Jump to content
TedderVision

Kurt Faulhammer

CH Republicans
  • Content Count

    966
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Kurt Faulhammer last won the day on August 29

Kurt Faulhammer had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

74 Excellent

2 Followers

About Kurt Faulhammer

Recent Profile Visitors

938 profile views
  1. Kurt Faulhammer

    Labradoodle PC

    Another question Mr. Labradoodle if you will, how do you feel about the progress on anti-corruption legislation being passed in the House now with the Democrats being in the Majority? Is Speaker Knox doing a good job to you of instilling trust back into the public over political legitimacy after such contentious issues of corruption with the special prosecutor being appointed by President Fitzgerald?
  2. Kurt Faulhammer

    ENOUGH Act of 2019

    CS
  3. Kurt Faulhammer

    Labradoodle PC

    Mr. Labradoodle, Brandon Cooper of America First Media, In recent Gallup polling you were considered a contender for being the next Republican Presidential nominee for 2020. With this run for Senate it's safe to assume Presidential ambitions are postponed for you at the moment. Did you ever consider running for President and who do you believe should be the Republican Presidential nominee for 2020?
  4. Kurt Faulhammer From the Office of House Minority Leader Kurt Faulhammer The American Renewable Fuel and Job Creation Act extends the important clean-fuel biodisel tax incentive and reforms the incentive by transferring the credit from the blenders to the producers of biofuels. The switch ensures that the tax credit incentivizes domestic production and taxpayers aren’t subsidizing imported fuel. Since 2014, biofuels imports have increased from 510 million gallons to about one billion gallons in 2016. In many cases, foreign biodiesel benefits both from the existing tax credit and from additional foreign subsidies, which makes it difficult for domestic biodiesel facilities to compete. In 2015 alone, the U.S. Treasury spent more than $600 million on tax credits for imported biodiesel and renewable diesel. This bill will help the industry grow to its full potential. Modifying the credit is estimated to have little to no impact on the consumer. Much of the credit would continue to be passed on to the blender and ultimately, the consumer. Additionally, the U.S. biodiesel industry is currently operating at approximately 65 percent of capacity. The domestic biodiesel industry has the capacity and access to affordable feedstocks to meet the demand of U.S. consumers, the senators said. In 2005, Congress created the biodiesel tax incentive. As a result of this incentive, the Renewable Fuel Standard, and consumer interest, biodiesel is providing significant benefits to the nation. Domestic biodiesel production supports tens of thousands of jobs. Replacing traditional diesel with biodiesel reduces emissions and creates cleaner air. Homegrown biodiesel improves U.S. energy security by diversifying transportation fuels and reducing dependence on foreign oil. Biodiesel itself is a diverse fuel that can be produced from a wide array of resources such as recycled cooking oil, soybean and other plant oils and animal fats. U.S. tax policy should support U.S. products and U.S. jobs. This bipartisan bill would end a system that gives many foreign producers a leg up over U.S. producers and give certainty to the biodiesel industry, which is responsible for employing thousands of Americans. U.S. producers shouldn’t be put at a disadvantage by foreign producers that in many cases are double dipping by benefiting from U.S. tax incentives on top of their own significant government subsidies. These reforms supporting domestic producers would also save U.S. taxpayers money. Policies ought to encourage the production of domestic renewable fuels to meet consumer demand and support the creation of American jobs. View full PR
  5. From the Office of House Minority Leader Kurt Faulhammer The American Renewable Fuel and Job Creation Act extends the important clean-fuel biodisel tax incentive and reforms the incentive by transferring the credit from the blenders to the producers of biofuels. The switch ensures that the tax credit incentivizes domestic production and taxpayers aren’t subsidizing imported fuel. Since 2014, biofuels imports have increased from 510 million gallons to about one billion gallons in 2016. In many cases, foreign biodiesel benefits both from the existing tax credit and from additional foreign subsidies, which makes it difficult for domestic biodiesel facilities to compete. In 2015 alone, the U.S. Treasury spent more than $600 million on tax credits for imported biodiesel and renewable diesel. This bill will help the industry grow to its full potential. Modifying the credit is estimated to have little to no impact on the consumer. Much of the credit would continue to be passed on to the blender and ultimately, the consumer. Additionally, the U.S. biodiesel industry is currently operating at approximately 65 percent of capacity. The domestic biodiesel industry has the capacity and access to affordable feedstocks to meet the demand of U.S. consumers, the senators said. In 2005, Congress created the biodiesel tax incentive. As a result of this incentive, the Renewable Fuel Standard, and consumer interest, biodiesel is providing significant benefits to the nation. Domestic biodiesel production supports tens of thousands of jobs. Replacing traditional diesel with biodiesel reduces emissions and creates cleaner air. Homegrown biodiesel improves U.S. energy security by diversifying transportation fuels and reducing dependence on foreign oil. Biodiesel itself is a diverse fuel that can be produced from a wide array of resources such as recycled cooking oil, soybean and other plant oils and animal fats. U.S. tax policy should support U.S. products and U.S. jobs. This bipartisan bill would end a system that gives many foreign producers a leg up over U.S. producers and give certainty to the biodiesel industry, which is responsible for employing thousands of Americans. U.S. producers shouldn’t be put at a disadvantage by foreign producers that in many cases are double dipping by benefiting from U.S. tax incentives on top of their own significant government subsidies. These reforms supporting domestic producers would also save U.S. taxpayers money. Policies ought to encourage the production of domestic renewable fuels to meet consumer demand and support the creation of American jobs.
  6. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Mr. Faulhammer (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Roberts, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Whitehouse, Mrs. Ernst, Ms. Heitkamp, Mr. Thune, Mr. Udall, Mr. Heinrich, Mrs. Shaheen, Ms.Klobuchar, Mr. Franken, Mr. Donnelly, and Mrs. Murray) introduced the following bill; A BILL To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reform and extend the incentives for biodiesel. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the “American Renewable Fuel and Job Creation Act”. SEC. 2. REFORM AND EXTENSION OF BIODIESEL TAX INCENTIVES. (a) Income Tax Credit.— (1) IN GENERAL.—So much of section 40A of the Internal Revenue Code as precedes subsection (c) is amended to read as follows: “SEC. 40A. BIODIESEL FUELS CREDIT. “(a) In General.—For purposes of section 38, the biodiesel fuels credit determined under this section for the taxable year is $1.00 for each gallon of biodiesel produced by the taxpayer which during the taxable year— “(1) is sold by the taxpayer to another person— “(A) for use by such other person’s trade or business as a fuel or in the production of a qualified biodiesel mixture (other than casual off-farm production), or “(B) who sells such biodiesel at retail to another person and places such biodiesel in the fuel tank of such other person, or “(2) is used by such taxpayer for any purpose described in paragraph (1). “(b) Increased Credit For Small Producers.— “(1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of any eligible small biodiesel producer, subsection (a) shall be applied by increasing the dollar amount contained therein by 10 cents. “(2) LIMITATION.—Paragraph (1) shall only apply with respect to the first 15,000,000 gallons of biodiesel produced by any eligible small biodiesel producer during any taxable year.”. (2) DEFINITIONS AND SPECIAL RULES.—Section 40A(d) of such Code is amended by striking all that follows paragraph (1) and inserting the following: “(2) QUALIFIED BIODIESEL MIXTURE; BIODIESEL MIXTURE.— “(A) QUALIFIED BIODIESEL MIXTURE.— “(i) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘qualified biodiesel mixture’ means a biodiesel mixture which is— “(I) sold by the producer of such mixture to any person for use as a fuel, or “(II) used by the producer of such mixture as a fuel. “(ii) SALE OR USE MUST BE IN TRADE OR BUSINESS, ETC.—A biodiesel mixture shall not be treated as a qualified biodiesel mixture unless the sale or use described in clause (i) is in a trade or business of the person producing the biodiesel mixture. “(B) BIODIESEL MIXTURE.—The term ‘biodiesel mixture’ means a mixture which consists of biodiesel and diesel fuel (as defined in section 4083(a)(3)), determined without regard to any use of kerosene. “(3) BIODIESEL NOT USED FOR A QUALIFIED PURPOSE.—If— “(A) any credit was determined with respect to any biodiesel under this section, and “(B) any person uses such biodiesel for a purpose not described in subsection (a), then there is hereby imposed on such person a tax equal to the product of the rate applicable under subsection (a) and the number of gallons of such biodiesel. “(4) PASS-THRU IN THE CASE OF ESTATES AND TRUSTS.—Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary, rules similar to the rules of subsection (d) of section 52 shall apply. “(5) LIMITATION TO BIODIESEL WITH CONNECTION TO THE UNITED STATES.— “(A) IN GENERAL.—No credit shall be determined under subsection (a) with respect to biodiesel unless such biodiesel is produced in the United States from qualified feedstocks. For purposes of this paragraph, the term ‘United States’ includes any possession of the United States. “(B) QUALIFIED FEEDSTOCKS.—For purposes of subparagraph (A), the term ‘qualified feedstock’ means any feedstock which is allowable for a fuel that is assigned a D code of 4 under section 80.1426(f) of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations.”. (3) RULES FOR SMALL BIODIESEL PRODUCERS.— (A) IN GENERAL.—Section 40A(e) of such Code is amended— (i) by striking “agri-biodiesel” each place it appears in paragraphs (1) and (5)(A) and inserting “biodiesel”, (ii) by striking “subsection (b)(4)(C)” each place it appears in paragraphs (2) and (3) and inserting “subsection (b)(2)”, and (iii) by striking “subsection (a)(3)” each place it appears in paragraphs (5)(A), (6)(A)(i), and (6)(B)(i) and inserting “subsection (b)”. (B) The heading for subsection (e) of section 40A of such Code is amended by striking “Agri-Biodiesel” and inserting “Biodiesel”. (C) The headings for paragraphs (1) and (6) of section 40A(e) of such Code are each amended by striking “AGRI-BIODIESEL” and inserting “BIODIESEL”. (4) RENEWABLE DIESEL.— (A) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (3) of section 40A(f) of such Code is amended to read as follows: “(3) RENEWABLE DIESEL DEFINED.— “(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘renewable diesel’ means liquid fuel derived from biomass which— “(i) is not a mono-alkyl ester, “(ii) can be used in engines designed to operate on conventional diesel fuel, and “(iii) meets the requirements for any Grade No. 1–D fuel or Grade No. 2–D fuel covered under the American Society for Testing and Materials specification D–975–13a. “(B) EXCEPTIONS.—Such term shall not include— “(i) any liquid with respect to which a credit may be determined under section 40, “(ii) any fuel derived from coprocessing biomass with a feedstock which is not biomass, or “(iii) any fuel that is not chemically equivalent to petroleum diesel fuels that can meet fuel quality specifications applicable to diesel fuel, gasoline, or aviation fuel. “(C) BIOMASS.—For purposes of this paragraph, the term ‘biomass’ has the meaning given such term by section 45K(c)(3).”. (B) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 40A(f) of such Code is amended— (i) by striking “Subsection (b)(4)” in paragraph (2) and inserting “Subsection (b)”, and (ii) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following: “(4) CERTAIN AVIATION FUEL.—Except as provided paragraph (3)(B), the term ‘renewable diesel’ shall include fuel derived from biomass which meets the requirements of a Department of Defense specification for military jet fuel or an American Society for Testing and Materials specification for aviation turbine fuel.”. (5) EXTENSION.—Subsection (g) of section 40A of such Code is amended by striking “December 31, 2016” and inserting “December 31, 2024”. (6) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections for subpart D of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by striking the item relating to section 40A and inserting the following new item: “Sec. 40A. Biodiesel fuels credit.”. (b) Excise Tax Credit.— (1) REFORM.—Subsection (c) of section 6426 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows: “(c) Biodiesel Production Credit.— “(1) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of this section, the biodiesel production credit is $1.00 for each gallon of biodiesel produced by the taxpayer and which— “(A) is sold by such taxpayer to another person— “(i) for use by such other person’s trade or business as a fuel or in the production of a qualified biodiesel mixture (other than casual off-farm production), or “(ii) who sells such biodiesel at retail to another person and places such biodiesel in the fuel tank of such other person, or “(B) is used by such taxpayer for any purpose described in subparagraph (A). “(2) DEFINITIONS.—Any term used in this subsection which is also used in section 40A shall have the meaning given such term by section 40A. “(3) TERMINATION.—This subsection shall not apply to any sale, use, or removal after December 31, 2024.”. (2) PRODUCER REGISTRATION REQUIREMENT.—Subsection (a) of section 6426 of such Code is amended by striking “subsections (d) and (e)” in the flush sentence at the end and inserting “subsections (c), (d), and (e)”. (3) RECAPTURE.— (A) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (f) of section 6426 of such Code is amended— (i) by striking “or biodiesel” each place it appears in subparagraphs (A) and (B)(i) of paragraph (1), (ii) by striking “or biodiesel mixture” in paragraph (1)(A), and (iii) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3) and by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new paragraph: “(2) BIODIESEL.—If any credit was determined under this section or paid pursuant to section 6427(e) with respect to the production of any biodiesel and any person uses such biodiesel for a purpose not described in subsection (c)(1), then there is hereby imposed on such person a tax equal to $1 for each gallon of such biodiesel.”. (B) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— (i) Paragraph (3) of section 6426(f) of such Code, as redesignated by subparagraph (A)(iii), is amended by inserting “or (2)” after “paragraph (1)”. (ii) The heading for paragraph (1) of section 6426(f) of such Code is amended by striking “IMPOSITION OF TAX” and inserting “IN GENERAL”. (4) LIMITATION.—Section 6426(i) of such Code is amended— (A) in paragraph (2)— (i) by striking “biodiesel or”, and (ii) by striking “BIODIESEL AND” in the heading, and (B) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new paragraph: “(3) BIODIESEL.—No credit shall be determined under subsection (a) with respect to biodiesel unless such biodiesel is produced in the United States from qualified feedstocks (as defined in section 40A(d)(5)(B)).”. (5) CLERICAL AMENDMENTS.— (A) The heading of section 6426 of such Code is amended by striking “ALCOHOL FUEL, BIODIESEL, AND ALTERNATIVE FUEL MIXTURES” and inserting “ALCOHOL FUEL MIXTURES, BIODIESEL PRODUCTION, AND ALTERNATIVE FUEL MIXTURES”. (B) The item relating to section 6426 in the table of sections for subchapter B of chapter 65 of such Code is amended by striking “alcohol fuel, biodiesel, and alternative fuel mixtures” and inserting “alcohol fuel mixtures, biodiesel production, and alternative fuel mixtures”. (c) Excise Payments.—Subsection (e) of section 6427 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended— (1) by striking “or the biodiesel mixture credit” in paragraph (1); (2) by redesignating paragraphs (3) through (6) as paragraphs (4) through (7), respectively, and by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new paragraph: “(3) BIODIESEL PRODUCTION CREDIT.—If any person produces biodiesel and sells or uses such biodiesel as provided in section 6426(c)(1), the Secretary shall pay (without interest) to such person an amount equal to the biodiesel production credit with respect to such biodiesel.”; (3) by striking “paragraph (1) or (2)” each place it appears in paragraphs (4) and (6), as redesignated by paragraph (2), and inserting “paragraph (1), (2), or (3)”; (4) by striking “alternative fuel” each place it appears in paragraphs (4) and (6), as redesignated by paragraph (2), and inserting “fuel”; and (5) in paragraph (7)(B), as redesignated by paragraph (2)— (A) by striking “biodiesel mixture (as defined in section 6426(c)(3))” and inserting “biodiesel (within the meaning of section 40A)”; and (B) by striking “December 31, 2016” and inserting “December 31, 2024”. (d) Guidance.—Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury, or the Secretary's delegate, shall issue preliminary guidance with respect to the amendments made by this section. (e) Effective Date.—The amendments made by this section shall apply to fuel sold or used after December 31, 2016.
  7. Kurt Faulhammer From the Office of House Minority Leader Kurt Faulhammer Our nation’s law enforcement officers, firefighters and other first responders put their lives on the line every day to ensure the safety of our communities. Congress needs to be there for these brave men, women and their families when tragedy strikes. That is what the Public Safety Officers’ Benefits program was designed to do. The PSOB program unfortunately has been plagued by unnecessary delays in processing benefits. The Public Safety Officers’ Benefits Improvement Act will help to change that. It will add transparency and will help expedite review of benefit applications. This law includes an amendment I offered in the Judiciary Committee that makes three important improvements. The amendment ensures that children are never disqualified from receiving education benefits due to delays within the PSOB program. It prevents PSOB adjudicators from abandoning legitimate claims due to circumstances beyond the officer’s family’s control. And it guarantees that all of the new protections in the law apply to the many backlogged claims, and not just to future petitions, as would have otherwise been required under an existing regulation. Congress has a solemn responsibility to support those that serve and their families. These bipartisan reforms, while modest steps, do just that. View full PR
  8. From the Office of House Minority Leader Kurt Faulhammer Our nation’s law enforcement officers, firefighters and other first responders put their lives on the line every day to ensure the safety of our communities. Congress needs to be there for these brave men, women and their families when tragedy strikes. That is what the Public Safety Officers’ Benefits program was designed to do. The PSOB program unfortunately has been plagued by unnecessary delays in processing benefits. The Public Safety Officers’ Benefits Improvement Act will help to change that. It will add transparency and will help expedite review of benefit applications. This law includes an amendment I offered in the Judiciary Committee that makes three important improvements. The amendment ensures that children are never disqualified from receiving education benefits due to delays within the PSOB program. It prevents PSOB adjudicators from abandoning legitimate claims due to circumstances beyond the officer’s family’s control. And it guarantees that all of the new protections in the law apply to the many backlogged claims, and not just to future petitions, as would have otherwise been required under an existing regulation. Congress has a solemn responsibility to support those that serve and their families. These bipartisan reforms, while modest steps, do just that.
  9. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Mr. Faulhammer (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Hatch, and Mr. Coons) introduced the following bill; A BILL To require adequate reporting on the Public Safety Officers’ Benefits program, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the “Public Safety Officers’ Benefits Improvement Act”. SEC. 2. REPORTS. Section 1205 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796c) is amended— (1) in subsection (a), by inserting “Rules, regulations, and procedures issued under this part may include regulations based on standards developed by another Federal agency for programs related to public safety officer death or disability claims.” before the last sentence; (2) in subsection (b)— (A) by inserting “(1)” before “In making”; and (B) by adding at the end the following: “(2) In making a determination under section 1201, the Bureau shall give substantial weight to the evidence and all findings of fact presented by a State, local, or Federal administrative or investigative agency regarding eligibility for death or disability benefits.”; and (3) by adding at the end the following: “(e) (1) (A) Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this subsection, the Bureau shall make available on the public website of the Bureau information on all death, disability, and educational assistance claims submitted under this part that are pending as of the date on which the information is made available. “(B) Not less frequently than once per week, the Bureau shall make available on the public website of the Bureau updated information with respect to all death, disability, and educational assistance claims submitted under this part that are pending as of the date on which the information is made available. “(C) The information made available under this paragraph shall include— “(i) for each pending claim— “(I) the date on which the claim was submitted to the Bureau; “(II) the State of residence of the claimant; “(III) an anonymized, identifying claim number; and “(IV) the nature of the claim; and “(ii) the total number of pending claims that were submitted to the Bureau more than 1 year before the date on which the information is made available. “(2) (A) Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this subsection, and every 180 days thereafter, the Bureau shall submit to Congress a report on the death, disability, and educational assistance claims submitted under this part. “(B) Each report submitted under subparagraph (A) shall include information on— “(i) the total number of claims for which a final determination has been made during the 180-day period preceding the report; “(ii) the amount of time required to process each claim for which a final determination has been made during the 180-day period preceding the report; “(iii) as of the last day of the 180-day period preceding the report, the total number of claims submitted to the Bureau on or before that date for which a final determination has not been made; “(iv) as of the last day of the 180-day period preceding the report, the total number of claims submitted to the Bureau on or before the date that is 1 year before that date for which a final determination has not been made; “(v) for each claim described in clause (iv), a detailed description of the basis for delay; “(vi) as of the last day of the 180-day period preceding the report, the total number of claims submitted to the Bureau on or before that date relating to exposure due to the September 11th, 2001, terrorism attacks for which a final determination has not been made; “(vii) as of the last day of the 180-day period preceding the report, the total number of claims submitted to the Bureau on or before the date that is 1 year before that date relating to exposure due to the September 11th, 2001, terrorism attacks for which a final determination has not been made; “(viii) for each claim described in clause (vii), a detailed description of the basis for delay; “(ix) the total number of claims submitted to the Bureau relating to exposure due to the September 11th, 2001, terrorism attacks for which a final determination was made during the 180-day period preceding the report, and the average award amount for any such claims that were approved; “(x) the result of each claim for which a final determination was made during the 180-day period preceding the report, including the number of claims rejected and the basis for any denial of benefits; “(xi) the number of final determinations which were appealed during the 180-day period preceding the report, regardless of when the final determination was first made; “(xii) the average number of claims processed per reviewer of the Bureau during the 180-day period preceding the report; “(xiii) for any claim submitted to the Bureau that required the submission of additional information from a public agency, and for which the public agency completed providing all of the required information during the 180-day period preceding the report, the average length of the period beginning on the date the public agency was contacted by the Bureau and ending on the date on which the public agency submitted all required information to the Bureau; “(xiv) for any claim submitted to the Bureau for which the Bureau issued a subpoena to a public agency during the 180-day period preceding the report in order to obtain information or documentation necessary to determine the claim, the name of the public agency, the date on which the subpoena was issued, and the dates on which the public agency was contacted by the Bureau before the issuance of the subpoena; and “(xv) information on the compliance of the Bureau with the obligation to offset award amounts under section 1201(f)(3), including— “(I) the number of claims that are eligible for compensation under both this part and the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund of 2001 (49 U.S.C. 40101note; Public Law 107–42) (commonly referred to as the ‘VCF’); “(II) for each claim described in subclause (I) for which compensation has been paid under the VCF, the amount of compensation paid under the VCF; “(III) the number of claims described in subclause (I) for which the Bureau has made a final determination; and “(IV) the number of claims described in subclause (I) for which the Bureau has not made a final determination. “(3) Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this subsection, and 2 years thereafter, the Comptroller General of the United States shall— “(A) conduct a study on the compliance of the Bureau with the obligation to offset award amounts under section 1201(f)(3); and “(B) submit to Congress a report on the study conducted under subparagraph (A) that includes an assessment of whether the Bureau has provided the information required under subparagraph (B)(ix) of paragraph (2) of this subsection in each report required under that paragraph. “(4) In this subsection, the term ‘nature of the claim’ means whether the claim is a claim for— “(A) benefits under this subpart with respect to the death of a public safety officer; “(B) benefits under this subpart with respect to the disability of a public safety officer; or “(C) education assistance under subpart 2.”. SEC. 3. AGE LIMITATION FOR CHILDREN. Section 1212(c) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796d–1(c)) is amended— (1) by striking “No child” and inserting the following: “(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2), no child”; and (2) by adding at the end the following: “(2) DELAYED APPROVALS.— “(A) EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE APPLICATION.—If a claim for assistance under this subpart is approved more than 1 year after the date on which the application for such assistance is filed with the Attorney General, the age limitation under this subsection shall be extended by the length of the period— “(i) beginning on the day after the date that is 1 year after the date on which the application is filed; and “(ii) ending on the date on which the application is approved. “(B) CLAIM FOR BENEFITS FOR DEATH OR PERMANENT AND TOTAL DISABILITY.—In addition to an extension under subparagraph (A), if any, for an application for assistance under this subpart that relates to a claim for benefits under subpart 1 that was approved more than 1 year after the date on which the claim was filed with the Attorney General, the age limitation under this subsection shall be extended by the length of the period— “(i) beginning on the day after the date that is 1 year after the date on which the claim for benefits is submitted; and “(ii) ending on the date on which the claim for benefits is approved.”. SEC. 4. DUE DILIGENCE IN PAYING BENEFIT CLAIMS. Subpart 1 of part L of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following: “SEC. 1206. DUE DILIGENCE IN PAYING BENEFIT CLAIMS. “(a) In General.—The Bureau, with all due diligence, shall expeditiously attempt to obtain the information and documentation necessary to adjudicate a benefit claim filed under this part, including a claim for financial assistance under subpart 2. “(b) Sufficient Information Unavailable.—If a benefit claim filed under this part, including a claim for financial assistance under subpart 2, is unable to be adjudicated by the Bureau because of a lack of information or documentation from a third party, such as a public agency, the Bureau may not abandon the benefit claim unless the Bureau has utilized the investigative tools available to the Bureau to obtain the necessary information or documentation, including subpoenas.”. SEC. 5. PRESUMPTION THAT OFFICER ACTED PROPERLY. Section 1202 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796a) is amended— (1) by striking “No benefit” and inserting the following: “(a) In General.—No benefit”; and (2) by adding at the end the following: “(b) Presumption.—In determining whether a benefit is payable under this part, the Bureau shall— “(1) presume that none of the limitations described in subsection (a) apply; and “(2) have the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that a limitation described in subsection (a) applies.”. SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICABILITY. The amendments made by this Act shall— (1) take effect on the date of enactment of this Act; and (2) apply to any benefit claim or application under part L of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796 et seq.) that is— (A) pending before the Bureau of Justice Assistance on the date of enactment; or (B) received by the Bureau on or after the date of enactment of this Act.
  10. Kurt Faulhammer

    2020 Campaigning

    Kurt Faulhammer 2 fundraisers upgrade name recognition by 4 (4x$2 million=$8 million) 1 rally for house republicans targeting moderate conservatives Walter Reed 2 fundraisers 2 rallies for house republicans targeting moderate conservatives
  11. Kurt Faulhammer From the Office of House Minority Leader Kurt Faulhammer The Expanding American Agricultural Trade and Exports Act that I have introduced today would reassert the importance of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Market Access Program (MAP) and Foreign Market Development Program (FMDP) to America’s agricultural producers and economy as a whole, and provide the U.S. agricultural community with the tools needed to retain its edge in an increasingly competitive global economy. A 2016 study of USDA export promotion programs conducted by researchers at Texas A&M University and other universities found many benefits to the programs. A few of the findings include: 1. Between 1977 and 2014, the export promotion programs of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) have added $8.15 billion on average every year to the value of United States agricultural exports, equal to a total of $309.7 billion, or 15.3 percent, in additional export revenue. 2. Between 1977 and 2014, USDA export promotion programs have generated a net return of $28.30 for every dollar invested; and between 2002 and 2014, under a less than full employment scenario, the programs have annually added an average of 2.7 percent, or $8.4 billion, to farm cash receipts, and contributed up to 239,800 full and part-time jobs across the United States economy. 3. Between 2002 and 2014, USDA export promotion programs have added up to $39.3 billion in gross economic output and up to $16.9 billion in gross domestic product under a less than full employment scenario. 4. Doubling public funding for MAP and FMDP, coupled with increasing private contributions from 10 to 50 percent, would result in average annual gains in GDP of $4.5 to $6.0 billion under a less than full employment scenario Communities across the United States, producing agricultural commodities as varied as apples, cotton, beef, soybeans, rice, wheat, dairy, corn, citrus, wine, pork, peanuts, cranberries, lentils, tree nuts, timber, poultry, potatoes, and seafood, have utilized USDA export promotion programs to increase their foreign market access. Statutory funding for MAP and FMDP has been static since the 2002 Farm Bill. Practically, those funds have been eroded in recent years by inflation, administrative costs, and sequestration. The programs have only been sustained through support and resolve from the private sector partners, whose contributions have grown to 70 percent of available funds in 2014, a level that far exceeds program requirements. Meanwhile, America’s competitors have ramped up their own export promotion. For example, the European Union spends more for the promotion of wine ($255.36 million for 2017) than the U.S. spends for the promotion of all commodities through MAP and FMDP. If this trend continues, American producers will be severely disadvantaged in the global marketplace. The Expanding American Agricultural Trade and Exports Act would double funding for MAP and FMDP, incrementally phasing in increases over five years. This increase, while a fractional portion of the USADA and the federal budget, will provide an enormous return on investment for America’s agricultural community and the U.S. economy as a whole. We must put American farmers first again on matters of international trade and I hope to see this bill considered for future House dockets. View full PR
  12. From the Office of House Minority Leader Kurt Faulhammer The Expanding American Agricultural Trade and Exports Act that I have introduced today would reassert the importance of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Market Access Program (MAP) and Foreign Market Development Program (FMDP) to America’s agricultural producers and economy as a whole, and provide the U.S. agricultural community with the tools needed to retain its edge in an increasingly competitive global economy. Between 1977 and 2014, the export promotion programs of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) have added $8.15 billion on average every year to the value of United States agricultural exports, equal to a total of $309.7 billion, or 15.3 percent, in additional export revenue. Between 1977 and 2014, USDA export promotion programs have generated a net return of $28.30 for every dollar invested; and between 2002 and 2014, under a less than full employment scenario, the programs have annually added an average of 2.7 percent, or $8.4 billion, to farm cash receipts, and contributed up to 239,800 full and part-time jobs across the United States economy. Between 2002 and 2014, USDA export promotion programs have added up to $39.3 billion in gross economic output and up to $16.9 billion in gross domestic product under a less than full employment scenario. Communities across the United States, producing agricultural commodities as varied as apples, cotton, beef, soybeans, rice, wheat, dairy, corn, citrus, wine, pork, peanuts, cranberries, lentils, tree nuts, timber, poultry, potatoes, and seafood, have utilized USDA export promotion programs to increase their foreign market access. The Expanding American Agricultural Trade and Exports Act would double funding for MAP and FMDP, incrementally phasing in increases over five years. This increase, while a fractional portion of the USADA and the federal budget, will provide an enormous return on investment for America’s agricultural community and the U.S. economy as a whole.
  13. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Mr. Faulhammer (for himself, Mr. Newhouse , Mr. Marshall, Mr. Thomas J. Rooney of Florida, Ms. Pingree, Mr. Panetta, and Mrs. Bustos) introduced the following bill; A BILL To amend the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 to extend and expand the Market Access Program and the Foreign Market Development Program. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the “Expanding American Agricultural Trade and Exports Act” SEC. 2. FINDINGS. The Congress finds the following: (1) Between 1977 and 2014, the export promotion programs of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) have added $8.15 billion on average every year to the value of United States agricultural exports, equal to a total of $309.7 billion, or 15.3 percent, in additional export revenue. (2) Between 1977 and 2014, USDA export promotion programs have generated a net return of $28.30 for every dollar invested; and between 2002 and 2014, under a less than full employment scenario, the programs have annually added an average of 2.7 percent, or $8.4 billion, to farm cash receipts, and contributed up to 239,800 full and part-time jobs across the United States economy. (3) Between 2002 and 2014, USDA export promotion programs have added up to $39.3 billion in gross economic output and up to $16.9 billion in gross domestic product under a less than full employment scenario. (4) Communities across the United States, producing agricultural commodities as varied as apples, cotton, beef, soybeans, rice, wheat, dairy, corn, citrus, wine, pork, peanuts, cranberries, lentils, tree nuts, timber, poultry, potatoes, and seafood, have utilized USDA export promotion programs to increase their foreign market access. (5) Private sector contributions have helped maintain the public-private partnership between USDA and private agricultural groups as the effective available funds from USDA have declined, with private contributions representing approximately 70 percent of the funds available for export promotion in 2014. (6) Foreign competitors have expanded their own agricultural export promotion programs at a far faster rate than the United States, placing United States producers at a competitive disadvantage in international markets. (7) The economic impact of USDA export promotion programs has eroded in recent years, as funding for the Market Access Program has remained static since 2006, and funding for the Foreign Market Development Program has remained static since 2002, while inflation has increased. (8) A recent academic analysis found that doubling public funding for the Market Access Program and the Foreign Market Development Program, coupled with increasing private contributions ranging from 10 to 50 percent, would result in average annual gains in agricultural exports from $3.4 to $4.5 billion, and would result in average annual gains in gross domestic product from $4.5 to $6.0 billion under a less than full employment scenario. SEC. 3. MARKET ACCESS PROGRAM. Section 211(c)(1)(A) of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5641(c)(1)(A)) is amended by striking “not more than” and all that follows through “through 2018” and inserting “not more than $200,000,000 for fiscal year 2018, $240,000,000 for fiscal year 2019, $280,000,000 for fiscal year 2020, $320,000,000 for fiscal year 2021, $360,000,000 for fiscal year 2022, and $400,000,000 for fiscal year 2023”. SEC. 4. FOREIGN MARKET DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM. Section 703(a) of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5723(a)) is amended by striking “$34,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2018” and inserting “$34,500,000 for fiscal year 2018, $41,400,000 for fiscal year 2019, $48,300,000 for fiscal year 2020, $55,200,000 for fiscal year 2021, $62,100,000 for fiscal year 2022, and $69,000,000 for fiscal year 2023”.
  14. Kurt Faulhammer

    Vermont Border

    Vermont is apart of New York. It is rightfully ours and if force is necessary to retain our state integrity then so be it.
  15. Kurt Faulhammer

    America First Media

    Brandon Cooper's post-Breitbart media venture America First Media
×