		II
		110th CONGRESS
		1st Session
		S. 1869
		IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

			July 25, 2007
			Mr. Ensign introduced
			 the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the
			 Committee on Rules and
			 Administration

		A BILL
		To amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to require new
		  voting systems to provide a voter-verified permanent record, to develop better
		  accessible voting machines for individuals with disabilities, and for other
		  purposes.

		1.Short titleThis Act may be cited as the
			 Voting Integrity and Verification Act
			 of 2007.
		2.Promoting
			 accuracy, integrity, and security through preservation of a voter-verified
			 permanent paper record
			(a)In
			 generalSection 301 of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42
			 U.S.C. 15481) is amended—
				(1)by redesignating
			 subsections (b), (c), and (d) as subsections (c), (d), and (e), respectively;
			 and
				(2)by inserting
			 after subsection (a) the following:

						(b)Additional
				requirements for voting systems purchased after 2012In addition
				to the requirements of subsection (a), each voting system purchased after
				December 31, 2012, and used in an election for Federal office shall meet the
				following requirements:
							(1)Individual
				permanent paper recordThe voting system shall produce an
				individual permanent paper record for each ballot that is cast.
							(2)Verification
								(A)In
				generalIn lieu of the requirements of subsection (a)(1), the
				voting system shall—
									(i)permit the voter
				to verify the accuracy of the voter's ballot (in a private and independent
				manner), by allowing the voter to review an individual paper version of the
				voter’s ballot before the voter’s ballot is cast and counted;
									(ii)provide the
				voter with the opportunity (in a private and independent manner) to change the
				ballot and correct any error discovered on the individual paper version of the
				voter’s ballot before the ballot is cast and counted (including the opportunity
				to correct the error through the issuance of a replacement ballot if the voter
				was otherwise unable to change the ballot or correct any error); and
									(iii)(I)preserve the individual
				paper version of the voter’s ballot, after the voter has certified that the
				same accurately reflects the voter’s intent, as the individual permanent paper
				record; and
										(II)preserve such individual permanent paper
				record in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (3)(B); and
										(iv)meet the
				requirement of subparagraphs (A)(iii) and (C) of subsection (a)(1).
									(B)Readability
				requirements for machine-marked or printed paper ballotsAll
				voter verified paper ballots marked or printed through the use of a marking or
				printing device shall be clearly readable by the naked eye and by a scanner or
				other device equipped for voters with disabilities so that a voter is able to
				verify the accuracy of such ballots via both visual and non-visual
				means.
								(3)Manual audit
				capacityIn lieu of the requirements of subsection
				(a)(2)(B):
								(A)In
				generalEach individual paper record produced under paragraph (1)
				shall be suitable for a manual audit equivalent or superior to that of a paper
				ballot voting system.
								(B)PreservationThe
				voting system shall preserve each individual permanent paper record—
									(i)within the
				polling place in the manner in which all other paper ballots are preserved
				within such polling place; or
									(ii)in the absence
				of such manner or method, in a manner which is consistent with the manner
				employed by the jurisdiction for preserving paper ballots in general.
									(C)Consistency
				with other recordsAll electronic records produced by any voting
				system shall be consistent with the individual permanent paper records produced
				by such voting system. In the event of any inconsistencies or irregularities
				between any electronic records and the individual permanent paper records, the
				individual permanent paper records shall be the true and correct record of the
				votes cast.
								(D)Use as official
				recordsThe individual permanent paper records shall be used as
				the official records for purposes of any recount or audit conducted with
				respect to any election for Federal office in which the voting system is
				used.
								(4)Accessibility
				for individuals with disabilitiesThe voting system shall—
								(A)meet the
				requirement of subsection (a)(3)(A) through the use of at least one voting
				system that is fully accessible for individuals with disabilities at each
				polling place; and
								(B)meet the requirements of subsection
				(a)(3)(A) and paragraph (2)(A) by using a system that—
									(i)allows the voter to privately and
				independently verify the content of the permanent paper ballot through the
				conversion of the human readable content of the vote selections into accessible
				form;
									(ii)ensures that the entire process of ballot
				verification and vote casting is equipped for individuals with disabilities;
				and
									(iii)does not preclude the supplementary use of
				Braille or tactile
				ballots.
									.
				3.Award program
			 for development of accessible voting systems
			(a)DefinitionsIn this section:
				(1)InstituteThe
			 term Institute means the National Institute of Standards and
			 Technology.
				(2)DirectorThe
			 term Director means the Director of the Institute.
				(3)Voting
			 systemThe term voting system has the meaning given
			 such term by section 301(b) of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C.
			 15481(b)).
				(b)Establishment
			 of program
				(1)In
			 generalThe Director shall establish a program to competitively
			 award cash prizes to eligible persons that advance the research, development,
			 demonstration, and application of voting systems which are specifically
			 designed to enhance accessibility and provide independence for persons with
			 disabilities during the voting process.
				(2)Advertising and
			 solicitation of competitors
					(A)AdvertisingThe
			 Director shall widely advertise prize competitions to encourage broad
			 participation, including participation by individuals, universities, and large
			 and small businesses.
					(B)Announcement
			 through Federal register noticeThe Director shall announce each
			 prize competition by publishing a notice in the Federal Register. This notice
			 shall include the subject of the competition, the duration of the competition,
			 the eligibility requirements for participation in the competition, the process
			 for participants to register for the competition, the amount of the prize, and
			 the criteria for awarding the prize.
					(3)Administration
			 of competitionsThe Director shall enter into an agreement with a
			 private, nonprofit entity for the administration of the prize
			 competitions.
				(c)Prize
			 competitions
				(1)In
			 generalThe program established under paragraph (1) shall consist
			 of competitions for the development of technology designed for persons with the
			 following classifications of disabilities:
					(A)Hearing.
					(B)Visual.
					(C)Manual, tactile,
			 and mobility.
					(D)A combination of
			 the disabilities described in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C).
					(2)Cash
			 prizes
					(A)In
			 generalPrizes shall be awarded by the judges appointed under
			 paragraph (4) based on the criteria under paragraph (3).
					(B)Authority to
			 not award prizeIf the judges determine that no registered
			 participants meets the objective performance criteria established pursuant to
			 paragraph (3), no prize shall be awarded.
					(C)Limitation on
			 amount and number of prizesNo more than 2 prizes may be awarded
			 for any competition and the amount of any prize shall not exceed
			 $1,000,000.
					(3)Criteria
					(A)In
			 generalThe Director shall develop criteria for awarding prizes
			 under this section such that prizes are based on the functionality and
			 usability of a prototype accessible voting machine.
					(B)RequirementsThe
			 criteria developed under subparagraph (A) shall—
						(i)take into account
			 the challenges voters with disabilities face during the voting process,
			 including—
							(I)the need of
			 voters with manual disabilities to be able to use prosthetics and personal
			 assistive devices during the voting process without electromagnetic
			 interference;
							(II)the challenges
			 facing voters with visual impairments and the best means to accommodate those
			 voters, including, the need for voters to manually adjust font size (to account
			 for persons with poor vision and tunnel vision), color content, and contrast
			 for electronic voting machines;
							(III)the need of
			 voters to use various voter system interfaces such as synchronized audio output
			 that allows the voter to adjust the rate of speech, the audiofrequency, and
			 volume of the audio interface and which provides that such setting shall reset
			 to a standard default for each voter;
							(IV)the need of
			 voters to simultaneously use a tactile interface that permits the voter to
			 rewind, repeat, pause, and skip any audio cues, presentations, and ballot
			 measures;
							(V)the need of
			 voters who rely on mobility aids, such as wheelchairs, to adjust the height of
			 a voting system and to be able to see any visual cues or prompts from a seated
			 position; and
							(VI)the need of
			 voters with cognitive disabilities including using visual and audio cues
			 simultaneously;
							(ii)require that any
			 prototype accessible voting machine entered into the prize competition allows
			 voters with disabilities to independently verify the accuracy of the ballot
			 cast on the voting system; and
						(iii)be designed
			 to—
							(I)stimulate
			 innovation in the development and design of accessible voting systems in a way
			 that Federal procurement standards cannot;
							(II)help overcome
			 traditional obstacles in the design of accessible voting systems;
							(III)educate,
			 inspire, and motivate the public to participate in the process of developing
			 and designing accessible voting systems; and
							(IV)enhance the
			 accessibility and independence of the voting process.
							(C)Consultation
			 with other entitiesIn establishing the criteria under
			 subparagraph (A), the Director shall consult—
						(i)with various
			 disability rights groups with special knowledge concerning the challenges
			 facing persons with disabilities in each of the classifications in
			 subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph (1);
						(ii)with other
			 Federal agencies, including—
							(I)the Election
			 Assistance Commission; and
							(II)the National
			 Science and Technology Council; and
							(iii)with private
			 organizations, including professional societies and industry
			 associations.
						(4)Judges
					(A)In
			 generalFor each prize competition the Director shall appoint a
			 panel of qualified judges. Such panel shall include individuals from outside
			 the Institute and from the private sector.
					(B)DisqualificationA
			 judge may not—
						(i)have personal or
			 financial interests in, or be an employee, officer, director, or agent of, any
			 entity that is participating in the prize competition; or
						(ii)have a familial
			 or financial relationship with an individual who is participating in the prize
			 competition.
						(d)EligibilityAn person is eligible to win a prize under
			 this section if—
				(1)(A)in the case of a
			 corporation, such person is incorporated and maintains a primary place of
			 business the United States; and
					(B)in the case of an individual or
			 partnership, such individual, or each such individual in the partnership, is a
			 citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent
			 residence in the United States;
					(2)such person is
			 not an employee or entity of the United States or an laboratory accredited
			 under section 231 of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15371);
			 and
				(3)such person
			 registers for the competition by submitting an application containing such
			 information as the Director may require.
				(e)Trade
			 secretsThe Director shall,
			 to the extent possible, protect any trade secrets or proprietary information
			 related to any submission for a competition under this section.
			(f)TerminationNo
			 prizes shall be awarded under this section for competitions announced after
			 September 30, 2010.
			(g)Authorization
			 of appropriations
				(1)In
			 general
					(A)AwardsThere
			 are authorized to be appropriated to the Director $2,000,000 for each of the
			 fiscal years 2008, 2009, and 2010 for the purpose of awarding prizes in
			 competitions pursuant to this section.
					(B)AdministrationIn
			 addition to the amounts authorized in subparagraph (A), there are authorized to
			 be appropriated to the Director $1,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008, 2009,
			 and 2010 for the administrative costs of carrying out this section.
					(2)Carryover of
			 fundsFunds appropriated for prize awards under this section
			 shall remain available until expended, and may be transferred, reprogrammed, or
			 expended for other purposes only after the expiration of 10 fiscal years after
			 the fiscal year for which the funds were originally appropriated.


116 HR 5306 RH: Know Your Social Security Act of 2019
U.S. House of Representatives
2020-12-02
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.

IBUnion Calendar No. 506116th CONGRESS2d SessionH. R. 5306[Report No. 116–616]IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESDecember 5, 2019Mr. Larson of Connecticut (for himself and Mr. Buchanan) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and MeansDecember 2, 2020Additional sponsors: Mr. Suozzi, Mr. Schneider, Mr. Danny K. Davis of Illinois, Mr. Higgins of New York, Mr. Rice of South Carolina, Mr. Reed, Ms. Sánchez, Mr. Pascrell, Mrs. Murphy of Florida, Mr. Brendan F. Boyle of Pennsylvania, Mr. Kildee, Mr. Fitzpatrick, Ms. Wild, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. Cartwright, Ms. Pingree, Mr. Kind, Ms. Lofgren, Mr. Carter of Texas, Mr. Pocan, Mr. Golden, Mr. Murphy of North Carolina, Mr. Carter of Georgia, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, Mr. Westerman, Mr. Brindisi, Mr. Steube, Mr. Grothman, Mr. Soto, Mr. Kelly of Mississippi, Mr. Reschenthaler, Mr. Joyce of Pennsylvania, Mr. Smith of Missouri, Mrs. Miller, Mr. Rouzer, Ms. Stefanik, Mr. Bergman, Mr. Crist, and Mr. ButterfieldDecember 2, 2020Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printedStrike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italicFor text of introduced bill, see copy of bill as introduced on December 5, 2019A BILLTo amend title XI of the Social Security Act to clarify the mailing requirement relating to social security account statements.1.Short titleThis Act may be cited as the Know Your Social Security Act of 2019.2.Clarification of requirement to mail social security account statements(a)In generalSection 1143 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320b-13) is amended—(1)in subsection (a)(1), by adding at the end the following: Such statement shall be provided by mail unless the requesting individual chooses electronic delivery for that request.; and(2)in subsection (c)(2)—(A)by striking Beginning not later than and inserting (A) Beginning not later than; (B)by inserting by mail after provide; and(C)by adding at the end the following:(B)In any case in which an eligible individual described in subparagraph (A) responds to an annual inquiry by the Commissioner relating to the mailing of the individual’s statement by making an election that such statement for such year be provided in electronic form only, the requirements of this paragraph shall be deemed to be satisfied for such year with respect to the individual..(b)Effective dateThe amendments made by subsection (a) shall apply with respect to social security account statements required to be provided after the date of the enactment of this Act.December 2, 2020Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed


116 S4425 IS: Securing Commerce and Protecting Businesses Act of 2020
U.S. Senate
2020-08-04
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.

II116th CONGRESS2d SessionS. 4425IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATESAugust 4, 2020Mrs. Loeffler introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the JudiciaryA BILLTo amend title 18, United States Code, to create a Federal crime of destruction of property and looting of certain commercial entities.1.Short titleThis Act may be cited as the Securing Commerce and Protecting Businesses Act of 2020.2.Destruction of property and looting(a)In generalChapter 102 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 2101 the following:2101A.Destruction of property and looting(a)OffenseIt shall be unlawful to obstruct, delay, or affect commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, through the destruction of the property of or looting of a business or other commercial enterprise in connection with or during a riot.(b)PenaltyAny person who violates subsection (a) shall be fined $10,000, imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both.(c)Rule of constructionNothing in this section shall be construed as—(1)indicating an intent on the part of Congress to prevent any State, any possession or Commonwealth of the United States, or the District of Columbia, from exercising jurisdiction over any offense over which it would have jurisdiction in the absence of this section; or(2)depriving State and local law enforcement authorities of responsibility for prosecuting acts that may be violations of this section and that are violations of State and local law..(b)DefinitionsSection 2102 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:(c)As used in this chapter, the term looting means the unlawful taking or theft of goods or property during a riot..(c)Technical and conforming amendmentThe table of sections for chapter 102 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 2101 the following:2101A. Destruction of property and looting..


110 HR 499 IH: For the relief of Fouad Yousef Hakim Mansour and Saheir Gamil Shaker Mansour.
U.S. House of Representatives
2007-01-16
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.

V
110th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 499
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 16, 2007
Mr. Hunter introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL
For the relief of Fouad Yousef Hakim Mansour and Saheir Gamil Shaker Mansour.

1.Permanent resident status for Fouad Yousef Hakim Mansour and Saheir Gamil Shaker Mansour
(a)In generalNotwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Fouad Yousef Hakim Mansour and Saheir Gamil Shaker Mansour shall each be eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon filing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under section 204 of such Act or for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident.
(b)Adjustment of statusIf Fouad Yousef Hakim Mansour and Saheir Gamil Shaker Mansour enters the United States before the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), he or she shall be considered to have entered and remained lawfully and shall, if otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date of the enactment of this Act.
(c)Deadline for application and payment of feesSubsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of an immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(d)Reduction of immigrant visa numberUpon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent residence to Fouad Yousef Hakim Mansour and Saheir Gamil Shaker Mansour, the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 2, during the current or next following fiscal year, the total number of immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the country of the aliens’ birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act or, if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the country of the aliens’ birth under section 202(e) of such Act.
(e)Denial of preferential immigration treatment for certain relativesThe natural parents, brothers, and sisters of Fouad Yousef Hakim Mansour and Saheir Gamil Shaker Mansour shall not, by virtue of such relationship, be accorded any right, privilege, or status under the Immigration and Nationality Act.


116 HR 4727 RS: Department of Homeland Security Mentor-Protégé Program Act of 2019
U.S. House of Representatives
2020-11-09
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
Calendar No. 579
116th CONGRESS2d Session
H. R. 4727
[Report No. 116–287]
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

December 10, 2019
Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

November 9, 2020
Reported by Mr. Johnson, with amendments
Omit the part struck through and insert the part printed in italic

AN ACT
To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to establish a mentor-protégé program, and for other purposes.

1.Short titleThis Act may be cited as the Department of Homeland Security Mentor-Protégé Program Act of 2019. 2.Department of Homeland Security mentor-protégé program (a)In generalSubtitle H of title VIII of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 451 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

890B.Mentor-protégé program
(a)EstablishmentThere is established in the Department a mentor-protégé program (in this section referred to as the Program) under which a mentor firm enters into an agreement with a protégé firm for the purpose of assisting the protégé firm to compete for prime contracts and subcontracts of the Department. (b)EligibilityThe Secretary shall establish criteria for mentor firms and protégé firms to be eligible to participate in the Program, including a requirement that a firm is not included on any list maintained by the Federal Government of contractors that have been suspended or debarred.
(c)Program application and approval
(1)ApplicationThe Secretary, acting through the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization of the Department, shall establish a process for submission of an application jointly by a mentor firm and the protégé firm selected by the mentor firm. The application shall include each of the following: (A)A description of the assistance to be provided by the mentor firm, including, to the extent available, the number and a brief description of each anticipated subcontract to be awarded to the protégé firm.
(B)A schedule with milestones for achieving the assistance to be provided over the period of participation in the Program. (C)An estimate of the costs to be incurred by the mentor firm for providing assistance under the Program.
(D)AttestationAttestations that Program participants will submit to the Secretary reports at times specified by the Secretary to assist the Secretary in evaluating the protégé firm’s developmental progress. (E)Attestations that Program participants will inform the Secretary in the event of a change in eligibility or voluntary withdrawal from the Program.
(2)ApprovalNot later than 60 days after receipt of an application pursuant to paragraph (1), the head of the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization shall notify applicants of approval or, in the case of disapproval, the process for resubmitting an application for reconsideration. (3)RescissionThe head of the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization may rescind the approval of an application under this subsection if it determines that such action is in the best interest of the Department.
(d)Program durationA mentor firm and protégé firm approved under subsection (c) shall enter into an agreement to participate in the Program for a period of not less than 36 months. (e)Program benefitsA mentor firm and protégé firm that enter into an agreement under subsection (d) may receive the following Program benefits:
(1)With respect to an award of a contract that requires a subcontracting plan, a mentor firm may receive evaluation credit for participating in the Program. (2)With respect to an award of a contract that requires a subcontracting plan, a mentor firm may receive credit for a protégé firm performing as a first tier subcontractor or a subcontractor at any tier in an amount equal to the total dollar value of any subcontracts awarded to such protégé firm.
(3)A protégé firm may receive technical, managerial, financial, or any other mutually agreed upon benefit from a mentor firm, including a subcontract award. (4)Any other benefits identified by the Secretary.
(f)ReportingNot later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the head of the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization shall submit to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of the Senate and the Committees on Homeland Security and Small Business of the House of Representatives a report that— (1)identifies each agreement between a mentor firm and a protégé firm entered into under this section, including the number of protégé firm participants that are—
(A)small business concerns; (B)small business concerns owned and controlled by veterans;
(C)small business concerns owned and controlled by service-disabled veterans; (D)qualified HUBZone small business concerns;
(E)small business concerns owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals; (F)women-owned small business concerns;
(G)historically Black colleges and universities; and (H)minority institutions of higher education;
(2)describes the type of assistance provided by mentor firms to protégé firms; (3)identifies contracts within the Department in which a mentor firm serving as the prime contractor provided subcontracts to a protégé firm under the Program; and
(4)assesses the degree to which there has been— (A)an increase in the technical capabilities of protégé firms; and
(B)an increase in the quantity and estimated value of prime contract and subcontract awards to protégé firms for the period covered by the report. (g)DefinitionsIn this section:
(g)Rule of constructionNothing in this section shall be construed to limit, diminish, impair, or otherwise affect the authority of the Department to participate in any program carried out by or requiring approval of the Small Business Administration or adopt or follow any regulation or policy that the Administrator of the Small Business Administration may promulgate, except that, to the extent that any provision of this section (including subsection (h)) conflicts with any other provision of law, regulation, or policy, this section shall control.  (h)Definitions In this section:
(1)Historically Black college or universityThe term historically Black college or university means any of the historically Black colleges and universities referred to in section 2323 of title 10, United States Code, as in effect on March 1, 2018. (2)Mentor firmThe term mentor firm means a for-profit business concern that is not a small business concern that—
(A)has the ability to assist and commits to assisting a protégé to compete for Federal prime contracts and subcontracts; and (B)satisfies any other requirements imposed by the Secretary.
(3)Minority institution of higher educationThe term minority institution of higher education means an institution of higher education with a student body that reflects the composition specified in section 312(b) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1058(b)). (4)Protégé firmThe term protégé firm means a small business concern, a historically Black college or university, or a minority institution of higher education that—
(A)is eligible to enter into a prime contract or subcontract with the Department; and (B)satisfies any other requirements imposed by the Secretary.
(5)Small Business Act definitionsThe terms small business concern, small business concern owned and controlled by veterans, small business concern owned and controlled by service-disabled veterans, qualified HUBZone small business concern, and small business concern owned and controlled by women have the meaningmeanings given such terms, respectively, under section 3 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632). The term small business concern owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals has the meaning given such term in section 8(d)(3)(C) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(d)(3)(C)).. (b)Clerical amendmentThe table of contents in section 1(b) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 890A the following new item:

Sec. 890B. Mentor-protégé program..

November 9, 2020
Reported with amendments


117 HR 2370 IH: Preserving Family Farms Act of 2021
U.S. House of Representatives
2021-04-05
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.

I117th CONGRESS1st SessionH. R. 2370IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESApril 5, 2021Mr. Panetta (for himself and Mrs. Walorski) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and MeansA BILLTo amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the limitation on the estate tax valuation of certain real property used in farming or other trades or businesses.1.Short titleThis Act may be cited as the Preserving Family Farms Act of 2021.2.Increase in limitation on the estate tax valuation of certain real property used in farming or other trades or businesses(a)In generalSection 2032A(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking $750,000 and inserting $11,700,000.(b)Inflation adjustmentSection 2032A(a)(3) of such Code is amended—(1)by striking $750,000 both places it appears and inserting $11,700,000,(2)by striking 1998 in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) and inserting 2021, and(3)by striking 1997 in subparagraph (B) and inserting 2020.(c)Effective dateThe amendments made by this section shall apply to the estates of decedents dying after the date of the enactment of this Act.


114 HR 4646 IH: Fair Day in Court for Kids Act of 2016
U.S. House of Representatives
2016-02-26
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.

		I
		114th CONGRESS
		2d Session
		H. R. 4646
		IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

			February 26, 2016
			Ms. Lofgren (for herself, Mr. Gutiérrez, Ms. Roybal-Allard, Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Conyers, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Quigley, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Mr. Honda, Mr. Grijalva, Ms. Jackson Lee, Mr. Ellison, Mr. Cárdenas, Mr. O’Rourke, Ms. Judy Chu of California, Ms. Linda T. Sánchez of California, Mr. Becerra, Mr. Vargas, Mrs. Napolitano, Ms. DelBene, Ms. Adams, Mr. Polis, Mr. Crowley, Mrs. Torres, Ms. Kaptur, Ms. Norton, Ms. Hahn, Mr. Serrano, Ms. Velázquez, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Larson of Connecticut, Mr. Scott of Virginia, Ms. Bonamici, Mr. Gallego, Ms. Moore, Mrs. Dingell, Mr. Sires, Mr. Danny K. Davis of Illinois, Mr. Deutch, Ms. DeGette, Mr. Doggett, Mr. Jeffries, Mr. Kind, Mr. Cohen, Mr. McDermott, Mr. Pierluisi, Mr. Castro of Texas, Mr. Nadler, Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham of New Mexico, Mrs. Capps, and Ms. Wasserman Schultz) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

		A BILL
		To provide access to counsel for children and other vulnerable populations.

 1.Short titleThis Act may be cited as the Fair Day in Court for Kids Act of 2016. 2.Improving immigration court efficiency and reducing costs by increasing access to legal information (a)Appointment of counsel in certain cases; right To review certain documents in removal proceedingsSection 240(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1229a(b)) is amended—
 (1)in paragraph (4)— (A)in subparagraph (A)—
 (i)by striking , at no expense to the Government,; and (ii)by striking the comma at the end and inserting a semicolon;
 (B)by redesignating subparagraphs (B) and (C) as subparagraphs (D) and (E), respectively; (C)by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:

 (B)the Attorney General may appoint or provide counsel, at Government expense, to aliens in immigration proceedings;
 (C)the alien shall, at the beginning of the proceedings or as expeditiously as possible, automatically receive a complete copy of all relevant documents in the possession of the Department of Homeland Security, including all documents (other than documents protected from disclosure by privilege, including national security information referred to in subparagraph (D), law enforcement sensitive information, and information prohibited from disclosure pursuant to any other provision of law) contained in the file maintained by the Government that includes information with respect to all transactions involving the alien during the immigration process (commonly referred to as an A-file), and all documents pertaining to the alien that the Department of Homeland Security has obtained or received from other government agencies, unless the alien waives the right to receive such documents by executing a knowing and voluntary written waiver in a language that he or she understands fluently;; and
 (D)in subparagraph (D), as redesignated, by striking , and and inserting ; and; and (2)by adding at the end the following:

 (8)Failure to provide alien required documentsIn the absence of a waiver under paragraph (4)(C), a removal proceeding may not proceed until the alien—
 (A)has received the documents as required under such paragraph; and (B)has been provided meaningful time to review and assess such documents..
				(b)Clarification regarding the authority of the Attorney General To appoint counsel to aliens in
 immigration proceedingsSection 292 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1362) is amended— (1)by striking In any and inserting the following:

 (a)In generalIn any proceeding conducted under section 235, 236, 238, 240, 241, or any other section of this Act,;
 (2)in subsection (a), as redesignated— (A)by striking (at no expense to the Government); and
 (B)by striking he shall and inserting the person shall; and (3)by adding at the end the following:

 (b)Access to counselThe Attorney General may appoint or provide counsel to aliens in any proceeding conducted under section 235, 236, 238, 240, or 241 or any other section of this Act. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall ensure that aliens have access to counsel inside all immigration detention and border facilities..
				(c)Appointment of counsel for children and vulnerable aliens
 (1)In generalSection 292 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1362), as amended by subsection (b), is further amended by adding at the end the following:

 (c)Children and vulnerable aliensNotwithstanding subsection (b), the Attorney General shall appoint counsel, at the expense of the Government if necessary, at the beginning of the proceedings or as expeditiously as possible, to represent in such proceedings any alien who has been determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General to be—
 (1)a child (as defined in section 101(b)(1) of this Act); (2)a particularly vulnerable individual, such as—
 (A)a person with a disability; or (B)a victim of abuse, torture, or violence; or
 (3)an individual whose circumstances are such that the appointment of counsel is necessary to help ensure fair resolution and efficient adjudication of the proceedings.
 (d)Extension to consolidated casesIf the Attorney General has consolidated the case of any alien for whom counsel was appointed under subsection (c) with that of any other alien, and that other alien does not have counsel, then the counsel appointed under subsection (c) shall be appointed to represent such other alien.
 (e)Authorization of appropriationsThere is authorized to be appropriated to the Executive Office of Immigration Review of the Department of Justice such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section..
 (2)RulemakingThe Attorney General shall promulgate regulations to implement section 292(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as added by paragraph (1), in accordance with the requirements set forth in section 3006A of title 18, United States Code.
				3.Access by counsel and legal orientation at detention facilities
 (a)Access to counselThe Secretary of Homeland Security shall facilitate access to counsel for all aliens detained in facilities under the supervision of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement or of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, including providing information to aliens in detention about legal services programs at detention facilities.
 (b)Access to legal orientation programsThe Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall establish procedures to ensure that legal orientation programs are available for all detained aliens, including aliens held in U.S. Customs and Border Protection facilities, to inform such aliens of the basic procedures of immigration hearings, their rights relating to those hearings under Federal immigration laws, information that may deter such aliens from filing frivolous legal claims, and any other information that the Attorney General considers appropriate, such as a contact list of potential legal resources and providers. Access to legal orientation programs shall not be limited by the alien’s current immigration status, prior immigration history, or potential for immigration relief.
 (c)Pilot project for nondetained aliens in removal proceedingsThe Attorney General shall develop and administer a 2-year pilot program at not fewer than 2 immigration courts to provide nondetained aliens with pending asylum claims access to legal information. At the conclusion of the pilot program, the Attorney General shall submit a report to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives that describes the extent to which nondetained aliens are provided with access to counsel.
 (d)Authorization of appropriationsThere is authorized to be appropriated to the Executive Office of Immigration Review of the Department of Justice such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section.
			4.Case management pilot program to increase court appearance rates
 (a)Contract authorityThe Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish a pilot program to increase the court appearance rates of aliens described in section 292(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as added by section 2(c)(1), by contracting with nongovernmental, community-based organizations to provide appropriate case management services to such aliens. This pilot program shall not be used to monitor individuals designated as unaccompanied alien children under section 462 of the Homeland Security Act.
 (b)Scope of servicesCase management services provided under subsection (a) shall include assisting aliens with— (1)accessing legal counsel;
 (2)complying with court-imposed deadlines and other legal obligations; (3)procuring appropriate housing;
 (4)enrolling their minor children in school; and (5)acquiring health services, including, if needed, mental health services.
 (c)Authorization of appropriationsThere is authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Homeland Security such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section.
			5.Report on access to counsel
 (a)ReportNot later than December 31 of each year, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall prepare and submit a report to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives regarding the extent to which aliens described in section 292(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as added by section 2(c)(1), have been provided access to counsel.
 (b)ContentsEach report submitted under subsection (a) shall include, for the immediately preceding 1-year period—
 (1)the number and percentage of aliens described in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), respectively, of section 292(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as added by section 2(c)(1), who were represented by counsel, including information specifying—
 (A)the stage of the legal process at which the alien was represented; and (B)whether the alien was in government custody; and
 (2)the number and percentage of aliens who received legal orientation presentations. 6.Motions to reopenSection 240(c)(7)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(7)(C)) is amended by adding at the end the following:

 (v)Special rule for children and other vulnerable aliensIf the Attorney General fails to appoint counsel for an alien in violation of section 292(c)— (I)no limitation under this paragraph pertaining to the filing of any motion under this paragraph by such alien shall apply; and
 (II)the filing of such a motion shall stay the removal of the alien..


		I
		112th CONGRESS
		2d Session
		H. R. 4129
		IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

			March 1, 2012
			Mr. Langevin (for
			 himself and Mr. Cicilline) introduced
			 the following bill; which was referred to the
			 Committee on Natural
			 Resources

		A BILL
		To amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
		  Management Act to add Rhode Island to the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management
		  Council.

		1.Short titleThis Act may be cited as the
			 Rhode Island Fishermen's Fairness
			 Act.
		2.FindingsThe Congress finds as follows:
			(1)Rhode Island
			 fishermen participate in fisheries managed by the New England Fishery
			 Management Council (NEFMC) and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council
			 (MAFMC).
			(2)Rhode Island
			 currently has voting membership on the NEFMC under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
			 Conservation and Management Act but does not have voting membership on the
			 MAFMC.
			(3)Rhode Island lands
			 more MAFMC-managed stocks than any other MAFMC member except the State of New
			 Jersey.
			(4)A
			 higher percentage of Rhode Island’s commercial landings (by weight or value)
			 traditionally have come from species that are managed by the MAFMC as compared
			 to species managed by NEFMC.
			(5)MAFMC has found
			 that Rhode Island’s circumstance parallels that of Florida and North Carolina,
			 which each have voting membership on two different fishery management
			 councils.
			3.Addition of Rhode
			 Island to the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management CouncilSection 302(a)(1)(B) of the Magnuson-Stevens
			 Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1852(a)(1)(B)) is
			 amended—
			(1)by inserting
			 Rhode Island, after States of;
			(2)by inserting
			 Rhode Island, after except North
			 Carolina,;
			(3)by striking
			 21 and inserting 23; and
			(4)by striking
			 13 and inserting 14.


117 S2960 IS: Reducing Waste in National Parks Act
U.S. Senate
2021-10-07
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.

II117th CONGRESS1st SessionS. 2960IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATESOctober 7, 2021Mr. Merkley (for himself, Mr. Padilla, and Mr. Heinrich) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural ResourcesA BILLTo encourage reduction of disposable plastic products in units of the National Park System, and for other purposes.1.Short titleThis Act may be cited as the Reducing Waste in National Parks Act.2.Disposable plastic products reduction in units of the National Park System(a)Program for reduction of disposable plastic products in units of the NPSNot later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director shall establish, for the National Park System a program for reduction of disposable plastic products and, if applicable, elimination of the sale and distribution of disposable plastic products under subsection (b). Each regional director shall implement the plan for park units in their region.(b)Elimination of sale and distribution of disposable plastic products(1)In generalEach regional director concerned shall eliminate the sale of water in disposable plastic products and the sale and distribution of other disposable plastic products to the greatest extent feasible in the relevant unit of the National Park System after consideration of the following factors, when applicable, with respect to the relevant unit:(A)The costs and benefits to the overall operations.(B)The amount of waste that would be eliminated.(C)The infrastructure costs and funding sources for bottle refill stations.(D)Any contractual implications with respect to concessioners, including considerations of new leaseholder surrender interest or possessory interest.(E)The operational costs of bottle refill stations, including utilities and regular public health testing.(F)The cost and availability of bisphenol A-free reusable containers.(G)The effect on concessioner and cooperation association sales revenue.(H)The availability of water within concession food service operations.(I)The ability to provide visitor education in the unit and online so that visitors may come prepared with their own water bottles.(J)Input from the National Park Service Office of Public Health.(K)The feasibility of posting signs so that visitors can easily find bottle refill stations.(L)Safety considerations for visitors who may resort to not carrying enough water or drinking from surface water sources with potential exposure to disease.(M)Any input from concessioners and cooperating associations within the relevant unit.(2)Units of NPS previously eliminated sale of water in disposable plastic productsWith respect to a unit of the National Park System that did not offer for sale water in disposable plastic products before the date of the enactment of this Act, the applicable superintendent of the relevant unit may continue to not offer for sale water in disposable plastic bottles.(c)Proactive visitor education strategyEach regional director concerned shall develop for the relevant unit of the National Park System a proactive visitor education strategy to address visitor expectations of water availability and explain the rationale for the program and its implementation in the relevant unit.(d)Continuity within unit of the NPSEach regional director concerned shall, to the extent possible, implement the program in a manner that is consistent throughout the relevant unit of the National Park System, including incorporation of such program into any agreement with an organization operating within the relevant unit, including a concessioner operating plan and cooperating association scope of sales.(e)Biennial evaluationEach regional director concerned shall, not less than once every 2 years—(1)conduct an evaluation of the program for the relevant unit of the National Park System, including—(A)public response to the program;(B)visitor satisfaction with the availability of water;(C)buying behavior with respect to products sold in disposable plastic products;(D)public safety including information on cases of dehydration or exposure to disease from drinking from surface water; and(E)disposable plastic bottle collection rates; and(2)submit the evaluation to the Director and the Secretary of the Interior.(f)DefinitionsFor the purposes of this Act—(1)the term Director means the Director of the National Park Service;(2)the term disposable plastic products includes—(A)disposable plastic beverage bottles;(B)carryout bags made from film plastic;(C)plastic food ware, including plastic food ware products marketed as compostable or biodegradable; and(D)expanded polystyrene products;(3)the term program means the program for recycling and reduction of disposable plastic products established under subsection (a); and(4)the term regional director concerned means, with respect to a unit of the National Park System, the regional director of the region of the National Park System in which the relevant unit is located, working in coordination with the superintendent of such unit.


116 HR 4689 IH: Smoke Free Affordable Housing Act
U.S. House of Representatives
2019-10-16
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.

I116th CONGRESS1st SessionH. R. 4689IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESOctober 16, 2019Mrs. Hartzler introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and MeansA BILLTo amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require that States give preference in allocating
			 low-income housing credit dollar amounts to projects which are committed
			 to providing non-smoking buildings.

 1.Short titleThis Act may be cited as the Smoke Free Affordable Housing Act. 2.Low-income housing credit allocation preference for non-smoking buildings (a)In generalSection 42(m)(1)(B)(ii) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new subclause:

 (IV)projects consisting only of buildings in which smoking is not permitted, and. (b)Effective dateThe amendment made by this section shall apply to allocations made after the date of the enactment of this Act.


114 HR 376 IH: Home-Assembled Firearms Restriction Act of 2015
U.S. House of Representatives
2015-01-14
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.

I
114th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 376
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 14, 2015
Mr. Honda (for himself, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Hastings, Ms. Kelly of Illinois, Mr. Danny K. Davis of Illinois, Ms. Matsui, Ms. Schakowsky, and Mrs. Capps) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

A BILL
To prohibit the sale, offering for sale, manufacture for sale, distribution in commerce, or import into the United States of certain firearm receiver castings or blanks, assault weapon parts kits, and machinegun parts kits and to prohibit the marketing or advertising of such castings or blanks and kits on any medium of electronic communications.

1.Short titleThis Act may be cited as the Home-Assembled Firearms Restriction Act of 2015. 2.Do-it-yourself assault weapon ban (a)Banned hazardous productsNotwithstanding section 3(a)(5)(E) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(5)(E)), the following shall be considered banned hazardous products under section 8 of such Act (15 U.S.C. 2057):
(1)A firearm receiver casting or firearm receiver blank that— (A)at the point of sale does not meet the definition of a firearm in section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code; and
(B)after purchase by a consumer, can be completed by the consumer to the point at which such casting or blank functions as a firearm frame or receiver for a semiautomatic assault weapon or machine gun. (2)An assault weapon parts kit.
(3)A machinegun parts kit. (b)EnforcementSubsection (a) shall be treated as a ban under section 19 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2068).
(c)ConsultationIn enforcing this section, the Consumer Product Safety Commission shall periodically consult with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives regarding effective strategies for and methods of enforcement. 3.Prohibition of advertising do-it-yourself assault weapons (a)In generalIt shall be unlawful to market or advertise, on any medium of electronic communications, including over the Internet, for the sale of any of the following:
(1)A firearm receiver casting or firearm receiver blank that— (A)at the point of sale does not meet the definition of a firearm in section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code; and
(B)after purchase by a consumer, can be completed by the consumer to the point at which such casting or blank functions as a firearm frame or receiver for a semiautomatic assault weapon or machinegun. (2)An assault weapon parts kit.
(3)A machinegun parts kit. (b)Enforcement by the Federal Trade CommissionA violation of subsection (a) shall be treated as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or deceptive act or practice described under section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)). The Federal Trade Commission shall enforce this section 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 Act.
(c)Rule of constructionNothing contained in this Act shall be construed to limit the authority of the Federal Trade Commission under any other provision of law. 4.Definitions (a)TermsFor purposes of this Act—
(1)the term assault weapon parts kit means any part or combination of parts not designed and intended for repair or replacement but designed and intended to enable a consumer who possesses all such necessary parts to assemble a semiautomatic assault weapon; (2)the term machinegun parts kit means any part or combination of parts designed and intended to enable a consumer who possesses all such necessary parts to assemble a machinegun or convert a firearm into a machinegun;
(3)the term semiautomatic assault weapon means— (A)a semiautomatic rifle or semiautomatic shotgun that has the capacity to accept a detachable ammunition magazine; or
(B)a semiautomatic pistol that has— (i)the capacity to accept a detachable ammunition magazine; and
(ii)any one of the features described in subsection (b); (4)the term machinegun has the meaning given such term in section 5845(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
(5)the term semiautomatic pistol means any repeating pistol that utilizes a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge to extract the fixed cartridge case and chamber the next round and requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each cartridge; (6)the term semiautomatic rifle has the meaning given such term in section 921(a)(28) of title 18, United States Code; and
(7)the term semiautomatic shotgun means any repeating shotgun that utilizes a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge to extract the fixed cartridge case and chamber the next round and requires a separate pull of a trigger to fire each cartridge. (b)Special features of a semiautomatic pistolThe special features described in subsection (a)(3)(B)(ii) are—
(1)an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip; (2)a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;
(3)a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned; (4)a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and
(5)a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm. 5.ConstructionNothing in this Act shall be construed as limiting the ability of a State to enact more restrictive gun-related laws, or bans on firearm receiver castings, firearm receiver blanks, assault weapon parts kits, or machinegun parts kits.


116 HR 464 IH: To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve dependency and indemnity compensation for survivors of certain totally disabled veterans.
U.S. House of Representatives
2019-01-10
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.

I116th CONGRESS1st SessionH. R. 464IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESJanuary 10, 2019Mr. Jones introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' AffairsA BILLTo amend title 38, United States Code, to improve dependency and indemnity compensation for
			 survivors of certain totally disabled veterans.

		1.Automatic enrollment for dependency and indemnity compensation for survivors of certain totally
			 disabled veterans
 (a)In generalSection 1318(a) of title 38, United States Code, is amended— (1)by striking The Secretary and inserting (1) The Secretary; and
 (2)by adding at the end the following new paragraph:  (2)In carrying out paragraph (1), the Secretary shall treat a notification of the death of a veteran described in subsection (b) as a claim by the surviving spouse and children of the deceased veteran for benefits under this chapter. The Secretary may not require that such spouse and children file a claim for such benefits..
 (b)ApplicationThe amendments made by this section shall apply with respect to deaths of veterans occurring on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.


110 HRES 626 IH: Censuring the President and the Attorney

U.S. House of Representatives
2007-08-03
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. 626
		IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

			August 4, 2007
			Mr. Hinchey (for
			 himself, Ms. Baldwin,
			 Mr. Capuano,
			 Mr. Cohen,
			 Mr. Davis of Illinois,
			 Mr. Farr, Mr. Filner, Mr.
			 Grijalva, Mr. Hall of New
			 York, Mr. Honda,
			 Ms. Kaptur,
			 Mr. Kucinich,
			 Ms. Lee, Mrs. Maloney of New York,
			 Mr. Moran of Virginia,
			 Mr. Pastor,
			 Ms. Schakowsky,
			 Ms. Watson,
			 Ms. Shea-Porter, and
			 Mr. Rothman) submitted the following
			 resolution; which was referred to the
			 Committee on the Judiciary

		RESOLUTION
		Censuring the President and the Attorney
		  General.

		1.Basis for censure
			(a)National
			 Security Agency wiretappingThe House of Representatives finds
			 the following:
				(1)Congress passed
			 the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), and
			 in so doing provided the executive branch with clear authority to wiretap
			 suspected terrorists inside the United States.
				(2)Section 201 of
			 the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 states that it and the
			 criminal wiretap law are the exclusive means by which electronic
			 surveillance may be conducted by the United States Government, and
			 section 109 of that Act makes it a crime to wiretap individuals without
			 complying with this statutory authority.
				(3)The Foreign
			 Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 both permits the Government to initiate
			 wiretapping immediately in emergencies as long as the Government obtains
			 approval from the court established under section 103 of the Foreign
			 Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1803) within 72 hours of
			 initiating the wiretap, and authorizes wiretaps without a court order otherwise
			 required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 for the first 15
			 days following a declaration of war by Congress.
				(4)The Authorization
			 for Use of Military Force that became law on September 18, 2001 (Public Law
			 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note), did not grant the President the power to
			 authorize wiretaps of Americans within the United States without obtaining the
			 court orders required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of
			 1978.
				(5)The President's
			 inherent constitutional authority does not give him the power to violate the
			 explicit statutory prohibition on warrantless wiretaps in the Foreign
			 Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.
				(6)George W. Bush,
			 President of the United States, authorized the National Security Agency to
			 wiretap Americans within the United States without obtaining the court orders
			 required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 for more than 5
			 years.
				(7)Alberto R.
			 Gonzales, as Attorney General of the United States and as Counsel to the
			 President, reviewed and defended the legality of the President’s authorization
			 of wiretaps by the National Security Agency of Americans within the United
			 States without the court orders required by the Foreign Intelligence
			 Surveillance Act of 1978.
				(8)President George
			 W. Bush repeatedly misled the public prior to the public disclosure of the
			 National Security Agency warrantless surveillance program by indicating his
			 Administration was relying on court orders to wiretap suspected terrorists
			 inside the United States.
				(9)Alberto R.
			 Gonzales misled Congress in January 2005 during the hearing on his nomination
			 to be Attorney General of the United States by indicating that a question about
			 whether the President has the authority to authorize warrantless wiretaps in
			 violation of statutory prohibitions presented a hypothetical
			 situation, even though he was fully aware that a warrantless
			 wiretapping program had been ongoing for several years.
				(10)In statements
			 about the supposed need for the National Security Agency warrantless
			 surveillance program after the public disclosure of the program, President
			 George W. Bush falsely implied that the program was necessary because the
			 executive branch did not otherwise have authority to wiretap suspected
			 terrorists inside the United States.
				(11)Attorney General
			 Alberto R. Gonzales, despite his admitted awareness that congressional critics
			 of the program support wiretapping terrorists in accordance with the Foreign
			 Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, attempted to create the opposite
			 impression by making public statements such as [s]ome people will argue
			 that nothing could justify the Government being able to intercept conversations
			 like the ones the Program targets.
				(12)President George
			 W. Bush inaccurately stated in his January 31, 2006, State of the Union address
			 that [p]revious Presidents have used the same constitutional authority I
			 have, and federal courts have approved the use of that authority., even
			 though the Administration has failed to identify a single instance since the
			 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 became law in which another
			 President has authorized wiretaps inside the United States without complying
			 with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, and no Federal court
			 has evaluated whether the President has the inherent authority to authorize
			 wiretaps inside the United States without complying with the Foreign
			 Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.
				(13)At a Senate
			 Judiciary Committee hearing on February 6, 2006, Attorney General Alberto R.
			 Gonzales defended the President’s misleading statements in the January 31,
			 2006, State of the Union address.
				(14)Attorney General
			 Alberto R. Gonzales has misled Congress and the American people repeatedly by
			 stating that there was no serious disagreement among Government officials
			 about or relate[d] to the National Security
			 Agency program confirmed by the President.
				(15)According to
			 testimony from former Deputy Attorney General James Comey, Alberto R. Gonzales,
			 while serving as Counsel to the President, participated in a visit to
			 then-Attorney General John Ashcroft in the intensive care unit of the hospital
			 in an attempt to convince Mr. Ashcroft to overturn the decision by Mr. Comey,
			 then serving as Acting Attorney General due to Mr. Ashcroft’s illness, not to
			 certify the legality of a classified intelligence program, in what Mr. Comey
			 described as an effort to take advantage of a very sick
			 man.
				(b)Detainee and
			 torture policyThe House of Representatives finds the
			 following:
				(1)The United States
			 is a party to the Convention Against Torture, the Geneva Conventions, and the
			 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
				(2)Common Article 3
			 of the Geneva Conventions requires that detainees in armed conflicts other than
			 those between nations shall in all circumstances be treated
			 humanely, and the Third Geneva Convention on the Treatment of Prisoners
			 of War provides additional protections for detainees who qualify as
			 prisoners of war.
				(3)United States law
			 criminalizes any act specifically intended to inflict severe physical or
			 mental pain or suffering under sections 2340 and 2340A of title 18,
			 United States Code, and the War Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. 2441) and recognizes the
			 gravity of such offenses by further providing for civil liability under the
			 Torture Victim Protection Act and the Alien Tort Claims Act.
				(4)In a draft
			 memorandum dated January 25, 2002, Alberto R. Gonzales, in his capacity as
			 Counsel to the President, argued that the protections of the Third Geneva
			 Convention should not be afforded to Taliban and al Qaeda detainees, and
			 described provisions of the Convention as quaint and
			 obsolete.
				(5)The January 25,
			 2002, memorandum by then-Counsel to the President Alberto R. Gonzales cited
			 reduc[ing] the threat of domestic criminal prosecution as a
			 positive consequence of disavowing the Geneva Conventions’
			 applicability, asserting that such a disavowal would provide a solid
			 defense to any future prosecution in the event a prosecutor brought
			 charges under the domestic War Crimes Act.
				(6)Secretary of
			 State Colin Powell responded in a January 26, 2002, memorandum that such an
			 attempt to evade the Geneva Conventions would reverse over a century of
			 U.S. policy and practice in supporting the Geneva Conventions and undermine the
			 protections of the rule of law for our troops.
				(7)Despite the
			 warnings of the Secretary of State and in contravention of the language of the
			 Third Geneva Convention, President George W. Bush announced on February 7,
			 2002, that—
					(A)he did not
			 consider the Convention to apply to al Qaeda fighters; and
					(B)Taliban detainees
			 would not be entitled to prisoner of war status under the
			 Convention, despite the fact that Article 5 of the Convention and United States
			 Army regulations expressly require such determinations to be made by a
			 competent tribunal.
					(8)The Supreme
			 Court, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, confirmed that Common Article 3 of the Geneva
			 Conventions applies to Taliban forces and al Qaeda forces, and characterized a
			 central legal premise by which the President sought to avoid the obligations of
			 international law as erroneous.
				(9)Alberto R.
			 Gonzales, acting as Counsel to the President, solicited and accepted the August
			 1, 2002, Office of Legal Counsel memorandum entitled Standards of
			 Conduct for Interrogation under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2340–2340A, which took the
			 untenable position that mere infliction of pain is not
			 torture unless the victim … experiences intense pain or
			 suffering of the kind that is equivalent to the pain that would be associated
			 with serious physical injury so severe that death, organ failure, or permanent
			 damage resulting in a loss of significant body function will likely
			 result..
				(10)According to the
			 Review of Department of Defense Detention Operations and Detainee
			 Interrogation Techniques (the Church Report), issued on
			 March 7, 2005, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on December 2, 2002,
			 authorized the use on Guantanamo Bay detainees of harsh interrogation
			 techniques not listed in the Army Field Manual, including stress positions,
			 hooding, the use of military dogs to exploit phobias, prolonged isolation,
			 sensory deprivation, and forcing Muslim men to shave their beards.
				(11)According to the
			 Article 15–6 Investigation of CJSOTF–AP [Combined Joint Special
			 Operations Task Force-Arabian Peninsula] and 5th SF [Special Forces] Group
			 Detention Operation (Formica Report) and Department of Defense
			 documents released under the Freedom of Information Act, Guantanamo Bay
			 detainees were chained to the floor, subjected to loud music, fed only bread
			 and water, and kept for some period of time in cells measuring 4 feet by 4 feet
			 by 20 inches.
				(12)The March 2004
			 investigative report of Major General Antonio Taguba documented
			 sadistic, blatant and wanton criminal abuses against detainees
			 at the Abu Ghraib detention facility, including sexual and physical abuse, the
			 threat of torture, the forcing of detainees to perform degrading acts designed
			 to assault their religious identity, and the use of dogs to frighten
			 detainees.
				(13)According to
			 Department of Defense documents released under the Freedom of Information Act,
			 the United States Armed Forces held certain Iraqis as ghost
			 detainees, who were not accounted for and were hidden
			 from the observation of the International Committee of the Red Cross
			 (ICRC).
				(14)Military autopsy
			 reports and death certificates released pursuant to the Freedom of Information
			 Act revealed that at least 39 deaths, and probably more, have occurred among
			 detainees in United States custody overseas, approximately half of which were
			 homicides and 7 of which appear to have been caused by
			 strangulation, “asphyxiation” or fatal blunt force
			 injuries.
				(15)On September 6,
			 2006, President George W. Bush stated that he had authorized the incommunicado
			 detention of certain suspected terrorist leaders and operatives at secret sites
			 outside the United States under a separate program operated by
			 the Central Intelligence Agency.
				(16)President George
			 W. Bush has authorized the indefinite detention, without charge or trial, of
			 more than 700 individuals at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base on the ground that they
			 are enemy combatants and therefore may be held until the
			 cessation of hostilities under the laws of war.
				(17)Department of
			 Justice lawyers, representing President George W. Bush and the Department of
			 Defense in a Federal lawsuit brought on behalf of Guantanamo detainees, took
			 the unprecedented position that the term enemy combatant could
			 in theory justify the indefinite detention of a little old lady in
			 Switzerland who writes checks to what she thinks is [a] charity that helps
			 orphans in Afghanistan but is really a front to finance al-Qaeda
			 activities and a person who teaches English to the son of an al
			 Qaeda member.
				(18)After the
			 Supreme Court in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Rasul v. Bush rejected the claim that an
			 alleged enemy combatant could be detained indefinitely without
			 any meaningful opportunity to challenge the designation, the Deputy Secretary
			 of Defense issued an order on July 7, 2004, creating Combatant Status
			 Review Tribunals (CSRTs) for the stated purpose of review[ing]
			 the detainee’s status as an enemy combatant.
				(19)Such
			 Order—
					(A)did not allow
			 detainees to be represented by counsel in Combatant Status Review Tribunal
			 proceedings, but instead specified that a military officer would
			 be assigned to assist[ ] each detainee and required such
			 military officers to inform the detainees that I am neither a lawyer nor
			 your advocate, and that [n]one of the information you provide me
			 shall be held in confidence;
					(B)allowed the
			 detainee to be excluded from attendance during review proceedings involving
			 testimony or other matters that would compromise national security if
			 held in the presence of the detainee;
					(C)allowed the
			 decision-maker to rely on hearsay evidence and specified that [t]he
			 Tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence such as would apply in a court
			 of law; and
					(D)specified that
			 there shall be a rebuttable presumption in favor of the Government’s
			 evidence.
					(20)The Government
			 has relied on the above procedures to deprive individuals of their liberty for
			 an indefinite period of time without a meaningful opportunity to confront and
			 rebut the evidence on which that detention is predicated.
				(21)President George
			 W. Bush and the Department of Defense designated at least 2 United States
			 citizens as enemy combatants, claimed the right to detain them
			 indefinitely on United States soil without charge and without access to
			 counsel, and argued that allowing meaningful judicial review of their detention
			 would be constitutionally intolerable.
				(22)The Supreme
			 Court established in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld that meaningful review by a neutral
			 decisionmaker of the detention of United States citizens is constitutionally
			 required, that the risk of an erroneous deprivation of a citizen’s
			 liberty … is very real, and that the Constitution mandates that a
			 United States citizen be given a fair opportunity to rebut the Government’s
			 enemy combatant designation.
				(23)The
			 administration, having consistently claimed that according United States
			 citizens designated as enemy combatants the due process
			 protections accorded to criminal defendants in civilian courts would jeopardize
			 national security interests of the utmost importance, elected to pursue
			 criminal charges against alleged enemy combatant Jose Padilla in
			 a civilian court after holding him in military custody for 3 years.
				(24)The
			 administration, having contended that alleged enemy combatant
			 and United States citizen Yaser Esam Hamdi was so dangerous that merely
			 allowing him to meet with counsel jeopardizes compelling national
			 security interests because he might pass concealed messages
			 through unwitting intermediaries, released Mr. Hamdi from custody after
			 3 years and allowed him to return to Saudi Arabia.
				(25)President George
			 W. Bush issued Military Order of November 13, 2001, Detention,
			 Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against
			 Terrorism, which authorized the creation of military tribunals to try
			 suspected al Qaeda members and other international terrorist suspects for
			 violations of the law of war.
				(26)Alberto R.
			 Gonzales, as Counsel to the President, in a November 30, 2001, newspaper
			 editorial, defended these military tribunals and misleadingly represented that
			 they would have adequate procedural safeguards, by stating: “Everyone tried
			 before a military commission will know the charges against him, be represented
			 by qualified counsel and be allowed to present a defense.”.
				(27)The military
			 tribunals’ procedural rules as outlined in Military Commission Order No. 1,
			 issued on March 21, 2002, and as subsequently amended—
					(A)permitted the
			 accused and his civilian counsel to be excluded from any part of the proceeding
			 that the presiding officer decided to close, and never learn what was presented
			 during that portion of the proceeding;
					(B)permitted the
			 introduction of any evidence that the presiding officer determined would have
			 probative value to a reasonable person, thereby permitting the admission of
			 hearsay and evidence obtained through undue coercion; and
					(C)restricted
			 appellate review of the commissions to a panel appointed by the Secretary of
			 Defense, followed by review by the Secretary of Defense and a final decision by
			 the President, with no provision for direct appeal to the Federal courts for
			 review by civilian judges.
					(28)Nearly 5 years
			 after the military order was signed, the Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld
			 struck down the military commissions as unlawful, finding that—
					(A)the military
			 commissions as constituted were not expressly authorized by any congressional
			 act, including the Authorization for Use of Military Force, the Uniform Code of
			 Military Justice (UCMJ), and the Detainee Treatment Act;
					(B)the military
			 commission procedures violated the UCMJ, which mandates that rules governing
			 military commissions be as similar to those governing courts-martial as
			 practicable, and which affords the accused the right to be
			 present;
					(C)the military
			 commission procedures violated Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions,
			 which is part of the law of war under UCMJ Article 21 and
			 requires trial in a regularly constituted court affording all the
			 judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized
			 peoples.
					(29)President George
			 W. Bush sought to prevent the Guantanamo detainees from obtaining judicial
			 review of their indefinite confinement by claiming that the writ of habeas
			 corpus was categorically unavailable to non-citizens held at Guantanamo
			 Bay.
				(30)The Supreme
			 Court in Rasul v. Bush squarely rejected this claim, holding that the legal
			 precedent on which the President relied plainly does not preclude the
			 exercise of [statutory habeas] jurisdiction over the detainees’ claims,
			 and that the general presumption against extraterritorial application of a
			 statute, cited by the President, “certainly has no application” with respect to
			 detainees at Guantanamo Bay where the United States exercises complete
			 jurisdiction and control.
				(c)United States
			 Attorney firings and executive privilegeThe House of
			 Representatives finds the following:
				(1)At least 9 United
			 States Attorneys were told in 2006 that they must step down under the authority
			 of President George W. Bush, who had the final decision-making power in
			 terminating the employment of United States Attorneys.
				(2)Attorney General
			 Alberto R. Gonzales and subordinates under his supervision repeatedly misled
			 Congress and attempted to block legitimate congressional oversight efforts
			 concerning the firing of at least nine United States Attorneys.
				(3)Attorney General
			 Alberto R. Gonzales repeatedly obscured the true scope of the firings,
			 originally declining to cite a specific number of individuals fired in his
			 testimony on January 18, 2007, acknowledging only seven in his USA Today op-ed
			 published on March 6, 2007, acknowledging eight firings in his testimony on
			 April 19, 2007, tacitly conceding there had been nine individuals fired in his
			 testimony on May 10, 2007, and testifying on July 24, 2007, that there
			 may have been others but he did not know the exact number.
				(4)Attorney General
			 Alberto R. Gonzales initially characterized the firings as an overblown
			 personnel matter, claiming that the United States Attorneys had lost
			 his confidence and were fired for performance reasons when many
			 of those same individuals had received only the highest performance reviews
			 prior to their dismissal.
				(5)Attorney General
			 Alberto R. Gonzales testified before the Senate on January 18, 2007, that he
			 would never, ever make a change in a United States attorney for
			 political reasons, but in later testimony on April 19, 2007, and July
			 24, 2007, admitted that he does not know who selected each individual United
			 States Attorney for firing or why they were included on the list of United
			 States Attorneys to be fired.
				(6)Prior to their
			 selection for firing, both former New Mexico United States Attorney David
			 Iglesias and former Washington United States Attorney John McKay received
			 inappropriate phone calls from Members of Congress or their staffs regarding
			 ongoing, politically sensitive investigations and the White House received
			 complaints about the manner in which they were conducting those
			 investigations.
				(7)Attorney General
			 Alberto R. Gonzales testified before the Senate on January 18, 2007, that he
			 would not fire a United States Attorney if it would in any way
			 jeopardize an ongoing serious investigation, but later testified, as
			 did his subordinates, that concerns about whether ongoing investigations would
			 be jeopardized were not explored prior to the firings and were specifically
			 ignored when some fired United States Attorneys asked for a delay in their
			 departure dates to allow them to wrap up ongoing investigations.
				(8)Attorney General
			 Alberto R. Gonzales publicly stated on March 13, 2007, that he was not
			 involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what
			 was going on regarding the process leading up to the firing of the
			 United States Attorneys, but later testimony from his subordinates and
			 documents released by the Department of Justice indicate that the Attorney
			 General was, in fact, regularly briefed on the process and did receive at least
			 one memo in November 2005 regarding the planned firings.
				(9)Attorney General
			 Alberto R. Gonzales publicly stated on May 15, 2007, that Deputy Attorney
			 General Paul McNulty’s participation in the firing of the United States
			 Attorneys was of central importance to the validity of the process and to the
			 Attorney General’s decision to fire the specific individuals, but he had
			 previously testified on April 19, 2007, that he did not discuss the process
			 with Mr. McNulty prior to firing the United States Attorneys, and that
			 looking back … I would have had the deputy attorney general more
			 involved, directly involved.
				(10)Attorney General
			 Alberto R. Gonzales testified on May 10, 2007, that, after the start of the
			 congressional investigation into the firings, he had refrained from discussing
			 the firings with anyone involved because he did not want to interfere with the
			 ongoing investigations, but former White House Liaison for the Department of
			 Justice, Monica Goodling, testified on May 23, 2007, that the Attorney General
			 spoke with her in late March of 2007 and laid out … his general
			 recollection … of some of the process regarding the replacement of the United
			 States Attorneys.
				(11)Former White
			 House Liaison for the Department of Justice, Monica Goodling, also testified on
			 May 23, 2007, that she did not respond to what Attorney General Alberto R.
			 Gonzales said about his recollection because I did not know if it was
			 appropriate for us to both be discussing our recollections of what had
			 happened, and I just thought maybe we shouldn't have that
			 conversation.
				(12)President George
			 W. Bush has consistently stonewalled congressional attempts at oversight by
			 refusing to turn over White House documents relating to the firing of at least
			 9 United States Attorneys and refusing to allow current or former White House
			 officials to testify before Congress on this matter, based on an excessively
			 broad and legally insufficient assertion of executive privilege.
				(13)President George
			 W. Bush has asserted executive privilege in refusing even to turn over
			 correspondence between non-Executive Branch officials and White House officials
			 concerning the firings of at least 9 United States Attorneys, even though such
			 communications could not reasonably be classified as falling within the
			 privilege.
				(14)President George
			 W. Bush has directed at least two staff members, former and current, to ignore
			 congressional subpoenas altogether, ordering former Counsel to the President
			 Harriet Miers and current Deputy Chief of Staff and Senior Adviser to the
			 President Karl Rove not to appear at Congressional oversight hearings based on
			 the assertion that immediate presidential advisors are immune from
			 compelled Congressional testimony about matters that arose during [their]
			 tenure, rather than simply instructing them to refrain from answering
			 questions that might be covered by a proper assertion of executive
			 privilege.
				(15)President George
			 W. Bush has refused to work to find a compromise with Congress or otherwise
			 accommodate legitimate congressional oversight efforts, disregarding the proper
			 relationship between the executive and legislative branches and demonstrating a
			 belief that he and his Administration are above oversight and the rule of
			 law.
				(d)Misleading
			 statements on the USA Patriot ActThe House of Representatives
			 finds the following:
				(1)President George
			 W. Bush made misleading claims during the course of the Administration’s 2005
			 campaign to reauthorize the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, by suggesting that Federal
			 officials did not have access to the same tools to investigate terrorism as
			 they did to investigate other crimes.
				(2)In 2005 the
			 Federal Bureau of Investigation transmitted to Attorney General Alberto R.
			 Gonzales multiple reports of violations of law in connection with provisions of
			 the USA PATRIOT Act and related authorities, including unauthorized
			 surveillance and improper collection of communications data that were serious
			 enough to require notification of the President’s Intelligence Oversight
			 Board.
				(3)Despite these
			 reports, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales told Congress and the American
			 people in the course of the Administration’s 2005 campaign to reauthorize the
			 USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 that [t]he track record established over the
			 past three years has demonstrated the effectiveness of the safeguards of civil
			 liberties put in place when the Act was passed, that [t]here has
			 not been one verified case of civil liberties abuse, and that no
			 one has provided me with evidence that the Patriot Act is being abused or
			 misused.
				(4)The United States
			 Department of Justice sent a 10-page letter to Congress dated November 23,
			 2005—
					(A)stating that a
			 November 6, 2005, Washington Post story detailing the Federal Bureau of
			 Investigation’s use of National Security Letters was a materially
			 misleading portrayal full of distortions and factual
			 errors;
					(B)defending its use
			 of National Security Letters by pointing to the Department’s robust
			 mechanisms for checking misuse, “significant internal oversight and
			 checks,” and reports to Congress regarding the number of National Security
			 Letters issued; and
					(C)stating that the
			 November 6, 2005, Washington Post story was inaccurate in stating that
			 The FBI now issues more than 30,000 National Security Letters a year, …
			 a hundredfold increase over historic norms..
					(5)On March 9, 2007,
			 the Inspector General for the United States Department of Justice issued a
			 report on the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s use of National Security
			 Letters from 2003 through 2005—
					(A)that the
			 Inspector General said found widespread and serious misuse of the FBI’s
			 national security letter authorities that in many instances …
			 violated NSL statutes, Attorney General Guidelines, or the FBI’s own internal
			 policies, and found that the FBI did not provide adequate
			 guidance, adequate controls, or adequate training on the use of these sensitive
			 authorities; and
					(B)that indicated
			 the Federal Bureau of Investigation issued approximately 39,000 National
			 Security Letter requests in 2003, 56,000 National Security Letter requests in
			 2004, and 47,000 National Security Letter requests in 2005.
					(6)The United States
			 Department of Justice sent a letter on March 9, 2007, to Congress, admitting
			 that it had determined that certain statements in our November 23, 2005
			 letter need clarification in light of the Inspector General’s findings
			 and that the reports [The Department of Justice] provided Congress in
			 response to statutory reporting requirements did not accurately reflect the
			 FBI’s use of NSLs.
				(e)Signing
			 statementsThe House of Representatives finds the
			 following:
				(1)President George
			 W. Bush has lodged more than 800 challenges to duly enacted provisions of law
			 by issuing signing statements that indicate that the President does not believe
			 he must comply with such provisions of law.
				(2)Such signing
			 statements effectively assign to the executive branch alone the decision
			 whether to fully comply with the laws that Congress has passed.
				(3)On December 30,
			 2005, President George W. Bush signed the Department of Defense Emergency
			 Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and
			 Pandemic Influenza Act, 2006, title X of which prohibits the Government from
			 subjecting any individual in the custody or under the physical control
			 of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical
			 location to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or
			 punishment.
				(4)President George
			 W. Bush issued a signing statement to such Act that suggested he believed he
			 did not have to comply with the prohibition on torture and cruel, inhuman and
			 degrading treatment, stating: “The executive branch shall construe Title X in
			 Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the
			 constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive
			 branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional
			 limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared
			 objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of
			 protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks.”.
				(5)On March 9, 2006,
			 President George W. Bush signed the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization
			 Act of 2005, which requires that the executive branch furnish reports to
			 Congress on certain surveillance activities.
				(6)President George
			 W. Bush issued a signing statement to such Act that suggested he believed he
			 did not have to comply fully with these reporting requirements, stating: “The
			 executive branch shall construe the provisions of H.R. 3199 that call for
			 furnishing information to entities outside the executive branch, such as
			 sections 106A and 119, in a manner consistent with the President's
			 constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to
			 withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations,
			 national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the
			 performance of the Executive's constitutional duties.”.
				(7)On December 20,
			 2006, President George W. Bush signed the Postal Accountability and Enhancement
			 Act, which protects certain classes of sealed domestic mail from being opened
			 except in specifically defined circumstances.
				(8)President George
			 W. Bush issued a signing statement to such Act that suggested he believed he
			 did not have to comply with this provision, stating: “The executive branch
			 shall construe subsection 404(c) of title 39, as enacted by subsection 1010(e)
			 of the Act, which provides for opening of an item of a class of mail otherwise
			 sealed against inspection, in a manner consistent, to the maximum extent
			 permissible, with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances, such
			 as to protect human life and safety against hazardous materials, and the need
			 for physical searches specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence
			 collection.”
				(9)The American Bar
			 Association Task Force on Presidential Signing Statements and the Separation of
			 Powers Doctrine concluded that President George W. Bush’s misuse of signing
			 statements weaken[s] our cherished system of checks and balances and
			 separation of powers.
				2.Censure by the
			 House of RepresentativesThe
			 House of Representatives censures George W. Bush, President of the United
			 States, and Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States, and
			 condemns their lengthy record of—
			(1)undermining the
			 rule of law and the separation of powers;
			(2)disregarding
			 statutes, treaties ratified by the United States, and the Constitution;
			 and
			(3)repeatedly
			 misleading the American people.


115 HRES 1094 IH: Commemorating the 100th anniversary of the Armistice Agreement, the 100th anniversary of the return of the Unknown Soldier, and the 100th anniversary of the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.
U.S. House of Representatives
2018-09-27
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.

IV115th CONGRESS2d SessionH. RES. 1094IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESSeptember 27, 2018Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania (for himself, Mr. Gallego, and Mr. Young of Alaska) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Armed ServicesRESOLUTIONCommemorating the 100th anniversary of the Armistice Agreement, the 100th anniversary of the return
			 of the Unknown Soldier, and the 100th anniversary of the Tomb of the
			 Unknown Soldier.

 Whereas, on April 2, 1917, President Thomas Woodrow Wilson asked Congress to convene an extraordinary session to officially declare war on the Imperial German Government;
 Whereas, on April 4, 1917, the Senate passed a joint resolution that declared a formal state of war between the United States and the Imperial German Government;
 Whereas, on April 6, 1917, the House of Representatives adopted the same joint resolution that the Senate had passed, thereby marking the official entry of the United States into World War I;
 Whereas more than four million American men and women served in uniform during World War I; Whereas 116,516 Americans died from combat and disease and another 200,000 were wounded;
 Whereas the Armistice Agreement to end World War I was signed in Paris, France, on November 11, 1918, at 11 a.m.;
 Whereas, on March 4, 1921, Congress approved the burial of an unidentified American soldier from World War I in the plaza of the new Memorial Amphitheater at Arlington National Cemetery;
 Whereas, on Memorial Day 1921, four unknown soldiers were exhumed from four World War I American cemeteries in France and United States Army Sergeant Edward F. Younger, who was wounded in combat, highly decorated for valor, and received the Distinguished Service Medal in The Great War, the war to end all wars, selected the Unknown Soldier of World War I from four identical caskets at the city hall in Chalons-sur-Marne, France, on October 24, 1921, by placing a spray of white roses on the third casket from the left;
 Whereas, on October 25, 1921, the casket bearing the unknown soldier was placed on the USS Olympia for transport back to the United States and the French Minister of Pensions presented the Ordre National de la Légion d’Honneur, that country’s highest military award, to the Unknown Soldier;
 Whereas the USS Olympia reached the mouth of the Potomac on November 7, 1921, and on November 9, 1921, joined by the USS North Dakota (BB–29) and the USS Bernadou (DD–153), she stood up the channel to the Nation’s Capital, exchanging salutes from Fort Washington and Mount Vernon during her passage;
 Whereas the USS Olympia moored at the Washington Navy Yard on November 9, 1921, and was welcomed by District of Columbia Brigadier General Harry H. Bandholtz, USA, who commanded the Military District of Washington, and who led a welcoming entourage that included Secretary of War John W. Weeks, Secretary of the Navy Edwin Denby, General of the Armies John J. Pershing, USA, Admiral Robert E. Coontz, CNO, and Major General John A. Lejeune, USMC, Commandant of the Marine Corps;
 Whereas the USS Olympia fired a 21-gun salute, buglers on board sounded attention, and the boatswain piped the Unknown Soldier over the side, the ship’s band playing the Funeral March, followed by the national anthem;
 Whereas the 3rd Cavalry Regiment’s band played Onward Christian Soldiers as the procession, escorted by cavalry troopers, made its way toward additional ceremonies, culminating in interring the Unknown Soldier in Arlington National Cemetery on November 11, 1921; and
 Whereas, since 1921, soldiers from 3rd United States Infantry Regiment headquartered at Fort Myer, Virginia, have stood guard at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier: Now therefore, be it

 That the House of Representatives— (1)recognizes the 100th anniversary of the signing of the Armistice Treaty;
 (2)expresses gratitude and appreciation to the members of the Armed Forces who participated in World War I operations;
 (3)honors the memory of the fallen heroes who wore the uniforms of the Armed Forces during World War I;
 (4)commends the crew of the USS Olympia for their role in transporting the unknown soldier home to the United States;
 (5)commends the soldiers from the 3rd United States Infantry Regiment for standing guard at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier every day for 100 years, regardless of weather conditions be they rain, sleet, or snow; and
 (6)calls upon all people of the United States to join in the centennial of World War I in events throughout the United States and overseas.