Taxpayers Right-to-Know what?

Rep. James Lankford (R., OK) has introduced H.R. 1423, the Taxpayers Right-To-Know Act, whose long title states that it would "provide taxpayers with an annual report disclosing the cost and performance of Government programs and areas of duplication among them, and for other purposes." The official Congress.gov summary notes that it (among other things): 

Requires the head of each federal agency, on an annual basis, to: (1) identify and describe every program administered by such agency; (2) determine the total administrative costs and expenditures for services for each program; (3) estimate the number of clients served by each program and the beneficiaries who received assistance under each program; (4) estimate the number of full-time federal and contract employees who administer each program; and (5) identify federal programs with duplicative or overlapping missions, services, and allowable uses of funds.

This bill has recently been reported out of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and has been placed on the House calendar.  

A Regulatory Amber ALERT

Rep. George Holding (R., NC) has introduced H.R. 2804, the All Economic Regulations are Transparent Act (ALERT) of 2013. The measure is basically a regulatory amber alert system. According to the official summary of the law, it (among other things): 

Requires the head of each federal agency to submit a monthly report to the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each rule which such agency expects to propose or finalize during the upcoming year. Sets forth the required content of such report, including: (1) a summary of the nature of the rule, (2) the objectives of and legal basis for the issuance of the rule, (3) the stage of the rule making as of the date of submission, (4) whether the rule is subject to periodic review as a rule with a significant economic impact, (5) an approximate schedule for completing action on the rule, and (6) an estimate of its cost. Requires the Administrator to post reports on the Internet.

Today in an official statement the White House came out against the measure, noting: 

The bill would impose unneeded and costly analytical and procedural requirements on agencies that would prevent them from performing their statutory responsibilities.  It would also create needless regulatory and legal uncertainty, increase costs for businesses and State, local and tribal governments, and impede common-sense protections for the American public.

Note: there appears to be some confusion as to what the actual name of the H.R. 2804 actually is. The White House notes that the acronym stands for Achieving Less Excess in Regulation and Requiring Transparency (ALERRT), while Congress.gov, THOMAS, the House Rules Committee, and the official press release by Rep. Holding state the title is: All Economic Regulations are Transparent Act (ALERT) of 2013. I have seen nothing besides the White House press release to suggest otherwise. 

Defending Marriage...Again

Today Senators Ted Cruz (R., TX) and Mike Lee (R., UT) introduced S. 2024, the State Marriage Defense Act. According to the press release the bill "respects the definition of marriage held by the people of each state and protects states from the federal government’s efforts to force any other definition upon them. The bill will ensure the federal government gives the same deference to the 33 states that define marriage as the union between one man and one woman as it does to the 17 states that have chosen to recognize same-sex unions." 

The measure is similar to one introduced last month by Rep. Randy Weber (R., TX), also called the State Marriage Defense Act. 

It's unclear why lawmakers would use the word "defense" in their titles, given that that particular word was used by the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Windsor to demonstrate evidence of moral disapproval. Thus, if lawmakers continue with these bills, they may want to think about changing the names...in case they ever reach the Supreme Court. 

Just want to BROWSE?

While "browsing" (sorry, couldn't resist) Rep. Sean Duffy's website for information on a previous post, I noticed he recently introduced the BROWSE Act, or the Before Registering for Obamacare, Window Shop Exchanges Act of 2014. The bill would allow potential customers on heathcare.gov to browse the website and the plans before putting in their personal information. Currently, visitors must first put in their personal information and are then allowed to peruse potential health care options. 

It appears that Rep. Duffy is putting a bit more effort into the naming of his legislation. While the the BROWSE Act certainly resonates, hopefully nobody actually refers to the bill by it's spelled-out short title, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense and appears to be hastily thrown together. These are the types of acronyms discussed in my forthcoming essay in the Stanford Law & Policy Review Online. 

Financial Freedom and Washington Accountability...you don't say!

Rep. Sean Duffy (R., WI) recently introduced H.R. 3193, the Consumer Financial Freedom and Washington Accountability Act, which seeks to increase review of any regulation passed by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The Obama Administration today provided a strong statement against the measure, saying that it would "undermine critical Wall Street reforms and weaken important consumer protections, potentially exposing the Nation's economy to systemic risks similar to those that led to the 2008 financial crisis."

Of note: it appears that the name of the measure was recently changed. When introduced the measure was known as the Consumer Financial Protection Safety and Soundness Improvement Act of 2013. This is still the way that it's represented on many official sites, such as Congress.gov. However, a Feb. 4 copy of the bill and a recently CBO memo note the new name of the bill. A name change such as this is very common in Congress, and especially as bills are traveling through the legislative process and looking to gain some traction. 

Time to SHARE?

Rep. Latta's (R., OH) Sportsmen's Heritage and Recreational Enhancement (SHARE) Act of 2013 is set to be debated by the House. Essentially the measure enhances hunting, fishing and shooting opportunities on federal lands, but also takes particular powers away from federal authorities in the process. 

The Obama Administration has noted they support passing sportsman and recreation legislation, but are opposed to the bill as it's currently written, stating that: 

While the Administration strongly supports the goal of promoting recreational fishing, hunting, and shooting opportunities, and recognizes the economic and community benefits associated with hunting and fishing, it opposes this bill.  These important recreational opportunities abound on public lands and are valued by millions of Americans who hunt and fish on public lands, forests, parks, and refuges.  Accordingly, the Administration supports certain titles of H.R. 3590, but opposes others which include harmful provisions that impair Federal management of federally-owned lands and undermine important existing public land and environmental laws, rules, and processes. 

The full Administration statement can be found here.  

OK Piers Morgan Act

Oklahoma State Senator Nathan Dahm (R.) has introduced what is known as the Piers Morgan Act, or the Piers Morgan Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Without Infringement Act (also known, as Senate Bill 1473). Apparently Senator Dahm believes that gun control advocate Mr. Morgan is so despised in OK that naming the bill after him may in fact lead to its passage. 

According to the Washington Times, the bill would "allow adult citizens to openly carry without a license." In fact, during a press release, the Senator noted: 

"The Second Amendment says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and yet when we require our citizens to jump through hoops, pay fees and undergo a process that presumes they're guilty of something until proven otherwise, their rights are being infringed upon ... Senate Bill 1473 simply says Oklahomans can carry firearms in all the places currently allowed by law, but they will no longer be required to obtain a license to do so."

RE-DO Act

In June of 2013 Rep. Gardner (R., CO) introduced the H.R.2279 - Reducing Excessive Deadline Obligations Act of 2013, or the REDO Act. The House is now debating the measure and will vote on it in the coming days. According to a press release on the legislation, the bill does the following: 

Under the Solid Waste Disposal Act (RCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) there are two unnecessary deadlines that would be eliminated by Gardner’s bill, H.R. 2279. The bill also allows the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to review and revise Solid Waste Disposal Act regulations as appropriate instead of every three years as current law requires. The EPA will also be prohibited from imposing overlapping regulations on states where sufficient levels of protection for solid waste disposal already exist.  

The Obama Administration, however, opposes the legislation, and has threatened a veto. They note that: 

H.R. 2279 would unnecessarily increase the potential for litigation between the Federal government and the States, negatively impacting the timeliness and number of cleanups. Specifically, the bill would expand the waiver of sovereign immunity to all current or former Federal facilities as well as those listed on the National Priorities List, and would require Federal agencies to comply with State-imposed remediation requirements irrespective of land use plans, site ownership, or national funding prioritizations. It also would allow a State to seek injunctive relief, civil penalties, and the imposition of sanctions for "enforcement of any injunctive relief" against the United States. The Administration already works closely with the States to ensure that remedial goals for the protection of public health are met and that the States' preferences and requirements are taken into account.

SAVE[ing] the Military?

Rep. Andy Bar (R., KY) has introduced the Military SAVE (Sexual Assault Victims Empowerment) Act, which would amend titles 10 and 38 of the United States Code "improve the treatment of members of the Armed Forces and veterans who are victims of military sexual assault."

Sexual assaults in the military have surged within the past year: one AP report noted a 50% increase over the past year. While President Obama recently singed the National Defense Authorization Act, which encourages victims to report sexual assault, the law did not "include a provision that would have stripped commanders of the power to oversee the prosecutions."

FAMILY Matters

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D., NY) and Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D., CT) have introduced the FAMILY (Family and Medical Insurance Leave) Act. According to a press release, the law "would establish a national paid family and medical leave insurance program, ensuring that American workers would no longer have to choose between a paycheck and caring for themselves or a family member."

(Interesting note: although the acronym spells FAMILY, there does not appear to be a "Y" included in the bill's short title.) 

Partial press release below the jump. 

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

FAMILY Act Would Establish National Paid Family and Medical Leave

December 12, 2013

Washington, DC – U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Congresswomen Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) today introduced new legislation that would create paid family and medical leave. The Family and Medical Insurance Leave (FAMILY) Act would establish a national paid family and medical leave insurance program, ensuring that American workers would no longer have to choose between a paycheck and caring for themselves or a family member. They will be joined by business leaders and advocates, who will talk about why the bill makes sense for businesses, as well as employees.

“When a young parent needs time to care for a newborn child – it should never come down to an outdated policy that lets her boss decide how long it will take – and decide the fate of her career and her future along with it. When any one of us – man or woman – needs time to care for a dying parent – we should not have to sacrifice our job and risk our future to do the right thing for our family. Choosing between your loved ones and your career and your future is a choice no one should have to make,” saidSenator Gillibrand.

“In 1986, when I was Chief of Staff to Senator Chris Dodd, I was diagnosed with ovarian cancer,” saidCongresswoman DeLauro. “My doctors caught it early, but I still needed time for radiation treatment, recuperation and recovery. Senator Dodd told me to focus on getting well, and to take the time I needed. I could get better without worrying if I was out of a job or paycheck. All workers should have this opportunity when they need it. No one should have to choose between their job and taking care of themself and their family. With the FAMILY Act, they would not have to.” ...

416D65726963612043616E20436F646520! Act of 2013

Yes, the title of this post is actually the name of a congressional bill. Rep. Tony Cardenas (D., CA) introduced the 416D65726963612043616E20436F646520! Act of 2013, which is also known as the America Can Code Act of 2013. In his press release, Cardenas notes that:

“The very name of this law demonstrates that programming is simply another language,” said Cárdenas. “Learning and communicating in a foreign language can have a tremendous impact on a student, both culturally and educationally. Computer programming creates a similar impact, while also providing a critical skill in today’s global economy.”

It will be interesting to see which name the press uses. So far, it looks as if they're using both. 

The full press release is below the jump. 

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

CÁRDENAS: “416D65726963612043616E20436F646520!”

Dec 12, 2013 

Press Release

Today, U.S. Rep. Tony Cárdenas (D-San Fernando Valley) introduced the 416d65726963612043616e20436f646520 Act of 2013, also known as the America Can Code Act. This legislation would designate computer programming languages as “critical foreign languages” and provide incentives for state and local schools to teach more computer science beginning as early as Kindergarten.

Thursday, December 12, 2013

CÁRDENAS: “416d65726963612043616e20436f646520!”

(Washington, DC) -- Today, U.S. Rep. Tony Cárdenas (D-San Fernando Valley) introduced the 416d65726963612043616e20436f646520 Act of 2013, also known as the America Can Code Act. This legislation would designate computer programming languages as “critical foreign languages” and provide incentives for state and local schools to teach more computer science beginning as early as Kindergarten.

The official short title of the name is believed to be unique among Congressional legislation. “416d65726963612043616e20436f646520” is the hexadecimal code translation of “America Can Code.”

“The very name of this law demonstrates that programming is simply another language,” said Cárdenas. “Learning and communicating in a foreign language can have a tremendous impact on a student, both culturally and educationally. Computer programming creates a similar impact, while also providing a critical skill in today’s global economy.”

Cárdenas was joined in introducing the bill by original co-sponsor Rep. Mike Honda, also of California.

Cárdenas introduced the America Can Code Act after noting that the growth of computer programming jobs at nearly twice the national average rate. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the median annual wage in 2010 for computer programmers was $71,380, while the median annual wage for all workers was $33,840.

By 2020, there will be an estimated 1.4 million computer programming jobs, with only 400,000 American computer science students to fill those jobs. Nine out of 10 schools in the United States do not even offer computer programming classes and in 36 states, computer coding classes do not count towards high school STEM graduation requirements.

“American students should continue to receive the understanding of other cultures that foreign language learning creates, but we should also be preparing American kids to compete in the world marketplace,” continued Cárdenas. “Millions of jobs are being created in America, and all over the globe, requiring some level of coding knowledge. Let’s get American kids ready to compete for American jobs.”

Along with redefining computer programming as a critical foreign language, the 416d65726963612043616e20436f646520 Act would create a competitive matching grant program for schools, particularly those in low-income areas, to create new ways to teach computer science and engineering, in tandem with universities and non-profits.

Click HERE to read the text of the 416d65726963612043616e20436f646520 Act of 2013.

Click HERE to read a section-by-section explanation of the 416d65726963612043616e20436f646520 Act of 2013 legislation.