Possible Success[or] to No Child Left Behind?

A potential successor to the No Child Left Behind Act, the Student Success Act (H.R. 5) will be on the House floor the next couple days. While it may have Republication support, the While House has already released a statement noting that Mr. Obama will likely veto the legislation if presented with it. 

The White House stance is as follows:  

The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 5, the Student Success Act. The Administration believes that the Congress must act to reform the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), to support State efforts to adopt and implement State-developed standards that ensure every student graduates from high school prepared for college and a career; create a fairer, flexible, and focused accountability system; support effective teachers and leaders; and promote innovation in our public education system. These principles are reflected in the flexibility that the Administration has offered to States with respect to the Federally-mandated, one-size-fits-all standards of NCLB. States' overwhelming participation in ESEA flexibility indicates that they already are committed to moving toward this vision of comprehensive reform.

Instead, H.R. 5 would represent a significant step backwards in the effort to help our Nation's children and their families prepare for their futures. Among other things, the bill would not support State efforts to hold students to standards that will prepare them for college and careers; would not support our international economic competitiveness; would virtually eliminate accountability for the growth and achievement of historically underserved populations; would fail to support meaningful improvement and reforms at the Nation's lowest-performing schools; would eliminate maintenance-of-effort requirements, which could reduce overall investment in public education; and would not reauthorize key Administration priorities, including effective initiatives like Race to the Top, Investing in Innovation, and Promise Neighborhoods.

OR Lawmaker Wants Names on Bills, Amendments

Oregon State Senator Alan Olsen has proposed a bill for the past three years ('11, '12, '13) that would put the names of lawmakers on proposal bills and amendments in the state legislature. Each time the bill has failed, but he plans on introducing the same bill in 2014. 

Olsen told the Oregonian: 

"It's called transparency," he said. "Bottom line: If you're willing to write an amendment, you should be willing to put your name on it." 

The article further notes that:  

Lawmakers and regular Oregonians interested in tracking an issue face a common conundrum: Who exactly introduced a bill and the amendments? 

It can be difficult, if not impossible, to discover which lawmaker was behind a despised or beloved bill when the sponsor is listed as a committee instead of a lawmaker. Amendments, which can be used to change legislation wholesale, do not list lawmakers' names either. 

The lack of transparency makes it difficult for voters to learn more about proposed legislation and to track the performance of lawmakers, some legislators and political observers say. The process can even result in a lawmaker being listed as the sponsor of a bill he or she does not support. 

Others say the anonymity afforded by committee-sponsored bills allows lawmakers to focus on policies rather than politics or personalities.

"Living Wage" Bill Passes D.C. Council

Despite major opposition by Wal-Mart, the D.C. City Council today passed (8-5) the Larger Retailer Accountability Act, which is widely known throughout the press as the "Living Wage" Bill. According to the Washington Post, the measure "require[s] outlets of some major retailers to pay a 'living wage' of no less than $12.50 an hour, significantly more than the D.C. minimum wage of $8.25. The legislation has long been seen as targeting Wal-Mart and other big-box retailers."

D.C. Mayor Vincent C. Gray still must approve the measure, and the law also has to pass a Congressional review period.  

Protecting the Phrase "GI Bill"

Senator Barbara Boxer has introduced the GI Bill Protection Act of 2013, which according to the press release would "permanently prohibit the inappropriate and misleading use of the phrase 'GI Bill' in the marketing materials of for-profit colleges or universities."

As the Delaware Online explains: 

[S]ome for-profit schools and advertisers not affiliated with the government have used the phrase to create the false impression that they are endorsed by the government. Typically, the groups create websites with military-sounding names, claiming to offer unbiased advice on GI Bill benefits. The sites, however, are just a ruse to lure students to those schools.

A partial press release is located after the jump. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Boxer, Colleagues Introduce Bill to Permanently Protect the Phrase "GI Bill" from Abuse  

Legislation Would Ban Deceptive Marketing and Predatory Recruiting by For-Profit Schools Targeting Veterans

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), co-chair of the Senate Military Family Caucus, joined Senators Tom Harkin (D-IA), Al Franken (D-MN), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Kay Hagan (D-NC), Mark Begich (D-AK), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Tom Carper (D-DE), Ben Cardin (D-MD) and Brian Schatz (D-HI) today to introduce the GI Bill Protection Act of 2013, legislation that would permanently prohibit the inappropriate and misleading use of the phrase “GI Bill” in the marketing materials of for-profit colleges or universities.

“Congress must take action to end—once and for all—the predatory practices that for-profit schools use to target our veterans,” Senator Boxer said. “The brave men and women who have served our country deserve to have the most accurate, comprehensive information about their education benefits so they can make informed decisions about their futures.”

Senator Boxer has been a leader in the effort to combat the problem of misleading advertisements and marketing practices aimed at veterans. In March 2012, she led a group of 14 Senators in asking Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Secretary Eric Shinseki to file a trademark application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for the phrase “GI Bill.” Last December, the VA announced that the phrase “GI Bill” is now a registered trademark under the sole ownership of the VA.

However, trademark protection is not permanently guaranteed and the VA must actively police the trademark and pursue those who are infringing on its trademark rights or the protection could expire. The GI Bill Protection Act of 2013 would ensure that this protection remains in place permanently under the law. Congress has taken similar action to permanently protect phrases such as “American Veterans,” and the names of federal benefit programs like “Medicare” and “Social Security” in order to prevent their misuse. ...

New Birth Certificates for Some DC Residents

The DC Council has approved the JaParker Deoni Jones Birth Certificate Equality Amendment Act of 2013, which allows transgender and intersex individuals to obtain new birth certificates with their correct gender. As noted in the Metro Weekly: 

The JaParker Deoni Jones Birth Certificate Equality Amendment Act of 2013, named after transgender woman Deoni Jones, who was killed while waiting at a Northeast D.C. bus stop last year, seeks to modernize the District's laws to make it easier for transgender individuals to request new birth certificates reflecting their correct personal information. The bill was introduced by Council member David Catania (I-At large) and shepherded through the Committee on Health and the Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety by Council Chairman Yvette Alexander (D-Ward 7) and Tommy Wells (D-Ward 6), respectively.

The bill requires those seeking to obtain a new birth certificate to submit a written and signed request from the person in question and a signed statement from a licensed health care professional attesting that the applicant has received treatment appropriate for a gender transition. The bill also eliminates a requirement that individuals publish their names and gender change in a general publication newspaper for three consecutive weeks.

Honoring Aaron Swartz

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D., CA) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D., OR) introduced Aaron's Law Act of 2013, in honor of Aaron Swartz. Lofgren and Wyden contend that the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which the bill would amend, is too vague and could potentially criminalize innocent internet activity.  At the time of his death the software developer/internet activist was under investigation by the Justice Department for his downloading of academic articles from the database JSTOR. 

Partial press release below the jump. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rep Zoe Lofgren Introduces Bipartisan Aaron's Law

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), along with Reps. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), Mike Doyle (R-PA), Yvette Clarke (D-NY) and Jared Polis (D-CO), have introduced H.R. 2454, the Aaron's Law Act of 2013. Named in honor of the late Internet innovator and activist Aaron Swartz, the bipartisan legislation would reform the quarter-century old Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) to work for the digital age. Swartz's passing in January spotlighted serious problems with the vague wording of the CFAA. Among those concerns is how the law treats violations of terms of service, employer agreements, or website notices.

"Reform of the CFAA is necessary," Rep. Lofgren said. "I hope this bipartisan bill will lead to the reforms that are needed for the good of the country."

Aaron's Law refocuses the CFAA away from common computer and Internet activity and back towards targeting damaging hacks, as originally intended. By establishing a clear line that is needed in the law, it distinguishes the difference between common online activities and harmful attacks. Specifically the legislation:

• Establishes that mere breach of terms of service, employment agreements, or contracts are not automatic violations of the CFAA. By using legislative language based closely on recent important 9th and 4th Circuit Court opinions, the bill would instead define 'access without authorization' under the CFAA as gaining unauthorized access to information by circumventing technological or physical controls – such as password requirements, encryption, or locked office doors. Hack attacks such as phishing, injection of malware or keystroke loggers, denial-of-service attacks, and viruses would continue to be fully prosecutable under strong CFAA provisions this bill does not modify.
• Brings balance back to the CFAA by eliminating a redundant provision that enables an individual to be punished multiple times through duplicate charges for the same solitary violation. Eliminating the redundant provision streamlines the law, but would not create a gap in protection against hackers.
• Brings greater proportionality to CFAA penalties. Currently, the CFAA's penalties are tiered, and prosecutors have wide discretion to ratchet up the severity of the penalties in several circumstances, leaving little room for non-felony charges under CFAA (i.e., charges with penalties carrying less than a year in prison). The bill ensures prosecutors cannot seek to inflate sentences by stacking multiple charges under the CFAA, including state law equivalents or non-criminal violations of the law.

Cornyn Borrows DeMint's "A-Plus" Acronym

Sen. John Cornyn (R., TX) has introduced the A-PLUS (Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success) Act of 2013, which according to his press release, would "reduce the administrative and compliance burdens on state and local education agencies, and ensure greater public transparency for the use of federal education funds and student achievement." The measure is ultimately a way for states to opt-out of the burdensome No Child Left Behind Act, which has become increasingly mocked by both Republicans and Democrats. In fact, our sister site, misleadinglaws.com, yesterday wrote about two potential acts from the House and Senate that could replace NCLB. 

The A-PLUS designation by Sen. Cornyn is not as innovative as it looks, however. Former South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint used the acronym for legislation in the 110th, 111th, and 112th Congresses, but his bills never got out of committee.  

LIBERT-E and Justice for All

In response to recent revelations regarding the extent of NSA surveillance, Rep. John Conyers (D., MI) and Rep. Justin Amash (R., MI) have introduced the LIBERT-E (Limiting Internet and Blanket Electronic Review of Telecommunications and Email) Act. According to a press release by Rep. Amash, the bill "restricts the federal government’s ability under the Patriot Act to collect information on Americans who are not connected to an ongoing investigation. The bill also requires that secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court opinions be made available to Congress and summaries of the opinions be made available to the public."

The measure currently has 32 co-sponsors consisting of both Republicans and Democrats. Partial press release included below. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SNA Surveillance: Amash, Conyers Introduce Major Bill

Bipartisan Coalition of 34 Members of Congress Propose LIBERT-E Act

Jun 18, 2013 Issues: Defense and National Security

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                      

June 18, 2013     

                                                                     

CONTACT

Will Adams

202.225.3849

will.adams@mail.house.gov

 

NSA Surveillance: Amash, Conyers Introduce Major Bill 

Bipartisan Coalition of 34 Members of Congress Propose LIBERT-E Act

 

Washington, D.C. – Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI), Chairman of the House Liberty Caucus, and Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), the Ranking Member on the House Judiciary Committee, announced the introduction of bipartisan legislation to address National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance.

 

H.R. 2399, the Limiting Internet and Blanket Electronic Review of Telecommunications and Email Act (LIBERT-E Act), restricts the federal government’s ability under the Patriot Act to collect information on Americans who are not connected to an ongoing investigation. The bill also requires that secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court opinions be made available to Congress and summaries of the opinions be made available to the public.

 

A coalition of 32 Members of Congress joined Conyers and Amash in introducing the bill late Monday. After introduction, Conyers and Amash issued the following statement:

 

“The recent NSA leaks indicate that the federal government collects phone records and intercepts electronic communications on a scale previously unknown to most Americans.

 

“The LIBERT-E Act imposes reasonable limits on the federal government’s surveillance. The bill puts some teeth into the FISA court’s determination of whether records the government wants are actually relevant to an investigation. It also makes sure that innocent Americans’ information isn’t needlessly swept up into a government database. LIBERT-E prohibits the type of government dragnet that the leaked Verizon order revealed. ...

Derailing Immigration Bill Through "Secur[ing] the Vote"

Just hours after the Supreme Court struck down an Arizona law that required voters to prove their citizenship in lieu of federal forms, Senator Ted Cruz (R., TX) and Rand Paul (R., KY) promised to tack an amendment to the immigration bill currently traveling through the Senate. Given that it's such a controversial and difficult issue to address on both sides, any change to the measure at this point could be fatal. Late in the day, Sen. Paul announced his "Secure the Vote" amendment, which provides more checks that individuals are citizens before they are allowed to vote. The amendment has the potential to derail the legislation if accepted into the bill.

Update: Senator Cruz has now filed an amendment with Senator Vitter (R., LA) attempting to negate the preemption doctrine that national laws have precedence over state laws in terms of voting registration. 

Abortion Back in the Limelight

Rep. Trent Franks (R., AZ) has introduced the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which would prohibit "abortion[s] from being performed if the probable post-fertilization age of the unborn child is 20 weeks or greater." The measure was recently approved by the House Judiciary Committee (20-12), and will now be considered by the entire House. The theory of whether or not fetuses of 20 weeks can actually feel pain is disputed. Democrats have also criticized the measure for not having an exception for rape victims.   

Mr. Franks introduced similar legislation in the 112th Congress that failed the House. 

An Amendment Seeking RESULTS

Sen. John Cornyn (R., TX) recently introduced an amendment to the Senate immigration bill, S.744, called the RESULTS (Requiring Enforcement, Security and safety, & Upgrading Legitimate Trade and travel Simultaneously) Amendment. Essentially, it is an attempt to make the Senate legislation, currently titled the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, more appealing to Republicans. In addition to the RESULTS acronym, the four point plan is littered with evocative language: 100% Situational Awareness, Full Operational Control, Biometric Exit System, and Nationwide E-Verify System. Mr. Cornyn even took to the Dallas Morning News to introduce his Amendment and state why the current legislation is bad for the nation and especially Texas, noting, "the bill would actually make it harder for us to prevent visa overstays, even though such overstays account for nearly half of all illegal immigrants living in the United States. It would also allow violent criminals to gain immediate legal status; it would prevent law enforcement from sharing information; and it would do absolutely nothing to bolster infrastructure and personnel at U.S. ports of entry along the southern border."