Tuesday, March 01, 2011

Scott Brown Outlines Targeted Approach To Tackle Washington's Binge Spending VIDEO


U.S. Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) outlined his targeted steps to tackle Washington’s binge spending. Brown’s measures include reducing government spending, setting budget priorities, increasing transparency and accountability for taxpayers and eliminating waste and abuse in government agencies and programs:

Scott BrownEnding Earmarks In Washington: Senator Brown is opposed to earmarks, and is the only member of the Massachusetts delegation who refuses to sponsor them. Senator Brown believes that federal spending should be prioritized based on the merits of projects, not on the political influence of a particular member of Congress. In December, Senator Brown opposed the Omnibus Appropriations bill because it was laden with thousands of earmarks and wasteful government spending, and he will continue to support reforms to the appropriations process that incentivize thoughtful stewardship of taxpayers’ hard-earned money.

Increasing Transparency For Taxpayers: In order to help taxpayers understand where their money is being spent, Senator Brown will introduce the bipartisan Taxpayer Receipt Act with U.S. Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL). Brown and Nelson’s bill would provide an itemized taxpayer receipt showing taxpayers where every dime of money paid to the Federal government is getting spent, and how much new debt we’ve put on the national credit card. The receipt would arrive when a taxpayer files their tax returns, on or before April 15th of each year.

Reading Bills And Understanding The Cost: Senator Brown believes all legislative matters should be made available to the public and fully scored by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) before a final Senate vote. Under current law, the Senate has to wait 48 hours before considering a bill that includes a committee report after a bill is reported out of committee. Senator Brown’s bipartisan 48 Hour Spending Transparency Resolution would apply that 48 hour threshold (as well as the CBO score requirement) before any consideration of a legislative matter by a subcommittee or committee, or on the floor of the Senate.

Tackling The Debt: Senator Brown believes that continuing down our current fiscal path threatens the future stability of our country. Senator Brown believes that we should change the way we budget and spend – putting a system in place that helps the federal government prioritize what we really need, while eliminating what we can live without and balancing the budget. On February 1st, Senator Brown sent a letter to the Budget Committee calling for responsible Budget reform. The letter asked Budget Committee leaders to ensure that priorities are actually established before the Senate holds any vote to increase our nation’s debt limit.

Cutting Wasteful Government Spending: Senator Brown is a co-sponsor of the Reduce Unnecessary Spending Act to give the President additional tools, such as a constitutional line-item veto procedure, to eliminate the kind of reckless spending that sticks taxpayers with the bill for congressional pork. This authority helped Congress and the President balance the budget in the past and it can again. Senator Brown also co-sponsored a resolution that would cut back the Senate budget. When families across Massachusetts are making tough choices, we should be doing the same.

Eliminating Waste, Fraud, Abuse In Federal Agencies And Programs: For too long, federal agencies and programs have been immune from accountability and oversight. For example, recent Congressional testimony estimates that $60 billion – or approximately thirteen percent – of our nation’s Medicare spending is at risk of fraud. The Social Security program is also not immune. In fiscal year 2008, the Social Security Administration (SSA) made overpayments in the Social Security Income (SSI) program alone that totaled $ 4.6 billion.

Last year, as ranking member of the Contracting Oversight subcommittee of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Senator Brown sent a list of recommendations to the President’s Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, providing concrete proposals to radically reform the acquisition process and save billions of taxpayer dollars. This Congress, Senator Brown will introduce the Federal Acquisition Reform Act – comprehensive legislation that will potentially save billions by streamlining the way the federal government purchases goods and services. As the new ranking member of the Federal Financial Management (FFM) Subcommittee, Senator Brown will hold hearings on the Social Security Program, the Medicare and Medicaid Programs, and federal agencies to root out the problems within these programs and ensure they are operating efficiently.

VIDEO CREDIT: USSenatorScottBrown

TEXT CREDIT: Scott Brown 317 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 Phone: (202) 224-4543 Fax: (202) 228-2646

IMAGE CREDIT: This United States Congress image is in the public domain. This may be because it is an official Congressional portrait, because it was taken by an official employee of the Congress, or because it has been released into the public domain and posted on the official websites of a member of Congress. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain.

Monday, February 28, 2011

H.R. 394 Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act of 2011 FULL TEXT

Lamar S. SmithH.R. 394 Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act of 2011 Bill Text 112th Congress (2011-2012) H.R.394.RH IN PDF FORMAT

Sponsor: Rep. Smith, Lamar (Judiciary Committee) Date: March 01, 2011 112th Congress, 1st Session.

FLOOR SITUATION

On Monday, February 28, 2011, the House is scheduled to consider H.R. 394, under suspension of the rules, requiring a two-thirds majority vote for passage. The bill was introduced on January 24, 2011, by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. The Committee held a markup of H.R. 394 on January 26, 2011, and ordered the bill to be reported by voice vote.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

H.R. 394 would make several changes to judicial procedures, including the determination of original jurisdiction and court venue for certain types of cases. The bill would specify the court of original jurisdiction for certain cases involving resident aliens and corporations. Lastly, H.R. 394 would change how the venues for federal court cases are determined, particularly when the cases involve multiple districts.

BACKGROUND

According to the majority staff on the House Committee on the Judiciary, the House approved a similar bill (H.R. 4113) by voice vote under suspension of the rules on September 28, 2010.

The Senate Judiciary Committee insisted on the following minor amendments.

* Maintaining the status quo treatment of derivative jurisdiction. H.R. 4113 as passed by the House made technical changes to §1441(f) to clarify that the derivative jurisdiction doctrine has no application to other sections within title 28. Prior to 1986, the derivative jurisdiction doctrine meant that if a state court lacked jurisdiction over an exclusively federal matter, removal to federal court under §1441(f) was nonetheless barred because the US district court’s jurisdiction was not “derivative” of the jurisdiction that attached in state court. Justice Department attorneys said that although it is infrequently used, the doctrine of derivative jurisdiction is indeed sometimes invoked by them when suits involving federal officers and agencies are removed to federal court. They gave as a particular example the situation when a defendant seeking to escape a state court forum brings a third-party action against a federal employee. If the federal employee was acting within the scope of the employee's employment, the U.S. can remove the case to federal court under 28 USC §1442 & §2679. The federal court then applies the derivative jurisdiction doctrine and dismisses the third-party claim against the federal employee, remanding the underlying action to state court. DOJ says that in such instances the third-party claim against a federal employee is often brought merely to obtain a federal forum, thereby frustrating the plaintiff's choice of forum.

* A clarification that a district court, and not state court, can make findings regarding the appropriateness of certain removals. This is a non-substantive change.

* Substitution of the generic word “entity” for “party” in one instance, consistent with the context of its usage.

* Deletion of an extra comma in one provision.

H.R. 394 includes the base text as approved by the House in the 111th Congress along with the Senate changes.

H.R. 394 would attempt to bring clarity to the operation of jurisdictional statute and facilitate the identification of the appropriate state or federal court where actions should be brought. Many Judges believe the current rules force them to waste time determining jurisdictional issues at the expense of adjudicating the underlying litigation. The contents are based on recommendations developed and approved by the United States Judicial Conference.

COST
According to CBO, H.R. 394 would have no significant budgetary impact.

TEXT CREDIT: Legislative Digest - GOP.gov: Staff Contact For additonal information, contact Sarah Makin

IMAGE CREDIT: Congressman Lamar Smith Washington, DC Office 2409 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 ph: 202-225-4236 fax: 202-225-8628 8:30 am- 6:00 pm EST