H.R. 9494 CR Extension Problematic Areas - 118th Congress (2023-2024)
Our elected officials are rushing a problematic 118th Congressional CR so they can continue to fund many projects without oversight until March 28th 2025.
As in almost every other year, the 118th Congress is rushing to push out another ‘Continuing Resolution’ to which the public adamantly opposes. Despite the overwhelmly loud cry of change the American people demand as displayed with President Trump’s decisive win this past November, Congress appears to snubbing their nose at the American people once again.
The first problematic concern is that there is no explicit mention of a "cost reduction" specifically within the context of the December 2024 H.R. CR (Continuing Resolution) bill. Here's a summary of the relevant information:
Continuing Resolution (CR): The most recent CR discussed is H.R.9494 - 118th Congress (2023-2024): Continuing Appropriations and Other Matters Act. This CR extends funding through March 28, 2025, or until applicable appropriations are enacted, at the levels from the previous fiscal year (FY 2024) with some exceptions for specific programs or agencies. The current CR specifically does not provide any cost reduction savings in the federal government's spending for the fiscal year 2024 budget of $6.75 trillion.
General Funding: The CR generally maintains funding at the previous year's level to prevent a government shutdown, which does not inherently imply cost reduction. Instead, it suggests a status quo in funding unless otherwise specified by amendments or additional legislative actions.
Problematic Section 605:
Protection from Subpoenas: Section 605 appears to shield members of the House of Representatives from legal subpoenas concerning their electronic communications and other records. This section essentially creates a mechanism for House offices to block or delay subpoenas, potentially preventing or significantly hindering investigations into individual representatives.
Arguments for Unconstitutionality: Violation of Separation of Powers: The primary argument against Section 605's constitutionality revolves around the separation of powers doctrine. By allowing Congress to shield itself from legal scrutiny, it could be seen as Congress overstepping its legislative bounds into the judicial and executive functions. This could be interpreted as an unconstitutional expansion of legislative privilege, undermining the checks and balances inherent in the U.S. government structure.
Equal Protection and Due Process Concerns: This section might infringe upon the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by creating different legal standards for members of Congress compared to ordinary citizens. It could also raise due process issues by limiting the ability to investigate potential wrongdoing by elected officials, thereby potentially obstructing justice.
Precedents and Legal Doctrine: Legal precedents, such as the Supreme Court's decision in Printz v. United States, emphasize the anti-commandeering principle, where the federal government cannot compel states or, by extension, other branches to enforce federal law. However, in this context, Section 605 could be seen as Congress commandeering judicial processes by preemptively blocking subpoenas, which might be considered an overreach.
**Judicial Review** is a pivotal concept in constitutional law where courts have the authority to examine the actions of the legislative, executive, and administrative branches to ensure they comply with the Constitution. Here are the key details:
**Marbury v. Madison (1803)**: This case is credited with establishing judicial review in the U.S. Chief Justice John Marshall articulated that it's the judiciary's duty to say what the law is, thus giving courts the power to nullify laws or actions that violate the Constitution.
Transparency and Accountability: There's an argument that this section undermines the democratic principle of accountability. By protecting congressional members from scrutiny, it could reduce transparency, which is crucial for maintaining public trust and ensuring that elected officials are held to the same legal standards as their constituents.
Continued Problematic Spending
Unnecessary Programs: Funding for programs like the Job Corps, which has been criticized for its effectiveness and management, has been included. Specifically, there's mention of $10 billion allocated to Job Corps, leading to debates about its necessity and impact. The dollar amount allocated for Job Corps in the Continuing Resolution (CR) bill is $10 billion.
Emergency Conservation Program: With $828 million allocated, there are concerns about the lack of clear metrics for success or reporting requirements on how these funds are spent.
No Spending Cuts: A significant point of contention is the absence of spending cuts, which conservatives were pushing for, leading to dissatisfaction among those advocating for fiscal restraint.
Foreign Aid USAID: The Continuing Resolution (CR) bill has allocated $32 billion to USAID, but specific breakdowns by country are not explicitly detailed in the publicly available summaries. However, based on general practices and trends, here's what can be inferred regarding USAID funding to specific countries. Apart from Israel, other nations in the region like Jordan, Egypt, and those affected by ongoing conflicts (e.g., Syria, Yemen) might see aid for humanitarian relief.
FY 2024 USAID Regional Allocations Middle East: The FY 2024 budget request included $1.45 billion to support Jordan under the U.S.-Jordan memorandum of understanding, which encompasses refugee support among other aids. There was also a mention of increased economic support for the West Bank and Gaza by $40 million, part of which goes towards refugee support.
A bright spot: The Continuing Resolution (CR) bill includes a significant provision regarding UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East). It bans US funding for UNRWA until March 2025. This decision was part of a broader agreement to prevent a government shutdown and was included in a massive bill funding military, State Department, and other government programs. Given this context, without an explicit statement in the CR, the funding for refugees and asylum seekers in December 2024 would be estimated at least $871 million for ORR's Refugee Support Services and Transitional and Medical Services combined, based on FY 2024 levels without supplemental funds. Additional funding through PRM for international refugee support, which would be at FY 2024 levels but isn't detailed in the search results.
Problematic Pandemic Spending
Comprehensive Response (CR) Act: "All Preparedness and Response to Pandemics" does not appear to be explicitly detailed in the provided search results. However, but an overview of related legislative frameworks and initiatives based on the information available includes:
"Pandemic Preparedness, Response, and Recovery Act of 2021" which aims to establish a commission for regulatory adjustments concerning pandemics and the "International Pandemic Preparedness and COVID–19 Response Act of 2021" for enhancing international response mechanisms. These, however, are not directly under the banner of a "CR Act" but show the broad legislative landscape concerning pandemics.
REVENT Pandemics Act: Signed into law in June 2019, this act aims to improve the U.S. response to pandemics by enhancing federal leadership, accountability, and coordination. It includes provisions for comprehensive reviews of pandemics like COVID-19, strengthening the CDC's role, and creating the Office of Pandemic Preparedness and Response Policy.
Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness, and Response Accord: This is an international initiative led by WHO's member states to draft and negotiate a new convention or agreement focused on strengthening global preparedness and response to pandemics. While not part of U.S. domestic legislation like the CR Act, it reflects global efforts that might influence or parallel domestic policies.
Speaker Mike Johnson's new spending bill allows vaccine and mask mandates, vaccine passports, expanded emergency powers, and gain-of-function research
.
Global Engagement Center (GEC) Funding
The Global Engagement Center appears to have secured funding through a continuing resolution, at least temporarily, to continue its operations into 2025. However, its long-term funding and reauthorization remain contentious, with debates over its role and affiliations.
According to the information regarding the Global Engagement Center's funding in 2024, there's mention of a $61 million budget and a staff of 125, but this is tied to earlier discussions and not explicitly confirmed for 2024 funding levels in the provided documents.
All my reporting is completely voluntary, please consider a paid subscription to Andrea’s News Letter or a one-time donation to my "Buy Me a Coffee account. My purpose is to educate the public on government overreach and provide solutions that will secure the core values of our country; Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness including your private property rights. God Bless America.
When they say "American government or American Congress" think Jewish organized crime. At least 2/3 of Congress are bar mitvah association lawyers. The rest of Congress might be doctors but they do have law degrees. That means all your legislation and all your taxes go to supporting Jewish interests. They might throw the gentiles a crumb once in awhile. But that's it. I assert that there is no national debt because we paid in blood for our little police action in Germany, which I have a bill for ...