait:

Rep. Adrian Smith (R-Nebraska): “Representing an agriculture powerhouse district, the Third District  of Nebraska, where our farmers and ranchers work very diligently and  very efficiently to help feed America and the world, we need good  markets for them. Trade relationships in North America are so important, and we have this opportunity to modernize NAFTA, heading us  in the direction of even more markets and really reflecting the needs  of our economy and the economy across North America.”

Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wisconsin):“I am happy that dairy farmers in America are going to have greater  access to the Canadian market.   We made progress on poultry and eggs.   We also tightened up the sanitary and phytosanitary standards so that  those decisions have to be made on sound science rather than arbitrary decisions to block our agricultural exports.   We have, perhaps, the strongest worker protection chapter ever in the trade agreement, enhanced environmental standards, all to level the  playing field for our workers, our farmers, our businesses so they can fairly compete rather than trying to compete in a race to the bottom.   Perhaps most importantly, we have the strongest enforcement chapter ever, and we look forward to working with Mexico and Canada to implement it the right way to make sure we are all playing by the same rules.”

Rep. Jackie Walorski (R-Indiana): “Madam Speaker, I am indeed happy, and I am thrilled today to actually be here and cast my vote for the U.S.-Mexico-Canada  Agreement, or the USMCA. I can’t tell you enough of what it will do for our districts in northern Indiana.   The hardworking Hoosiers in Indiana’s Second District are builders and growers. We manufacture most of the RVs you see on the road and a  large portion of boats and trailers that you see on many lakes. We manufacture auto parts and musical instruments. Our farmers put food on  the table, including corn, soybeans, pork, duck, eggs, and dairy  products. Mexico and Canada are key export markets for all of them and  the workers they employ….

“USMCA dismantles trade barriers that stood in the way of American  exports for so long. For farmers in my district, this means more dairy, more poultry, and more eggs are heading to Canada. For manufacturers,  this means fewer paperwork headaches that slow down shipments and prevent them altogether. For businesses of all sizes, types, and  shapes, this means e-commerce standards that promote fair competition and that will be used as a standard in future agreements. For workers, this means more jobs staying in the United States.  Robust enforcement ensures that the potential of the USMCA does not evaporate overnight.”

Rep. Kenny Marchant (R-Texas): “Madam Speaker, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement is a revolutionary trade deal that will usher in a new era of  economic prosperity and growth for Americans across the country.  Texas, in particular, stands ready to thrive under this agreement.  Our State exports more to Mexico than any other and is second in exports to Canada. Each year, over $135 billion worth of Texan goods are sent to our two closest trading partners, supporting over 114,000 jobs in Texas.   The reforms in the USMCA will ensure that we continue to have free and fair access to international marketplaces, keeping prices low for Americans and business booming for business and workers.”

Rep. Ron Estes (R-Kansas):“However, today we  are taking a giant step forward in finally making that free and fair trade deal a reality.   The U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement will create 176,000 new jobs in our  country and will boost the national GDP by $68 billion. It is important  for farmers and ranchers in my State. The USMCA opens up new markets  for American dairy, wheat, chicken, eggs, and turkey for the first time. This deal also helps U.S. manufacturing jobs and increases wages.   NAFTA was created 25 years ago, and the USMCA will now be the first trade agreement with a chapter dedicated to digital trade and sets new standards for labor and the environment….

“As a strong advocate for free and fair trade, I proudly support the USMCA and look forward to working with the Senate to send this to the President’s desk as soon as possible.”

Rep. Darin LaHood (R-Illinois):  “I rise today in support of the USMCA.   And let’s call this what it is: It is a win for America. It is a win for our farmers. It is a win for our manufacturers. It is a win for our workers….

”Also, to Bob Lighthizer. There is not a more capable trade ambassador that we have had than Bob Lighthizer. He has been relentless in his pursuit of getting this done.   Lastly, President Trump, it wouldn’t have happened without him and what he did working with the Canadians and the Mexicans to get this  trade agreement done.   This free and fair trade agreement benefits all of us, all sectors of  our economy. Moreover, it will further support the record-breaking  economic growth that this country has seen. We, arguably, have the best economy we have had in 40 years, and this will help that.”

Freedom First Society: 1) The inclusion of “free trade” in the name of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was a calculated deception.  NAFTA and its successor the USMCA are not about implementing free trade, but establishing regional bureaucracies (for example, NAFTA established a Secretariat and a Trilateral Trade Commission). The same free trade language deception was used in Europe to establish the Common Market (a steppingstone to the EU). Real free trade is a voluntary exchange between two parties. Of course, we are not suggesting that Congress doesn’t have a legitimate role in regulating trade, including protecting the consumer against contaminated food products. 2) ”The best economy we have had in 40 years”? Give us a break.  What planet does Rep. LaHood live on?  Look at the record homelessness. Middle class opportunity has not recovered – see below.

Rep. J. French Hill (R-Arkansas): “As a member of the USMCA Republican House Whip Team, I was proud to  advocate on behalf of this much-needed update to NAFTA. Twenty-seven years ago, I worked for President Bush 41 and worked on supporting his goal of North America becoming the world’s premier economic market. How pleased he would be to be here today and see this bipartisan support to update the North American trade market for a new  generation.   Impressive, indeed. We will take converts to free trade every day, even if some of them are overnight converts.”

Freedom First Society:  President H.W. Bush had been a director of the world-government promoting Council on Foreign Relations.  There is no doubt that he was pursuing Internationalist goals, and true free trade was certainly not among them.

Exporting Leftist Intervention

The Democratic side of the “debates” also focused on improved enforcement of the agreement, without discussing the delegation of enforcing authority.  And they touted provisions forcing Mexico to adopt some of the same high-cost labor policies that the U.S. has adopted, as well as the Left’s climate-change agenda for regulating everything.  See, for example, House Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal’s boasting above regarding how the USMCA provides the mechanism to enforce subversive policies far afield from trade.

Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-Oregon), member of Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s Trade Working Group:“The renegotiated USMCA strengthens labor rules so that it will be easier to prove violations. It includes robust monitoring systems and strong enforcement tools, including people on the ground in Mexico to  monitor compliance….

“This final agreement also makes important advancements to protect our  environment. It improves environmental rules, puts them in the text of the agreement, provides a path to reducing hydrofluorocarbon emissions, protects against overfishing, makes it easier to prove environmental violations, and secures more than $600 million to implement the environmental provisions and address pollution and marine debris.   Throughout the negotiation process, I fought hard for the inclusion of strong climate provisions. I am disappointed that the Trump administration rejected our efforts. We did, however, include a clause that creates a path for adding additional environmental and conservation agreements in the future. I will continue to do all I can to pass and implement bold policies to combat climate change.”

And consider this observation by the New York Times (1-29-19):

For the first time, the new agreement also mandates that 40% to 45% of the parts for any tariff-free vehicle must come from a so-called high-wage factory. Those factories must pay a minimum of $16 an hour in average salaries for production workers. That’s about triple the average wage in a Mexican factory right now, and administration officials hope the provision will either force automakers to buy more supplies from Canada or the United States — or cause wages in Mexico to rise.

But sound economists have long pointed out that unions or government can only force wages to rise by restricting access to the labor market to a privileged group.  Government edicts cannot create general prosperity.  A rise in general prosperity requires capital investment.

Rep. Brian Higgins (D-New York): “Madam Speaker, the economic future of Buffalo and western New York is  tied strategically to southern Ontario, which is one-third of the entire population of the country of Canada.   I am pleased that this agreement strengthens the U.S.-Canadian economic and life quality relations. I am concerned, however, that the U.S.-Mexican economic relationship is more challenging.   The United States has lost 6 million manufacturing jobs in the past 20 years, and 53,000 manufacturing businesses have closed. NAFTA’s promise of wage convergence, bringing Mexican wages to Canadian and  U.S. standards, has failed. The Mexican wage is $5.10 a day, less than  $0.64 an hour.   We have good reason to be skeptical of Mexico’s commitment to do better. The USMCA, however, because of Chairman Richard Neal’s  leadership and emphasis on rigorous enforcement, does have the potential for improved Mexican compliance on wages, the environment, and labor standards.

Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon), Chairman of the House Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee:“We are voting today on an agreement that has fundamentally been rewritten and strengthened.   A personal priority for me was stripping unnecessary and harmful  special provisions for Big Pharma. We have strengthened labor  protections and enforcement. These are game changers. The help of AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka and, again, the Speaker were invaluable.   We have had environmental improvements. My colleague from Oregon, Suzanne Bonamici, deserves great praise for being tenacious on that. We will attack the raw sewage many of us saw flowing into the Pacific in Tijuana.”

Freedom First Society:  But sewage, while not friendly to beaches, is biodegradable.  It’s hardly worthy of a hemispheric agreement and the attention of the U.S. Congress.  Blumenauer sees a problem in Big Pharma but not in Big Labor.

Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas):“What we have today is an initial step, an important step, toward  achieving a truly 21st century trade agreement that not only encourages  trade but protects the environment and recognizes the legitimate concerns of workers. This victory results from major changes in what  President Trump proposed 14 months ago.  First, we secured additional funding for the North American Development Bank, the NAD Bank, based in San Antonio, which is  important in addressing especially environmental concerns.  Second, and very significantly, we deleted the horrible Big Pharma power grab to extend its monopoly power for prescription price gouging.    Third, each country was forced to take all necessary measures to comply with multilateral environmental agreements which take precedence over trade. This includes an additional recent agreement to dramatically reduce heat-trapping chemicals. In 2021, when we have a new president who actually believes in science, the agreement will  facilitate, not impede, our response to the climate crisis.   And, finally, instead of platitudes, we have an enforceable agreement to address worker concerns.”

Freedom First Society: Rep. Doggett tries to perpetuate the myth that scientists all agree that we face a crisis due to man-made climate change.  See, for example, our posts “Repeat a Lie Often Enough …” and “UN-Climate Change Hysteria.”

Rep. John B. Larson (D-Conn.): “I also want to associate myself with the remarks of the chairman [Richard Neal] for  his incredible leadership. In his opening remarks, he underscored the  key word that is central to this agreement that is far different from  the previous NAFTA agreement. It is “enforcement.” It was his tenacity and the tenacity of the working group and the subcommittee that made this happen.  I commend Speaker Pelosi for her work and, clearly, for all the working members of the task force for the effort they put forward.”

Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr. (D-New Jersey): “I also thank Mr. Lighthizer. He is a different kind of guy, and I  really believe that he was essential to getting to this vote today….

“So there are some questions that do remain.  The ship of human rights has not been righted. The President never  once mentioned in any speech, during 2016 until now, about human rights  and about workers’ rights in discussing NAFTA. Mexican workers are still being treated like chattel, American jobs will still flow through  other countries, and sham protection unions will still own the day.  This bill has made many improvements, but it is not enough. Some can say: Is there ever enough?   There are too many questions.   Will Mexico be held accountable to fully enforce their labor laws?   We don’t know.”

Freedom First Society:  Throughout the debates, we see Democrats insisting that the USMCA do much more than promote trade, in particular they argue that they should  be able, through the USMCA and the U.S. government, to pressure Mexico to “reform.” In reality, the policies of U.S. Internationalist and Leftists over the last century have contributed greatly to the turmoil and socialism in Mexico, and Central and South America.

Rep. Jimmy Panetta (D-Calif.): ”When this administration first presented USMCA to Congress, I have to  say, it was unacceptable. However, thanks to Speaker Pelosi, Chairman  Neal, the Trade Working Group and, you bet, Ambassador Lighthizer, we  were able to come up with one of the strongest, most progressive deals  in the United States’ history.   The USMCA now has some of the most stringent labor standards, some of the most robust funding for enforceability, and some of the strongest requirements for the environment ever.”

Jobs, Jobs, Jobs

Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas): “Madam Speaker, I support the USMCA, NAFTA 2.1, because  we are doing this in a bipartisan way….

”My district is the epicenter of trade between the U.S. and Mexico. My city of Laredo handles 14,000 to 16,000 trailers every single day. The  Laredo customs district handles 60 percent of all the trade between the  U.S. and Mexico.  That means more than $1.7 billion of goods flow between the U.S. and Mexico every day. That is over $1 million every single minute. Trade is good. It means jobs, jobs, jobs.”

Freedom First Society:  Trade is good not because it creates jobs, but because it takes advantage of different economic efficiencies.  In a free-market economy, jobs aren’t scarce — labor is.  Capitalists have to bid wage-rates up to attract the labor they want.  But in a government-managed economy, like the U.S. has become, government regulations ensure that there is unemployment, because entrepreneurs aren’t allowed to hire willing workers below the mandated minimum wage.

Job scarcity is a product of government regulation of the economy.  Ever since the Insider-caused Great Depression, we have become used to a shortage of jobs and the need to reduce unemployment.  But this is a horrible government-caused inversion of nature. In a free market economy labor, not jobs, is in short supply.  The value of labor increases as a nation’s capital grows and its capitalists compete for available labor.  But we also need to ask, what kind of jobs will be created. It still takes capital to create productive workers who can enjoy rising prosperity.

Rep. Tom Rice (R-South Carolina), member of the Ways and Means Committee: “Madam Speaker, this is a great day for  American workers.   The nameplate on my desk says, ‘Jobs, Jobs, Jobs,’’ and that is  exactly what this new trade agreement will bring….

“Ross Perot was right all those years ago when he said the old NAFTA would bring a giant sucking sound of American jobs going to Mexico, and  that is precisely what happened in my district.  Unfair trade agreements are one of the primary reasons that the American middle class has stagnated for decades — until the election of Donald Trump.

“The new USMCA corrects much of this imbalance:  It will prevent the departure of many more Americans jobs;   It will bring hundreds of thousands of new jobs to America;   It will raise the wages of workers throughout North America; and  It will accelerate the growth of our American economy.   I am thankful for the talent and effort of Ambassador Lighthizer in successfully reaching this incredibly complicated trilateral agreement.  I am also thankful that we finally have a President with the backbone and determination to do what is necessary to bring our trading partners to the table, many of whom have taken advantage of us for far too long, and despite the criticism of many here in our own country.

Freedom First Society:  So by taking advantage of us, Mexico’s economy must have been booming?  The reality is that most of our vanishing heavy industry and manufacturing has gone to China, with the help of American Insiders. And now, we are told, we need the power of the North American trading bloc, realized through the USMCA, to compete with China.

Rep. Steve Scalise (R-Louisiana), House Minority (Republican) Whip:  “[P]assing the United States-Mexico-Canada trade agreement is  going to be a major victory for American workers, yet another sign that we can improve on our current trade relationships…. What you see is not only a trade agreement that is a major win for  the American economy — conservative estimates show over 160,000 new jobs get created. Agriculture gets a big win because many of our products  that we can’t sell to Canada now will be able to be sent to those markets….

“We have the  hottest economy in the world, and it is only going to get better for workers here.   But it then sends a message to China that not just America wants to send, but a message that all of our allies around the world want to send, that when you do business with America, you have to follow the rules. You can’t play by your own set of rules. And now, for  enforcement of deals, it really shows that China is going to have to become part of the world economy and play by the rules that everyone else in the world plays by.”

Freedom First Society: Here Rep. Scalise admits the Internationalist game plan:  Force the whole world to obey the rules the Internationalists create. What he does not identify here are the unelected bodies that will enforce the rules and whose agenda the rules serve.

Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Penn.): “It is really good to see Members on both sides of the  aisle stand up and say: You know, we are really getting things done for America.  I would like to say that this is a Christmas gift that is wrapped up in paper that is red, white, and blue. It is a jobs bill: 176,000 jobs,  $68 billion in new revenue….

“This is a tremendous jobs bill for America. This is a tremendous accomplishment. I can’t imagine anybody not voting for this.”

Rescuing the Middle Class

Rep. Haley Stevens (D-Michigan): “Madam Speaker, today, we rise to pass a trade deal for the middle class. Today, we rise to strengthen the protections for the workers. Today is a great day, for today, we are standing up for our manufacturers and our manufacturing economy….

“We say hoorah for the middle class, for the growth and the expansion for our middle class.”

Rep. Tom Rice (R-South Carolina):  “Unfair trade agreements are one of the primary reasons that the American middle class has stagnated for decades — until the election of  Donald Trump. “

Freedom First Society: Both Representatives and Stevens and Rice need to read, understand, and take to heart our booklet The Marxist Attack on the Middle Class. The middle class, so important to preserving our freedom, has been under attack for decades.  The middle class won’t be rescued without an understanding of the forces seeking its demise.

Socialist Equality

Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.): “Madam Speaker, I was honored to be appointed to the Speaker’s working group charged with renegotiating the deeply flawed NAFTA agreement that the President signed in 2018….

“Our gains include a labor-specific enforcement for new labor standards, a review body to ensure Mexico is meeting its obligations, penalties for goods and services not produced in  compliance, and robust resources for monitoring and enforcement….

“Despite our best efforts, it lacks more robust climate standards, labor and environmental terms, and protections for food and product safety. So, it is not the model for the future.   Wage stagnation in America is not the inevitable result of  globalization and technology. Special interests have shaped government policies that have held down wages and increased inequality.   Nobel-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz said: ‘Inequality is not  inevitable. It is a choice we make.’”

Freedom First Society:  1) Here, Rep. DeLauro refers to unelected regional bodies – the real poison in the USMCA. 2) Socialists champion equality of results, taking advantage of human envy to deceive.  The reality of their program is equality in poverty. Instead, we should champion equality of opportunity. 3) Nobel Prize winners in economics can be counted on to be advocates of government-managed economy, not free-market economy.  And Joseph Stiglitz, former chairman of President Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers, was no exception.

Bipartisanship Touted

In the debates, we were frequently treated to the claim that bipartisanship is a virtue.  But not the way the parties are organized today.  Instead, when the wolves and the wolves in sheep’s clothing get together, America loses, not wins.  We give here examples of the claims, some repeated from earlier:

Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Maryland), House Majority Leader: “This agreement, Madam Speaker, is truly the product of bipartisanship with many victories for Democrats, of which all Americans can be proud,  and obviously, victories for Republicans, as well.”

Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.), Chairman House Ways and Means Committee: “These changes set a new standard for U.S. trade agreements, and  demonstrate that trade agreements can achieve broad, bipartisan support  if they empower workers, protect patients, provide access to affordable  healthcare, and improve our shared environment.”

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Speaker of the House: “I proudly rise to join my colleagues on this exciting day as the  House passes a historic trade agreement that is truly worthy of the  American people, a new and dramatically improved U.S.-Canada-Mexico trade agreement….

“However, I do want to point out some of the distance we have come from the President’s original product. The House Democratic Caucus is united in our values and our priority to making progress for America’s working families in everything we do, including this trade agreement.   We all thank Trade Representative Lighthizer, Mr. Ambassador, for being an honest broker and straight shooter with us as we worked toward an agreement….

“We thank Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO, a true warrior for  workers, who helped secure an agreement that is light-years better than what the administration proposed 2 years ago.   Democrats knew that hardworking Americans needed more from the USMCA than just some broken NAFTA with better language but no real  enforcement….

“After months of Democrats working with the Trade Representative, we  have key changes to the USMCA that make this a truly transformative agreement for America’s workers.   Now, with Democratic changes, the USMCA has the strongest enforcement mechanism of any U.S. trade agreement….

“For workers, while the administration drafts stack the deck against labor violation claims, our changes enact new rules and monitoring tools to protect American workers, prosecute labor violations, and ensure that Mexico is complying with labor reforms.   Other points that are for the workers include establishing labor attaches based in Mexico who will provide on-the-ground information  about Mexico’s labor practices and creating a facility-specific rapid  response law enforcement mechanism to stop trade in goods that violate  this agreement.   These are not technical changes. These make a big difference.

“For the environment, whereas the administration’s draft had weak environmental rules and tilted the playing field against violation claims, democrats have strengthened the rules and enforcement tools and are lowering pollution and increasing resilient infrastructure.   Sadly, while the administration refuses to acknowledge the existence,  let alone the urgency, of the climate crisis, our changes in the USMCA set a firm footing for progress when we have a President who brings us back to the Paris accord….

“The changes House Democrats have secured in the USMCA make this a truly transformational trade agreement. As the AFL-CIO wrote in their  letter of support last week, we have secured an agreement that working people can proudly support.   Working people are responsible for a deal that is a vast improvement over the original NAFTA and the flawed proposal brought forward in 2017. For the first time, there truly will be enforceable labor  standards….

“The USMCA is far from perfect, but there is no denying that the trade rules in America are fairer because of the hard work of so many people, and our perseverance. Working people have created a new standard for future trade negotiations….

“With all the respect in the world for our neighbors, our respect for  the greatness of Mexico as our neighbor, and the friendship that we have and want to engender, and our neighbor to the north, Canada, with respect to them, our responsibility is to have a trade agreement that lifts all workers in our hemisphere. Our first responsibility is to American workers.”

Freedom First Society:  1) Throughout the “debates,” Democrats pay respect to U.S. Trade Rep. Robert Lighthizer, a member of the Establishment’s powerful Council on Foreign Relations, even though President Trump selected Lighthizer to negotiate the agreement.  2) “Working people are responsible for a deal….” What a subterfuge.  The USMCA is not a product of working people but of power hungry Internationalists.  Notice also the use of Supranational government bodies to enforce a radical agenda on the entire hemisphere.

Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio): “With this bipartisan vote, and with the hard work from both sides of  the aisle, we finally have the opportunity to rebalance North American trade. In spite of delays, this opportunity that exists for all  Americans is finally here today.   It has been 25 years since our North American Trade Agreement was established, and it has not been updated to reflect the modern economy.   Under this new trade agreement, our farmers, manufacturers, and workers will finally have a deal that modernizes North American trade,  boosts our economy, and strengthens our Nation’s role in the global  trading market.”

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.):  “Updated dispute mechanisms will ensure the United States has prompt access to a dispute settlement panel, when needed, to allow U.S.  businesses to compete on a level playing field.   This is a great bipartisan agreement that will bring huge benefits to millions of Americans, and I urge my colleagues to support USMCA.”

Rep. Glenn Thompson (R-Penn.): “USMCA will bring more than $68 billion in new economic activity,  176,000 new jobs here at home, and an increase of $2 billion a year annually in agricultural exports. These numbers don’t lie, and that is  only the beginning. Passing USMCA is a big win for the American  economy….

“Madam Speaker, USMCA is a good agreement. It is a fair agreement, and  it is a bipartisan agreement.”

Competition with China

Rep. Will Hurd (R-Texas): “We should care about the USMCA because just about every aspect of our lives, the food on our table, the clothes on our backs, the fuel in our cars, depends on free trade with Mexico and Canada….

“We should care about USMCA because we live in a world where U.S.  military and economic dominance is no longer guaranteed, and a strong  North America is essential for us to remain competitive as China tries  to replace America as the most important economy in the world.

Freedom First Society:  But let’s be clear that the rise of China as both a military and economic challenge is due to American Insiders, such as Henry Kissigner, and to politicians of both parties implementing the Internationalist  agenda.  Insiders in the Truman administration betrayed our ally Nationalist China and ensured that Communist Mao Tse Tung would take over China, exterminating millions.  The story of the immense Internationalist betrayal goes on and on (e.g., putting Red China on the UN Security Council).  And what have the Internationalist accomplished?  They have ensured there is conflict in the world to “manage” — as ostensible justification for giving more authority to their international organizations.

Rep. Fred Keller (R-Penn.): “The provisions in this deal eliminating Canada’s class 7 milk pricing program, increasing corn and soybean exports, and many other  improvements will make a huge difference for those family farms.  More important is the leverage that gives the United States when  negotiating additional trade deals.   It is no surprise that when Speaker Pelosi agreed to the USMCA, China  agreed to the Phase One trade deal that President Trump had been  negotiating for the benefit of our country. Again, USMCA is long overdue, but I am glad we are finally here to be  able to support America in this trade deal.”

Rep. Jim Hagedorn (R-Minnesota): “Not only will this deal expand trade with Mexico and Canada, but it is going to help us build momentum for deals with other nations, like  China, Vietnam, and so forth. It is going to be great for our country….

“It will open new markets, expand economic opportunity and create new  high-wage jobs, build momentum for trade deals with China and other nations, and help  protect and promote our rural way of life in southern Minnesota.   We are already seeing evidence of this momentum with the United  States and China announcing a ‘Phase One’ trade agreement just days after the bipartisan agreement on USMCA was reached.”

Violence in Mexico

Rep. Vicente Gonzales (D-Texas): “Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my support for the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement and also to sound the alarm of an issue that should concern us all: violence.

“To put things in perspective, since 2006, Mexico has lost as many  people to homicide as the United States has lost in every war since Korea.   Just in the last 3 years, the number of homicides exceeded the number  of soldiers lost in Korea and Vietnam combined, all while we act as if  nothing is happening in our own backyard.

“Negotiators worked tirelessly to get us here to today’s vote, but  they failed to acknowledge the single greatest threat to North American trade and prosperity: violence.   I rise today to say that we have missed an opportunity, and I cannot be silent and will not let this go.   Mexican President Lopez Obrador ran on a promise to achieve peace, end the war on drugs, and create a new civilian national guard to tackle organized crime by fighting poverty.   While I have no doubt of his good intentions, he has failed  miserably.”

Rep. Marci Kaptur (R-Ohio): “I rise in opposition to NAFTA 2, which has been rebranded the USMCA.   First of all, it is being rushed through at the last moments of this session without the majority of Members even able to read it or  participate in hearings on it.   Number two, it will not stem the continental outsourcing of U.S.  jobs, and, sadly, and most importantly, it will not achieve the real enforcement by the Governments of Mexico or the United States.

“For over 10 years, I have been trying to get the Government of Mexico to arrest and prosecute the brutal murderers of Santiago Cruz, a  Mexican national fighting against the huge continental labor trafficking of his countrymen. He was educating his fellow farmworkers that they did not have to pay a bounty of $8,000 to come to this country to work in our fields as they became indentured workers.

“Despite my over 10 years of efforts to bring justice to his brutal killers, Mexico behaves as if this crime never occurred. Why should I  believe Mexico will enforce anything?   Furthermore, about a month ago, we saw the President of Mexico not able to keep control of his own streets, and he released the son of El Chapo, the drug lord. What makes you think this administration or the one in Mexico will do anything to enforce the laws that USMCA purports to support?   I urge all of my colleagues to vote ‘no.'”

Closing the House “Debates”

Rep. Kevin Brady (R–Texas), Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee:  “I want to thank Ambassador Robert Lighthizer for being the architect  of this trade agreement. I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, I was a skeptic when he said that we can rebuild bipartisan trade and we can fulfill  many of the Democrats’ labor and environmental wishes that no other President had ever delivered. So he proved me wrong.   Working closely with Chairman Neal and others, he, in the original  trade agreement of the USMCA a year ago, produced the most pro-labor and pro-environmental trade agreement in American history. In the last few months he has worked closely with Democrats to fine-tune that agreement so that these issues are enforceable. Republicans support that enforcement….

“During my time on the Ways and Means Committee, I have been proud to help lead the passage of 12 of the trade agreements America has in place today and two updates of the Trade Promotion Authority that lays out the trade rules for the White House and Congress to follow. So for me this is number 13.

“I believe in the freedom to trade, and I truly believe it is the  greatest economic freedom we possess. It lays at the heart of our free  enterprise system. As Thomas Jefferson wrote: ‘Commerce with other nations is not only necessary and beneficial to all parties, it is a  right and a duty.’   It is the freedom to buy, sell, and compete anywhere in the world with as little government interference as possible. It is a freedom that if we build a better mousetrap, then we can sell it anywhere in the world; and when someone else builds a better mousetrap, then we have the freedom to buy it for our family and for our business. That economic freedom has lifted millions out of poverty and provided  opportunity, prosperity, and peace, not just for ourselves but for the world.   That is why it was so disappointing the Democrats held up moving  forward on this agreement for so long because every day of delay helped  China, helped Europe, and helped other countries. This was long overdue.  But the truth of the matter is, we are here today and we have pulled  together in a historic vote.”

Freedom First Society:  It is mind boggling that Rep. Brady has the audacity to imply that recent trade agreements, including the USMCA, promote trade “with as little government interference as possible.” He also contradicts himself by suggesting the delay with the USMCA “helped other countries.”  Free trade is supposed to be a win-win exchange.

Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.), Chairman House Ways and Means Committee: “This really is a bipartisan agreement, and I hope and expect that the  challenges to USMCA will allow H.R. 5430 to enjoy broad, bipartisan  support.   I certainly am urging support for this because of the following: it  bolsters workers’ rights; it corrects earlier Trump administration  backsliding on environmental obligations to get us to this trade agreement; it eliminated many big giveaways to companies that would  have locked in high medicine prices, and it preserves Congress’ freedom to legislate to bring those prices down; and it incorporates the  strongest enforcement mechanisms, including specifically enhanced mechanisms for enforcing labor rights in any U.S. trade agreement.

“There are three titles that are devoted to the United States Government and our role: monitoring and enforcement of USMCA partners’ obligations, monitoring and enforcement of USMCA partners’ environmental obligations, and more than $843 million over 4 years that will be dedicated to monitoring and enforcement of labor and  environmental obligations, including funds for education and training of workers and inspectors.

“We would not have gotten here today, however, without the important considerations of organized labor and the honorable men and women of the AFL/CIO and the Teamsters.

Freedom First Society:  When they wrote our Constitution, America’s Founding Fathers incorporated the lessons of history regarding the necessity to limit government.  Their wisdom in limiting government helped make America great.  America’s strength comes from a free people, not from a bloated government bureaucracy. Thomas Jefferson said it most clearly:  “Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread.”

Clearly, Rep. Neal does not support that essential principle.

For Senate perspectives, please see our analysis of the Senate vote on H.R. 5430.