Garrett Opposes Executive Amnesty with ‘No’ Vote on Omnibus Spending Bill
Dec 11, 2014
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ) issued the following statement after voting against the $1.1 trillion spending bill that included funding for President Obama’s unconstitutional executive amnesty.
“I remain committed to undoing the damage that President Obama’s unprecedented and wholly unconstitutional executive amnesty is having on our republic. In light of the fact that today’s $1.1 trillion dollar spending bill funds the president’s executive power grab, I cannot support this legislation. In addition, the American people sent a very clear message in November demanding that Congress work together to get things done. As it has done since the start of the 112th Congress, the House should be passing stand-alone funding bills, and following regular order. Passing a 1600-page omnibus is not the course of action the American people demanded.”
Yes, Congressman Garrett, Regular Order is required. In the absence of an annual federal budget, identically approved by both houses of Congress and signed by the president, the entire 535-person contingent we call Congress has devolved into an embarrassing charade. A true non-entity.
Congressman, much as you may not enjoy hearing this, you probably already know it in your heart to be true. I know you’re personally a decent man, and that you remain an unabashed patriot. But some kind of nameless political cancer has already nearly consumed the heart of the U.S. Congress, leaving behind such rot and damage that by now, only the most oblivious can be excused for appearing untroubled by it. We simply need to face facts–it’s all over but the crying.
Regular Order in the budgetary process, even if the so-called House of Representatives has been valiantly trying to adhere to it on their end, has been broken for so long (5+ years) that for it to be restored would now take a miracle. Erecting the Constitutional structure itself during the 1787-1788 time frame required such a confluence of good fortune, it was maybe a once-in-five-thousand-years scenario in terms of how well the stars aligned in our favor.
By contrast, we have been on such a steep downward trajectory since the 2008-2009 timeframe, not only in terms of the integrity of our treasured governmental institutions, but further with respect to seemingly all arguably good things civil, cultural, military, social, educational, familial, religious, …that wise citizens find themselves compelled to recalibrate. This necessarily requires taking careful and accurate stock of what little valuable substance we may have left as a society.
Unfortunately for you and your colleagues, this also means casting an increasingly jaundiced eye toward anyone occupying or seeking elective office at the federal level who is not willing to finally, and at long last, honestly level with the American people about what has really befallen us recently, and what the true prospects are for us to turn things around before we wake up one day and find we’ve had our whole national heritage stolen from us, root and branch.
In NJ, Christie had the opportunity to move Garrett or another Republican into the US Senate seat to fill Lautenberg’s term. Instead, he allows an expensive, short-term election to sway Booker away from his governor’s office. The specter of cronyism is destroying both houses of Congress; it’s more important to BE important than to do the right thing. As the economy sputters along, the government continues on its spending binge whether it be run by Democrats or Republicans. We will be paying the price for 5 years of mega-deficit spending for generations.
Having deprived Congress of regular order for nearly the entire tenure of the current administration, Harry Reid and his cohorts have milked every partisan advantage from this circumstance that they could possibly dream up. The same goes for his shamelessly executed plan to eliminate the Senate filibuster rule, so helpful in ushering committed statists and hardcore political progressives into important appointive federal government posts by depriving the political opposition of their only effective means of applying political leverage during the Senate confirmation process.
Senator Reid now stands ready to take full political advantage of his political opponent’s stated desire to restore Regular Order in the federal budgetary process, and to bring back the filibuster rule. Come January, leaders in the new majority party in the Senate will (or at least should) be torn between two different goals or aspirations, each with its own unique merits:
On the one hand, they will wish to repair the institutional damage done to the Senate and restore its potency as a strong and independent actor in our republican form of government under the U.S. Constitution. This means moving Congress out from underneath the dark cloud of executive branch dominance that has overspread all of Washington D.C. in recent year, as well as re-establishing the unique power of a single senator to stand in the way of ill-advised legislative measures, to the chagrin and consternation of reason-blind ideologues who rely on group-think and public shaming techniques to achieve their public policy goals.
On the other hand, they will wish to make of Congress an even greater and more insurmountable obstacle to the current administration’s stated goal of fundamentally transforming this country. Along the way, they will also be eager to cooperate freely with the House of Representatives to pass a series of clean bills for the president to sign or veto (most likely the latter) that will serve to draw into the starkest possible relief two competing and contrasting visions for how this country should move forward. To be the beneficiary of such an historic mid-term electoral landslide without then seizing and exploiting every available partisan advantage would be to appear naive and unwilling to engage in the largest and most momentous political struggle this country has seen since the Adams versus Jefferson ‘Clash of the Titans’ circa 1797-1800 (culminating, of course, with Jefferson’s historic inauguration, preceded that day by the remarkable scene of a humiliated but still office-holding John Adams emerging from the cavernous new executive mansion in the pre-dawn mist, hailing a ride in a passing public carriage like any other ordinary citizen, and high-tailing it back to New England to enjoy the rest of his life as America’s first one-term president).
So to say that Mitch McConnell could (or at least should) be experiencing mixed feelings about acting in good faith to restore the filibuster rule as it applies to Senate debates, or to plot a return to Regular Order in support of the Constitutionally-required process of preparing and passing an annual budget for federal governmental outlays, is the understatement of this rapidly ending but remarkable year.
Garrett does not deserve any credit for voting no. The real vote was the vote to reconsider HR83 (via HR 776) as the budget bill and to bring to a vote without the addition of any amendments. It passed by 214 to 212. Garrett voted YES. It may still have passed if the leadership put the screws to someone else but Garrett must accept responsibility for its passage because he voted YES on this preceding procedural vote.
Thanks for the information, Cycle Cyril.
A member who votes ‘no’ on the actual bill after voting ‘yes’ on the preceding procedural vote can be seen as trying to have it both ways. The party leadership is happy because the member was not so defiant or recalcitrant as to take action against the bill at an early time, when it was vulnerable. And the public will not necessarily pick up on the fact that the substantive ‘no’ vote on whether to pass the actual bill was cast after the bill’s passage was already assured, and the majority leadership could afford to allow that member and maybe a few others to defect to the ‘no’ side to hopefully avoid backlash from their constituents.
I don’t think Congressman Garrett has executed a maneuver like this recently on a bill of any significance.
If what Cycle Cyril is saying is true, it may already be ‘jaundiced eye’ season for Mr. Garrett. He needs to make a clear follow-up statement explaining his yes vote on the procedural rule. And it had better ring true…
ON DECEMBER 11, 2014 BY JOHN HINDERAKER IN FEDERAL BUDGET, HO– USE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JOHN BOEHNER, NANCY PELOSI
CROMNIBUS NEARLY FAILS ON PROCEDURAL VOTE [UPDATED]
It’s Keystone Kops in Washington, as John Boehner’s continuing resolution/omnibus spending bill nearly failed a procedural vote to bring it to the floor this morning. The tally was 214-212, and it took one Republican vote-switcher to avoid a colossal embarrassment for Speaker Boehner.
The embarrassment is bad enough, as the vote on the rule is normally along party lines. All Democrats voted against the rule this morning, which I take it is the norm. What was surprising is that a number of Republicans joined them: Justin Amash (R-MI), Michele Bachmann (R-MN), Dave Brat (R-VA), Mo Brooks (R-AL), Paul Broun (R-GA), Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Paul Gosar (R-AZ), Tim Huelskamp (R-KS), Walter Jones (R-NC), Jim Jordan (R-OH), Steve King (R-IA), Raul Labrador (R-ID), Tom Massie (R-KY), Bill Posey (R-FL), Matt Salmon (R-AZ) and Steve Stockman (R-TX).
It looks like there was some confusion among many republicans who intended to vote “no” on the bill. Only a very few republicans voted no on the rule.