If there is one thing that Democrats and Republicans agree upon at this moment is that steps must be taken to get the American economy back on track. The finance committee discussed and revised the Small Business and Credit Act today in order to pass a bill that could possibly be one of many steps to revitalize the economy. This bill focused specifically on banks’ lending to small businesses that they can trust. As it appeared today, both the Democrats and Republicans agreed that they want to pass this bill but their main objective was to revise and take out parts of this bill that they saw need fit in order for this bill to be the most effective if it were to be signed by the president. They also said that this bill would have priority over the previous bills they have discussed and sent to the floor for debate.
Monday, August 9, 2010
Article over the Committee on Environment and Public Works; By: Will Merritt and Travis Russell
Over the course of two days, the Committee on Environment and Public works came to a decision about what their course of action will be. They decided that all of the bills except the Green Infrastructure for Clean Water Act of 2010 were not passable. This act calls institutions that will conduct research on green infrastructure that is relevant to the geographical region in which the center is located, develop manuals and establish industry standards on best management practices, and provide information regarding research conducted to the national electronic clearinghouse center for publication. Other uses for this amendment will be the power for administrators to carry out this bill, to get money for these institutions, and shall established an Office of Water that will regulate actions of the green infrastructure program.
The committee had overall unanimous decisions for amending the bill. Most of the changes were shortening phrases and cutting out information that was either irrelevant or repetitive. The republicans, though, were not happy about the money that was needed for the bill. They thought that the 3 million dollars for single grants was too much. Ultimately they were turned down by a simple majority vote. Overall, the passing of the bill was very smooth for both parties.
H.E.L.P. committee hearing on August 9, 2010 by Kary Guthrie
Today, in the H.E.L.P. committee hearing, the bill, H.R. 2749 – Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009, underwent several amendments. One of the markups suggested by Senator Franken included the omission of section 122, which stated that the Secretary design and implement a national public education program on food safety. Senators questioned whether this section was beneficial to learn in school and what the proposed budget cost to implement this bill would be. The majority of the Senators concluded that food safety and education was self-evident and of little importance. For the past two hearings, the H.E.L.P. committee passed all three bills with amendments to only the Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009.
In regards to tonight’s floor session, Committee Chair, Tom Harkin, and Ranking member, Michael Enzi, is anticipating the Student Internet Safety Act of 2009 to pass through Congress. They remained hopeful, but not certain, to the passing of H.R. 780 and H.R. 2749.
Update on the Finance Committee; By Jackson Coon and Zane Butter
On Thursday August 5th the Finance committee met to debate a number of bills. They first brought up the Veteran’s Bill, which is basically supporting America’s veterans and providing them unemployment benefits and better credit. The bill expands the veterans who are applicable to ensure that all of them get accounted for. The republican from Arizona wanted psychological benefits and screenings for returning veterans to be mandatory but the majority of the committee felt it would be unconstitutional to do so. The committee felt that this could make veterans feel unsecure and make the situation worse. After reviewing the bill the committee voted for the bill to be floor ready and moved on to possibly the most important bill up for debate, the Small Business and Credit Act. This bill basically allows for Small Businesses who have the credit for loans to apply and receive benefits. The benefits are ensured to small businesses by a set of guidelines and procedures to restrict larger businesses from receiving the loans. The meeting concluding with the bill still up for voting and was to be continued at the next meeting.
Bingeman Takes a Cat Nap
As all members of committees and Congressmen know the process of passing legislation can be long and often sometimes quite boring. But when it comes to passing important legislation that has to do with reviving our struggling American economy, should we expect for our committee members to be awake and passionate about the passing of the Small Business and Credit Act? Yes we should but for Congressmen Bingeman, I guess he doesn’t feel the same way as he catches some Z’s during the committee meeting discussing the Small Business and Credit Act today.
Bileili Villegas interviews Senators Carl Levin and Scott Brown
Meetings ran smoothly Thursday, August 5th. Republicans were pushing to get progress done while democrats helped to break majority vote.
Interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfI1XmNLbJo
Update on the Environment and Public Works Committee; By: Travis Russell and Will Merritt
Environment and Public Works Committee meeting #1:
On Friday, this committee originally wanted to combine the Clean Estuaries Act of 2010 and Green Infrastructure for Clean Water Act of 2010 bills in order to appeal to more people on a broader base. After some discussion Barbara Boxer, chair of the committee, concluded that each bill should remain separate. The remainder of the meeting involved discussions amending the Clean Estuaries Bill and removing any repetitive information. Check later for updates on this committee's results..
To see these bills, refer to the following links:
- http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:H.R.4715:
- http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:S.3561
Monday, August 2, 2010
Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009; By: Jackson Coon
Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009
This bill is currently in committee and will be a great success if it is passed and turned into law. The Act is beneficial to all citizens and provides a sense of comfort to the consumer when they eat and assures them of a safe meal wherever they choose to eat. Food agencies do not have strict enough regulations on how their food is obtained, processed and transported and this act sets down those standards in order to have a safer and more consumer friendly food industry. It sets guidelines for all registered food manufacturers, industries and international businesses which will eventually create a safer food department in the United States.
The bill is thorough and direct with the regulations that the federal government wants on these food industries. For example: The bill requires any food facility to implement a food safety plan before any shipment of products, it also states that food facilities must be inspected on a risk-based schedule and requires the secretary to implement a food and safety program. These are just some of the many requirements and revisions that have been place in the bill. The bill is split into two Titles, Food Safety and Miscellaneous. Food Safety is split into three subtitles, Prevention, Intervention and Response. Prevention is mainly about the regulation of the facilities and preventing unsafe materials into these industries. Intervention prescribes a series of tasks that the secretary must do in order to improve sanitation of facilities and to get the message across about how serious food safety is to the success of a business. Response focuses on the penalties and punishments that will be given out if the food facilities do not abide by the restrictions set forth by this bill. Title two is primarily about the little details that the facilities must go by like how all industries must have their own label so that the industries who receive their product know that they got the right regulated food.
This bill is very in depth and specific but the regulations involved in it will have an immediate impact on the food industries. This will decrease the amount of diseases in our country and the food market will finally be trustworthy. If this bill doesn’t get passed then we as Americans have lost a great opportunity to take a stand against unregulated and unsafe food.
This bill is currently in committee and will be a great success if it is passed and turned into law. The Act is beneficial to all citizens and provides a sense of comfort to the consumer when they eat and assures them of a safe meal wherever they choose to eat. Food agencies do not have strict enough regulations on how their food is obtained, processed and transported and this act sets down those standards in order to have a safer and more consumer friendly food industry. It sets guidelines for all registered food manufacturers, industries and international businesses which will eventually create a safer food department in the United States.
The bill is thorough and direct with the regulations that the federal government wants on these food industries. For example: The bill requires any food facility to implement a food safety plan before any shipment of products, it also states that food facilities must be inspected on a risk-based schedule and requires the secretary to implement a food and safety program. These are just some of the many requirements and revisions that have been place in the bill. The bill is split into two Titles, Food Safety and Miscellaneous. Food Safety is split into three subtitles, Prevention, Intervention and Response. Prevention is mainly about the regulation of the facilities and preventing unsafe materials into these industries. Intervention prescribes a series of tasks that the secretary must do in order to improve sanitation of facilities and to get the message across about how serious food safety is to the success of a business. Response focuses on the penalties and punishments that will be given out if the food facilities do not abide by the restrictions set forth by this bill. Title two is primarily about the little details that the facilities must go by like how all industries must have their own label so that the industries who receive their product know that they got the right regulated food.
This bill is very in depth and specific but the regulations involved in it will have an immediate impact on the food industries. This will decrease the amount of diseases in our country and the food market will finally be trustworthy. If this bill doesn’t get passed then we as Americans have lost a great opportunity to take a stand against unregulated and unsafe food.
Dextromethorphan Distribution Act of 2009; By: Cesar Najera
Dextromethorphan Distribution Act of 2009
The Dextromethorphan Distribution Act of 2009 is a bill that was introduced the third day of March in 2009, it was primarily sponsored by Rep. Fred Upton and co-sponsored by Reps: (Bono Mack, Mary), (Gordon, Bart), (Ehlers, Vernon J.), and (Larsen, Rick). The Dextromethorphan Distribution act is also referred to as H.R. 1259. This act would prohibit anyone who is not a licensed pharmacist, a person who is authorized to work with pharmaceuticals in distribution or manufacture, and anyone else who is not authorized in any way by the Secretary of Health and Human Services from distributing unfinished dextromethorphan. Dextromethorphan is the active ingredients contained in many over the counter cough medicines the most common being Robitussin. The drug has become subject to being abused in recent years especially by teenagers and young adults. Unfinished dextromethorphan is dextromethorphan that is not already in a finished dosage form such as in powder form. Exclusions from the above prohibitions would be common carriers which are defined as being persons, who are involved in the transportation of the general population by means of aircraft, vessels, or vehicles from one place in the United States to another place in the United States. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated that to implement H.R. 1259 would cost about a million dollars during 2010 and about eleven million dollars from 2010-2014. To enact this bill could affect direct spending and revenues of the federal government however the estimate of the effects appears to not have any drastic significance. The government will also be collecting fines from those who have been convicted of having violated the bill. The fines collected would be recorded as revenues and then deposited in the Crime Victims Fund. The CBO does not expect to gain any significant sums from the fines because of the small number of cases that are likely to have anything to do with a violation of the bill. H.R. 1259 effect on the private sector would involve a verification process that would cause additional work for sellers but the cost would not be significant. The bill would not have any direct effects on local, state, and tribal government as there are no intergovernmental laws to be enacted along with this bill. As of the first of April in 2009 this bill has been read twice in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
The Dextromethorphan Distribution Act of 2009 is a bill that was introduced the third day of March in 2009, it was primarily sponsored by Rep. Fred Upton and co-sponsored by Reps: (Bono Mack, Mary), (Gordon, Bart), (Ehlers, Vernon J.), and (Larsen, Rick). The Dextromethorphan Distribution act is also referred to as H.R. 1259. This act would prohibit anyone who is not a licensed pharmacist, a person who is authorized to work with pharmaceuticals in distribution or manufacture, and anyone else who is not authorized in any way by the Secretary of Health and Human Services from distributing unfinished dextromethorphan. Dextromethorphan is the active ingredients contained in many over the counter cough medicines the most common being Robitussin. The drug has become subject to being abused in recent years especially by teenagers and young adults. Unfinished dextromethorphan is dextromethorphan that is not already in a finished dosage form such as in powder form. Exclusions from the above prohibitions would be common carriers which are defined as being persons, who are involved in the transportation of the general population by means of aircraft, vessels, or vehicles from one place in the United States to another place in the United States. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated that to implement H.R. 1259 would cost about a million dollars during 2010 and about eleven million dollars from 2010-2014. To enact this bill could affect direct spending and revenues of the federal government however the estimate of the effects appears to not have any drastic significance. The government will also be collecting fines from those who have been convicted of having violated the bill. The fines collected would be recorded as revenues and then deposited in the Crime Victims Fund. The CBO does not expect to gain any significant sums from the fines because of the small number of cases that are likely to have anything to do with a violation of the bill. H.R. 1259 effect on the private sector would involve a verification process that would cause additional work for sellers but the cost would not be significant. The bill would not have any direct effects on local, state, and tribal government as there are no intergovernmental laws to be enacted along with this bill. As of the first of April in 2009 this bill has been read twice in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Stationary Source Regulations Delay Act and Migratory Bird Treaty Act Penalty and Enforcement Act of 2009; By: Zane Butter
Migratory Bird Treaty Act Penalty and Enforcement Act of 2009
Introduced to the House on April 23, 2009, the MBTAPE Act of 2009 was created to establish the consequences of killing or wounding a migratory bird in an aggravated manner. This bill establishes the exact jail terms for wounding or killing a migratory bird and also defines the term “aggravated manner.” This act was referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources and the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife. This bill was also looked over by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Reported by Committee on November 18, 2009, this bill was then passed by the House on December 7 later that year. The last action that has been placed on this bill was on April 21, 2010 when the committee on Environment and Public Works ordered the bill to be reported without amendment favorably.
First introduced by Democrat Representative Peter Defazio along with eighteen other cosponsors, this bill has particular significance during the time of the oil spill and the affects this spill had on the environment down in the Gulf Coast. The new MBTAPE Act is an add on to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 as it explains the penalties for those intentionally and maliciously “take” any migratory bird in any way not allowed by the Act guilty of felony and subject to a fine of up to $50,000 and/or imprisonment for up to two years. By making these penalties harsher, this should be of great benefit to migratory birds such as the Bald Eagle, the Red-tailed Hawk, and the Ruby-throated Hummingbird and hundreds of other migratory birds.
Other than making harsher penalties for those who harm migratory birds, this bill would have no significant cost to the federal government which is a very big positive because of the government debt already. One of the main workers behind the scenes of this legislation was Portland Audubon after they had learned of the deliberate killing of thousands of birds of prey on the west coast by pigeon hobbyists. Overall, this legislation is significant because it should show drastic decreases in migratory bird deaths intentionally caused by humans as the penalties are much stricter now.
Stationary Source Regulations Delay Act
The SSRD Act was introduced to the House on March 4th and referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on the same day. Sponsored by Democrat representative Nick Rahall along with Democrat Representatives Rick Boucher, Alan Mollohan and Jay Rockefeller, this bill is an attempt to “To suspend, during the 2-year period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, any Environmental Protection Agency action under the Clean Air Act with respect to carbon dioxide or methane pursuant to certain proceedings, other than with respect to motor vehicle emissions, and for other purposes. Furthermore, the act is meant to put limits on the Clean Air Act with some exceptions.
The four sponsoring congressmen have come under fire because of the Obama administration’s aggressive actions to dominate in the surface coal mining industry and support cap and trade legislation before Congress. According to one article, Representative Boucher said: “EPA regulation of greenhouse gases would be the worst outcome for the coal industry and coal-related jobs.” Boucher went on to say that, “the measure I have introduced will prevent the EPA from acting to regulate greenhouse gas emissions for two years, providing Congress time to approve a thoughtful regulatory program.” Boucher believes that we must find a balance between the actions of EPA with the limits proposed in the SSRD Act. Boucher along with the other representatives realized that they cannot do away with the EPA as a whole but rather finding a balance between the wants of both sides is the best solution. Other supporters of this act include the United Mine Workers of America. President of the United Mine Workers of America, Cecil Roberts believes that the Clean Air Act is not suited to provide the right technology needed to advance carbon capture and storage that the USA will need to combat climate change.
Overall, this bill was created and introduced into the House as these four representatives along with many other supporters believed that limiting the EPA’s capabilities would be best for the environment and greenhouse effects as well as impact on the economy. However environmentalists are fighting to keep the EPA’s authority in place to manage greenhouse emissions and curing the global warning problems. But in the end, the less Congress does on energy and climate, the more important it will be that the Clean Air Act can be allowed to do its job and cut global warming pollution from the largest polluters.
Introduced to the House on April 23, 2009, the MBTAPE Act of 2009 was created to establish the consequences of killing or wounding a migratory bird in an aggravated manner. This bill establishes the exact jail terms for wounding or killing a migratory bird and also defines the term “aggravated manner.” This act was referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources and the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife. This bill was also looked over by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Reported by Committee on November 18, 2009, this bill was then passed by the House on December 7 later that year. The last action that has been placed on this bill was on April 21, 2010 when the committee on Environment and Public Works ordered the bill to be reported without amendment favorably.
First introduced by Democrat Representative Peter Defazio along with eighteen other cosponsors, this bill has particular significance during the time of the oil spill and the affects this spill had on the environment down in the Gulf Coast. The new MBTAPE Act is an add on to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 as it explains the penalties for those intentionally and maliciously “take” any migratory bird in any way not allowed by the Act guilty of felony and subject to a fine of up to $50,000 and/or imprisonment for up to two years. By making these penalties harsher, this should be of great benefit to migratory birds such as the Bald Eagle, the Red-tailed Hawk, and the Ruby-throated Hummingbird and hundreds of other migratory birds.
Other than making harsher penalties for those who harm migratory birds, this bill would have no significant cost to the federal government which is a very big positive because of the government debt already. One of the main workers behind the scenes of this legislation was Portland Audubon after they had learned of the deliberate killing of thousands of birds of prey on the west coast by pigeon hobbyists. Overall, this legislation is significant because it should show drastic decreases in migratory bird deaths intentionally caused by humans as the penalties are much stricter now.
Stationary Source Regulations Delay Act
The SSRD Act was introduced to the House on March 4th and referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on the same day. Sponsored by Democrat representative Nick Rahall along with Democrat Representatives Rick Boucher, Alan Mollohan and Jay Rockefeller, this bill is an attempt to “To suspend, during the 2-year period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, any Environmental Protection Agency action under the Clean Air Act with respect to carbon dioxide or methane pursuant to certain proceedings, other than with respect to motor vehicle emissions, and for other purposes. Furthermore, the act is meant to put limits on the Clean Air Act with some exceptions.
The four sponsoring congressmen have come under fire because of the Obama administration’s aggressive actions to dominate in the surface coal mining industry and support cap and trade legislation before Congress. According to one article, Representative Boucher said: “EPA regulation of greenhouse gases would be the worst outcome for the coal industry and coal-related jobs.” Boucher went on to say that, “the measure I have introduced will prevent the EPA from acting to regulate greenhouse gas emissions for two years, providing Congress time to approve a thoughtful regulatory program.” Boucher believes that we must find a balance between the actions of EPA with the limits proposed in the SSRD Act. Boucher along with the other representatives realized that they cannot do away with the EPA as a whole but rather finding a balance between the wants of both sides is the best solution. Other supporters of this act include the United Mine Workers of America. President of the United Mine Workers of America, Cecil Roberts believes that the Clean Air Act is not suited to provide the right technology needed to advance carbon capture and storage that the USA will need to combat climate change.
Overall, this bill was created and introduced into the House as these four representatives along with many other supporters believed that limiting the EPA’s capabilities would be best for the environment and greenhouse effects as well as impact on the economy. However environmentalists are fighting to keep the EPA’s authority in place to manage greenhouse emissions and curing the global warning problems. But in the end, the less Congress does on energy and climate, the more important it will be that the Clean Air Act can be allowed to do its job and cut global warming pollution from the largest polluters.
Clean Estuaries Act of 2010; By: Bileili Villegas
The clean estuaries act of 2010 is a bill that will amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act; also known as the Clean Water Act. This bill was sponsored by Rep. Bishop, Timothy.H of New York and was cosponsored by Rep. LoBiondo, Frank of New Jersey.
The clean Estuaries Act of 2010 will require the Estuary Management conferences to implement stricter standards for water use. These conferences are made up of local, state, federal, non-profit entities will be held in order to discuss actions that need to be taken in order maintain ecological health, climate change, and make sure that the subordinates are aware of these objectives and inform the public about ecological health.
The bill revises the current actions the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) is taking toward cleaner water and makes amendments to them, which includes an evaluation every four years to make sure the management is meeting the objectives set. They are required to raise awareness to the public through water conservation education, monitor corporate water use and waste dumping, and by coordinating different strategies with other government agencies to increase effectiveness.
The bill requires any agency that affects estuaries to follow these guidelines.
More information
Definition Estuary:the tidal mouth of a large river, where the tide meets the stream.
Cost: Under the current law, the budget is 35 million, If the legislation is passed it would increase the funding to 75 million a year (through 2011- 2015).
Estuaries and coastal areas are essential to our nation's economic prosperity. According to The Hamptons, “the Coastal counties account for 40 percent of the employment and 49 percent of the economic output for the nation.” (Hamptons). Along with providing employment Estuaries are also essential to beaches. According to The Hamptons, beaches produce between $6 and $30 billion for coastal communities each year. (Hamptons).
The clean Estuaries Act of 2010 will require the Estuary Management conferences to implement stricter standards for water use. These conferences are made up of local, state, federal, non-profit entities will be held in order to discuss actions that need to be taken in order maintain ecological health, climate change, and make sure that the subordinates are aware of these objectives and inform the public about ecological health.
The bill revises the current actions the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) is taking toward cleaner water and makes amendments to them, which includes an evaluation every four years to make sure the management is meeting the objectives set. They are required to raise awareness to the public through water conservation education, monitor corporate water use and waste dumping, and by coordinating different strategies with other government agencies to increase effectiveness.
The bill requires any agency that affects estuaries to follow these guidelines.
More information
Definition Estuary:the tidal mouth of a large river, where the tide meets the stream.
Cost: Under the current law, the budget is 35 million, If the legislation is passed it would increase the funding to 75 million a year (through 2011- 2015).
Estuaries and coastal areas are essential to our nation's economic prosperity. According to The Hamptons, “the Coastal counties account for 40 percent of the employment and 49 percent of the economic output for the nation.” (Hamptons). Along with providing employment Estuaries are also essential to beaches. According to The Hamptons, beaches produce between $6 and $30 billion for coastal communities each year. (Hamptons).
Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010; By: Kary Guthrie
Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010
The small business jobs and credit act of 2010, approved with the help of Rep. Nick Rahall, will allow the secretary of treasury to make capital investments in small firms. This will create jobs and increase availability of credit. This legislation aims to strengthen small businesses while offering tax incentives to those companies.
According to Rahall, “Small businesses are the engine of our economy, creating two-thirds of the new jobs over the last 15 years, yet they continue to face a lack of credit and tight lending standards.” This bill will work to guarantee that the small businesses will receive the credit that is necessary.
The act will establish a new $30 billion lending fund, which will leverage up to ten times as much additional private lending activity. There are safeguards built in to guarantee that funds go to the small businesses that will make certain of job creation. The act will also provide tax relief by decreasing capital gains taxes on the institution’s investments and increase tax deductions for entrepreneurs, starting their business. While the small businesses will receive revenue and capital investment, they will have a 10-year deadline to repay the amount back.
Legislation will require this program to extend to companies with an average size of 500 or fewer employees, but in no instance will the legislation extend to companies with more than 750 employees. It will also require credit support to target loans with an average amount of $5 million or less, but no more than $20 million.
This legislation will cost taxpayers $12 per American over the 2011-2015 period, but with this small increase, it will end up saving taxpayers $1 billion or more in assets over the next ten years,
On Thursday, June 15, the legislation passed in the U.S. House of Representatives by a roll call vote of 241 – 182. The legislation arrived in the Senate on June 18, which called for a second cloture motion on the bill that was withdrawn by unanimous consent. An amendment will be added to the bill that will change IRS rules about company provided cell phones. The bill will return to the Senate floor next week.
The small business jobs and credit act of 2010, approved with the help of Rep. Nick Rahall, will allow the secretary of treasury to make capital investments in small firms. This will create jobs and increase availability of credit. This legislation aims to strengthen small businesses while offering tax incentives to those companies.
According to Rahall, “Small businesses are the engine of our economy, creating two-thirds of the new jobs over the last 15 years, yet they continue to face a lack of credit and tight lending standards.” This bill will work to guarantee that the small businesses will receive the credit that is necessary.
The act will establish a new $30 billion lending fund, which will leverage up to ten times as much additional private lending activity. There are safeguards built in to guarantee that funds go to the small businesses that will make certain of job creation. The act will also provide tax relief by decreasing capital gains taxes on the institution’s investments and increase tax deductions for entrepreneurs, starting their business. While the small businesses will receive revenue and capital investment, they will have a 10-year deadline to repay the amount back.
Legislation will require this program to extend to companies with an average size of 500 or fewer employees, but in no instance will the legislation extend to companies with more than 750 employees. It will also require credit support to target loans with an average amount of $5 million or less, but no more than $20 million.
This legislation will cost taxpayers $12 per American over the 2011-2015 period, but with this small increase, it will end up saving taxpayers $1 billion or more in assets over the next ten years,
On Thursday, June 15, the legislation passed in the U.S. House of Representatives by a roll call vote of 241 – 182. The legislation arrived in the Senate on June 18, which called for a second cloture motion on the bill that was withdrawn by unanimous consent. An amendment will be added to the bill that will change IRS rules about company provided cell phones. The bill will return to the Senate floor next week.
Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010; By: Will Merritt
Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010
This act was approved in Congress in response to the Homeland Security Act of 2002. Amends needed to be made in order for the security of cyberspace information. Under this act that is sponsored by Senator Joseph Lieberman and co-sponsored by Senator Thomas Carper and Senator Susan Collins, the president must approve a Director of Cyberspace Policy. The act also establishes the National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications (NCCC), the United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT), and the National Cybersecurity Advisory Council. On a national level, this act is for the protection of information regarding cyberspace.
Most of the bill in general requires the NCCC director to authorize or approve of some legal action that is connected to cybersecurity. The director must also collaborate with the director of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on security detail. This ensures that on a national security level the cyberspace information will not be leaked to outside sources in any way. If there is a breach of national cybersecurity, the NCCC director has already established US-CERT and a Federal Information Task Force. These security forces will always be trained and ready to be enforced because the agency will hire an Inspector General that assesses the effectiveness of the security agencies. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the NCCC director will train the workers for these cybersecurity teams so that they can be ready for the federal government to assign cybersecurity missions. All of the protocols that are taken from the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010 are to ensure that the federal, military, and intelligence information are kept safe from criminal activities such as terrorism, foreign intelligence agencies, and unlawful programs.
This act also says that rights of the citizens will always be present. The NCCC director will uphold the civil liberties and privacy of U.S. citizens in any case. Whenever national information is stored in a cyberspace database, the NCCC director will advise and outline security measures for the safe keeping of the important information. The rights of the citizens will be preserved along with necessary measures for keeping national cyber information.
This act was approved in Congress in response to the Homeland Security Act of 2002. Amends needed to be made in order for the security of cyberspace information. Under this act that is sponsored by Senator Joseph Lieberman and co-sponsored by Senator Thomas Carper and Senator Susan Collins, the president must approve a Director of Cyberspace Policy. The act also establishes the National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications (NCCC), the United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT), and the National Cybersecurity Advisory Council. On a national level, this act is for the protection of information regarding cyberspace.
Most of the bill in general requires the NCCC director to authorize or approve of some legal action that is connected to cybersecurity. The director must also collaborate with the director of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on security detail. This ensures that on a national security level the cyberspace information will not be leaked to outside sources in any way. If there is a breach of national cybersecurity, the NCCC director has already established US-CERT and a Federal Information Task Force. These security forces will always be trained and ready to be enforced because the agency will hire an Inspector General that assesses the effectiveness of the security agencies. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the NCCC director will train the workers for these cybersecurity teams so that they can be ready for the federal government to assign cybersecurity missions. All of the protocols that are taken from the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010 are to ensure that the federal, military, and intelligence information are kept safe from criminal activities such as terrorism, foreign intelligence agencies, and unlawful programs.
This act also says that rights of the citizens will always be present. The NCCC director will uphold the civil liberties and privacy of U.S. citizens in any case. Whenever national information is stored in a cyberspace database, the NCCC director will advise and outline security measures for the safe keeping of the important information. The rights of the citizens will be preserved along with necessary measures for keeping national cyber information.
Second Amendment Enforcement Act; By: Travis Russell
Second Amendment Enforcement Act
On April 28, 2010 Senators John McCain and Jon Tester introduced the Second Amendment Enforcement Act. The National Rifle Association (NRA) drafted the bill and intended for it to repeal the public safety laws enacted by the District of Columbia due to the Supreme Court’s decision in the D.C. v. Heller case. The Heller case called for strict gun control in federal enclave areas such as Washington D.C. Some restrictions on gun control were the type of gun one could own and where/how they had to store it in their own house. These rules only applied to residents of the District of Columbia; a person who lived in Washington D.C. could not buy any type of automatic or semi-automatic weapon.
The Second Amendment Enforcement Act would legalize certain weapons; repeal the District’s licensing and registration system; allow certain criminals (without a felony charge on their record) to purchase firearms; and prevent the council from tampering with gun-related laws in the future. Basically, the Second Amendment Enforcement Act would restore the right of self-defense to everyone, no matter where a person lives. Because of the Second Amendment Enforcement Act residents of the District of Columbia can now purchase semi-automatic weapons. For obvious reasons, certain assault weapons still remain illegal to purchase. States such as California, Maryland, and Massachusetts have similar laws concerning assault weapons and these laws have been in place for a significant amount of time.
Another restriction that remains in effect today is the way one must store a gun if they live with a minor. A person who lives with a minor and owns a firearm must keep the firearm in a securely locked location or keep the firearm within a proximity that allows them to easily retrieve it. This way of storing firearms does not conflict with a person’s ability to use a firearm for self defense and it also keeps minors from hurting themselves accidentally.
Washington D.C.’s current firearm laws outlined by the Second Amendment Enforcement Act were recently deemed constitutional. This is because none of the restrictions affect a resident’s right to self-protection. The reason firearm laws are such a heated topic in the District of Columbia is because it is our nation’s capitol and lawmakers want to do everything they can to keep our leaders safe. Fortunately the lawmakers finally found a way to balance the safety of our capitol safe and satisfy people’s rights to self-protection.
On April 28, 2010 Senators John McCain and Jon Tester introduced the Second Amendment Enforcement Act. The National Rifle Association (NRA) drafted the bill and intended for it to repeal the public safety laws enacted by the District of Columbia due to the Supreme Court’s decision in the D.C. v. Heller case. The Heller case called for strict gun control in federal enclave areas such as Washington D.C. Some restrictions on gun control were the type of gun one could own and where/how they had to store it in their own house. These rules only applied to residents of the District of Columbia; a person who lived in Washington D.C. could not buy any type of automatic or semi-automatic weapon.
The Second Amendment Enforcement Act would legalize certain weapons; repeal the District’s licensing and registration system; allow certain criminals (without a felony charge on their record) to purchase firearms; and prevent the council from tampering with gun-related laws in the future. Basically, the Second Amendment Enforcement Act would restore the right of self-defense to everyone, no matter where a person lives. Because of the Second Amendment Enforcement Act residents of the District of Columbia can now purchase semi-automatic weapons. For obvious reasons, certain assault weapons still remain illegal to purchase. States such as California, Maryland, and Massachusetts have similar laws concerning assault weapons and these laws have been in place for a significant amount of time.
Another restriction that remains in effect today is the way one must store a gun if they live with a minor. A person who lives with a minor and owns a firearm must keep the firearm in a securely locked location or keep the firearm within a proximity that allows them to easily retrieve it. This way of storing firearms does not conflict with a person’s ability to use a firearm for self defense and it also keeps minors from hurting themselves accidentally.
Washington D.C.’s current firearm laws outlined by the Second Amendment Enforcement Act were recently deemed constitutional. This is because none of the restrictions affect a resident’s right to self-protection. The reason firearm laws are such a heated topic in the District of Columbia is because it is our nation’s capitol and lawmakers want to do everything they can to keep our leaders safe. Fortunately the lawmakers finally found a way to balance the safety of our capitol safe and satisfy people’s rights to self-protection.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
