Hon Mike Fitzpatrick: Whose Interests Do You Serve?

I found a dozen reasons to question the loyalty of Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick to the U.S. Constitution and the constituents he is obliged to serve. Is our representative ignorant of the US Constitution? What part of “Congress shall make no law…” does this man not understand? Perhaps he thinks we do not understand and would prefer to serve other, more lucrative interests? Perhaps he is unwilling to combat the existing compromised leadership of his party? Whatever the case may be, this is his second time in Washington and it appears he has learned nothing from his first miserable term.  Here is my Report:

	Hon. Mike Fitzpatrick PA 8th District		My Grade
1	HCR 51 “The Libya Troop Withdrawal”		Separation of Powers
	According to the Constitution, Congress holds the power to declare war. This power was watered-down with “The War Powers Act” many congresses ago. According to the War Powers Act, the President cannot engage the Armed Forces for more than 60 days without Congressional Approval. HCR 51 “The Libya Troop Withdrawal” sought to force our President to either seek approval or end the troop deployment in Syria. The Obama Administration consulted with the UN, the Arab League, and the African Union while it snubbed our Congress. The measure was rejected by congress and Hon. Mike Fitzpatrick. The war continues.		X
2	Amendment to HR 1: Restrict United Nations Funding		Internationalism
	Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.) offered an amendment to HR 1 (an appropriations bill) that would have prohibited any funding in the bill from being used to pay dues to the United Nations. The House rejected Broun’s amendment and so did Rep Mike Fitzpatrick.		X
3	S. 365: The Debt Deal		Attacks The Economy
	Mr. Fitzpatrick approved the Debt Deal. This legislation (S. 365) provided for an immediate $400 billion increase in the national debt limit, while allowing the President to raise the ceiling an additional $500 billion unless Congress passed a resolution of disapproval. In his favor, he did follow this vote with a subsequent disapproval when the President attempted to grab more of your dollars. It is important to mention that this deal involved future cuts over 10 years but there is no constitutional process which could prevent future congresses from discarding those proposals. It was a typical face-saving, “toss-it-over-the-fence” measure. It guaranteed more spending at a time when the pressure to cut spending had never been more intense.		X
4	H.R. 2587: The Protecting Jobs From Government Interference Act		Attacks The Economy
	Representative Tim Scott (R-S.C.) introduced H.R. 2587, the Protecting Jobs From Government Interference Act, “To prohibit the National Labor Relations Board from ordering any employer to close, relocate, or transfer employment under any circumstance.” The House passed H.R. 2587. Mike Fitzpatrick disapproved this measure. Does he not understand that the federal government has no constitutional authority to order a company to reinstate production or make certain investments at a given location, or to block a company’s decision to relocate production? Perhaps Mike has friends in organized labor?		X
5	H.R. 3080: South Korea Trade Agreement		Internationalism
	Apparently Mike Fitzpatrick doesn’t think NAFTA has done enough damage to our economy. He jumped all over the “South Korea Trade Agreement”. Another in a series of “free-trade agreements” intended to transfer the power to regulate trade (and eventually other powers too) to super-national arrangements. NAFTA is a prime example of such an arrangement. The House passed H.R. 3080. Mr. Fitzpatrick approved.		X
6	H.R. 2112: “minibus” bill		Attacks The Economy
	Mike Fitzpatrick also voted for the so-called “minibus” bill (H.R. 2112) which appropriated funds to be spent on housing programs, food programs and farm subsidies. The Agricultural piece of this bill alone cost approx. 150 billion dollars. 99 billion of which was earmarked for food and nutrition programs.		X
7	H.R. 2055: Omnibus Appropriations package		Attacks The Economy
	Rep Fitzpatrick approved the Omnibus Appropriations package (H.R. 2055), which provided $915 billion in spending. Passage of this mammoth appropriations bill in light of the ongoing trillion-dollar annual deficits is fiscally irresponsible. How will Congress cut spending if they do not dissect these funding measures and handle them separately?		X
8	H.R. 3521: Line-item Veto		Separation of Powers
	Mr. Fitzpatrick had no problem with approving a Line-item Veto (H.R. 3521) which would allow the President to rescind all or part of any dollar amount of funding for discretionary spending items in enacted appropriations bills. This bill dramatically and unilaterally enhances the power of the executive branch. Article I, Section 1 and Article I, Section 7, Clauses 2 and 3, of the U.S. Constitution vest Congress with all legislative powers. This bill attempts to shift legislative power away from Congress and to the President. It violates the constitutionally defined separation of powers. The Supreme Court already found a similar proposal unconstitutional during the Clinton Administration. Mr. Fitzpatrick should know that altering the Constitution requires an amendment process. A simple legislative act is insufficient.		X
9	H.R. 3523: Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA)		Attacks Bill of Rights
	Mr. Fitzpatrick approved the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA). This bill (H.R. 3523) protects businesses from lawsuits regarding the sharing of their customers’ private information with the government. This is obviously an attempt to circumvent the 4th Amendments protection to be secure in your persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. After all, if a warrant were issued upon probable cause and supported under oath, these businesses would be protected from lawsuits based upon the fact that the data was subpoenaed by the court. This bill seeks to circumvent the court process and the protection clause is an attempt to remove an obstacle to participation by private business.		X
10	H.R. 2072: U.S. Export-Import Bank Re-Authorization		Attacks The Economy
	Mr. Fitzpatrick reauthorized the U.S. Export-Import Bank (H.R. 2072) for two years and increased the agency’s lending cap from $100 billion to $140 billion. The bank issues loans and loan guarantees to foreign governments or companies for the purchase of U.S. products. This grants authority to risk taxpayers’ money to provide loans and terms that the private sector considers too risky to provide. This is corporate welfare and the taxpayers will get stuck holding the bag if the Export-Import bank defaults.		X
11	Amendment to H.R. 5326: Restrict Funding For “The National Ocean Policy”		Attacks The Economy
	Rep. Bill Flores (R-Texas) offered an amendment to an appropriations bill (H.R. 5326) that would bar the use of funds in the bill to implement an executive order signed by President Obama in July 2010 calling for a national ocean policy. Rep. Flores is on record as stating: “The National Ocean Policy was formed without congressional authority and would be run by unaccountable and unelected Washington bureaucrats. These proposed policy guidelines and processes have the potential to change the permitting criteria and requirements for a large number of economic sectors.” Moreover, Obama’s National Ocean Policy explicitly calls for “pursuing the United States’ accession to the Law of the Sea Convention,” also known as the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST). The House adopted Flores’ amendment over Mr. Fitzpatrick’s rejection.		X
12	H.R. 4310: The National Defense Authorization Act		Attacks Bill of Rights
	The National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4310) is so sweeping that American citizens accused of being terrorists can be detained by the U.S. military and held indefinitely without habeas corpus and without even being tried and found guilty in a court of law. Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) offered an amendment to strike this language from the bill, but the House rejected Smith’s amendment and so did Rep Mike Fitzpatrick.		X

Reference: My Patrick Murphy Open Letter the man he replaced. How much has changed?

Advertisement