Some are criticizing House Republicans for scheduling a floor vote on legislation that would ban abortions 20 weeks after fertilization unless the mother's life is in danger. The vote, the critics say, makes the GOP seem insensitive to the concerns foremost on the minds of most Americans: job security. Rep. John Fleming, R-Minden, said the motivation for the current...
Some are criticizing House Republicans for scheduling a floor vote on legislation that would ban abortions 20 weeks after fertilization unless the mother's life is in danger. The vote, the critics say, makes the GOP seem insensitive to the concerns foremost on the minds of most Americans: job security.
Rep. John Fleming, R-Minden, said the motivation for the current abortion bill is that surgeons who have worked to repair defective hearts or other medical problems for fetuses in the womb realize that after 20 weeks a fetus feels pain.
"If we have a humane society that applies proper treatment to animals, and one that treats prisoners of war in the most humane way even if they have information about possible terrorist activity, then why would we submit a fetus in a woman's womb to this kind of pain?" said Fleming, a physician.
Fleming acknowledges it would have been better if House Judiciary Committee Republicans who approved the amendment weren't all men, though he contends it's not for a lack of trying to get more GOP women and minorities elected. The Republicans rejected a proposal to exempt victims of rape and incest from the ban.
"Clearly the economy is on everyone's minds, we're seeing very stagnant job numbers, confidence in the institution of government is eroding and now we're going to have a debate on rape and abortion," Rep. Charlie Dent, R-Pa., said in response. "The stupidity is simply staggering."
Fleming strongly supports the upcoming vote, arguing that Republicans have passed job-related bills only to be rebuffed by Senate Democrats, though Democrats say the bills were giveaways to the wealthy.
It's not our fault candy prices are high
American sugar producers prevailed again in the Senate, which recently rejected an amendment to the 2013 farm bill to phase out the sugar price support system. But perhaps because the House still hasn't acted on a farm bill, and the Senate vote is getting criticism from candy makers and syndicated columnist George Will as a "sell out" to big sugar producers, the American Sugar Alliance has issued a video defending the program.
The message: U.S. sugar prices are as low today as they were in the 1980s.
Lawmakers need to look no further than a candy bar for proof, the Sugar Alliance said in the video statement.
"In 1983, you could buy a candy bar for 35 cents. In 1983, a candy bar contained two cents worth of sugar. ... In 2013, that same candy bar costs $1.39 - a 300 percent increase. But it still has just two pennies worth of sugar in it."
Immigration amendment draws opposition from bill supporters and opponents
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas., has offered up an amendment to a pending immigration bill he suggests might well bring over enough GOP votes to pass the measure by a large margin. But so far, he's getting negative reviews from both sides - supporters of the so-called Gang of Eight immigration overhaul package and opponents led by Sen. David Vitter, R-La.
Cornyn's proposal, called the Results Act, stipulates that no illegal immigrant could apply for a green card until several conditions are met. Among them: that the U.S. Border Patrol establish monitoring capability for every segment of the 1,900-mile U.S.-Mexican border.
That's not good enough, Vitter said. "To be effective, his security 'triggers' must occur before any legalization takes place, not after. We must ensure that real enforcement is in place, working, verified before any adjustment of citizenship status happens."
Vitter, who plans to discuss his opposition to the immigration bill on the Fox News Network on Sunday morning, said he'll try to amend the Cornyn measure to ensure effective border security is in place before the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants are given legal status.
But those who helped draft the Senate bill said Cornyn's amendment is not too permissive, as Vitter claims, but overly restrictive, too costly and very time consuming. "We cannot, should not and will not tell those who have waited in the shadows for so long that they should wait for 25 years," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., one of the immigration bill's lead sponsors.
Vitter calls on Landrieu to embrace Cassidy flood insurance amendment
Sen. David Vitter, R-La., is urging his Louisiana Democratic Senate colleague, Mary Landrieu, to incorporate a House-passed amendment barring FEMA from using its 2014 budget allocation to implement a provision of a 2012 flood insurance law that permits big premium increases for homes labeled greater flood risks under new FEMA maps.
Sen. Mary Landrieu, left, and Sen. David VitterThe amendment was sponsored by Rep. Bill Cassidy, R-Baton Rouge, the leading GOP candidate challenging Landrieu's 2014 re-election. Vitter, in his letter, said that by including the Cassidy amendment in the Senate's funding bill for FEMA, which is drafted by Landrieu's Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, will virtually ensure its adoption.
Vitter said that Landrieu could also include her own stand-alone bill -- delaying implementation of the 2012 flood insurance law for three years and another delaying the measure that he authored.
Landrieu reacted coolly to the request. "I am always happy to receive correspondence from anyone. I understand the detrimental effects that this bill has on Louisiana, and that's why I raised concerns about it even before its passage," Landrieu said.
Landrieu has said she is committed to finding a way to prevent huge increases for Louisiana homeowners, hopefully for more than a year.
Landrieu aides said she is concerned that Cassidy's amendment only denies funding to implement Section 207 of the 2012 flood insurance law, which, beginning in 2014, allows increases of 20 percent a year for homes considered bigger flood risks in new FEMA flood maps.
Landrieu is also concerned about Section 205, which allows immediate increases of flood insurance premiums to market rates for homeowners in flood hazard areas once they sell the home. That provision could make the homes unsellable, according to Louisiana officials.