On the House Floor
This week, the House passed the Interior and Environment Appropriations bill by a vote of 272-155 and the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bill by a 240-179 vote. The House has now passed six of the twelve annual appropriations bills, though most are subject to a veto by the President to control spending.
One More Try
For the second time in six weeks, I proposed legislation on the House floor that would have provided full funding for the Secure Rural Schools program in Fiscal Year 2008. This much-needed funding goes to rural counties across America to compensate for the land the federal government took to create the National Forest System, and is used primarily to fund schools and roads. Once again, this amendment was defeated on a procedural motion offered by the Democrat chairman of the committee managing the bill, preventing the proposal from receiving a vote by the House. Ironically, the House rule which allowed my amendment to be blocked has been consistently violated in each of the spending bills Congress has considered this year. The rule states that no funds can be appropriated for purposes that are unauthorized by Congress. However, in the same bill I attempted to amend by adding funding for Secure Rural Schools, there is over $7 billion in funding for unauthorized programs, including the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities. Unfortunately, the rule adopted by the Democrats protected that funding, while leaving my amendment subject to a point of order. I will continue to seize every opportunity to provide our rural counties with the money they deserve, but a Democrat majority which chooses to use taxpayer funds to subsidize the arts before providing our rural counties with basic public services such as schools and roads is a significant obstacle.
A Good Week in Court
This week, the United States Supreme Court handed down three rulings that forecast a new positive direction for the Court under Chief Justice John Roberts. The first case was a landmark decision which, for the first time in three decades, protected political speech in the manner our Founding Fathers intended. In a 5-4 ruling, the Court held that provisions in the McCain-Feingold campaign finance regulations which limit free speech by prohibiting issue-based broadcast ads in the run up to federal elections were unconstitutional. This is a major victory for free speech advocates and could signal a shift in the Court’s handling of campaign finance legislation.
In another case, the Court ruled that a group of atheists and agnostics could not sue the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. The group, the Freedom From Religion Foundation Inc., objected to government conferences in which administration officials encourage religious charities to apply for federal grants. In the Court’s decision, Justice Samuel Alito claimed the group, “set out a parade of horribles that they claim could occur” unless the court stopped the Bush Administration from supporting faith-based initiatives. “Of course, none of these things has happened,” stated Alito.
The third decision addressed schools’ rights to discipline students for speech that promotes illegal drug use. Writing for a 5-4 majority, Chief Justice Roberts wrote: “We hold that schools may take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their care from speech that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use.” President Bush’s two appointments were critical in each of these cases, as they were all decided by 5-4 majorities. This could signal a new era for the Court, which would be a welcome change for all of us who value the Constitution and the freedoms it provides.
Quote of the Week
“Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor.” – Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority in the Court’s decision which found certain provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 unconstitutional. June 26, 2007
|
