Daily Legislative Schedule THURSDAY, MARCH 27TH

[RandomVariable]

I will hopefully be able to make comments of Floor activity of today's bills. Eric Cantor || Majority Leader || Floor Schedule


H.R. 4302 - To amend the Social Security Act to extend Medicare payments to physicians and other provisions of the Medicare and Medicaid programs, and for other purposes (Suspension, 40 Minutes of Debate) (Sponsored by Rep. Joe Pitts / Energy and Commerce Committee / Ways and Means Committee)

H.R. 4278 - To support the independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity of Ukraine, and for other purposes, as amended (Suspension, 40 Minutes of Debate) (Sponsored by Rep. Ed Royce / Foreign Affairs Committee)
Live stream: House of Representatives Live Video: HouseLive.gov

Special Order Speeches


COMMITTEE ACTIVITY OF THE DAY
Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies hearing on “Environmental Protection Agency” (Thursday, March 27th, at 9:30 a.m.)
Live stream: Budget Hearing - Environment Protection Agency | Committee on Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives
(Subcommittees are awesome to watch because one gets to see the Representatives true colors.)

 

[RandomVariable]

H.R. is another vote to fix the doc fix. Just had one a week or so ago. Can't vote on Immigration Reform but can have reruns on bills which were passed earlier but were not written in a way the Senate will take it up.

Rep. Rogers (R-Al-16) in the Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies is arguing for relaxing the regulations on coal. We discussed that a couple days ago.

 

[RandomVariable]

Today I watch a couple hours of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies hearing on “Environmental Protection Agency”. This was the subcommittee's members questioning the administrator of the EPA Gina McCarthy regarding the $7.9B allocated in the President's 2015 budget. That number is a continuing tread of a smaller budget for the EPA. Its current level is one which has not been seen since the 1980's. This quite surprising given the scope of the role the EPA plays. Not only is the EPA a defense against what industry and individuals are doing and would go given the chance but the EPA also servers in many ways to increase the enjoyment of the environment where ever that might be. It is probably with little surprise that the feeling towards the overall benefit of the EPA as split along party lines. The Republicans wanted to create or increase restraints on the EPA's jurisdictions, except for the single part which was beneficial to their district. The Democrats believed the EPA had a worthy mandate and thought the EPA's budget should be increased. A Republican chaired the subcommittee as they do for all committees and subcommittees being the majority party in the House. Rep. Colvert, the chairman, wanted to maintain the DERA project, National Projects | National Clean Diesel | US EPA, which spends almost $800,000 on California. He did question the lack of scientific evidence for downstream affects of mountaintop coal mining, a reference to H. R. 2824, where in W.V. 300,000 people can not drink the tap water. The besides the very brief mentions of personal benefits Republican focused on attacking the Clean Water Act. Apparently an attempt being made by the EPA to clarify current jurisdiction and roles has greatly upset the Republicans. This is not completely logical because in no way does it increase the jurisdiction of the EPA, only provides clarity. It also follows guidelines specified in a Supreme Court ruling in 1995. The main Republican attack dogs were Rep. Colvert (R-CA-42) and Rep. Simpson (R-ID-2), also Rep Rogers (R-AL-3). Three main lines of attack were used: 1) there was a secondary, follow-up scientific examination being done and why was process not delayed until that was finished, 2) it was a federal “land grab”, and 3) exact specification could not be given on a particular instance on the spot. The first line of attack failed because all necessary research has been done for what was proposed (Rep. Rogers did not seem to grasp the scientific process), the second line failed since the proposal did not expand the jurisdiction at all, merely clarified the role of the EPA, and the third line failed as giving specifics on a hypothetical is impossible. The Republicans hammered nonetheless. At one point Rep. Rogers, frustrated that he could not get an immediate answer about a hypothetical situation harshly snapped at McCarthy, “Ah, Give me a break!” Rep. Simpson stated it a somewhat of a threatening manner that since the EPA had implemented the Clean Water Act they had “Created a war.” Sometimes Republicans questioned why programs they thought were valuable were being cut, to which McCarthy explained that the EPA was doing the best it could with what it had but what it had was less than it used to have. While the hearing was to examine the overall appropriateness of the budget allocation to the EPA in the President's 2015 budget, which the Democrats did, the Republicans used the opportunity to attack the EPA on a specific issue.

One neat fact I learned while watching the hearing was coal fly ash, bottom ash and boiler slag are radioactive. Learn something new everyday.

 

[RandomVariable]

This note is not for the 27th but for today, I figured I would avoid creating another thread with possibly one post.

Today the vote will be on H.R. 1874 - Pro-Growth Budgeting Act of 2013 (Structured Rule, One Hour of Debate) (Sponsored by Rep. Tom Price / Budget Committee / Rules Committee).

While this has the blessing of both the Americans for Prosperity

On behalf of more than two million Americans for Prosperity activists in all 50 states, I applaud you for introducing the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act of 2013 (S.184, H.R.1874). Your bill would require the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to include dynamic scoring in its reports. This will give Congress a more realistic estimate of the fiscal impact of federal legislation.

Read more: Letter of Support for Rep. Price?s and Sen. Ayotte?s Pro-Growth Budgeting Act (S.184, H.R.1874) | Americans for Prosperity

and the Americans for Tax Reform

ATR and nearly two-dozen other free market coalition partners today sent a joint letter of support to the U.S. House of Representatives. We stand in united support behind H.R. 1874, the "Pro-Growth Budgeting Act of 2013." The House is scheduled to consider this legislation on Friday. The full text of the letter can be found here. Below is the text and the signers:
...
Grover Norquist, Americans for Tax Reform
Mike Needham, Heritage Action for America
Brandon Arnold, National Taxpayers Union
William Gardner, Americans for Prosperity
Larry Hart, American Conservative Union
Tom Schatz, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste
Jim Martin, 60 Plus Association
David Williams, Taxpayers Protection Alliance
Gregory T. Angelo, Log Cabin Republicans
Tim Lee, Center for Individual Freedom
Andrew Moylan, R Street
Wayne Crews, Competitive Enterprise Institute
Phil Kerpen, American Commitment
Palmer Schoening, Family Business Coalition
Chuck Muth, Citizens Outreach
Mario Lopez, Hispanic Leadership Fund
Jeff Kropf, Oregon Taxpayers Coalition
Stephen DeMaura, Americans for Job Security
Roseann Siderits, COAST


Read more: Joint Letter in Support of H.R. 1874, the "Pro-Growth Budgeting Act" | Americans for Tax Reform
Follow us: @taxreformer on Twitter

and follows the logic of Larry Kudlow

And please remember that these so-called cuts come off a rising budget baseline in most cases. So the sequester would slow the growth of spending. They're not real cuts in the level of spending. (Not that a level reduction is a bad idea.)

Looking at the sequester in this light, it's clear that it won't result in economic Armageddon. In fact, I'll make the case that any spending relief is actually pro-growth. That's right. When the government spending share of GDP declines, so does the true tax burden on the economy. As a result, more resources are left in the free-market private sector, which will promote real growth.

Read more: The Pro-Growth Sequester | RealClearPolitics
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter

some, such as Bruce Bartlett of The Fiscal Times, are not so satisfied that this is good legislation however.

One of the measures adopted by the Budget Committee is called the “Pro-Growth Budgeting Act of 2013” (H.R. 1874). It would require the CBO to calculate the macroeconomic impact of any legislation that would have more than a 0.25 percent impact on the gross domestic product in any year over the following decade.

This sounds harmless, but has an insidious purpose. First, it would require the CBO effectively to do a macroeconomic estimate of many bills just to determine whether the 0.25 percent threshold is met. Thus it will impose an additional work requirement on the agency without providing any additional resources.
...
But obviously, if tax changes can have a macroeconomic impact, then so can spending increases or cuts. Many economists have argued that the budget sequester, which is sharply cutting spending, has slowed economic growth. Republicans deny it and want their view institutionalized in the budget process.
...
These efforts to deny, abolish and distort basic data for partisan purposes is insidious and reprehensible. Republicans should be ashamed.

- See more at: The Republican War on Data | The Fiscal Times

 

[RandomVariable]

Ryan in the House! Paul Ryan is going to speak on H. R. 1874. I have never actually seen him speak on the Floor. Van Hollen speaking now. Heaviest hitters on the Floor? What's up with that?

 

[RandomVariable]

Ryan slide 1:

 

[RandomVariable]

That is Quit say it! And it is 2.3 btw.

 

[RandomVariable]

He went from large oil companies to food on the table. There is a vote for one or a vote for the other, and that choice is what defines the two parties.