115 S2512 IS: To amend the Agricultural Act of 2014 to require producers to elect to receive price loss coverage or agriculture risk coverage under that Act or Federal crop insurance under the Federal Crop Insurance Act.
U.S. Senate
2018-03-07
text/xml
EN
Pursuant to Title 17 Section 105 of the United States Code, this file is not subject to copyright protection and is in the public domain.

		II
		115th CONGRESS2d Session
		S. 2512
		IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

			March 7, 2018
			Mr. Flake introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

		A BILL
		To amend the Agricultural Act of 2014 to require producers to elect to receive price loss coverage
			 or agriculture risk coverage under that Act or Federal crop insurance
			 under the Federal Crop Insurance Act.

		1.Producer election to receive price loss coverage or agriculture risk coverage or Federal crop
 insuranceSection 1115 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (7 U.S.C. 9015) is amended— (1)by redesignating subsection (f) as subsection (g); and
 (2)by inserting after subsection (e) the following:  (f)Election To receive price loss coverage or agriculture risk coverage or Federal crop insuranceFor the 2018 crop year, all of the producers on a farm shall elect to receive—
 (1)price loss coverage or agriculture risk coverage, as determined by the election of the producers on the farm under this section for the 2014 through 2018 crop years; or
 (2)Federal crop insurance under the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)..


116 HRES 594 IH: Expressing profound concern about threats to human rights, the rule of law, democracy, and the environment in Brazil.
U.S. House of Representatives
2019-09-25
text/xml
EN
Pursuant to Title 17 Section 105 of the United States Code, this file is not subject to copyright protection and is in the public domain.

IV116th CONGRESS1st SessionH. RES. 594IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESSeptember 25, 2019Mr. Grijalva (for himself, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Espaillat, Mr. García of Illinois, Ms. Haaland, Ms. Norton, Ms. Jackson Lee, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Mr. Khanna, Ms. McCollum, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Rush, Ms. Wild, Mr. Pocan, and Mr. Huffman) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committees on Financial Services, and the Judiciary, 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 concernedRESOLUTIONExpressing profound concern about threats to human rights, the rule of law, democracy, and the
			 environment in Brazil.

 Whereas Brazil and the United States have an important strategic partnership and have cooperated closely on numerous issues of mutual interest including trade, regional security, energy, the protection of the environment, and the fight against racial discrimination;
 Whereas in recent years Brazil made significant strides in strengthening democracy, reducing poverty, addressing racial and gender-based disparities, building a more just and inclusive society, and reducing deforestation in the Amazon;
 Whereas Brazil contains about 60 percent of the Amazon rainforest and produces 6 percent of all oxygen generated by photosynthesis;
 Whereas, on October 28, 2018, far-right politician Jair Bolsonaro was elected president, in an election marred by the controversial disqualification of his leading opponent;
 Whereas President Bolsonaro praises Brazil’s former military dictatorship, which tortured 20,000 people and killed or disappeared 434 people, according to Brazil’s Special Commission on Political Killings and Disappearances;
 Whereas President Bolsonaro made his first foreign trip to the United States to meet President Trump, where he declared that they stand side by side in their efforts to ensure liberties and respect to traditional family lifestyles, respect to God, our Creator, against the gender ideology or the politically correct attitudes and against fake news.;
 Whereas President Trump praised President Bolsonaro and emphasized their fantastic working relationship and the many views they share; Whereas President Trump announced during their meeting he would unilaterally designate Brazil a Major Non-NATO Ally, facilitating preferential treatment for Brazil with regard to military assistance and sales or use of military equipment;
 Whereas President Bolsonaro and officials from his government have made statements and pursued policy reforms that threaten the human rights of vulnerable sectors of Brazilian society, including indigenous and Afro-Brazilian peoples, members of the LGBTI community, land rights activists, the labor movement, and political opponents;
 Whereas President Bolsonaro has pledged that he will not even permit a centimeter to be demarcated for indigenous reserves or quilombolas, the communities of descendants of enslaved Africans that are home to over 1,000,000 Afro-Brazilians;
 Whereas President Bolsonaro has referred to indigenous peoples living in protected ancestral lands as zoo animals;
 Whereas President Bolsonaro has said the Afro-Brazilian residents of quilombolas aren’t even good for procreation anymore; Whereas one of the first measures of the Bolsonaro administration was to transfer the authority tasked with protecting the lands of indigenous peoples to the Ministry of Agriculture, widely known to be controlled by agribusiness interests that oppose indigenous and quilombola land rights;
 Whereas Bolsonaro administration officials announced their intention to open up vast protected areas of the Amazon, including indigenous territories, to mining, logging, and agricultural corporations, a move that is expected to lead to rampant deforestation and accelerate global warming;
 Whereas the rate of deforestation of the Amazon rainforest in Brazil increased by 88 percent in June 2019, compared to the same period in 2018, according to Brazil’s National Institute of Space Research;
 Whereas, in August 2019, Brazil’s National Institute of Space Research announced that it had identified nearly 40,000 fires in the Brazilian Amazon since the beginning of the year, a phenomenon linked to deforestation and the expansion of slash and burn agriculture;
 Whereas Brazil’s foreign minister, Ernesto Araujó, has referred to climate change as a plot by cultural marxists; Whereas the Bolsonaro administration has made drastic cuts to Brazil’s environmental enforcement agency;
 Whereas, according to the international NGO, Global Witness, Brazil is one of the most dangerous countries in the world for land and environmental advocates;
 Whereas President Bolsonaro has publicly expressed support for the indiscriminate killing of criminal suspects by the police;
 Whereas, according to Brazil’s Institute of Public Security, police agents in Rio de Janeiro killed a record 432 people in the first three months of 2019;
 Whereas, on April 7, 2019, Afro-Brazilian musician Evaldo Rosa dos Santos was killed in Rio de Janeiro when military troops shot his vehicle 80 times;
 Whereas, on February 4, 2019, Brazilian Justice Minister Sergio Moro introduced legislation that, according to Human Rights Watch, could significantly increase the quantity of unjustifiable killings perpetrated by police agents;
 Whereas, in March 2018, Afro-Brazilian LGBTQ activist and dissident politician Marielle Franco was assassinated, and the individuals who ordered her murder remain at large;
 Whereas homophobic hate crimes and killings have been increasing throughout Brazil, as reported by the Washington Post, and openly gay Congressman Jean Wyllys fled Brazil in January 2019, after receiving repeated death threats;
 Whereas President Bolsonaro has closed the 88-year-old Ministry of Labor, announced reforms that would effectively end the country’s labor justice system and eliminate the right to collective bargaining, and issued an Executive order that weakens labor inspection and enforcement, ends overtime and Sunday pay, and reduces paid vacations and severance payments;
 Whereas former Brazilian president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva—the leading candidate in the October 2018 presidential elections—was arrested on dubious charges of corruption, swiftly sentenced to 12 years in prison, and deemed legally ineligible to run for office;
 Whereas Brazilian authorities rejected a request by the United Nations Human Rights Committee to allow da Silva to run in the October 2018 elections, despite the Brazilian State’s legal ratified obligation to comply to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;
 Whereas Sergio Moro, the presiding judge in da Silva’s case, acted in a clearly biased manner toward da Silva, violating his right to a fair and impartial judicial process under Brazilian law;
 Whereas, in June 2019, media outlets published leaked communications exposing politically motivated collusion between Sergio Moro and prosecutors in da Silva’s case, with Moro providing strategic advice and sharing privileged information with prosecutors;
 Whereas President Bolsonaro appointed Sergio Moro to the position of Minister of Justice and later announced that he had promised to nominate Moro to the next open seat on Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court; and
 Whereas, in July 2017, a senior Department of Justice official stated that it was hard to imagine a better cooperative relationship in recent history than that of the United States Department of Justice and the Brazilian prosecutors and cited the Department of Justice’s cooperation with the Lava Jato task force that charged and prosecuted da Silva: Now, therefore, be it

 That the House of Representatives— (1)calls on President Bolsonaro and members of his cabinet to abstain from hate speech and threats directed at minorities and to instead work to protect the human rights of all Brazilian citizens, regardless of their race, gender, sexual orientation, or beliefs;
 (2)urges the Brazilian Government to protect indigenous peoples’ rights as guaranteed under the Brazilian Constitution, including the right to their own social organizations, customs, languages, and beliefs, and the right to their traditional lands;
 (3)urges Brazil’s authorities to protect workers’ rights as stipulated under the International Labour Organization conventions, which Brazil has ratified, including the right to organize and bargain collectively;
 (4)urges Brazil’s Government to take all possible actions to reduce deforestation of the Amazon rainforest within the country’s borders and take all necessary measures to ensure the elimination of illegal deforestation by 2030, in accordance with Brazil’s obligations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change;
 (5)calls on the United States Government to oppose loans from the World Bank Group or the Inter-American Development Bank used to fund projects that are likely to contribute to further deforestation or fires within the rainforests located in the Amazon Basin;
 (6)urges Brazil’s judicial and police authorities to fully investigate the murder of Marielle Franco and work to identify and prosecute those who ordered her assassination;
 (7)urges Brazil’s judicial authorities, in particular the ministers of the Supreme Federal Court, to investigate allegations of unethical conduct by Sergio Moro, Federal prosecutor Deltan Dallagnol, and other agents involved in the judicial proceedings against former president da Silva;
 (8)directs the inspector general of the United States Department of Justice to perform a full review of the Department’s activities in Brazil to determine whether United States Government agents have at any point encouraged or abetted unethical conduct perpetrated by Brazilian judicial agents including members of the Lava Jato task force;
 (9)calls on Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court to urgently undertake an assessment of the merits of da Silva’s convictions and the fairness of the proceedings brought against him, and to release da Silva while his appeals are pending, as stipulated under Brazil’s Constitution;
 (10)calls on relevant international human rights organizations, such as the United Nations Human Rights Committee and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, to closely monitor the human rights situation in Brazil; and
 (11)expresses its sense that the United States should rescind Brazil’s designation as a Major Non-NATO Ally and suspend all assistance to Brazil’s military and police forces unless the Department of State formally certifies that effective measures are being taken to curtail unjustified extrajudicial killings by Brazilian State security agents, investigate and prosecute the killings of activists, and comply with international human rights norms.


		I
		112th CONGRESS
		2d Session
		H. R. 6267
		IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

			August 1, 2012
			Mr. Schock (for
			 himself, Ms. Jenkins, and
			 Mr. Poe of Texas) introduced the
			 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

		A BILL
		To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to eliminate
		  the tax on Olympic medals won by United States athletes.

		1.Elimination of tax on Olympic
			 medals
			(a)In
			 generalSection 74 of the
			 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new
			 subsection:

					(d)Exception for
				Olympic medals and prizesGross income shall not include the value of
				any prize or award won by the taxpayer in athletic competition in the Olympic
				Games.
					.
			(b)Effective
			 dateThe amendment made by this section shall apply to prizes and
			 awards received after December 31, 2011.


117 S2813 IS: Safe Generators Save Lives Act
U.S. Senate
2021-09-23
text/xml
EN
Pursuant to Title 17 Section 105 of the United States Code, this file is not subject to copyright protection and is in the public domain.

II117th CONGRESS1st SessionS. 2813IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATESSeptember 23, 2021Mr. Cassidy introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and TransportationA BILLTo create a mandatory safety standard to require portable generators to meet certain standards relating to carbon monoxide, and for other purposes. 1.Short titleThis Act may be cited as the Safe Generators Save Lives Act. 2.Mandatory product safety standard for portable generators(a)Final standard for portable generators(1)Mandatory standardNot later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Consumer Product Safety Commission shall promulgate, in accordance with section 553 of title 5, United States Code, a final consumer product safety standard for portable generators to protect consumers from death or injury relating to the use of such generators.(2)RequirementsThe final standard promulgated under paragraph (1) shall incorporate requirements that are substantially the same as each of the following:(A)The requirements of the—(i)American National Standard for Carbon Monoxide Emission Rate of Portable Generators (ANSI/UL 2201), or any related successor standard, that relate to carbon monoxide concentration limits; or(ii)American National Standard for Safety and Performance of Portable Generators (ANSI/PGMA G300–2018), or any related successor standard, except where such requirements conflict with any other requirement under this paragraph. (B)A requirement that a portable generator shall include clear and conspicuous labeling marking the direction of exhaust, and a label indicating that portable generators should not be used inside. (C)A requirement that the cord of a portable generator may not be shorter than 30 feet in length.(D)A requirement relating to the shutoff capability of a portable generator in an elevated carbon monoxide environment.(E)Other shutoff requirements and test specifications the Commission determines necessary to protect consumers from the risk of injury relating to the use of portable generators.(3)Compliance datesThe Commission shall include in the final standard promulgated under paragraph (1) a compliance date that is not later than 1 year after the date of such promulgation, by which portable generators shall comply with the final standard.(4)Review and revision of standardBeginning 1 year after the date of the promulgation of the final standard under paragraph (1) and not less frequently than every 5 years thereafter, the Commission shall review and revise such standard to ensure the highest level of safety feasible with respect to portable generators.(5)Treatment of standardThe final standard promulgated under paragraph (1), including any revision of such standard made pursuant to paragraph (4), shall be treated as a consumer product safety rule promulgated under section 9 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2058).(b)ViolationFailure to comply with subsection (a) shall be treated as a violation of section 19 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2068).


110 HR 1346 IH: Student Privacy Protection Act of 2007
U.S. House of Representatives
2007-03-06
text/xml
EN
Pursuant to Title 17 Section 105 of the United States Code, this file is not subject to copyright protection and is in the public domain.

I
110th CONGRESS 1st Session
H. R. 1346
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

March 6, 2007
Mr. Honda (for himself, Ms. Baldwin, Ms. Berkley, Mrs. Capps, Ms. Carson, Mr. Cleaver, Mr. Cummings, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Delahunt, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Ellison, Mr. Farr, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, Mr. Gene Green of Texas, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Hare, Mr. Kucinich, Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California, Mrs. Maloney of New York, Ms. McCollum of Minnesota, Mr. McDermott, Mr. McGovern, Mr. George Miller of California, Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. Olver, Mr. Paul, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Serrano, Mr. Stark, Mr. Tierney, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Wexler, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Conyers, Ms. Eshoo, Ms. Hirono, and Mr. Kagen) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor

A BILL
To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to direct local educational agencies to release secondary school student information to military recruiters if the student’s parent provides written consent for the release, and for other purposes.

1.Short titleThis Act may be cited as the Student Privacy Protection Act of 2007.
2.Access by military recruiters to secondary school student information
(a)AmendmentsSection 9528 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7908) is amended—
(1)by redesignating subsections (a) through (d) as subsections (b) through (e), respectively;
(2)by inserting before subsection (b) (as so redesignated) the following:

(a)Military Recruiters
(1)Access to student recruiting informationNotwithstanding section 503(c) of title 10, United States Code, each local educational agency receiving assistance under this Act shall provide, on a request made by military recruiters, access to the name, address, and telephone listing of each secondary student served by the agency if the parent of the student involved has provided written consent to the agency for the release of such information to military recruiters.
(2)Notice; opportunity to consentA local educational agency receiving assistance under this Act shall—
(A)notify the parent of each secondary school student served by the agency of the option to consent to the release of the student’s name, address, and telephone listing to military recruiters; and
(B)give the parent an opportunity to provide such consent in writing.;
(3)in subsection (b) (as so redesignated)—
(A)by striking Policy.— and inserting Institutions of Higher Education.—; and
(B)in paragraph (1), by striking military recruiters or; and
(4)by transferring paragraph (3) of subsection (b) (as so redesignated) from the end of such subsection to the end of subsection (a) (as added by paragraph (2)).
(b)ApplicationThe amendments made by this Act apply only with respect to school years beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act.


 HCON 82 ENR: Directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make a correction in the enrollment of H.R. 1865.
U.S. House of Representatives
2019-12-19
text/xml
EN
Pursuant to Title 17 Section 105 of the United States Code, this file is not subject to copyright protection and is in the public domain.

IV
One Hundred Sixteenth Congress of the United States of America
At the First SessionBegun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, the third day of January, two thousand and nineteen
H. CON. RES. 82

December 19, 2019
Agreed to

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
Directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make a correction in the enrollment of H.R. 1865.

That, in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 1865, the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall make the following corrections: (1)Amend the long title so as to read: Making further consolidated appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2020, and for other purposes..
(2)Strike the first section 1 immediately following the enacting clause and all that follows through section 9. (3)In section 101 of title I of division P, strike the matter in quotes and insert Platte River Recovery Implementation Program Extension Act.
(4)In the table of contents for subtitle F of title I of division N, strike the item relating to section 601. (5)Strike section 601 of subtitle F of title I of division N.

Clerk of the House of Representatives.Secretary of the Senate.


		II

		Calendar No. 413

		109th CONGRESS

		2d Session

		S. 2603

		IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

			April 7, 2006

			Mr. Thomas (for himself

			 and Mr. Enzi) introduced the following

			 bill; which was read the first time

			April 24, 2006

			Read the second time and placed on the

			 calendar

		A BILL

		To reduce temporarily the royalty required to be paid for

		  sodium produced on Federal lands, and for other purposes.

		1.Short titleThis Act may be cited as the

			 Soda Ash Royalty Reduction Act of

			 2006.

		2.Reduction in

			 royalty rate on soda ashNotwithstanding section 102(a)(9) of the

			 Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701(a)(9)),

			 section

			 24 of the Mineral Leasing

			 Act (30

			 U.S.C. 262), and the terms of any lease under that Act, the

			 royalty rate on the quantity or gross value of the output of sodium compounds

			 and related products at the point of shipment to market from Federal land in

			 the 5-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act shall be 2

			 percent.

		3.StudyAfter the end of the 4-year period beginning

			 on the date of the enactment of this Act, and before the end of the 5-year

			 period beginning on that date, the Secretary of the Interior shall report to

			 the Congress on the effects of the royalty reduction under this Act,

			 including—

			(1)the amount of

			 sodium compounds and related products at the point of shipment to market from

			 Federal land during that 4-year period;

			(2)the number of

			 jobs that have been created or maintained during the royalty reduction

			 period;

			(3)the total amount

			 of royalty paid to the United States on the quantity or gross value of the

			 output of sodium compounds and related products at the point of shipment to

			 market produced during that 4-year period, and the portion of such royalty paid

			 to States; and

			(4)a recommendation

			 of whether the reduced royalty rate should apply after the end of the 5-year

			 period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.

		April 24, 2006

		Read the second time and placed on the

		  calendar


I
108th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. R. 5173
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

September 29, 2004
Mr. Beauprez introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

A BILL
To prohibit the sale of any alcohol without liquid machine without premarket approval, and for other purposes.

1.Short titleThis Act may be cited as the Alcohol Without Liquid Machine Safety Act of 2004.
2.Alcohol without liquid machines
(a)ProhibitionIt shall be unlawful for any person to introduce or deliver for introduction into interstate commerce any alcohol without liquid machine, unless an approval of an application submitted pursuant to subsection (b) is in effect with respect to such machine.
(b)ApplicationAny person may file with the Commissioner an application for premarket approval of an alcohol without liquid machine. Such an application shall be submitted in such manner, and containing such information, as the Commissioner may require.
(c)ApprovalUpon receipt of an application submitted pursuant to subsection (b), the Commissioner shall—
(1)issue an order approving the application if the person submitting the application demonstrates to the Commissioner’s satisfaction that the alcohol without liquid machine is safe; or
(2)deny approval of the application if the person submitting the application fails to demonstrate to the Commissioner’s satisfaction that the alcohol without liquid machine is safe.
(d)Withdrawal of approvalThe Secretary may issue an order withdrawing approval of an application submitted pursuant to subsection (b) if the Secretary finds that the alcohol without liquid machine is unsafe.
(e)PenaltyThe provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.) shall apply to a violation of subsection (a) in the same manner and to the same extent as such provisions apply to a violation of section 515 of such Act (21 U.S.C. 360e; regarding premarket approval of class III devices).
(f)DefinitionsFor purposes of this Act:
(1)The term alcohol without liquid machine means a device designed or marketed for the purpose of mixing alcohol with oxygen or another gas to produce a mist for inhalation for recreational purposes.
(2)The term Commissioner means the Commissioner of Food and Drugs.


110 HRES 258 IH: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that there should be established a National Autoimmune Diseases Awareness Month, and for other purposes.
U.S. House of Representatives
2007-03-21
text/xml
EN
Pursuant to Title 17 Section 105 of the United States Code, this file is not subject to copyright protection and is in the public domain.

IV
110th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. RES. 258
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

March 21, 2007
Mr. Israel submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

RESOLUTION
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that there should be established a National Autoimmune Diseases Awareness Month, and for other purposes.

Whereas autoimmune diseases are chronic, disabling diseases in which underlying defects in the immune system lead the body to attack its own organs and tissues;
Whereas autoimmune diseases can affect any part of the body, including the blood, blood vessels, muscles, nervous system, gastrointestinal tract, endocrine glands, and multiple-organ systems, and can be life-threatening;
Whereas researchers have identified over 80 different autoimmune diseases, and suspect at least 40 additional diseases of qualifying as autoimmune diseases;
Whereas researchers have identified a close genetic relationship and a common pathway of disease that exists among autoimmune diseases, explaining the clustering of autoimmune diseases in individuals and families;
Whereas the family of autoimmune diseases is under-recognized, and poses a major health care challenge to the United States;
Whereas the National Institutes of Health (NIH) estimates that autoimmune diseases afflict up to 23,500,000 people in the United States, 75 percent of the people affected are women, and the prevalence of autoimmune diseases is rising;
Whereas NIH estimates the annual direct health care costs associated with autoimmune diseases at more than $100,000,000,000, and there are over 250,000 new diagnoses each year;
Whereas autoimmune diseases are among the top 10 leading causes of death in female children and adult women;
Whereas autoimmune diseases most often affect children and young adults, leading to a lifetime of disability;
Whereas diagnostic tests for most autoimmune diseases are not standardized, making autoimmune diseases very difficult to diagnose;
Whereas, because autoimmune diseases are difficult to diagnose, treatment is often delayed, resulting in irreparable organ damage and unnecessary suffering;
Whereas the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies reported that the United States is behind other countries in research into immune system self-recognition, the cause of autoimmune diseases;
Whereas a study by the American Autoimmune Related Diseases Association revealed that it takes the average patient with an autoimmune disease more than 4 years, and costs more than $50,000, to get a correct diagnosis;
Whereas there is a significant need for more collaboration and cross-fertilization of basic autoimmune research;
Whereas there is a significant need for research focusing on the etiology of all autoimmune-related diseases, to increase understanding of the root causes of these diseases rather than treating the symptoms after the diseases have had their destructive effect;
Whereas the National Coalition of Autoimmune Patient Groups is a coalition of national organizations focused on autoimmune diseases working to consolidate the voices of patients with autoimmune diseases and to promote increased education, awareness, and research into all aspects of autoimmune diseases through a collaborative approach; and
Whereas designating May as National Autoimmune Diseases Awareness Month would help educate the public about autoimmune diseases and the need for research funding, accurate diagnosis, and effective treatments: Now, therefore, be it

That—
(1)it is the sense of the House of Representatives that there should be established a National Autoimmune Diseases Awareness Month;
(2)the House of Representatives supports the efforts of health care providers and autoimmune patient advocacy and education organizations to increase awareness of the causes of, and treatments for, autoimmune diseases; and
(3)the House of Representatives supports the goal of increasing Federal funding for aggressive research to learn the root causes of autoimmune diseases, as well as the best diagnostic methods and treatments for people with autoimmune diseases.


117 S1129 IS: Air Traffic Control Safe Operation and Readiness Act
U.S. Senate
2021-04-14
text/xml
EN
Pursuant to Title 17 Section 105 of the United States Code, this file is not subject to copyright protection and is in the public domain.

II117th CONGRESS1st SessionS. 1129IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATESApril 14, 2021Mr. Lee introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and TransportationA BILLTo amend title 49, United States Code, to require the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to give preferential consideration to individuals who have successfully completed air traffic controller training when hiring air traffic control specialists, and for other purposes.1.Short titleThis Act may be cited as the Air Traffic Control Safe Operation and Readiness Act.2.Hiring of air traffic control specialistsSection 44506(f)(1)(B) of title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new clause:(iv)Consideration of candidatesThe Administrator shall consider for the interview stage of the hiring process candidates in each applicant pool described in this subparagraph who—(I)score at or above a passing score as determined by the Administrator on the Air Traffic Skills Assessment (AT–SA); and(II)meet minimum qualifications established by the Administrator..3.Ensuring hiring of air traffic control specialists is based on assessment of job-relevant aptitudes(a)Update of the air traffic skills assessmentNot later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall revise the Air Traffic Skills Assessment (in this section referred to as the AT–SA) administered to air traffic controller applicants described in clauses (ii) and (iii) of section 44506(f)(1)(B) of title 49, United States Code, in accordance with the following requirements:(1)The Administrator shall ensure that all questions on the AT–SA are supported by a peer-reviewed job analysis that ensures all questions test job-relevant aptitudes.(2)The Administrator shall ensure that the AT–SA does not incorporate any biographical questionnaire or assessment or other questions of a biographical nature (other than basic identifiers such as first and last name) for applicants for the position of air traffic controller from the applicant pools described in clauses (ii) and (iii) of section 44506(f)(1)(B) of title 49, United States Code.(b)Conforming amendments eliminating use of biographical assessments for all applicantsSection 44506(f) of title 49, United States Code, as amended by section 2, is further amended—(1)in paragraph (1)(C)—(A)by striking clause (ii); and(B)by redesignating clause (iii) as clause (ii); and(2)by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:(2)No biographical assessmentsThe Administrator shall not use any biographical assessment when hiring under paragraph (1)(A) or paragraph (1)(B)..4.DOT Inspector General reportNot later than 180 days after the date on which the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration completes the revision of the Air Traffic Skills Assessment (AT–SA) required under section 3(a), the Inspector General of the Department of Transportation shall submit a report to the Administrator, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, and, upon request, to any member of Congress, that assesses the assumptions and methodologies used to develop such revisions, the job-relevant aptitudes measured, and the scoring process for the revised assessment, together with, if appropriate, a description of any actions taken or recommended to be taken to address the results of the report.


116 SCON 40 IS: Expressing the sense of Congress that undue restrictions on the right of law-abiding gun owners to carry a firearm for self-defense outside of the home violate the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
U.S. Senate
2020-06-23
text/xml
EN
Pursuant to Title 17 Section 105 of the United States Code, this file is not subject to copyright protection and is in the public domain.

III116th CONGRESS2d SessionS. CON. RES. 40IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATESJune 23, 2020Mrs. Loeffler submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the JudiciaryCONCURRENT RESOLUTIONExpressing the sense of Congress that undue restrictions on the right of law-abiding gun owners to carry a firearm for self-defense outside of the home violate the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.Whereas the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (referred to in this preamble as the Second Amendment) states, [a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.;Whereas the right to bear Arms, in plain language, means the right to carry arms;Whereas, based on this plain language, the Second Amendment clearly provides individual citizens with a right to carry arms for the purpose of self-defense;Whereas the Supreme Court of the United States has held that the Second Amendment is incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and thereby protects the right of an individual under the Second Amendment from infringement by State and local governments;Whereas several States have enacted laws that unduly inhibit and infringe upon the rights of a law-abiding individual to carry a firearm outside of the home, unless the individual can demonstrate a special need to carry the firearm;Whereas these State laws are inconsistent with the plain meaning of the right to bear arms and the rights granted to individuals by the Second Amendment; and Whereas established Federal processes and procedures regulating the right to purchase and possess a firearm are sufficient to provide for the interests of public safety: Now, therefore, be itThat it is the sense of Congress that undue restrictions on the right of law-abiding gun owners to carry a firearm for self-defense outside of the home—(1)violate both—(A)the intent of the Founding Fathers, as expressed by James Madison in The Federalist No. 46; and(B)the clear meaning of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to keep and bear Arms; and(2)are unlawful infringements of the rights granted by the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.


116 S4975 IS: Promoting Responsibility Over Moderation In the Social-media Environment Act
U.S. Senate
2020-12-08
text/xml
EN
Pursuant to Title 17 Section 105 of the United States Code, this file is not subject to copyright protection and is in the public domain.

II116th CONGRESS2d SessionS. 4975IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATESDecember 8, 2020Mr. Lee (for himself and Mr. Moran) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and TransportationA BILLTo require covered entities to implement and disclose information moderation policies, and for other purposes.1.Short titleThis Act may be cited as the Promoting Responsibility Over Moderation In the Social-media Environment Act or the PROMISE Act.2.PurposeThe purpose of this Act is to ensure that users of a covered entity have the necessary information regarding such entity's policy on moderating information provided by a user or other information content provider. Access to such a policy enables users to make informed choices regarding the use or purchase of services provided by the covered entity and promotes a competitive marketplace for such services.3.Information moderation policies(a)Requirement(1)In generalA covered entity—(A)shall implement and operate in accordance with an information moderation policy (as described in paragraph (2));(B)shall disclose such information moderation policy in a publicly available and easily accessible manner; and(C)shall not make a deceptive policy statement with respect to such information moderation policy.(2)Information moderation policyThe information moderation policy described in this paragraph is a policy that accurately describes, in plain, easy to understand language, information regarding the business practices of a covered entity with respect to the standards, processes, and policies of the covered entity on moderating information provided by a user or other information content provider, including—(A)any category of information that—(i)the covered entity does not permit on its service; or(ii)is subject to moderation by users or providers of such covered entity;(B)the process which a user or provider of the covered entity utilizes to moderate information posted, published, or otherwise displayed on the service; and(C)the notification process, if any, which the covered entity uses to inform a user—(i)that such user's information has been moderated;(ii)of the rationale justifying the moderation decision; and(iii)of the user's options for redress, if any.(b)Enforcement by the Federal Trade Commission(1)Unfair or deceptive acts or practicesA violation of subsection (a) shall constitute an unfair or deceptive act or practice in commerce in violation of section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45(a)).(2)Powers of commissionSubject to paragraphs (4) and (5), the Commission shall enforce subsection (a) in the same manner, by the same means, and with the same jurisdiction, powers, and duties as though all applicable terms and provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.) were incorporated into and made a part of this section. Any person who violates subsection (a) shall be subject to the penalties and entitled to the privileges and immunities provided in such Act.(3)RegulationsThe Commission shall prescribe, in accordance with section 553 of title 5, United States Code, such regulations as are necessary to carry out the purposes of this section, including regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to administer and carry out the purposes and objectives of this section.(4)Presumption of materialityWith respect to a violation of subsection (a), there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a deceptive policy statement is material and likely to cause injury.(5)Application to common carriersNotwithstanding the definition of the term Acts to regulate commerce in section 4 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 44) and the exception provided by section 5(a)(2) of such Act (15 U.S.C. 45(a)(2)) for common carriers, the Commission shall enforce subsection (a), in the same manner provided in paragraphs (1) through (4), with respect to covered entities that are common carriers for purposes of such section 5(a)(2).(c)DefinitionsIn this section:(1)CommissionThe term Commission means the Federal Trade Commission.(2)Covered entityThe term covered entity means an entity that is an interactive computer service engaged in interstate or foreign commerce.(3)Deceptive policy statementThe term deceptive policy statement means an oral or written representation, omission, or practice made by an officer, director, or other authorized agent of a covered entity regarding such covered entity's information moderation policy that—(A)misleads or is likely to mislead a reasonable individual regarding the covered entity's service; and(B)affects or is likely to affect a reasonable individual's choice to use or use of the covered entity's service.(4)Information content providerThe term information content provider has the meaning given such term in section 230(f) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230(f)).(5)Interactive computer serviceThe term interactive computer service has the meaning given such term in section 230(f) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230(f)).(6)ModerateWith respect to information provided by a user or other information content provider, the term moderate means—(A)to remove or otherwise restrict access to or the availability of such information;(B)to edit or otherwise alter such information; or(C)to post, publish, or otherwise display a warning, fact-check notice, or other label in conjunction with such information.


114 S1358 IS: Hmong Veterans’ Service Recognition Act
U.S. Senate
2015-05-15
text/xml
EN
Pursuant to Title 17 Section 105 of the United States Code, this file is not subject to copyright protection and is in the public domain.

II114th CONGRESS1st SessionS. 1358IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATESMay 14, 2015Ms. Murkowski (for herself, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Franken, and Mr. Whitehouse) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' AffairsA BILLTo amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to inter in
			 national cemeteries individuals who supported the United States in Laos
			 during the Vietnam War era.

 1.Short titleThis Act may be cited as the Hmong Veterans’ Service Recognition Act. 2.Eligibility for interment in national cemeteries (a)In generalSection 2402(a) of title 38, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

 (10)Any individual— (A)who—
 (i)was naturalized pursuant to section 2(1) of the Hmong Veterans’ Naturalization Act of 2000 (Public Law 106–207; 8 U.S.C. 1423 note); and
 (ii)at the time of the individual’s death resided in the United States; or (B)who—
 (i)the Secretary determines served with a special guerrilla unit or irregular forces operating from a base in Laos in support of the Armed Forces of the United States at any time during the period beginning February 28, 1961, and ending May 7, 1975; and
 (ii)at the time of the individual’s death— (I)was a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States; and
 (II)resided in the United States..  (b)Effective dateThe amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply with respect to an individual dying on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.


		II
		111th CONGRESS
		1st Session
		S. 2328
		IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

			October 29, 2009
			Mr. Kerry (for himself
			 and Mr. Kirk) introduced the following
			 bill; which was read twice and referred to the
			 Committee on
			 Finance

		A BILL
		To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain
		  untwisted filament yarns.

		1.Certain untwisted filament
			 yarns
			(a)In
			 generalHeading 9902.01.91 of
			 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to certain
			 untwisted filament yarns) is amended by striking 12/31/2009 and
			 inserting 12/31/2011.
			(b)Effective
			 dateThe amendment made by
			 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from
			 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the
			 enactment of this Act.


117 S1313 IS: Honoring All Veterans Act of 2021
U.S. Senate
2021-04-22
text/xml
EN
Pursuant to Title 17 Section 105 of the United States Code, this file is not subject to copyright protection and is in the public domain.

II117th CONGRESS1st SessionS. 1313IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATESApril 22, 2021Mrs. Gillibrand (for herself, Ms. Murkowski, Ms. Klobuchar, and Ms. Smith) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' AffairsA BILLTo amend title 38, United States Code, to establish a mission statement of the Department of Veterans Affairs.1.Short titleThis Act may be cited as the Honoring All Veterans Act of 2021.2.Mission statement of Department of Veterans Affairs(a)Required mission statementSection 301 of title 38, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:(d)The mission statement of the Department shall be as follows: To fulfill President Lincoln’s promise to care for those who shall have borne the battle and for their families, caregivers, and survivors...(b)NotificationNot later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall—(1)publish in the Federal Register and on the internet website of the Department of Veterans Affairs a notification explaining the mission statement of the Department as specified in subsection (d) of section 301 of title 38, United States Code, as added by subsection (a) of this section; and(2)update each internet website of the Department of Veterans Affairs and other electronic references that use a previous mission statement.(c)Guidance(1)In generalNot later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of the this Act, the Secretary shall develop and issue guidance to all elements of the Department regarding the mission statement of the Department as specified in subsection (d) of section 301 of title 38, United States Code, as added by subsection (a) of this section.(2)ContentsThe guidance required by paragraph (1) shall include the following:(A)A notification explaining the mission statement.(B)Instructions and a timeline for updating all previous mission statement references at each such element.(C)A method to monitor and evaluate the compliance by facilities of the Department with the guidance, including a reporting mechanism for such facilities to report back to the Secretary on the progress made in updating all non-electronic mission statement references.(D)Any other information that the Secretary determines necessary to ensure timely compliance with the guidance.(d)ReportNot later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report containing a review and assessment of the progress of each element of the Department in complying with the guidance under subsection (c), including—(1)any reasons explaining why an element of the Department has failed to implement the guidance; and(2)a plan to address any such failure to implement the guidance and ensure that each element of the Department fully implements and complies with the guidance.


114 HR 46 IH: No More Tulias: Drug Law Enforcement Evidentiary Standards Improvement Act of 2015
U.S. House of Representatives
2015-01-06
text/xml
EN
Pursuant to Title 17 Section 105 of the United States Code, this file is not subject to copyright protection and is in the public domain.

		I
		114th CONGRESS
		1st Session
		H. R. 46
		IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

			January 6, 2015
			Ms. Jackson Lee introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

		A BILL
		To increase the evidentiary standard required to convict a person for a drug offense, to require
			 screening of law enforcement officers or others acting under color of law
			 participating in drug task forces, and for other purposes.

		1.Short titleThis Act may be cited as the No More Tulias: Drug Law Enforcement Evidentiary Standards Improvement Act of 2015.
		2.Findings; sense of Congress
			(a)FindingsCongress finds the following:
				(1)In recent years it has become clear that programs funded by the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice
			 Assistance Grant program (referred to in this Act as the Byrne grants program) have perpetuated racial disparities, corruption in law enforcement, and the commission of civil
			 rights abuses across the country. This is especially the case when it
			 comes to the program’s funding of hundreds of regional antidrug task
			 forces because the grants for these antidrug task forces have been
			 dispensed to State governments with very little Federal oversight and have
			 been prone to misuse and corruption.
				(2)Numerous Government Accountability Office reports have found that the Department of Justice has
			 inadequately monitored grants provided under the Byrne grants program. A
			 2001 General Accounting Office report found that one-third of the grants
			 did not contain required monitoring plans. Seventy percent of files on
			 such grants did not contain required progress reports. Forty-one percent
			 of such files did not contain financial reports covering the full grant
			 period. A 2002 report by the Heritage Foundation reported that there is virtually no evidence that the Byrne grants program has been successful in reducing crime and that the program lacks adequate measures of performance.
				(3)A 2002 report by the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas identified 17 recent scandals
			 involving antidrug task forces in Texas that receive funds under the Byrne
			 grants program. Such scandals include cases of the falsification of
			 government records, witness tampering, fabricating evidence, false
			 imprisonment, stealing drugs from evidence lockers, selling drugs to
			 children, large-scale racial profiling, sexual harassment, and other
			 abuses of official capacity. Recent scandals in other States include the
			 misuse of millions of dollars in Byrne grants program money in Kentucky
			 and Massachusetts, wrongful convictions based on police perjury in
			 Missouri, and negotiations with drug offenders to drop or lower their
			 charges in exchange for money or vehicles in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia,
			 Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, and Wisconsin.
				(4)The most well-known Byrne-funded task force scandal occurred in Tulia, Texas, where dozens of
			 African-American residents (totaling over 16 percent of the town’s
			 African-American population) were arrested, prosecuted, and sentenced to
			 decades in prison, based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of one
			 undercover officer whose background included past allegations of
			 misconduct, sexual harassment, unpaid debts, and habitual use of a racial
			 epithet. The undercover officer was allowed to work alone, and not
			 required to provide audiotapes, video surveillance, or eyewitnesses to
			 corroborate his allegations. Despite the lack of physical evidence or
			 corroboration, the charges were vigorously prosecuted. After the first few
			 trials resulted in convictions and lengthy sentences, many defendants
			 accepted plea bargains. Suspicions regarding the legitimacy of the charges
			 eventually arose after two of the accused defendants were able to produce
			 convincing alibi evidence to prove that they were out of State or at work
			 at the time of the alleged drug purchases. Texas Governor Rick Perry
			 eventually pardoned the Tulia defendants (after four years of
			 imprisonment), but these kinds of scandals continue to plague Byrne grant
			 program spending.
				(5)A case arose in a Federal court in Waco, Texas, concerning the wrongful arrests of 28
			 African-Americans out of 4,500 other residents of Hearne, Texas. In
			 November 2000, these individuals were arrested on charges of possession or
			 distribution of crack cocaine, and they subsequently filed a case against
			 the county government. On May 11, 2005, a magistrate judge found
			 sufficient evidence that a Byrne-funded antidrug task force had routinely
			 targeted African-Americans to hold the county liable for the harm suffered
			 by the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs in that lawsuit alleged that for the past 15
			 years, based on the uncorroborated tales of informants, task force members
			 annually raided the African-American community in eastern Hearne to arrest
			 the residents identified by the confidential informants, resulting in the
			 arrest and prosecution of innocent citizens without cause. On the eve of
			 trial the counties involved in the Hearne task force scandal settled the
			 case, agreeing to pay financial damages to the plaintiffs.
				(6)Scandals related to the Byrne grants program have grown so prolific that the Texas legislature has
			 passed several reforms in response to them, including outlawing racial
			 profiling and changing Texas law to prohibit drug offense convictions
			 based solely on the word of an undercover informant. The Criminal
			 Jurisprudence Committee of the Texas House of Representatives issued a
			 report in 2004 recommending that all of the State’s federally funded
			 antidrug task forces be abolished because they are inherently prone to
			 corruption. The Committee reported, Continuing to sanction task force operations as stand-alone law enforcement entities—with
			 widespread authority to operate at will across multiple jurisdictional
			 lines—should not continue. The current approach violates practically every
			 sound principle of police oversight and accountability applicable to
			 narcotics interdiction. The Texas legislature passed a law that ends the ability of a narcotics task force to operate as
			 an entity with no clear accountability. The legislation transfers
			 authority for multicounty drug task forces to the Department of Public
			 Safety and channels one-quarter of asset forfeiture proceeds received by
			 the task forces to a special fund to support drug abuse prevention
			 programs, drug treatment, and other programs designed to reduce drug use
			 in the county where the assets are seized.
				(7)Texas’s corroboration law was passed thanks to a coalition of Christian conservatives and civil rights activists. As one
			 Texas preacher related, requiring corroboration puts a protective hedge around the ninth commandment, You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. As long as people bear false witness against their neighbors, this Biblical law will not be
			 outdated.
				(8)During floor debate, conservative Texas legislators pointed out that Mosaic law requires
			 corroboration: One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he
			 sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three
			 witnesses, shall the matter be established. Deuteronomy 19:15. Jesus concurred with the corroboration rule: If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone. …
			 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in
			 the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. Matthew 18:15–16.
				(9)Texas’s corroboration law had an immediate positive impact. Once prosecutors needed more than just the word of one
			 person to convict someone of a drug offense they began scrutinizing law
			 enforcement tactics. This new scrutiny led to the uncovering of massive
			 corruption and civil rights abuse by the Dallas police force. In what
			 became known nationally as the Sheetrock scandal, Dallas police officers and undercover informants were found to have set up dozens of
			 innocent people, mostly Mexican immigrants, by planting fake drugs on them
			 consisting of chalk-like material used in Sheetrock and other brands of
			 wallboard. The revelations led to the dismissal of over 40 cases (although
			 some of those arrested were already deported). In April 2005, a former
			 Dallas narcotics detective was sentenced to five years in prison for his
			 role in the scheme. Charges against others are pending.
				(10)Many regional antidrug task forces receive up to 75 percent of their funding from the Byrne grant
			 program. As such, the United States Government is accountable for
			 corruption and civil rights abuses inherent in their operation.
				(b)Sense of CongressIt is the sense of Congress that—
				(1)grants under the Byrne grants program should be prohibited for States that do not exercise
			 effective control over antidrug task forces;
				(2)at a minimum, no State that fails to prohibit criminal convictions based solely on the testimony of
			 a law enforcement officer or informants should receive a grant under such
			 program; and
				(3)corroborative evidence, such as video or audio tapes, drugs, and money, should always be required
			 for such criminal convictions to be sustained.
				3.Limitation on receipt of Byrne grant funds and other Department of Justice law enforcement
			 assistance
			(a)LimitationFor any fiscal year, a State shall not receive any amount that would otherwise be allocated to that
			 State under section 505(a) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3755(a)), or any amount from any other law enforcement assistance program of the
			 Department of Justice, unless the State—
				(1)does not fund any antidrug task forces for that fiscal year; or
				(2)has in effect throughout the State laws that ensure—
					(A)a person is not convicted of a drug offense unless the fact that a drug offense was committed, and
			 the fact that the person committed that offense, are each supported by
			 evidence other than the eyewitness testimony of a law enforcement officer
			 or an individual acting on behalf of a law enforcement officer; and
					(B)a law enforcement officer does not participate in an antidrug task force unless the honesty and
			 integrity of that officer is evaluated and found to be at an appropriately
			 high level.
					(b)RegulationsThe Attorney General shall prescribe regulations to carry out subsection (a).
			(c)ReallocationAmounts not allocated by reason of subsection (a) shall be reallocated to States not disqualified
			 by failure to comply with such subsection.
			4.Collection of data
			(a)In GeneralA State that receives Federal funds pursuant to eligibility under section 3(a)(2), with respect to
			 a fiscal year, shall collect data, for the most recent year for which
			 funds were allocated to such State, with respect to the—
				(1)racial distribution of charges made during that year;
				(2)nature of the criminal law specified in the charges made; and
				(3)city or law enforcement jurisdiction in which the charges were made.
				(b)ReportAs a condition of receiving Federal funds pursuant to section 3(a)(2), a State shall submit to
			 Congress the data collected under subsection (a) by not later than the
			 date that is 180 days prior to the date on which such funds are awarded
			 for a fiscal year.


		I
		112th CONGRESS
		2d Session
		H. R. 6557
		IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

			September 21, 2012
			Mr. Welch introduced
			 the following bill; which was referred to the
			 Committee on Education and the
			 Workforce, and in addition to the Committee on
			 Rules, 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 establish the Higher Education Regulatory Reform Task
		  Force, to establish procedures for the presentation and expedited consideration
		  by Congress of the recommendations of the Higher Education Regulatory Reform
		  Task Force, to establish requirements for college cost reduction, and for other
		  purposes.

		1.Short titleThis Act may be cited as the
			 College Cost Reduction Act of
			 2012.
		2.Higher Education
			 Regulatory Reform Task Force
			(a)Task Force
			 establishedNot later than 6
			 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Education
			 shall establish the Higher Education Regulatory Reform Task Force.
			(b)MembershipThe Higher Education Regulatory Reform Task
			 Force shall include—
				(1)the Secretary of
			 Education or the Secretary’s designee;
				(2)the head of each
			 other Federal agency (or such head’s designee) that the Secretary of Education
			 determines to be relevant to the activities of the Higher Education Regulatory
			 Reform Task Force;
				(3)a representative of the Advisory Committee
			 on Student Financial Assistance established under section 491 of the Higher
			 Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1098);
				(4)representatives
			 from the higher education community, including—
					(A)institutions of
			 higher education, with equal representation of public and private nonprofit
			 institutions, and two-year and four-year institutions, and with not less than
			 25 percent of such representative institutions carrying out distance education
			 programs; and
					(B)nonprofit
			 organizations representing institutions of higher education; and
					(5)any other entity
			 or individual the Secretary of Education determines appropriate.
				(c)Activities
				(1)Report
			 requiredNot later than one
			 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Education shall
			 submit to Congress and make available on a publicly available website a report
			 (in this Act referred to as the Higher Education Regulatory Reform
			 Report) prepared by the Higher Education Regulatory Reform Task Force
			 on Federal regulatory requirements for institutions of higher education. In
			 prioritizing the review and consideration of such regulatory requirements for
			 the purposes of the Higher Education Regulatory Reform Report, the Higher
			 Education Regulatory Reform Task Force shall give highest priority to
			 regulations related to—
					(A)State
			 authorization of distance education;
					(B)the Integrated
			 Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS);
					(C)the Office of
			 Management and Budget’s A–21 Circular;
					(D)reporting under
			 the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime
			 Statistics Act;
					(E)calculation of
			 default rates under section 435(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965;
					(F)gainful
			 employment;
					(G)revenue
			 requirements for institutions of higher education under section 487(a)(24) and
			 (d) of the Higher Education Act of 1965; and
					(H)the Single Audit
			 Act of 1984 and the Office of Management and Budget’s A–133 Circular.
					(2)Contents of
			 reportThe Higher Education Regulatory Reform Report shall
			 contain the following with respect to regulatory requirements for institutions
			 of higher education:
					(A)A list of rules
			 that are determined to be outmoded, duplicative, ineffective, or excessively
			 burdensome.
					(B)For each rule
			 listed in accordance with
			 subparagraph (A), an analysis of how
			 the costs outweigh the benefits for such rule.
					(C)Recommendations to
			 consolidate, modify, simplify, or repeal such rules to make such rules more
			 effective or less burdensome.
					(D)A description of the justification for and
			 impact of the recommendations described in
			 subparagraph (C), as appropriate and
			 available, including supporting data for such justifications and the financial
			 impact of such recommendations on institutions of higher education of varying
			 sizes and types.
					(E)Recommendations on the establishment of a
			 permanent entity to review new regulatory requirements affecting institutions
			 of higher education.
					(3)Notice and
			 commentAt least 60 days
			 before submission of the Higher Education Regulatory Reform Report required
			 under
			 paragraph (1), the Secretary of Education
			 shall publish the report in the Federal Register for public notice and comment.
			 The Higher Education Regulatory Reform Task Force may modify the report in
			 response to any comments received before submission of the report to
			 Congress.
				(d)Definition of
			 institution of higher educationFor the purposes of this section, the term
			 institution of higher education has the meaning given such term in
			 section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a)).
			3.Expedited
			 consideration by Congress
			(a)Presentation of
			 Higher Education Regulatory Reform Report to Congress and expedited
			 consideration
				(1)In
			 generalThe President shall
			 propose, at the time and in the manner provided in
			 paragraph (2), the carrying out of all or
			 part of the recommendations contained in the Higher Education Regulatory Reform
			 Report prepared by the Higher Education Regulatory Reform Task Force in
			 accordance with
			 section 2.
				(2)Transmittal of
			 special message
					(A)Message
			 requirementsNot later than 120 days after the submission of the
			 Higher Education Regulatory Reform Report to Congress under
			 section 2(c), the President shall transmit
			 to Congress a special message to carry out all or part of the recommendations
			 contained in such Report. The President shall include with that special message
			 a bill that would carry out the recommendations. The President may not transmit
			 more than one such special message each year.
					(B)Bill
			 textThe President shall include in the bill required under
			 subparagraph (A), without amendment, the following text:

							2.Controlling
				rising college costs
								(a)Controlling
				rising college costsNot
				later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary
				shall promulgate regulations that—
									(1)require institutions of higher education to
				control annual tuition increases; and
									(2)establish
				penalties for institutions of higher education that do not comply with the
				regulations promulgated under
				paragraph (1), taking into account the
				affects of such penalties on various types of institutions and the specific
				circumstances of institutions that may result in such noncompliance, including
				failure of States to adhere to maintenance of effort requirements under section
				137 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1015f).
									(b)Inapplicability
				of rulemaking requirementsSection 482(c) and section 492 of the
				Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1089(c); 1098a) shall not apply to the
				regulations required by this section.
								(c)DefinitionsFor purposes of this section:
									(1)Institution of
				higher educationThe term institution of higher
				education has the meaning given the term in section 102 of the Higher
				Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1002).
									(2)Annual
				tuitionThe term
				tuition means the average annual cost of tuition and fees for an
				institution of higher education for first-time, full-time undergraduate
				students enrolled in the
				institution.
									.
					(3)Expedited
			 consideration of President’s Higher Education Regulatory Reform bill
					(A)Higher Education
			 Regulatory Reform billWithin
			 14 days after the President submits to Congress a bill under
			 paragraph (2), the majority leader of the
			 House of Representatives and the majority leader of the Senate shall each
			 introduce such bill, by request.
					(B)Consideration in
			 the House of Representatives
						(i)Referral and
			 reportingAny committee of the House of Representatives to which
			 such bill is referred shall report it to the House without amendment not later
			 than the 14th legislative day after the date of its introduction. If a
			 committee fails to report the bill within that period or the House has adopted
			 a concurrent resolution providing for adjournment sine die at the end of a
			 Congress, such committee shall be automatically discharged from further
			 consideration of the bill and it shall be placed on the appropriate
			 calendar.
						(ii)Proceeding to
			 considerationNot later than 21 legislative days after such bill
			 is reported or a committee has been discharged from further consideration
			 thereof, it shall be in order to move to proceed to consider such bill in the
			 House. Such a motion shall be highly privileged and not debatable, and shall be
			 in order only at a time designated by the Speaker in the legislative schedule
			 within two legislative days after the day on which the proponent announces an
			 intention to the House to offer the motion provided that such notice may not be
			 given until such bill is reported or a committee has been discharged from
			 further consideration thereof. Such a motion shall not be in order after the
			 House has disposed of a motion to proceed with respect to that special message.
			 The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to its
			 adoption without intervening motion. A motion to reconsider the vote by which
			 the motion is disposed of shall not be in order.
						(iii)ConsiderationIf
			 the motion to proceed is agreed to, the House shall immediately proceed to
			 consider such bill in the House without intervening motion. Such bill shall be
			 considered as read. All points of order against the bill and against its
			 consideration are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
			 on the bill to its passage without intervening motion except 4 hours of debate
			 equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent and one motion
			 to limit debate on the bill. A motion to reconsider the vote on passage of the
			 bill shall not be in order.
						(C)Consideration in
			 the Senate
						(i)Committee
			 actionThe appropriate committee of the Senate shall report
			 without amendment the bill referred to in
			 subparagraph (A) not later than the
			 seventh session day after introduction. If a committee fails to report the bill
			 within that period or the Senate has adopted a concurrent resolution providing
			 for adjournment sine die at the end of a Congress, the Committee shall be
			 automatically discharged from further consideration of the bill and it shall be
			 placed on the appropriate calendar.
						(ii)Motion to
			 proceedNot later than 3 session days after the bill is reported
			 in the Senate or the committee has been discharged thereof, it shall be in
			 order for any Senator to move to proceed to consider the bill in the Senate.
			 The motion shall be decided without debate and the motion to reconsider shall
			 be deemed to have been laid on the table. Such a motion shall not be in order
			 after the Senate has disposed of a prior motion to proceed with respect to the
			 draft bill.
						(iii)ConsiderationIf
			 a motion to proceed to the consideration of the draft bill is agreed to, the
			 Senate shall immediately proceed to consideration of the draft bill without
			 intervening motion, order, or other business, and the draft bill shall remain
			 the unfinished business of the Senate until disposed of. Consideration on the
			 bill in the Senate under this subsection, and all debatable motions and appeals
			 in connection therewith, shall not exceed 10 hours equally divided in the usual
			 form. All points of order against the draft bill or its consideration are
			 waived. Consideration in the Senate on any debatable motion or appeal in
			 connection with the draft bill shall be limited to not more than 10 hours. A
			 motion to postpone, or a motion to proceed to the consideration of other
			 business, or a motion to recommit the draft bill is not in order. A motion to
			 reconsider the vote by which the draft bill is agreed to or disagreed to is not
			 in order.
						(D)Amendments
			 prohibitedNo amendment to,
			 or motion to strike a provision from, the draft bill considered under this
			 section shall be in order in either the House of Representatives or the
			 Senate.
					(E)Coordination
			 with action by other houseIf, before passing the bill, one House
			 receives from the other a bill—
						(i)the
			 bill of the other House shall not be referred to a committee; and
						(ii)the
			 procedure in the receiving House shall be the same as if no bill had been
			 received from the other House until the vote on passage, when the bill received
			 from the other House shall supplant the bill of the receiving House.
						(F)LimitationThis
			 paragraph shall apply only to the bill referred to in
			 subparagraph (A), introduced pursuant
			 to such subparagraph.
					(b)DefinitionFor
			 purposes of this section, continuity of a session of either House of Congress
			 shall be considered as broken only by an adjournment of that House sine die,
			 and the days on which that House is not in session because of an adjournment of
			 more than 3 days to a date certain shall be excluded in the computation of any
			 period.


113 SRES 143 ATS: Recognizing the threats to freedom of the press and expression around the world and reaffirming freedom of the press as a priority in the efforts of the United States Government to promote democracy and good governance on the occasion of World Press Freedom Day on May 3, 2013.
U.S. Senate
2013-05-16
text/xml
EN
Pursuant to Title 17 Section 105 of the United States Code, this file is not subject to copyright protection and is in the public domain.

		III
		113th CONGRESS
		1st Session
		S. RES. 143
		IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

			May 16, 2013
			Mr. Menendez (for
			 himself and Mr. Rubio) submitted the
			 following resolution; which was referred to the
			 Committee on Foreign
			 Relations

			May 22, 2013
			Reported by Mr.
			 Menendez, without amendment

			June 18, 2013
			Considered and agreed to

		RESOLUTION
		Recognizing the threats to freedom of the
		  press and expression around the world and reaffirming freedom of the press as a
		  priority in the efforts of the United States Government to promote democracy
		  and good governance on the occasion of World Press Freedom Day on May 3, 2013.

		Whereas Article 19 of the United Nations Universal
			 Declaration of Human Rights, adopted at Paris December 10, 1948, states that
			 everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right
			 includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive,
			 and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of
			 frontiers;
		Whereas, in 1993, the United Nations General Assembly
			 proclaimed May 3 of each year as World Press Freedom Day to celebrate the
			 fundamental principles of freedom of the press, to evaluate freedom of the
			 press around the world, to defend the media from attacks on its independence,
			 and to pay tribute to journalists who have lost their lives in the exercise of
			 their profession;
		Whereas 2013 is the 20th anniversary of World Press
			 Freedom Day, which focuses on the theme Safe to Speak: Securing Freedom
			 of Expression in All Media;
		Whereas the Daniel Pearl Freedom of the Press Act of 2009
			 (22 U.S.C. 2151 note; Public Law 111–166), which was passed by unanimous
			 consent in the Senate and signed into law by President Barack Obama in 2010,
			 expanded the examination of freedom of the press around the world in the annual
			 human rights report of the Department of State;
		Whereas, according to Freedom House, the percentage of
			 people in the world who live in countries with a free media environment fell to
			 14 percent in 2012, the lowest percentage in more than a decade;
		Whereas, according to Reporters Without Borders, 88
			 journalists and 47 citizen journalists were killed in 2012 in connection with
			 their collection and dissemination of news and information, an increase of 33
			 percent and 840 percent, respectively, compared to 2011;
		Whereas, according to Reporters Without Borders, the five
			 deadliest countries for journalists in 2012 were Syria, Somalia, Pakistan,
			 Mexico, and Brazil;
		Whereas, according to the Committee to Protect
			 Journalists, 593 journalists have been murdered since 1992 without the
			 perpetrators of those crimes facing punishment;
		Whereas, according to the Committee to Protect
			 Journalists, the five countries with the highest number of unsolved journalist
			 murders since 2003 as a percentage of the population of that country are Iraq,
			 Somalia, Philippines, Sri Lanka, and Colombia;
		Whereas, according to Reporters Without Borders, 879
			 journalists and 144 citizen journalists were arrested in 2012;
		Whereas, according to the Committee to Protect
			 Journalists, there were a record 232 journalists in prison worldwide on
			 December 1, 2012;
		Whereas, according to Reporters Without Borders, the five
			 countries in which the most journalists are imprisoned are Turkey, China,
			 Eritrea, Iran, and Syria;
		Whereas the abuse of anti-terrorism and cybercrime laws to
			 incarcerate journalists and suppress freedom of the press occurred on numerous
			 occasions abroad in 2012;
		Whereas freedom of the press is a key component of
			 democratic governance, the activism of civil society, and socio-economic
			 development;
		Whereas, in the ongoing political transition of Burma,
			 notable progress was made in advancing freedom of the press in 2012, although
			 certain problems remain; and
		Whereas freedom of the press enhances public
			 accountability, transparency, and participation: Now, therefore, be it

		That the Senate—
			(1)expresses concern
			 about the threats to freedom of the press and expression around the world on
			 the occasion of World Press Freedom Day on May 3, 2013;
			(2)commends
			 journalists around the world for the essential role they play in promoting
			 government accountability, defending democratic activity, and strengthening
			 civil society, despite threats to their safety;
			(3)pays tribute to
			 the journalists who have lost their lives carrying out their work and calls on
			 governments abroad to thoroughly investigate and seek to resolve all cases
			 while ensuring the protection of witnesses;
			(4)condemns all
			 actions around the world that suppress freedom of the press;
			(5)reaffirms the
			 centrality of freedom of the press to efforts by the United States Government
			 to support democracy, mitigate conflict, and promote good governance
			 domestically and around the world; and
			(6)calls on the
			 President and the Secretary of State—
				(A)to improve the
			 means by which the United States Government rapidly identifies, publicizes, and
			 responds to threats against freedom of the press around the world; and
				(B)to highlight the
			 issue of threats against freedom of the press year-round.


117 HRES 108 IH: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the dedicated employees of the United States Postal Service are frontline essential workers and must be prioritized accordingly for the purposes of the COVID–19 vaccination program and State vaccine distribution plans.
U.S. House of Representatives
2021-02-05
text/xml
EN
Pursuant to Title 17 Section 105 of the United States Code, this file is not subject to copyright protection and is in the public domain.

IV117th CONGRESS1st SessionH. RES. 108IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESFebruary 5, 2021Mr. Lynch (for himself, Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney of New York, Mr. Connolly, and Mrs. Lawrence) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and CommerceRESOLUTIONExpressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the dedicated employees of the United States Postal Service are frontline essential workers and must be prioritized accordingly for the purposes of the COVID–19 vaccination program and State vaccine distribution plans.Whereas more than 630,000 letter carriers, mail clerks, mail handlers, supervisors, postmasters, and other employees of the United States Postal Service work to process, transport, and deliver letters, packages, and other mail to every home and business in America six days a week, and in certain areas, even seven, and fulfill the public service mission of the United States Postal Service to provide the Nation with reliable, affordable, and universal mail service; Whereas at great risk to their own health and safety, the dedicated employees of the United States Postal Service have continued to perform their critical job duties on behalf of the American people throughout the duration of the COVID–19 pandemic and in support of vital local, State, and Federal pandemic relief and recovery efforts;Whereas in the midst of the COVID–19 pandemic and a nationwide shortage in personal protective equipment, our exceptional postal workforce also processed and delivered more than 135,000,000 ballots to American voters in support of unprecedented Vote-By-Mail operations conducted for the 2020 general election and runoff elections for the Senate in Georgia, and processed and delivered at least 590,000,000 mail pieces in support of the 2020 decennial census;Whereas over 41,000 United States Postal Service employees have tested positive for COVID–19, and at least 100 United States Postal Service employees have died from complications related to COVID–19;Whereas the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has recognized United States Postal Service workers as frontline essential workers who perform duties across critical infrastructure sectors and maintain the services and functions that U.S. residents depend on daily, and has recommended their prioritization in phase 1b of the COVID–19 vaccination program; andWhereas the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has acknowledged reports of high incidence and outbreaks and the heightened risk of COVID–19 facing frontline essential workers, including United States Postal Service employees: Now, therefore, be itThat it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the dedicated employees of the United States Postal Service are frontline essential workers and must be prioritized accordingly for the purposes of the COVID–19 vaccination program and State vaccine distribution plans.


116 S200 IS: Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2019
U.S. Senate
2019-01-24
text/xml
EN
Pursuant to Title 17 Section 105 of the United States Code, this file is not subject to copyright protection and is in the public domain.

II116th CONGRESS1st SessionS. 200IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATESJanuary 24, 2019Mr. Markey (for himself, Mr. Murphy, Ms. Warren, Mr. Van Hollen, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Schatz, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Brown, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Wyden, and Ms. Smith) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign RelationsA BILLTo prohibit the conduct of a first-use nuclear strike absent a declaration of war by Congress.

 1.Short titleThis Act may be cited as the Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2019. 2.Findings and declaration of policy (a)FindingsCongress finds the following:
 (1)The Constitution gives Congress the sole power to declare war. (2)The framers of the Constitution understood that the monumental decision to go to war, which can result in massive death and the destruction of civilized society, must be made by the representatives of the people and not by a single person.
 (3)As stated by section 2(c) of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93–148; 50 U.S.C. 1541), the constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
 (4)Nuclear weapons are uniquely powerful weapons that have the capability to instantly kill millions of people, create long-term health and environmental consequences throughout the world, directly undermine global peace, and put the United States at existential risk from retaliatory nuclear strikes.
 (5)By any definition of war, a first-use nuclear strike from the United States would constitute a major act of war.
 (6)A first-use nuclear strike conducted absent a declaration of war by Congress would violate the Constitution.
 (b)Declaration of policyIt is the policy of the United States that no first-use nuclear strike should be conducted absent a declaration of war by Congress.
			3.Prohibition on conduct of first-use nuclear strikes
 (a)ProhibitionNotwithstanding any other provision of law, the President may not use the Armed Forces of the United States to conduct a first-use nuclear strike unless such strike is conducted pursuant to a declaration of war by Congress that expressly authorizes such strike.
 (b)First-Use nuclear strike definedIn this section, the term first-use nuclear strike means an attack using nuclear weapons against an enemy that is conducted without the President determining that the enemy has first launched a nuclear strike against the United States or an ally of the United States.


115 HR 6587 IH: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow deductions for amounts contributed to a health savings account by individuals enrolled in qualified health plans.
U.S. House of Representatives
2018-07-26
text/xml
EN
Pursuant to Title 17 Section 105 of the United States Code, this file is not subject to copyright protection and is in the public domain.

I115th CONGRESS2d SessionH. R. 6587IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESJuly 26, 2018Mrs. Comstock introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and MeansA BILLTo amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow deductions for amounts contributed to a health savings account by individuals enrolled in qualified health plans.
1.Deductions for health savings account contributions for individuals enrolled in qualified health plans
(a)In generalSection 223(c) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:   (5)Qualified health planThe term qualified health plan means a qualified health plan (as defined in section 1301 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) offered through an Exchange established under title I of such Act. .
(b)Conforming amendments
(1)Section 223 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking high deductible health plan and inserting qualified health plan each place such term appears in each of the following provisions: (A)Subsection (b)(2).
(B)Subsection (b)(8). (C)Subsection (h)(2).
(2)Section 223(c)(1)(A), as amended by subsection (a), is further amended by striking any individual if  and all that follows through the period at the end and inserting any individual if such individual is covered under a qualified health plan as of the 1st day of such month.. (c)Effective dateThe amendments made by this Act shall apply to months, and expenditures made in months, beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act.


		I
		111th CONGRESS
		1st Session
		H. R. 246
		IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

			January 7, 2009
			Mr. Gene Green of Texas introduced the
			 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

		A BILL
		To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to exempt
		  elementary and secondary schools from the fee imposed on employers filing
		  petitions with respect to non-immigration workers under the H–1B
		  program.

		1.Exemption from filing fees
			 for schools
			(a)In
			 generalSection 214(c)(9)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
			 1184(c)(9)(A)) is amended by inserting an employer that is a public or
			 private elementary or secondary school and after
			 (excluding.
			(b)ApplicabilityThe
			 amendment made by subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the enactment
			 of this Act and shall apply to petitions filed under section 214(c)(1) of the
			 Immigration and Nationality Act on or
			 after such date and before October 1, 2001.


115 HR 6331 IH: Daylight Act
U.S. House of Representatives
2018-07-11
text/xml
EN
Pursuant to Title 17 Section 105 of the United States Code, this file is not subject to copyright protection and is in the public domain.

I115th CONGRESS2d SessionH. R. 6331IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESJuly 11, 2018Mr. Bishop of Utah introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and CommerceA BILLTo allow States to elect to observe daylight savings time for the duration of the year, and for
			 other purposes.

 1.Short titleThis Act may be cited as the Daylight Act. 2.Optional year-long application of daylight savings timeSection 3(a) of the Uniform Time Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 260a) is amended—
 (1)by inserting or may by law apply the advancement of time described in this section for the duration of the year, after may by law exempt itself from the provisions of this subsection providing for the advancement of time,;
 (2)by striking the standard time otherwise applicable during that period and inserting the same standard time; (3)by striking may by law exempt either the entire State as provided in (1) or and inserting , by law, may apply either standard time provided for in paragraph (1) to the entire State,; and
 (4)by inserting , or may apply the advancement of time for the duration of the year to the entire area of the State lying within any time zone before the period at the end.


105 HR 8878 IH: No Funds to China’s Military Act
U.S. House of Representatives
2020-12-04
text/xml
EN
Pursuant to Title 17 Section 105 of the United States Code, this file is not subject to copyright protection and is in the public domain.

I116th CONGRESS2d SessionH. R. 8878IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESDecember 4, 2020Mr. Norman introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and ReformA BILLTo prohibit the use of funds to purchase goods or services from Communist Chinese military companies.1.Short titleThis Act may be cited as the No Funds to China’s Military Act .2.Prohibition on use of funds to purchase goods or services from Communist Chinese military companies(a)In generalNone of the funds authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2020 and available for obligation as of the date of the enactment of this Act, or authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2021 or any fiscal year thereafter, may be obligated or expended to purchase goods or services from a person on the list required by section 1237(b) of the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105–261; 50 U.S.C. 1701 note).(b)Application to private entities and State and local governments(1)In generalThe prohibition under subsection (a) includes a prohibition on the obligation or expenditure of funds described in that subsection for the purchase of goods or services from persons described in that subsection by a private entity or a State or local government that received such funds through a grant or any other means.(2)Certification required to receive future funds(A)In generalOn and after the date of the enactment of this Act, the head of an executive agency shall ensure that funds described in subsection (a) are not provided to a private entity or a State or local government unless the entity or government certifies that the entity or government, as the case may be, is not purchasing goods or services from a person described in subsection (a).(B)ReviewThe head of an executive agency shall conduct a review of the use of funds described in subsection (a) that are provided to a private entity or a State or local government to ensure compliance with the requirements of subparagraph (A).(c)Executive agency definedIn this section, the term executive agency has the meaning given that term in section 133 of title 41, United States Code.3.Report(a)In generalNot later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the head of each of the Federal departments and agencies described in subsection (b) shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report that contains a complete list of grant and other funding programs administered by the department or agency with respect to which the head of the department or agency determines are most vulnerable to exploitation by persons described in section 2(a).(b)Federal departments and agencies describedThe Federal departments and agencies described in this subsection are the following:(1)The Department of Energy.(2)The Department of the Interior.(3)The Department of Agriculture.(4)The Federal Communications Commission.(5)The Department of Transportation.(6)The Department of Defense.(7)The Department of Homeland Security.(8)The Department of Commerce.(c)FormThe report required by subsection (a) shall be submitted in unclassified form but may contain a classified annex.(d)Appropriate congressional committees definedIn this section, the term appropriate congressional committees means—(1)the Committee on Homeland Security and other relevant committees of jurisdiction of the House of Representatives; and(2)the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and other relevant committees of jurisdiction of the Senate.


117 S498 IS: To amend title 54, United States Code, to limit the authority to reserve water rights in designating a national monument.
U.S. Senate
2021-03-01
text/xml
EN
Pursuant to Title 17 Section 105 of the United States Code, this file is not subject to copyright protection and is in the public domain.

II117th CONGRESS1st SessionS. 498IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATESMarch 1, 2021Mr. Lee (for himself and Mr. Daines) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural ResourcesA BILLTo amend title 54, United States Code, to limit the authority to reserve water rights in designating a national monument.1.Reservation of water rights at national monumentsSection 320301 of title 54, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:(e)Water rights(1)No reservation of water rightsIn designating a national monument under subsection (a), the President may not reserve any implied or expressed water rights associated with the national monument.(2)Applicable lawWater rights associated with a national monument designated under subsection (a) may be acquired for the national monument only in accordance with the laws of the State in which the water rights are located..


117 HR 1742 IH: Real Estate Exchange Fairness Act of 2021
U.S. House of Representatives
2021-03-10
text/xml
EN
Pursuant to Title 17 Section 105 of the United States Code, this file is not subject to copyright protection and is in the public domain.

I117th CONGRESS1st SessionH. R. 1742IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESMarch 10, 2021Miss González-Colón introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and MeansA BILLTo amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat Puerto Rico as part of the United States for purposes of determining whether real property qualifies for treatment as a like-kind exchange.1.Short titleThis Act may be cited as the Real Estate Exchange Fairness Act of 2021.2.Puerto Rico treated as part of United States for purposes of like-kind exchanges(a)In generalSection 1031(h) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following: For purposes of the preceding sentence, the term United States shall be treated as including Puerto Rico..(b)Effective dateThe amendment made by this section shall apply to exchanges completed after the date of the enactment of this Act.