There are cities in Missouri’s 4th Congressional District which are served by Amtrak.
Representative Vicky Hartzler (r) in (ironically) Sedalia, which is served by Amtrak [2014 file photo].
Yesterday the House of Representatives voted to pass HR 749 which would reauthorize federal support for Amtrak (and, thus, enable passenger train service to continue in various cities and towns across the country, including in Missouri’s 4th Congressional District).
BILL TITLE: To reauthorize Federal support for passenger rail programs and for other purposes
—- YEAS 316 —
Clay
Cleaver
Graves (MO)
Luetkemeyer
Wagner
—- NAYS 101 —
Hartzler
Smith (MO)
—- NOT VOTING 15 —
Long
[emphasis added]
Well, there was plenty of bipartisan support for the bill to keep funding Amtrak and passenger rail service for four more years. Except… Representative Hartzler (r) didn’t see fit to vote to support passenger rail service which directly serves the people in her district. Why would that be the case?:
The Passenger Rail Reform and Investment Act passed on a vote of 316 to 101 (132 Republicans joined 184 Democrats in voting for the bill; 101 Republicans voted against). It keeps spending for Amtrak at nearly current levels – about $1.4 billion a year – for the next four years, and includes other reforms aimed at improving the railroad’s fiscal performance.
That disappointed some of the passenger rail service’s supporters, who had hoped for increased funding to help Amtrak improve its deteriorating infrastructure and update aging rail cars and equipment.
But many Republicans, backed by conservative groups including Club for Growth and Heritage Action, say the overall federal passenger rail subsidy of $7.2 billion is too much. The groups argue the spending reforms don’t go far enough and warn this would be scored as a “key vote” in their influential ratings of conservative lawmakers.
Just before the bill passed, a GOP amendment to eliminate all federal subsidies for Amtrak failed on a vote of 147 to 272….
[…]
One can see the dilemma – vote for services for the people in your district, or vote the way right wingnut special interests want you to vote.
Senator Roy Blunt (r) spoke yesterday morning at a republican press conference in the Farm Bureau building on the grounds of the Missouri State Fair in Sedalia shortly after the Governor’s Ham Breakfast. He was joined at the press conference taking issue with proposed EPA rules on water by Representatives Vicky Hartzler (r) and Blaine Luetkemeyer (r). They also criticized regulation in general.
“…if they don’t sell it [Canadian tar sand oil slated to be transported by the Keystone pipeline] to us they’ll sell it to somebody else…”
Water is wet.
“…logic doesn’t always work if people do illogical things…”
Uh, by definition if the action is illogical the logic never worked.
“…Common sense doesn’t prevail if people pursue policies that don’t meet the common sense standard…”
Again, by definition.
“…Another one that I’m for is making members of Congress vote on every rule and regulation that has any economic impact…”
Think about that for a minutesecond. Right. Because the republican majority of the House always bases their decisions on facts, science, and the benefit to all.
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps) today jointly released a proposed rule to clarify protection under the Clean Water Act for streams and wetlands that form the foundation of the nation’s water resources. The proposed rule will benefit businesses by increasing efficiency in determining coverage of the Clean Water Act. The agencies are launching a robust outreach effort over the next 90 days, holding discussions around the country and gathering input needed to shape a final rule.
Determining Clean Water Act protection for streams and wetlands became confusing and complex following Supreme Court decisions in 2001 and 2006. For nearly a decade, members of Congress, state and local officials, industry, agriculture, environmental groups, and the public asked for a rulemaking to provide clarity.
The proposed rule clarifies protection for streams and wetlands. The proposed definitions of waters will apply to all Clean Water Act programs. It does not protect any new types of waters that have not historically been covered under the Clean Water Act and is consistent with the Supreme Court’s more narrow reading of Clean Water Act jurisdiction.
[….]
The health of rivers, lakes, bays, and coastal waters depend on the streams and wetlands where they begin. Streams and wetlands provide many benefits to communities – they trap floodwaters, recharge groundwater supplies, remove pollution, and provide habitat for fish and wildlife. They are also economic drivers because of their role in fishing, hunting, agriculture, recreation, energy, and manufacturing.
About 60 percent of stream miles in the U.S. only flow seasonally or after rain, but have a considerable impact on the downstream waters. And approximately 117 million people – one in three Americans – get drinking water from public systems that rely in part on these streams. These are important waterways for which EPA and the Army Corps is clarifying protection.
[….]
The proposed rule preserves the Clean Water Act exemptions and exclusions for agriculture. Additionally, EPA and the Army Corps have coordinated with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to develop an interpretive rule to ensure that 56 specific conservation practices that protect or improve water quality will not be subject to Section 404 dredged or fill permitting requirements. The agencies will work together to implement these new exemptions and periodically review, and update USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service conservation practice standards and activities that would qualify under the exemption. Any agriculture activity that does not result in the discharge of a pollutant to waters of the U.S. still does not require a permit.
[….]
The proposed rule is supported by the latest peer-reviewed science, including a draft scientific assessment by EPA, which presents a review and synthesis of more than 1,000 pieces of scientific literature. The rule will not be finalized until the final version of this scientific assessment is complete.
Forty years ago, two-thirds of America’s lakes, rivers and coastal waters were unsafe for fishing and swimming. Because of the Clean Water Act, that number has been cut in half. However, one-third of the nation’s waters still do not meet standards.
Senator Roy Blunt (r): Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Blake. And congratulations to everybody who worked on the right to farm. Uh, I was Secretary of State for eight years. My guess would be that this is, uh, this is a narrow margin, but a margin that holds up and it makes a long time difference. Uh, none of the three of us are lawyers. We, we, as, and we, and we’d be quick to say, uh, but as a non lawyer I think putting this in the Constitution matters. It matters when something comes up on the floor of the General Assembly and others can stand up and say, wait a minute, the Constitution of the State of Missouri says that this, what we’re talking about, is something that’s uniquely protected in the Constitution. Makes a difference in court, I would think, if people have to go to court to contend that they uphold their rights. And all of the discussion of whether this benefits big farms or little farms, uh, my, my sense is that, uh, the big farms will generally take care of themselves. The family farms are much more likely to be impacted by rules that don’t make sense, than other farms.
So, let’s go to the topic that, uh, uh, Blake first brought up, the rules that don’t make sense. I just actually saw one of our people who works for the EPA next door and said, well, I’m gonna go next door and talk about what a bad job you all are doing in so many areas [laughter], uh, the EPA being one of them. This week I’ve been talking about a bill that I introduced in the Senate that both Vicky [Hartzler] and, uh, Blaine [Luetkemeyer] voted for in House and the House passed in a bipartisan way, called, uh, the Enforce Act. And the Enforce Act would give members of the, members of Congress the ability we don’t currently have to go to court early and let a judge decide whether the President and the administration are properly enforcing the law or not. Under the current situation we don’t have any standing in court. We can file a friend of the court brief, but to do that the rule has to go into effect. Somebody has to be negatively impacted by the rule. They have to be willing to go to court. And that court means maybe two levels of federal court before the Supreme Court, so, couple of years later you find out, as the court ruled two or three times in the last session, [inaudible] the administration has no authority to do that. So we’d like to be able to intervene earlier and say, okay, let’s just , we’ve got a disagreement here, a majority of one of the two houses of Congress, if not both, believe that you’re not properly enforcing the law, let’s settle that right now.
And certainly the clean water proposals would fall in that criterion. Uh, when in the early nineteen seventies the Congress passed the Clean Water Act they gave authority to the EPA over navigable waters. This is a term that had been used in federal law since about eighteen ninety-nine and it meant waters that you could actually navigate on. What a shocking, what a shocking surprise that would be. That is not all the water of the United States. It is not every water, every drip, drop of water that could eventually somehow wind up in a, something that you could define as a navigable water. It’s an overreach that impacts, as Blaine said, every builder, every county commissioner, every city official, every farming family and it should not be allowed to stand.
Even if, even if the EPA was well motivated here this is more than they can ever do. They can’t regulate every ditch in Missouri that water runs down to the side of the road. Even if they wanted to and even if their desire was to do something that every one of us agree with. Which, of course, it wouldn’t be. But even if it was, they couldn’t do this job. The consequences of these actions easily rob us of our natural, uh, opportunities. I’m gonna talk a little bit more about this when I see some of you at lunch, but our natural opportunities are pretty great.
World food needs are gonna double in the next fifty-five years. The, the, the river system becomes more important than it’s been in probably a hundred years as it tries to connect, uh, with both Asia and Europe and the opportunities there. Uh, we, we have, there are many, this is like the logic of the Keystone pipeline. That oil is coming out of the ground. We are clearly the best customer for that oil from Canada. We’re their best trading partner. They should want to sell it to us. But if they don’t sell it to us, and they’re willing to sell it to us at the Texas rate, which is about twenty percent less than they’ll sell it to anybody else, if they don’t sell it to us they’ll sell it to somebody else. You know, logic doesn’t always work if people do illogical things. Common sense doesn’t prevail if people pursue policies that don’t meet the common sense standard. As I told our friends in Jefferson City when I had the chance to speak to them at the General Assembly last year, the closer you solve a problem where the problem is the more likely you’re gonna get a solution that meets that standard of common sense. And the further you move the, the, the solution away the less likely it’s gonna meet the solution of common sense.
And the very fact that the EPA would say that navigable waters means all the water that could ever somehow trickle into a navigable stream indicates just how far afield they are. These are regulations we shouldn’t let stand. Uh, we need to look for every way we can to get regulators under control. The Enforce Act would be one.
Another one that I’m for is making members of Congress vote on every rule and regulation that has any economic impact. Not only are the regulators out of control, they’re unaccountable. And you and I need to be able get our hands on somebody who at the end of the day says, yes, we, we’re for that regulation. And if that happens it’s gonna make more sense.
You know, the Congress, once the House passed cap and trade, which I wasn’t for, the, people figured out what it was, the Senate would never have passed cap and trade because people figured out this was about doubling our utility bill if I live in Missouri. Uh, but regulators can do things, President says, well there’s more than one way to skin a cat and so we’ll find other ways to do cap and trade. They’re trying to do that as well. That’s the other massive economic destroying, uh, EPA proposal that’s out there right now.
But, uh, no matter what Gina McCarthy [Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency] says the concerns about this are legitimate, they are not myths, they are not ludicrous. The comments of the Farm Bureau that reflected those of farm families were not hogwash. You got regulators out of control and their out of control actions will do the wrong things for our state and the wrong ways for our families and we’re gonna fight that.
Senator Claire McCaskill (D) spent the day in Ferguson, Missouri.
This morning’s Governor’s Ham Breakfast at the State Fair in Sedalia took place without Governor Jay Nixon. Governor Nixon was in Ferguson, Missouri as was/is Senator Claire McCaskill. No statewide Democratic Party office holders were in attendance at the breakfast.
Senator Roy Blunt (r), Representative Vicky Hartzler (r), Representative Blaine Luetkemeyer (r), State Auditor Tom Schweich (r), House Speaker Tim Jones (r), and former Speaker Catherine Hanaway (r) were at the State Fair. We also covered a republican press conference at the Farm Bureau building going after the EPA on water regulation. Senator Blunt, Representative Hartzler and Representative Luetkemeyer spoke. Not a word about Ferguson, but the were all pleased about the “right to farm” amendment.
Serenading folks in the Home Economics Building.
The band also performed in the big tent for the ham breakfast crowd. They were quite good.
Senator Roy Blunt (r).
Politicians weren’t the only ones on display and being judged.
Representative Vicky Hartzler (r).
The Democratic Party tent at the Missouri State Fair.
They were open and active long before the republican tent opened up.
Former House Speaker Catherine Hanaway (r).
State Auditor Tom Schweich (r).
Judging pie.
Representative Vicky Hartzler (r).
Representative Blaine Luetkemeyer at the republican press conference in the Farm Bureau Building.
Interestingly, all three purported republican candidates for Governor in 2016 attended the breakfast. There was no tear gas.
Representative Vicky Hartzler (r) at State Fair Community College in Sedalia – August 13, 2014.
Representative Vicky Hartzler (r) held a three stop “farm tour” in the 4th Congressional District today. The final stop was this afternoon in Sedalia at State Fair Community College. About a dozen people attended a roundtable discussion about issues associated with data collection and management in agriculture. Most, if not all, of the individuals in attendance were invited participants (and family who accompanied them to the meeting), local politicians, and Representative Hartzler’s (r) staff. We were there, too.
After greeting everyone in the room Representative Hartlzer sat at the table with the other roundtable participants. After brief introductions Representative Hartzler asked those at the table to state what they had to say. Other than a question here and there Representative Hartzler spent most of the event listening to what they had to say. Individuals at the table included representatives of Farm Bureau, another agriculture interest group, local office holders, and the owner of a family owned agriculture data service (based in the district). The roundtable was scheduled to start at 3:00 p.m. It lasted approximately an hour and twenty minutes.
This was an open meeting which was advertised via social media (and I assume by local media, too), yet other than those directly participating or those associated with the participants (and Show Me Progress) there were no other people in the room.
In the past Representative Hartzler has held open town hall meetings with the opportunity for those in attendance to ask questions on any subject. A few of those town halls had been well attended. Given the current restive nature of the electorate one would suspect that an open town hall held now would have very good attendance.
Representative Vicky Hartzler (r) in the board room at the Hopkins Student Services Building at State Fair Community College in Sedalia.
This is the final vote for the 2013 Sedalia Person of the Year award. Based off of TIME Magazine’s Person of the Year issue, this award should go to the person or group that has had the most influence on the Sedalia area in the year 2013, for better or for worse. We took your nominations, and here are the finalists.
Clean Air Sedalia – The driving force behind the controversial Smoking Ban in Sedalia.
Dale Malone – Owner/operator of local business Dukes & Boots. Was very involved with the Pettis County Community Santa bicycle drive for underprivileged children, and fundraisers for the family of Chad Stover.
Harry Hoffert – Host of Huntin’ and Fishin’ with Harry. Local business owner and hunting enthusiast who is heavily involved in the Wounded Warriors and MO Kids Outdoors organizations.
Kevin Walker. Photographer/community activist. Covers almost every event in the area and shares his photos, stories, and opinions with the community online.
Larry Stevenson. City Councilman known for his unique actions at City Council meetings.
Sedalia STING Unit. Local police task force responsible for several large drug busts this year.
Tuffy Gessling. The rodeo clown in the middle of the Obama mask incident at the Missouri State Fair.
So who gets your vote for the Sedalia Person of the Year? Remember, it’s not necessarily the “Nice Guy Award”, it’s who you think had the biggest impact on the year for Sedalia…..
[emphasis added]
The sales director is probably going to get a really big end of year bonus.
Another letter to the editor [subscription required], in today’s Sedalia Democrat:
[….]
What’s wrong with this press release dated February 28, 2013, posted on her official website and sent out to newspapers across the 4th Congressional District of Missouri?
From US Representative Vicky Hartzler, “View from the Capitol – Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler’s Newsletter for the Week of February 25 – March 1, 2013.” – “Hartzler Votes to Protect Women from Acts of Violence – Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler (MO-4) has voted to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)… “I am pleased to support efforts to protect all women in this country from domestic abuse and other forms of violence,” said Hartzler. “I supported legislation this week…..”
What’s wrong? She voted AGAINST it, not FOR it (see official Congressional voting record at http://www.govtrack.us). And if you are a female, or love one, she voted against you and your loved ones.
“I am pleased to support efforts to protect all women in this country from domestic abuse and other forms of violence,” said Hartzler. Uhmmm, apparently not.
From the editor of Warrensburg’s Daily Star-Journal (printed this week): “The Daily Star-Journal did not realize that what Hartzler’s release called “the Violence Against Women Act” in fact is not what is destined to become law. In the release, she makes no mention that she did not vote for what would become law and, coupled with the deadline timing, what conclusion could be drawn other than that she voted for what would become law?……I trusted…..I regret that error.”
Exactly.
Why would Hartzler, or anyone for that matter, vote NO on renewing the Violence Against Women Act? Shouldn’t all women of America be protected? And, why would her press release try to make you think that she voted to protect women when in fact she didn’t?
Senator Claire McCaskill (D) made a campaign stop outside a local custard shop on U.S. Highway 50 on the western side of Sedalia late this afternoon. She took questions from local media and individuals in attendance.
Senator Claire McCaskill (D) at a campaign stop in Sedalia, Missouri on July 1, 2012.
Listening to a question.
On the U.S. Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act:
[….] Question: ….I’d like to have your comment on, uh, the Supreme Court’s, uh, decision on the, uh, health act.
Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Well, uh, at first it’s important to know that one of the most conservative chief justices in the history of our nation held up this law. And now we’re gonna have a chance, um, to, for Missourians to see what it really is instead of what they’ve been told it is. There are so many untruths that are being told about this reform. And it is important that Missourians get a chance, they’re gonna be surprised that it is gonna bring the insurance companies to heel. It’s gonna tell them to quit playing around and try to avoid giving care. It’s gonna cut down on how many times they can say no to claims. It’s gonna make insurance more accessible and affordable, and it is not a massive tax increase. Um, and so it is really not what people have told them and I’m looking forward to people realizing, uh, what it really is and I think they’re gonna like it very much if they’ll just give it a chance.
Responding to a question from a local radio reporter.
What I’m worried about is they’re putting all these lies out there about this legislation to distract people from what they want to do, which is ironic since they want to privatize Medicare. What they want the seniors to do is have to wrestle with insurance companies. Um, and I think if people would just take a deep breath and go, wait a minute, wait a minute, they’re gonna take away the Medicare that we rely on, uh, I think that would have, um, the kind of impact that most Missourians would reject. And so I think they’re doing some of this distortions, try to distract people from what their plans are.
[….]
Question: ….they brought up a point that the Supreme Court decision might not be so good because now, it was their opinion, that the funding for it would have, would go through the budget re, reconciliation fees, method, which does not require a sixty vote method to bring it up to a vote.
Senator McCaskill: Well, um, I think the Republicans are saying that they, they want to repeal the whole thing. [voice: “Right.”] They want to repeal, um, being able to stay on your parents policies until you’re twenty-six. They want to repeal the ability to get insurance if you have preexisting conditions. They want to repeal a free preventative care, uh, for people, um, to make sure we cut down on the high cost of disease ’cause they’re not caught until late in the game.
Um, now, to do that they would like to take this to a reconciliation, they would like to take the Senate and do it through reconciliation which take fifty-one votes. But, to do that they’ve got to defeat a bunch of Democrats in November. So what I’m hoping is that Missourians will take time to go to healthcare dot gov and learn the truth about this legislation so they’ll realize that, um, it, it’s time that we really tell the insurance companies that, um, they can’t spend half of every premium dollar they collect on big salaries for their CEOs and hiring more people to deny claims. They have to spend eighty percent of what they take in in claims now under this law on your health care. And if they spend more than that, um, on administration they have to rebate the money to the policy holders. And those checks will start going out in September.
So, I think that people think this is a government plan, it’s not. They are all private insurance companies. They’re being told now that it’s a massive tax increase, which is just a flat out lie. It’s just not true. It’s a hundred and forty-three billion dollars of tax cuts in this bill for small businesses and, and, and small families. And, uh, and an ability for people to get affordable insurance if they don’t get insurance at work. And if you get insurance at work nothing in this bill’s gonna change that.
And the only people that have to pay the penalty for not getting insurance are, is the guy who decides he’d rather buy a new Harley Davidson than pay for health insurance and then he lays it on the pavement out here and wants all of us to pay his health care bill. Uh, it’s just for the freeloaders….
