Mike Needham Cosigns Letter Supporting 5-Month Abortion Ban

Today the House will vote on the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (H.R. 36), introduced by Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) 91%. This legislation will protect unborn children by preventing abortions five months after fertilization, at which time scientific evidence suggests the child can feel pain. In 2013, a similar bill passed the House by a 228-196 vote, but did not receive consideration in the Senate.

Mike Needham joined with Marjorie Dannenfelser, President of Susan B. Anthony List, urging Congress to vote YES to H.R. 36.

This bill is a common-sense piece of legislation which protects unborn children after 20 weeks, or 5 months of pregnancy, based on their ability to feel excruciating pain. Previous uninformed notions that unborn and newborn babies could not feel pain, or misinformation on the ability of preterm infants to survive, are refuted by a growing body of scientific evidence. Our nation’s public policy should not reflect the tiring and uninformed politics of choice, but rather should catch up with the growing body of scientific evidence of pain and advancing perinatal medicine.

View the full letter here.

Read More

Action Alert: Our chance to make Iran recognize Israel statehood

The Obama administration is negotiating a deal with Iran on that nation’s nuclear program. Some conservative Senators believe Iran should be forced to recognize Israel’s right to exist before any deal can take effect.

However President Obama disagrees that Iran should recognize Israel as a state.

Senator Marco Rubio is pushing an amendment that would require the Obama administration to certify that Iran has publicly recognized Israel’s right to exist before America lifts sanctions on Iran.

Rubio’s amendment may be blocked – not allowed to come up for a vote.

Senate leaders will likely block this important amendment unless they feel the urgent and growing pressure from conservatives outside of Washington.

Take action today: Call your Senators and tell them to urge leadership to allow a vote on Rubio’s Israel amendment.

Read More

Urge the Senate to vote “NO” on the Corker-Cardin Iran bill

This week the Senate will take up the Corker-Cardin Iran bill or S. 615.

What is happening with Iran? The Obama Administration is in the final stages of negotiating a bad deal with Iran would allow the country to keep more than 6,000 operational centrifuges. Under this deal Iran wouldn’t even have to renounce terrorism or recognize Israel. It’s a bad deal for America and for the safety of the world.

What does the Corker-Cardin bill do? The Corker Cardin bill (S. 615) sets up a sham disapproval process on any presidential agreement with Iran. If passed, Congress would essentially be lowering the number of Senators needed to approve a bad international agreement from 67 to 34. This bill will not help stop President Obama’s Iran deal.

What can you do? Call your senators and urge them to vote “NO” on the Corker-Cardin Iran bill.

America cannot afford to give the Obama administration unchecked authority to negotiate with Iran– stop the Corker-Cardin Iran bill.

Call your senators today.

Read More

WHAT THEY’RE SAYING about H.R. 2: The Senate can and should do better

Conservative and nonpartisan voices say Congress should scrap the H.R. 2 ‘doc fix’ deal…

Senator Ben Sasse:

“Unfortunately, the House bill is a missed opportunity to fix Medicare and arguably makes our long-term problems worse. This is exactly why Congress has dismal approval ratings. Lets use this opportunity to secure the program for seniors and for their grandchildren. Congress should scrap this deal and work on a new solution.”

Senator Jeff Sessions:

“This is what brings this Congress in disrepute. The same day we assert that we want to have a balanced budget…we’re now considering pass an unpaid-for increase in spending that would add $170 billion to the debt…

“Let’s all work together to lay out a plan that would pay for this expense. We can do that. “

Heritage Foundation’s Bob Moffit:

“This “deal” will increase the deficit by $141 billion over the next 10 years. Then it will become even more unaffordable…

“In addition to guaranteeing taxpayers hundreds of billions more in future indebtedness, the House bill carries huge opportunity costs. America needed robust, bipartisan structural Medicare changes—reforms that would significantly improve the program and secure serious long-term program savings…

“The bill is now with the Upper Chamber. Senators can and should do better.”

Jim Capretta in National Review:

“For starters, despite claims made by supporters of the emerging bill, it is highly unlikely that the legislation will reduce long-term Medicare spending…

“Proponents of the law counter that the new spending shouldn’t be counted in this assessment because the SGR-mandated spending cuts were never going to happen anyway, and thus undoing them is just matching law with reality. But that’s not really accurate…

Congress has been dealing annually with “doc fix” legislation for more than a decade now, and many physicians are beyond impatient with the legislative process. That’s understandable. But in trying to appease them, it looks as if Congress is going to approve a plan that is more business as usual than its supporters would like to admit.”

Yuval Levin in National Review:

“[U]ltimately, I’d vote against it. I don’t think the annual SGR patches constitute a terrible crisis, but I think the fiscal trajectory of the Medicare program does. This bill seems premised on the opposite assumptions.

Joe Antos of the American Enterprise Institute:

Bounce the ‘dox fix’ – but don’t increase the deficit

“Last year, the permanent “doc fix” failed because Congress was unable to agree on how to pay for it.  This year, Congress wants to cover only part of the cost with Medicare savings.  That would be a serious mistake. …

“The bottom line is clear.  By not finding offsets for the entire cost of the doc fix-CHIP proposal, Congress is opening the door to even greater deficit spending in the future…

“If we cannot reform the entire Medicare physician payment system, we should at least find other savings in the program to avoid adding greater burdens on taxpayers and their children.”

Avik Roy of the Manhattan Institute:

“Senate, you’re our only hope: The authors of the “doc fix” bill call it “entitlement reform.” But how does spending hundreds of billions more on Medicare get to be called “reform?”

“… The only way to salvage the situation is to persuade the Senate to beef up the Medigap and means-testing changes, so as to ensure that the bill would indeed reduce the deficit, relative to current law, in its second decade.

“In 2006, Republicans lost their majorities in both the House and the Senate, in large part because they no longer stood for reducing the size and scope of government. If the “doc fix” becomes part of a deficit-busting pattern, it’s hard not to envision a similar fate for this Congress.”

Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget:

Despite official estimates tabbing the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) formula replacement bill at a cost of $141 billion this decade and implying it would add upwards of $500 billion to the debt over 20 years, lawmakers have taken to fuzzy math – or simply ignoring math altogether – in order to pretend that the bill is fiscally responsible…CBO uses current law as its standard and only evaluated the bill relative to a freeze because it was asked to. You cannot (against all evidence) assume fiscal irresponsibility in order to justify being irresponsible.

Washington Post Editorial:

“[S]uccumbing to [H.R. 2] would set back the cause of long-term fiscal reform. To repeat, the sustainable growth rate has not quite worked as intended, but at least its failure never turned into a source of higher deficits. Instead, both parties should treat this as a chance to impose more structural changes, over and above the $37 billion worth contemplated. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has identified $215 billion worth of medical program savings that could help pay for a long-term doc fix without altering eligibility or other fundamentals in either Medicare and Medicaid.

“For all the polarization and partisanship of a dysfunctional Congress, Republicans and Democrats have proven many times that they are still capable of agreeing to spend more on entitlements and pay for it through borrowing. They should miss this opportunity to prove that yet again.”

National Review Editorial:

“The SGR has been denounced as a mere budget gimmick, which in a sense it is, but it is one that has been nonetheless effective: Congress has shown no willingness to actually reduce physicians’ Medicare payments, but it has been surprisingly rigorous about offsetting those doc-fix expenses with other spending reductions. …

“The worst outcome — abandoning those spending restraints while doing little or nothing to mitigate the fiscal impact of doing so — is, unfortunately, what is currently under consideration. If presented with that option, conservatives should put their foot down — on the neck of this profligate, deficit-swelling deal.”

Conservative Review Editorial:

“So sure, the SGR is a failure, as is always the case when price controls stand in for genuine, market-based reforms. But that does not mean Congress should eliminate it without any sincere plan to manage Medicare’s untenable trajectory. Cosmetic trimming and deficit spending simply do not suffice. If the GOP-controlled Congress would like to do something about the tradition of the “doc fix,” it should begin by addressing long overdue structural changes. …

“And in the meantime, Republicans, pay for what you say you are going to pay for, and don’t deceive the taxpayers who sent you to Washington to restore fiscal sanity.”

Washington Examiner Editorial:

“The doc-fix drama is not the thing that needs to be cured, but rather Medicare’s rising and unsustainable costs.

“As a symptom, the recurring annoyance of the doc-fix is actually a good thing. It forces Congress to confront the issue repeatedly. The hope is that someday — with the right Congress and president in place — this confrontation will lead to much-needed Medicare reforms that come with support from a medical establishment eager for a permanent doc-fix. This strategy threatens to make that possibility less likely. There exists a danger that if this deal removes the repeated annoyance of the doc-fix, Congress will lose its best short-term incentive to reform the program for the long term.”

Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute:

“[T]his bill is yet another example of the dessert-first-spinach-later approach to fiscal stewardship that is business as usual in Congress…

“For all its faults, and despite the fact that it has become (in health-policy circles, anyway) a punch line, the SGR forces Congress to confront runaway Medicare spending year after year. If this bill passes, it will be easier for Congress to ignore runaway Medicare spending — and that spending will begin to run away even faster. Reformers might be better off leaving the SGR in place and preserving the leverage it creates until political realities have changed — that is, until there is a president who will support broader Medicare reform.”

John Graham of the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA):

“Late last month, an overwhelming bipartisan majority in the House of Representatives approved the Medicare Reauthorization and CHIP Extension Act (MACRA), a fiscally irresponsible approach to increasing the amount the federal government spends on Medicare’s physicians’ services. Medicare’s Physician Fee Schedule is tied to an inflation formula that is inadequate to pay physicians enough to keep seeing Medicare patients. While Congress has had to increase this amount every year, those increases have always been funded by offsets from other federal spending.

“This is the first time politicians of both parties have ignored this rule, increasing Medicare’s physicians’ payments perpetually and not paying for it.”

Philip Klein in the Washington Examiner:

“The existing Medicare payment formula that passed nearly 20 years ago is an ugly piece of legislating, but it has acted as a cudgel to reduce spending. This bill would remove that cudgel without making enough longer-term changes to Medicare to make it worthwhile.”

Jay Cost in The Weekly Standard:

“Much of professional Washington greeted [the House passage of H.R. 2] with a cheer—a sign that comity in the capital is still possible.

“Professional Washington is wrong. While the BBA was a clunky attempt to amend Medicare, the program remains in need of reform—and the permanent doc fix illustrates that neither party is prepared to do what needs to be done.”

Read More

Heritage Action Opposes Shaheen-Portman Energy Efficiency Bill

Washington – The Shaheen-Portman energy efficiency legislation may be voted on at the end of the Senate vote-a-rama. This is an inappropriate program of federal mandates and subsidies that is duplicative of existing federal and state efforts.

The free market is the best mechanism for decreasing costs and increasing efficiency in energy production.  The Shaheen-Portman legislation would have the federal government overstep its appropriate role.

Heritage Action opposes this legislation as laid out in our May 02, 2014 key vote. A vote on this legislation will be included in our scorecard.

Read More