From a DeMarco supporter (updated)

A DeMarco supporter wrote me the below email last night:

From:
Date: Thu, May 22, 2014 at 11:16 PM
Subject: Dear Shattuck,
To: "rdshattuck@gmail.com" <rdshattuck@gmail.com>
I'm emailing you in regards to your attack letter to DeMarco, in which you called him fatuous. I would like to return the favor in saying that your campaign and your ideas are fatuous and DeMarco actually has a plan to lower spending and balance the budget. At debates, you constantly grind into people's heads that we need to fix this dysfunctional congress, but you have no legitimate plan to do so; and when your asked what your standpoint is on something, you refuse to answer. Those issues are the issues that matter to the taxpayers, and when you refuse to answer them, you refuse to inform the people, which will never get you elected. We ALL want to fix Congress. But saying it isn't a very strong message.

My response

I have said that Congress is kaput. I have said there is not government of the people, by the people, and for the people in Washington DC. I have said that my diagnosis is that Congress, of its own accord, cannot and will not take adequate action to fix these things, and only the American people, acting in temporary unison, can force Congress to change things or otherwise force change. I have said this is a longshot, and that it could very well be crazy to think it will ever happen. Given the direness of the situation, I have said we have no choice but to be crazy and to try.

If what I have said is true, and that Congress is kaput and has stopped functioning, it does not do much good to talk about plans to lower spending and balance the budget. In fact, it is delusional to be doing such talking. Kabuki theater I am calling it.

As I said on Matt Murphy on Monday (a link to the podcast can be found here), a roadblock to Congress becoming functional is that a chief tool of the political class in Washington DC is to keep the electorate divided and polarized, and to put out non-stop extreme rhetoric on the two sides. Once steps are taken to begin to fix Congress, the idea is that will start to quell, more reasonable dialogue will ensue, and compromises will begun to be reached. Exactly what will unfold in the course of that is far too early to say. Any "plans" right now are fatuous.

I have invited the DeMarco supporter who wrote the above email to reply to my reply and to solicit Representative DeMarco to give an adequate addressing of these matter to the voters. In my opinion, all that Representative DeMarco has served up to the voters thus far is either "political hokum" or "fatuous stupidity." I stand by that until I hear more from his supporter or him.

If Representative DeMarco needs some guidance about fashioning a reply, I refer him to Framing the question.


DeMarco supporter emailed me back this:
So you have made clear that if you are elected, you will do absolutely nothing to balance our budget, decrease spending, repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, or ANYTHING that will stimulate the progress of our country? I understand that Congress needs to be fixed, but don't you think you can balance fixing Congress and assisting this district?

Also, if you are elected, how exactly would you "fix" Congress? 

I replied with this:

Thank you for writing again, ____.

I am saying Congress is kaput, and Congress is not able to do anything to balance the budget, decrease spending, repeal and replace The Affordable Care Act, or anything that will stimulate the progress of our country. 

If elected, I would contribute and do what I can, but I expect not to be able to make one whit of difference. I further expect that to be the case with any of the candidates, if they are elected. I have tried to engage the other six candidates in discussion about this, but they have refused for three months.

I have said that Congress cannot be looked to to fix itself, and only the American people can force change. 

My plan is to use the 2014 elections as a linchpin for doing this. See National battle plan (2014).

Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig has launched a citizens' super PAC to try to win enough House seats in 2016 and have a Congress that will fix itself. See this recent Atlantic article.

Does this answer your questions?

Sincerely,

Rob Shattuck 

DeMarco supporter then emailed me this

I understand that Congress is in a kaput, but in the miraculous event that you contribute in getting them working again, what issues would you fight on Capitol Hill. That's what everyone wants to know. 

I replied with this:

Let me try putting it back to you this way, _____t.

While I say Congress is kaput, take a look at this link, which is many pages listing Bachus' votes on House legislation set out in reverse chronological order.

Whoever is elected will be confronted with a comparable long list of items of legislation to vote on. One could speculate what might get voted on during the next two years and how one would vote as a candidate. I am not prepared to begin to speculate that.

Alternatively, you could ask each candidate, "how would you have voted on each of these items of legislation listed?" Or maybe you would want to pick certain items of legislation for each candidate to say how he would have voted.

I am not much motivated to go through the list and say how I would have voted.

Bachus shows up as a co-sponsor on a number of the bills, so I guess you would say Bachus "fought" on those. You could ask each candidate, "what legislation would you co-sponsor if elected?" My answer is I don't at this time have any ideas for legislation I would co-sponsor.

Perhaps Representative Bachus can give you better answers to the above questions or hypothetical questions.

Sincerely,

Rob Shattuck.

I got curious on my own

The names of the legislation that Bachus voted on shown on the list in the link given above got my curiosity going, and I read the below highlights of some of them set out below:.

Responsibly And Professionally Invigorating Development (RAPID) Act of 2013

Highlights:

• Requires a lead agency leading a construction project that requires approval by a permit or regulatory decision to establish a schedule for completion of an environmental review by considering certain factors including, but not limited to, the following factors (Sec. 2):
• The size and complexity of the project;
• The cost of the project; and
• The responsibilities of participating agencies.

• Defines “lead agency” as the federal agency preparing or responsible for preparing the project’s environmental document (Sec. 2).

• Defines “environmental review” as the procedures for preparing an environmental impact statement, environmental assessment, or other document under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (Sec. 2).

• Defines “environmental document” as an environmental assessment or environmental impact statements and includes any supplemental document or document prepared under court order (Sec. 2).

• Requires the lead agency of a project to complete an environmental review for projects requiring preparation of an environmental impact statement within the following deadlines (Sec. 2):
• Within 2 years after the earlier of the date the agency receives a project initiation request or publishes a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environment Impact Statement is published;
• Within 2 years after a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environment Impact Statement if the agency has prepared an environmental assessment and determined that an environmental impact statement will be required.

• Requires the lead agency to issue a finding of no “significant” impact or publish a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement within 1 year after the earlier of the date the agency completes the following (Sec. 2):
• Receives a project initiation request;
• Makes a decision to prepare an environmental assessment, or
• Sends out participating agency invitations.

• Authorizes the lead agency of a project to take any actions necessary to facilitate the “expeditious” resolution of the environmental review for the project (Sec. 2).

• Prohibits an extension of the environmental review deadline without an agreement between the lead agency, the project sponsor, and the participating agencies or without “good cause” (Sec. 2).

• Prohibits an environmental review deadline from being extended by the following (Sec. 2):
• By more than 1 year for a project requiring preparation of an environmental impact statement; or
• By more than 180 days for a project requiring preparation of an environmental assessment.

• Requires a federal agency that is required to act upon a permit, license, or other similar application for approval related to a project prior to the record of decision or finding of no “significant” impact, to act no later than 90 days beginning after the following (Sec. 2).
• After all other relevant agency review related to the project is complete; and
• After the availability of the environmental impact statement or other environmental documents, or no later than such other date that is otherwise required by law, whichever occurs first.

• Specifies that if the federal agency does not act upon a permit, license, or other similar application for approval related to a project, the permit, license, or other similar application shall be deemed approved by such agency (Sec. 2).

• Requires the lead agency to establish a comment period for comments by agencies and the public on a draft environmental impact statement of not more than 60 days after public availability unless a different deadline is established by agreement between the lead agency, the project sponsor, and all participating agencies, or the deadline is extended for “good cause” (Sec. 2).

• Authorizes the lead agency of a project to adopt an environmental document that resulted from an environmental review on a “similar” project in “geographical proximity” that was subject to environmental review within the previous 5 years if the agency determines that there is a “reasonable likelihood” that the project will have “similar” environmental impacts (Sec. 2).

• Authorizes the lead agency of a project to adopt an environmental document that has been prepared for a project under state laws and procedures as the environmental document for the project if the state laws and procedures under which the document was prepared provide environmental protection and opportunities for public involvement that are “substantially equivalent” to those in NEPA (Sec. 2).

• Prohibits the lead agency from using the “social cost of carbon” in any environmental review or environmental decision making process (Sec. 2).

• Prohibits a claim from arising seeking judicial review of a permit, license, or approval issued by a federal agency for an action subject to NEPA unless certain conditions are met including, but not limited to, the claim was filed within 180 days after publication that the permit, license, or approval is final (Sec. 2).

• Requires the head of each federal agency to annually report to Congress on the following items (Sec. 2):   
• The projects for which the agency initiated preparation of an environmental document;
• The time it took the agency to complete the environmental review for each project; and
• The resolution of any lawsuits against the agency that sought judicial review of a permit, license, or approval issued by the agency for an action subject to NEPA.

• Specifies that the deadline provisions of this bill apply to a project for which an environmental review or environmental decision making process was initiated prior to the date of enactment and shall be calculated as beginning from the date of enactment (Sec. 2).

Restoring Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities Act

Highlights:

• Requires the Secretary of Agriculture to establish Forest Reserve Revenue Areas within each unit of the National Forest System within 60 days of the enactment of this bill (Secs. 102 & 103).

• Defines “Forest Reserve Revenue Area” as National Forest System land designated for sustainable forest management for the production of national forest materials and forest reserve revenues (Sec. 102).

• Requires the Secretary of Agriculture to include in Forest Reserve Revenue Areas at least 50 percent of the National Forest System lands that are capable of producing greater than 20 cubic feet of timber per acre (Sec. 102). 

• Requires the Secretary of Agriculture to determine the annual volume requirement for a Forest Reserve Revenue Area within 30 days of its designation as such, and to immediately begin managing the area in a manner suitable to achieving the annual volume requirement (Secs. 103 & 104).

• Defines “annual volume requirement” as a total harvest of forest materials that is at least 50% of the total possible sustainable harvest (Sec. 102).

• Requires the Secretary of Agriculture to pay 25 percent of revenues derived from the sale of national forest materials in a Forest Reserve Revenue Area to state governments for the benefit of the counties in which the national forest is located (Sec. 105).

• Requires the Secretary of Agriculture to establish community forest demonstration areas within a state at the request of an advisory committee appointed by the state’s governor, consisting of at least 200,000 acres and not more than 4 million acres of National Forest System land (Sec. 402).

• Authorizes the advisory committee for a community forest demonstration area to retain revenue generated by the area to fund the management, administration, restoration, operation and maintenance, improvement, and repair of the area (Sec. 405).

• Exempts the following categories of projects from provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 that require an environmental assessment or impact statement before implementation (Sec. 104):
• Projects that are proposed in response to a catastrophic event;
• Projects that cover an area of 10,000 acres or less; or
• Projects that are hazardous fuel reduction or forest health projects involving the removal of insect-infested trees, dead or dying trees, trees presenting a threat to public safety, or other hazardous fuels within 500 feet of utility or telephone infrastructure, campgrounds, roadsides, heritage sites, recreational sites, schools, or other infrastructure. 

• Exempts forest health projects whose primary purpose is the salvage of dead, damaged, or down timber resulting from a wildfire occurring in 2013 from being subject to judicial review or any federal court injunction (Sec. 204).

• Prohibits a U.S. Court from issuing a restraining order, preliminary injunction, or injunction pending appeal in response to an allegation that the Secretary of Agriculture violated a procedural requirement when selecting, planning, or analyzing a project involving hazardous fuel reduction or the management or sale of national forest materials within a Forest Reserve Revenue Area (Secs. 104 & 204).

• Requires a plaintiff challenging a project that involves hazardous fuel reduction or the management or sale of national forest materials within a Forest Reserve Revenue Area to post a bond or other security to the court in order to cover the estimated costs, expenses, and attorney fees of the Secretary of Agriculture as defendant within 90 days of the start of legal action, or the action will be dismissed (Secs. 104 & 204).

• Requires the Secretary of Agriculture to issue a determination explaining that a proposed project in a forest reserve is not likely to jeopardize the existence of any species listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, if the Secretary decides that the project might impact such a species (Sec. 104).

• Establishes the Oregon and California Railroad Grant Lands Trust, that shall comprise all lands located on Oregon and California Railroad Grant lands and O&C Region Public Domain lands as of January 2013 and containing stands of timber that have previously been managed for timber production or that have been materially altered by natural disturbances since 1886 (Sec. 311).

• Requires the Board of Trustees for the Oregon and California Railroad Grant Lands Trust to manage at least 50 percent of the total harvestable acres of the Trust lands for the purposes of generating the maximum sustainable revenue for the area (Sec. 314).

Protecting States' Rights to Promote American Energy Security Act

Highlights:

• Prohibits the Department of the Interior from enforcing federal regulations of oil, gas, or geothermal hydraulic fracturing activities if a state has regulations, guidance or permit requirements for the hydraulic fracturing activity (Sec. 102).

• Prohibits the Department of the Interior from enforcing federal regulations of oil, gas, or geothermal hydraulic fracturing activities on Indian land that is held in trust or restricted status (Sec. 104).

• Requires the Department of the Interior to defer to state regulations, permitting, and guidance of oil, gas, or geothermal hydraulic fracturing activities on federal land (Sec. 102).

• Requires a state with regulations that apply to hydraulic fracturing on federal land or the disclosure of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing on federal land to submit a copy of the regulations to the Bureau of Land Management (Sec. 102).

• Requires the Comptroller General to conduct a study examining the “economic benefits” of domestic shale oil and gas production resulting from hydraulic fracturing including identification of the following (Sec. 103):
• The state and federal revenue generated;
• The jobs created both directly and indirectly; and
• The estimate of potential energy prices without domestic shale oil and gas production.

• Requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report of potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources to meet certain requirements including, but not limited to, the following (Sec. 202):
• The report must be reviewed by peers;
• The report must include estimates of the probability, uncertainty, and consequence of each impact that takes into account the risk management practices of states and industry; and
• The report must be released publicly by September 30, 2016.

• Requires the Secretary of the Interior to annually review and report to Congress on all state activities regarding hydraulic fracturing (Sec. 301).

Working Families Flexibility Act of 2013

Highlights:

• Authorizes an employee in the private sector to receive compensatory time off instead of monetary compensation for overtime work (Sec. 2).

• Requires 1 and one-half hours of compensatory time off to be applied for each hour of overtime work an employee performs (Sec. 2).

• Requires an employee who has accrued compensatory time off and who has requested to use the time to be authorized by the employer to use the time within a “reasonable period” after making the request if the use of the time does not disrupt the operations of the employer (Sec. 2).

• Prohibits an employer from directly or indirectly intimidating, threatening, or coercing any employee for the following purposes (Sec. 2):
• To interfere with the employee’s ability to request or not request compensatory time off instead of payment of monetary overtime compensation for overtime hours; or
• To require any employee to use his or her accrued compensation time.

• Limits to 160 hours the compensatory time an employee is authorized to accrue (Sec. 2).

• Prohibits an employee from receiving compensatory time off until he or she has worked at least 1,000 hours during a period of continuous employment with the employer in the 12-month period prior to the date of agreement or receipt of compensatory time off (Sec. 2).

• Requires any compensatory time off agreements to be in accordance with a collective bargaining agreement for employees who are represented by a labor organization or affirmed by a written record of agreement between the employer and employee for employees who are not represented by a labor organization (Sec. 2).

• Authorizes an employee who is not represented by a labor organization to discontinue a compensatory time off agreement at any time (Sec. 2).

• Authorizes an employer to discontinue the compensatory time off policy if the employer provides a 30-day notice to employees, unless a collective bargaining agreement specifies otherwise (Sec. 2).

• Authorizes an employee to request in writing at any time that monetary compensation be provided for all unused compensatory time accrued, and requires the employer to provide the employee the monetary compensation within 30 days (Sec. 2).

• Authorizes an employer to provide monetary compensation after 30 days’ notice for an employee’s unused compensatory time in excess of 80 hours (Sec. 2).

• Requires an employer to pay an employee who has accrued compensatory time off for the unused compensatory time upon voluntary or involuntary termination of employment (Sec. 2).

• Requires an employer to provide monetary compensation by January 31 of each calendar year for any unused compensatory time off accrued during the preceding calendar (Sec. 2).

• Requires monetary compensation for accrued compensatory time off to be paid to the employee at 1 of the following rates, whichever is higher (Sec. 2):
• The employee’s regular rate when the compensatory time was earned; or
• The employee’s final regular rate.

• Specifies that the provisions of this bill expire 5 years after the date of enactment (Sec. 6).