HR 808 was introduced by Rep. Peter J.Roskam, [R-IL-6]. It is a long and complicated bill, which does not yet have a summary from the Congressional Research Service (CRS). However, there is a comprehensive review of previous sanctions and their effect on the economy from the CRS.
It's been referred to a number of committees, but those committees haven't yet acted on subcommittee referral.
GovTrack's page for the bill: Prognosis: 15% chance of being enacted according to PredictGov (details)
Monday, March 06, 2017 at 12:16 PM in Current Affairs, Resistance | Permalink | Comments (0)
HR 147 was introduced on january 3, 2017, by Rep. Trent Franks [R-AZ-8]. The bill is too long to quote in full. What follows is the summary by the Congressional Research Service. The full text is linked below.
Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA) of 2017
This bill imposes criminal penalties on anyone who knowingly or knowingly attempts to: (1) perform an abortion knowing that the abortion is sought based on the sex, gender, color or race of the child, or the race of a parent; (2) use force or the threat of force to intentionally injure or intimidate any person for the purpose of coercing a sex-selection or race-selection abortion; (3) solicit or accept funds for the performance of such an abortion; or (4) transport a woman into the United States or across a state line for the purpose of obtaining such an abortion.
Violations or attempted violations shall result in fines and/or imprisonment for up to five years.
The bill authorizes civil actions (for verifiable money damages for injuries and punitive damages) by: (1) fathers, or maternal grandparents if the mother is an unemancipated minor, of unborn children who are the subject of an abortion performed or attempted through any of the above violations; or (2) women upon whom an abortion has been performed or attempted with a knowing or attempted use of force or threat of force to intentionally injure or intimidate any person for the purpose of coercing a sex-selection or race-selection abortion.
To prevent an abortion provider from performing or attempting further abortions in violation of this bill, the bill authorizes injunctive relief to be obtained by: (1) the women upon whom such an abortion is performed or attempted, (2) a maternal grandparent of the unborn child if the woman is an unemancipated minor, (3) the father of such an unborn child, or (4) the Department of Justice.
Violations of this bill are deemed to be prohibited discrimination under title VI (Federally Assisted Programs) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (Violators of title VI lose federal funding.)
Medical or mental health professionals must report known or suspected violations to law enforcement authorities. Criminal penalties are established for a failure to so report.
A woman having such an abortion may not be prosecuted or held civilly liable.
Courts must make such orders as necessary to protect the anonymity of any woman upon whom an abortion has been performed or attempted if she does not give her written consent to such disclosure. In the absence of such a woman's written consent, any party, other than a public official, who brings an action must use a pseudonym.
For purposes of this bill, "abortion" is defined as the act of using or prescribing any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance, device, or means with the intent to terminate the clinically diagnosable pregnancy of a woman, with knowledge that the termination by those means will, with reasonable likelihood, cause the death of the unborn child, unless the act is intended to: (1) save the life or preserve the health of the unborn child, (2) remove a dead unborn child caused by spontaneous abortion, or (3) remove an ectopic pregnancy.
The bill has 59 co-sponsors, all Republican. Check the list to see if your Representative is on the list.
The National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum is opposed to the bill and has a script for you to use. This is not the only attack on women's right to reproductive health care: Rewire has a summary. GovTrack has a list of abortion-related bills.
The bill was referred to the Judiciary Committee, which in turn referred it to the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice. Republican
Democratic
Monday, March 06, 2017 at 11:38 AM in Current Affairs, Resistance | Permalink | Comments (0)
To prohibit the receipt of Federal financial assistance by sanctuary cities, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 3, 2017
Mr. Barletta introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concernedA BILL
To prohibit the receipt of Federal financial assistance by sanctuary cities, 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 “Mobilizing Against Sanctuary Cities Act”.
SEC. 2. SANCTUARY CITIES INELIGIBLE FOR FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.
Any State or local government that violates section 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1373) may not receive any Federal financial assistance (as such term is defined in section 7501(a)(5) of title 31, United States Code). The Attorney General shall determine annually which State or local jurisdictions are not in compliance with section 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act and shall report such determinations to Congress on March 1 of each year. The Attorney General shall also issue a report concerning the compliance of any particular State or local jurisdiction at the request of any Member of Congress. Any jurisdiction that is found to be out of compliance shall be ineligible to receive Federal financial assistance for a minimum period of one year, and shall only become eligible again after the Attorney General certifies that the jurisdiction is in compliance.
The bill was introduced on January 1, 2017, by Rep. Lou Barletta, [R-PA-11], and has nine co-sponsors, all Republican.
KQED has a good explainer on sanctuary cities and how some of them are pushing back
The bill was referred to the House Judiciary Committee, which referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security.
Monday, March 06, 2017 at 11:05 AM in Current Affairs, Resistance | Permalink | Comments (0)
Introduced by Rep. Steve King, Steve [R-IA-4] (who also introduced #HR610, the Vouchers bill).
H. R. 785
A BILL
To preserve and protect the free choice of individual employees to form, join, or assist labor organizations, or to refrain from such activities.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 “National Right-to-Work Act”.
SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.
(a) Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (the “Act”) (29 U.S.C. 157) is amended by striking “except to” and all that follows through “authorized in section 8(a)(3)”.
(b) Section 8(a) of the Act (29 U.S.C. 158(a)) is amended by striking “: Provided, That” and all that follows through “retaining membership” in paragraph (3).
(c) Section 8(b) of the Act (29 U.S.C. 158(b)) is amended by striking “or to discriminate” and all that follows through “retaining membership” in paragraph (2) and by striking “covered by an agreement authorized under subsection (a)(3) of this section” in paragraph (5).
(d) Section 8(f) of the Act (29 U.S.C. 158(f)) is amended by striking clause (2) and by redesignating clauses (3) and (4) as (2) and (3), respectively.
SEC. 3. AMENDMENT TO THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT.
Section 2 of the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. 152) is amended by striking paragraph Eleventh.
The bill has 15 co-sponsors, all Republicans. If your Representative is a co-sponsor, do call and say why you oppose this bill. The Hollywood Reporter has a useful article on the bill:
"This legislation clearly has one purpose: to undermine the capacity of unions to protect workers and defund them," said Reps. Bobby Scott (VA) and Peter DeFazio (OR) in a joint statement. "This bill is a direct attack on workers and their families by weakening unions' ability to collectively bargain and negotiate for good wages and benefits. Studies show that diminishing unions leads to lower wages and salaries for union and non-union workers alike. This is why wages are lower in so-called right to work (RTW) states than those that are not, costing families up to thousands of dollars each year."
The bill has been referred to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Republicans
Democrats
Monday, March 06, 2017 at 10:24 AM in Current Affairs, Resistance | Permalink | Comments (0)
The bill is too long to quote in full. Here is the summary prepared by the Congressional Research Service
This bill prohibits, for a one-year period, the availability of federal funds for any purpose to Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., or any of its affiliates or clinics, unless they certify that the affiliates and clinics will not perform, and will not provide any funds to any other entity that performs, an abortion during such period. This restriction does not apply in cases of rape or incest or where a physical condition endangers a woman's life unless an abortion is performed.
The Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture must seek repayment of federal assistance received by Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., or any affiliate or clinic, if it violates the terms of the certification required by this bill.
Additional funding for community health centers is provided for the one-year period described above.
It was introduced on January 6, 2017, by Rep. Diane Black,[R-TN-6], and as of March 5, 2016, has 136 cosponsors. It was referred to the House Energy and Commerce committee, which in turn referred it to the Subcommittee on Health.
You know what to do.
But before you start calling, do look into this, as reported by Mother Jones:
The bill, HJ Resolution 43, allows states to withhold Title X family planning funds—about $300 million distributed to states annually—from providers who also offer abortion care, a group that includes Planned Parenthood affiliates. In December, Obama's Department of Health and Human Services finalized a rule that anticipated this sort of effort by prohibiting states from withholding Title X family planning money from Planned Parenthood and other providers. This House resolution proposed overturning that HHS rule via the 1996 Congressional Review Act.
It passed: 230 - 188. Here's the vote. Two Democrats voted Aye, and two Republicans voted no.
The Senate companion Resolution is S.J.Res.13 - A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the final rule submitted by the Secretary of Health and Human Services relating to compliance with title X requirements by project recipients in selecting subrecipients.
So, call your senators to express opposition to S.J. Res 13.
And then call your representatives, if they are on the following committee, to express opposition to HR 354, Defund Planned Parenthood.
The House Energy and Commerce Committee has referred it to the Subcommittee on Health:
Republican Members
Michael Burgess (Texas - 26) - Chairman
Brett Guthrie (Kentucky - 02) - Vice Chairman
Joe Barton (Texas - 06)
Fred Upton (Michigan - 06)
John Shimkus (Illinois - 15)
Tim Murphy (Pennsylvania - 18)
Marsha Blackburn (Tennessee - 07)
Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Washington - 05)
Leonard Lance (New Jersey - 07)
Morgan Griffith (Virginia - 09)
Gus Bilirakis (Florida - 12)
Billy Long (Missouri - 07)
Larry Bucshon (Indiana - 08)
Susan Brooks (Indiana - 05)
Markwayne Mullin (Oklahoma - 02)
Richard Hudson (North Carolina - 08)
Chris Collins (New York - 27)
Buddy Carter (Georgia - 01)
Greg Walden (Oregon - 02) - Ex Officio
Democratic Members
Gene Green (Texas - 29) - Ranking Member
Eliot Engel (New York - 16)
Janice Schakowsky (Illinois - 09)
G. K. Butterfield (North Carolina - 01)
Doris Matsui (California - 06)
Kathy Castor (Florida - 14)
John Sarbanes (Maryland - 03)
Ben Lujan (New Mexico - 03)
Kurt Schrader (Oregon - 05)
Joseph P. Kennedy III (Massachusetts - 04)
Tony Cárdenas (California - 29)
Anna Eshoo (California - 18)
Diana DeGette (Colorado - 01)
Frank Pallone (New Jersey - 06) - Ex Officio
Sunday, March 05, 2017 at 10:40 PM in Current Affairs, Resistance | Permalink | Comments (1)
Update March 25, 2017: Evidently S.J. Res 18 was passed by the Senate on or before March 21. However, the Congress.gov page for the bill has not been updated since February 01, 2017. I'll keep looking for updates, because I want to know who voted for this nasty piece of legislation.
You can read the statement from International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) here.
The Associated Press (AP) published Matthew Daly's article March 21, 2017:
The Senate gave final legislative approval Tuesday to a measure that repeals an Obama-era rule on hunting on Alaska's 16 national wildlife refuges. The Fish and Wildlife Service said last year the rule would promote ethical hunting practices while maintaining sustainable populations of bears, wolves and coyotes.
The Center for Biological Diversity issued a statement March 21, 2017:
“This isn’t hunting — it’s slaughter,” said Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Killing wolves and bears in this cruel, unsportsmanlike fashion is outrageous, especially in national wildlife refuges that belong to all Americans. Repealing these protections also undermines the critical role predators play in healthy ecosystems.”
The LA Times had a story on Friday, March 24, 2017.
“Rolling back protections for predators defies everything wildlife refuges stand for,” said Emily Jeffers, an attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity, in an email. “Refuges are places where we celebrate biological diversity, not where wolves and bears are inhumanely killed for no good reason. It’s an outrage that Congress would revoke rules that stop the senseless slaughter of predators, heedless of the important role these animals play in healthy ecosystems.”
The formal title of the resolution is:
It passed the House on February 16, 225 - 193.You can read the discussion of the Resolution here. You can see how your representative voted here
The companion resolution in the Senate, SJ Res 18, sponsored by Dan Sullivan (R-AK) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), is not yet scheduled for a vote. It has been referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
Do call your Senators offices and explain why you are opposed to this resolution, especially if one of your senators sins on the committee. You can also consult the Open Letter from 47 conservation and wilderness organizations opposing HJR 69
The Resolution is confusing, but Eric Biber's article at Legal Planet, Public Lands Watch: House Joint Resolution 69, has the best explanation:
The primary feature of the rule at issue was to restrict certain forms of non-subsistence hunting on the 16 National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska, following a recent liberalization in rules by the State Board of Game. The types of practices banned included taking black or brown bear cubs or sows with cubs, taking brown bears over bait, taking bears using traps or snares, taking wolves or coyotes during denning season, and taking bears from an aircraft. Because of its focus on these hunting methods, it is sometimes referred to as the “Fair Chase Rule.”
Supporters of the resolution frame the [Congressional Review Act] disapproval as a means of combatting federal overreach into state lands and authority. Don Young (R-AK), the House sponsor of the resolution, stated “Not only does this action undermine Alaska’s ability to manage fish and wildlife upon refuge lands, it fundamentally destroys a cooperative relationship between Alaska and the federal government.” Alaskan representatives claimed that this rule impeded the state’s Predator Control Program.
Sunday, March 05, 2017 at 05:11 PM in Current Affairs, Resistance | Permalink | Comments (4)
This bill was introduced by
Rep. Thomas Massie [R-KY-4]
and co-sponsored (as of March 5, 2017) by
Rep. Justin Amash [R-MI-3]*
Rep. Andy Biggs [R-AZ-5]*
Rep. Jason Chaffetz [R-UT-3]*
Rep. Matt Gaetz, Matt [R-FL-1]
Rep. Jody B. Hice [R-GA-10]*
Rep. Walter B. Jones, Jr. [R-NC-3]*
Rep. Raul R. Labrador,. [R-ID-1]*
Here is the bill in its entirety:
To terminate the Department of Education.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 7, 2017
Mr. Massie (for himself, Mr. Amash, Mr. Biggs, Mr. Chaffetz, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Jody B. Hice of Georgia, Mr. Jones, and Mr. Labrador) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce
A BILL
To terminate the Department of Education.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. TERMINATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION.
The Department of Education shall terminate on December 31, 2018.
(I'm beginning to see a pattern here).
According to Snopes, Republicans have wanted to abolish the Department of Education since it was created. This one may be just showboating on the Republican side, but don't ignore it.
For talking points, here is an article from 2015, describing how the Department of Education safeguards students' rights and increases educational equality. . Here's what doing away with the Department of Education would do to higher education. Here's another article, from the Business Insider, on what the Department of Education does.
The bill has been assigned to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. I expect it will eventually be assigned to the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education, but in the meantime, if your representative is on the larger committee, by all means call.
Republicans
Democrats
Sunday, March 05, 2017 at 01:21 PM in Current Affairs, Resistance | Permalink | Comments (0)
This bill was introduced by
Rep. Steve King, [R-IA-4]
And cosponsored (as of March 5, 2017) by
Rep. Andy Harris, [R-MD-1]
Rep. Trent Franks, [R-AZ-8]
Rep. Pete Olson [R-TX-22]
The bill is too long to quote in full, so I will give you the The Congressional Research Service (CRS) summary. It has two parts -- the first is the one that is the most destructive, the second weakens school lunch programs.
Choices in Education Act of 2017
This bill repeals the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and limits the authority of the Department of Education (ED) such that ED is authorized only to award block grants to qualified states.
The bill establishes an education voucher program, through which each state shall distribute block grant funds among local educational agencies (LEAs) based on the number of eligible children within each LEA's geographical area. From these amounts, each LEA shall: (1) distribute a portion of funds to parents who elect to enroll their child in a private school or to home-school their child, and (2) do so in a manner that ensures that such payments will be used for appropriate educational expenses.
To be eligible to receive a block grant, a state must: (1) comply with education voucher program requirements, and (2) make it lawful for parents of an eligible child to elect to enroll their child in any public or private elementary or secondary school in the state or to home-school their child.
No Hungry Kids Act
The bill repeals a specified rule that established certain nutrition standards for the national school lunch and breakfast programs. (In general, the rule requires schools to increase the availability of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and low-fat or fat free milk in school meals; reduce the levels of sodium, saturated fat, and trans fat in school meals; and meet children's nutritional needs within their caloric requirements.)
The bill has been assigned to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. I expect it will eventually be assigned to the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education, but in the meantime, if your representative is on the larger committee, by all means call.
Talking points
The Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) is against it. Read why in 4 Ways That HR 610 Will Threaten Your Rights. The bill does away with many protections for students with disabilities (those with IEPs). Lisa Lightner at A Day in Our Shoes has an excellent summary of the bill, and the problems it poses to public education at large, and specifically, students protected under IDEA.
Republicans
Democrats
Sunday, March 05, 2017 at 12:47 PM in Current Affairs, Resistance | Permalink | Comments (4)
Update 3/6/017: Here is GovTrack's page for the bill. As of March 6, 2017, the prognosis is 6% chance of being enacted according to PredictGov (details)
Here is the whole of the bill:
To terminate the Environmental Protection Agency.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 3, 2017
Mr. Gaetz (for himself, Mr. Massie, Mr. Palazzo, and Mr. Loudermilk) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Agriculture, Transportation and Infrastructure, and Science, Space, and Technology, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
A BILL
To terminate the Environmental Protection Agency.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. TERMINATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.The Environmental Protection Agency shall terminate on December 31, 2018.
That's it. That's the whole thing. Now, it first goes to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. On February 10, the bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Environment. If your Congressional Representative is on this committee, you need to be communicating your opinion on this bill loudly. Some talking points:
Robinson Meyer an associate editor at The Atlantic, wrote Congress and Trump Won't 'Terminate the EPA' Instead, they’ll restrict the agency in far subtler ways. It's an important story to read in full.
This Congress will almost certainly not terminate the EPA, and, even if it does, H. R. 861 is not the legislative blade it will wield. H. R. 861 is a classic piece of stunt legislation: It is short, punchy, without co-sponsors, and introduced by a novice legislator. Gaetz may accomplish nothing else of note this year, but he can truthfully tell his constituents that he proposed terminating the EPA.
His bill will not pass, and the reasons it will not pass are instructive. This is not a “Donald Trump can never become president” situation: There are legal, political, and institutional obstacles that keep H. R. 861 from moving forward.
Nevertheless, if your Representative is on the committee, it's important that you call to express your displeasure with the bill. Here are the committee members:
Republican Members
Democratic Members
Sunday, March 05, 2017 at 11:41 AM in Current Affairs, Resistance | Permalink | Comments (0)
Updated March 25, 2017: no action on any except HJR 69; on its way to President for signature.
This post is going around Facebook like measles (highly contagious)
From a friend:
In case anyone got overly sidetracked by the Russian spy drama, the following bills HAVE been introduced:
- HR 861 Terminate the Environmental Protection Agency
- HR 610 Vouchers for Public Education
- HR 899 Terminate the Department of Education
- HJR 69 Repeal Rule Protecting Wildlife (passed House, Senate Vote not scheduled ) passed the Senate on March 20(?) -- but Congress.gov has not yet updated the page for S.J. Res. 18.
- HR 370 Repeal Affordable Care Act
- HR 354 Defund Planned Parenthood (action items on this and a Senate vote on a Resolution)
- HR 785 National Right to Work (this one ends unions)
- HR 83 Mobilizing Against Sanctuary Cities Bill
- HR 147 Criminalizing Abortion (“Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act”)
- HR 808 Sanctions against Iran
Please share widely by copying and pasting (which will ensure the post is visible to friends of your friends and not just your own friends). Call your House Representative and ask them to not only vote "NO"...but to speak up for our rights, health & safety, and our beautiful country.
I decided to publish the list here, and then have a series of 10 articles tracking what is happening, legislatively, with each bill. The links above will take you to each future post.
Sunday, March 05, 2017 at 09:48 AM in Current Affairs, electoral politics, Resistance | Permalink | Comments (0)
Recent Comments