CD3 forum part 6: the Council on Foreign Relations and powers delegated to the House

Sixth in a series. Previously: Conflicts with the party and whether to move to a gold standardBig government programs and impeaching Supreme Court justicesIncome tax and unconstitutional executive orders or Supreme Court decisions, Getting rid of Constitutional amendments and how to improve the Republican Party, and Federal spending and gun control.

A candidate forum for Congressional District 3 was held in Newberry on July 18, with the following candidates present: Bill Engelbrecht, Joe Dallas Millado, Judson Sapp, Kat Cammack, Ryan Chamberlin, Amy Pope Wells, and Gavin Rollins.

The forum was moderated by Tim Marden and Jennifer Cabrera.

The format allowed the first respondent to the question a minute to answer; the remaining candidates had 40 seconds to either add to or disagree with the first answer.

Question #11:  What do you know about the Council on Foreign Relations?

Cammack: “The Council on Foreign Relations claims to be an organization that is positively advancing foreign policy. However, they are in favor of a One World Order; they want to advance globalization; they do not support American sovereignty; and they are not good for America. And it’s very disturbing when I see members of Congress taking briefings from members on the Council on Foreign Relations. They’re continuing to erode our sovereignty and our independence, and we need to make sure that we educate members and their staff on how dangerous the policies that they’re advancing are.”

Chamberlin: “Based on what she just said, it sounds pretty dangerous to me.”

Wells: “Just this past week, I had the privilege… to jump on a conference call with the White House with the United States Global Leadership Coalition. It was real interesting, and during that call, listening to Robert Gates talk about the Council on Foreign Relations, I never realized how dangerous that was. That is absolutely a problem.”

Rollins: “Yeah, it’s absolutely a problem, and it’s people like John Bolton and others who want our president to get involved in every foreign war. I’m the only person on this stage who’s actually been to war, and I’ll tell you this: I will never send our men and women into a combat zone without a clear, defined goal, a clear exit strategy, and it has to be imminent danger to the United States.”

Engelbrecht: “Let me just give you a good example of what’s happened just recently, with the COVID-19: With the Council of Foreign Relations, our liberals, back in Washington, allowed this to happen. Obama closed factories, put so many regulations into place, it made us, everyday Americans, vulnerable to China. A lot of our pharmaceuticals are made over in China, or the active ingredients. They’re also made over in Indonesia, or India, I believe. But either way, that should be brought home because we should never be this vulnerable again, and I hope we learn our lesson from this.”

Millado: “Foreign relations always will play a big role in our future. Now, when members who are on Foreign Affairs aren’t doing their job, aren’t going to hearings, then what else do you want us to do? It’s a matter of not just saying we’re going to hold countries, or these people, accountable—these words: transparency, accountable—people have tried, and we can’t. We need strong responses. The world sees us—when you have individual countries that are taking heads off on the internet and you don’t send every F-35 we have, then we are in tough times here. We need the right responses.”

Sapp: “Not that we can do anything about this, but don’t you love how they always try to fake their names out to make it sound like they’re not a dangerous organization? We see that all too often. Look, I yield to the people who worked in government more on that, some great responses there. I haven’t worked in government, but I do recognize it’s a dangerous organization. To go further into foreign policy, I love ‘Speak softly and carry a big stick.’ Let’s be the bad-ass when we have to be, and let’s not do it often unless we have to.”

Question #12: Which powers delegated to the House do you value the most?

Chamberlin: “I don’t have one that’s on the top of my mind, which power do I value the most?… Make a decision is really the thing that comes to my mind, as a power. But what I’m really sick and tired of is what I constantly see going on in Congress… we have, decade after decade… we don’t have a Congress that’s willing to even—we didn’t have one even 2 years ago, when the Republican House had it, we certainly don’t have one now—that’s willing to back the president on the things that will protect this country’s safety.”

Wells: “The power to legislate. And basically, when you’re legislating, you’re coming back to your district, you’re listening to the folks within your district and the challenges and overcoming those problems, that’s where you go back and begin to write, sponsor, co-sponsor bills that benefit, make lives better for your district.”

Rollins: “The most solemn decision is the decision to send people to war, and that’s the one that I think should be taken very seriously, but also the power of the purse. All bills that deal with money have to originate in the House. The power of the purse is a key power; we need to scale back what the federal government is spending money on and also hold liberals accountable through cutting their funding.”

Engelbrecht: “The power that I like is when your constituents actually come visit you in Congress, and they tell you about their problems. You have that opportunity to go ahead and write a bill and introduce it into legislation. The power I do not like is the fact that Adam Schiff was able to keep out Republicans during this impeachment trial. I think Americans actually saw how dirty Democrats are and what they will do in order to gain control. That’s why we need to get the House back.”

Millado: “The number one power would be the revenue introduction bills, the bills that actually increase our revenue. So to send people to war—yes, also good. All these things are good, but when we’re talking about introducing bills… no, there’s 50 different things you’ve got to do. There’s introductions, there’s coalition-building, there’s getting members to be a co-sponsor, so you have that buy-in. There’s legislative hearings, mark-ups, subcommittee, full committee, full House, the Senate. There’s a million things in between those things, and if you don’t have someone who’s already been there, knows how to do it…”

Sapp: “Well, the founding fathers said the power of the purse is for Congress, but I do agree with Gavin, the most humbling power is the power to send people to war. My pastor said… can we pray for you in this election cycle, keep it clean, all that stuff? You know, I appreciate that, but when I win, pray for me if I have to make that decision, because that’s when you need it. I’ve talked to members of Congress, and that seems to be the most humbling thing you have to do and a real gut-check.”

Cammack: “I agree with my colleagues. The power of the purse is housed under the House of Representatives, and it’s really the control of the purse strings that drives all the decisions of government. Unfortunately, we live in an era where a formal declaration of war hasn’t happened  in quite some time. We’ve been operating under AUMFs and executive authority for far too long, so it’s time for us to reign that back in and take control of the budget, get back to zero-based budgeting and really regain control of the purse strings.”