From The Heritage Foundation:
Lights Out for the Light Bulb Ban?
Some politicians in Washington don't think you're all that bright. They believe that you can't make wise decisions in your day-to-day life, so they have taken it upon themselves to impose regulations to protect you from yourself. And there's no better example than Congress' ban on the incandescent light bulb, which is up for repeal in the House today.
The 2007 law is set to phase-out Thomas Edison's brainchild bulbs in 2012 and replace them with costlier but more energy-efficient alternatives, the most popular being compact fluorescent bulbs (CFLs). Since then, the impending restrictions have become a hallmark of Nanny State overreach, provoking backlash across the country. State representatives in South Carolina went so far as to try to circumvent Congress and push for the state to produce and use incandescents solely for its own use. And just last week, U.S. Representatives Joe Barton (R–TX), Michael Burgess (R–TX) and Marsha Blackburn (R–TN) introduced a bill in Congress to put an end to the bulb ban.
But the fact that some folks like consumer choice and prefer the soft yellow lighting of less expensive incandescents to the unnatural, office-like white light of pricey fluorescents confounds Nanny State politicians and regulators. Case in point: Secretary of Energy Steven Chu.
Secretary Chu, who is an advocate of the ban, said of the potential repeal, "We are taking away a choice that continues to let people waste their own money." Confused by the bureaucratic doublespeak? Reaching for your copy of Orwell's Guide to Big Brotherisms? You should be. Chu apparently believes that government regulations that restrict choice and force decisions upon you are great things for society because they pre-select the best choice imaginable, taking the guesswork out of being a free-thinking being. And they're saving you money, to boot!
Chu isn't the only one who thinks the light bulb ban is a great idea. Former Senator John Warner (R–VA) said, "We’ll be dropping backwards in America's need to become more energy-efficient." And then there's Jim Presswood of the environmental activist Natural Resources Defense Council, who says, "Clearly, consumers, the economy and the environment will suffer if these standards are repealed." The organization claims that the ban would save consumers $85 per year.
Well, that's not entirely true. In California, utilities spent nearly $550 million to subsidize CFLs for consumers, but they didn't get such great results. In March, The Wall Street Journal reported that energy savings under the program were 73 percent less than expected.
That's not to say cutting energy consumption isn't a great thing—it certainly is. But guess what? It's already happening, and not because of the Nanny State. Heritage's Nicolas Loris explains:
When you take a look at America’s energy efficiency track record, it's not too shabby—and it's a result of innovation and cost reduction, not government mandates and regulations. Overall, energy consumption per real dollar of gross domestic product has dropped dramatically in the past 60 years, because we've innovated and become drastically more efficient in the process.
In short, America has achieved energy savings as a result of the free market—and the free market is fueled by consumer choice, the very thing big government regulators and politicians would like to take away. Fortunately, there's another way.
"We should let the marketplace decide," Barton said of the effort to repeal the light bulb ban. "We should let people decide if they want to buy a $6 light bulb or a 39 cent light bulb." Maybe, soon enough, Congress will see the light and allow Americans to continue to have that choice.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Friday, July 1, 2011
Obama's Pants-On-Fire
From The Heritage Foundation:
Obama's "Pants on Fire"
In a press conference on Wednesday, President Barack Obama promised to boldly go where no President has gone before, taking "unprecedented" steps to cut back the tangle of regulations that are strangling businesses and leading to America's anemic job growth. It's certainly a welcome idea, but the only trouble is that despite the President's claim, his brave new idea isn't all that unprecedented, and he is, in fact, a big part of the problem.
Government regulation takes a heavy toll on the economy, tying down businesses and preventing them from growing, expanding and creating new jobs. President Obama's regulators have played a big role in spitting out more red tape—in just two years, they have imposed close to $40 billion in new regulatory costs.
Businesses have loudly complained of those regulations (directly to White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley, in fact), so it's no wonder the President made the following proclamation in a desperate attempt to recast himself as a deregulator:
What I have done — and this is unprecedented, by the way; no administration has done this before — is I've said to each agency, 'Don't just look at current regulations or don't just look at future regulations, regulations that we're proposing. Let's go backwards and look at regulations that are already on the books and if they don't make sense, let's get rid of them."
Oh, if only it were true. PolitiFact.com took a look at the President's brazen claim and came to the conclusion that it just isn't true, burning up its "Pants on Fire Truth-O-Meter."
PolitiFact writes that on September 30, 1993, President Bill Clinton issued Executive Order 12866 calling for a comprehensive review of regulatory policy, using "language that sounds a lot like Obama's." And President George H.W. Bush ordered a moratorium and review of all existing regulations. In fact, a U.S. Government Accountability Office report on July 16, 2007, states, "Every president since President Carter has directed agencies to evaluate or reconsider existing regulations."
The Heritage Foundation's James Gattuso chimed-in on the PolitiFact report, remarking that Clinton's order "is still in force, making the Obama directive technically redundant." Or consider liberal economist Dean Baker's assessment of the President's "nonsense claim":
I would question whether President Obama has done more in re-examining existing regulations than prior presidents, and if he has I would ask why he wasted the resources. Whatever it is called, presidents are always reviewing regulations to eliminate ones that impose unnecessary burdens."
That's not so unprecedented now, is it?
It's not the first time, though, that the Obama White House has attempted to spin straw into gold on the red tape issue. Gattuso writes that regulatory "czar" Cass Sunstein attempted to deflect criticism of Obama's regulatory machine, claiming that President George W. Bush was worse:
The annual cost of regulations has not increased during the Obama administration. In its last two years, executive agencies in the Bush administration proposed far higher regulatory costs than did those agencies in the Obama administration in our first two years.
Well, that's not true, either. Gattuso explains that the Bush's Administration, which "was no paragon of regulatory restraint" imposed over $60 billion in new regulatory costs during his two terms in office. But that's nothing compared to Obama's record on regulations, Gattuso writes: "In just two years, Obama regulators have imposed close to $40 billion in new costs. It took Bush some six years to reach that level. Obama has done it in two."
Eliminating unnecessary regulation is good policy, and with a mountain of new rules imposed in the realm of health care, banking, the Internet and the environment, the President is well advised to stop feeding the regulatory beast. But he would also be well advised not to make bold proclamations that are blatantly false, especially when he bears responsibility for the problems he claims to be solving.
Obama's "Pants on Fire"
In a press conference on Wednesday, President Barack Obama promised to boldly go where no President has gone before, taking "unprecedented" steps to cut back the tangle of regulations that are strangling businesses and leading to America's anemic job growth. It's certainly a welcome idea, but the only trouble is that despite the President's claim, his brave new idea isn't all that unprecedented, and he is, in fact, a big part of the problem.
Government regulation takes a heavy toll on the economy, tying down businesses and preventing them from growing, expanding and creating new jobs. President Obama's regulators have played a big role in spitting out more red tape—in just two years, they have imposed close to $40 billion in new regulatory costs.
Businesses have loudly complained of those regulations (directly to White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley, in fact), so it's no wonder the President made the following proclamation in a desperate attempt to recast himself as a deregulator:
What I have done — and this is unprecedented, by the way; no administration has done this before — is I've said to each agency, 'Don't just look at current regulations or don't just look at future regulations, regulations that we're proposing. Let's go backwards and look at regulations that are already on the books and if they don't make sense, let's get rid of them."
Oh, if only it were true. PolitiFact.com took a look at the President's brazen claim and came to the conclusion that it just isn't true, burning up its "Pants on Fire Truth-O-Meter."
PolitiFact writes that on September 30, 1993, President Bill Clinton issued Executive Order 12866 calling for a comprehensive review of regulatory policy, using "language that sounds a lot like Obama's." And President George H.W. Bush ordered a moratorium and review of all existing regulations. In fact, a U.S. Government Accountability Office report on July 16, 2007, states, "Every president since President Carter has directed agencies to evaluate or reconsider existing regulations."
The Heritage Foundation's James Gattuso chimed-in on the PolitiFact report, remarking that Clinton's order "is still in force, making the Obama directive technically redundant." Or consider liberal economist Dean Baker's assessment of the President's "nonsense claim":
I would question whether President Obama has done more in re-examining existing regulations than prior presidents, and if he has I would ask why he wasted the resources. Whatever it is called, presidents are always reviewing regulations to eliminate ones that impose unnecessary burdens."
That's not so unprecedented now, is it?
It's not the first time, though, that the Obama White House has attempted to spin straw into gold on the red tape issue. Gattuso writes that regulatory "czar" Cass Sunstein attempted to deflect criticism of Obama's regulatory machine, claiming that President George W. Bush was worse:
The annual cost of regulations has not increased during the Obama administration. In its last two years, executive agencies in the Bush administration proposed far higher regulatory costs than did those agencies in the Obama administration in our first two years.
Well, that's not true, either. Gattuso explains that the Bush's Administration, which "was no paragon of regulatory restraint" imposed over $60 billion in new regulatory costs during his two terms in office. But that's nothing compared to Obama's record on regulations, Gattuso writes: "In just two years, Obama regulators have imposed close to $40 billion in new costs. It took Bush some six years to reach that level. Obama has done it in two."
Eliminating unnecessary regulation is good policy, and with a mountain of new rules imposed in the realm of health care, banking, the Internet and the environment, the President is well advised to stop feeding the regulatory beast. But he would also be well advised not to make bold proclamations that are blatantly false, especially when he bears responsibility for the problems he claims to be solving.
Overcriminalized.com Legislative Update
From Overcriminalized.com:
Table of Contents
New:
■H.R. 2210: Sportsmanship in Hunting Act of 2011
■H.R. 2168: Geolocational Privacy and Surveillance (GPS) Act
■H.R. 2164: Legal Workforce Act
■S. 1199: Protecting the Privacy of Social Security Numbers Act
Updates:
■S. 978:
■S. 815: Sanctity of Eternal Rest for Veterans Act (SERVE Act) of 2011
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 2210: Sportsmanship in Hunting Act of 2011
Sponsor: Cohen (D - TN)
Official Title: A bill to amend Title 18, United States Code, to prohibit certain interstate conduct relating to exotic animals and certain computer-assisted remote hunting, and for other purposes.
Status:
6/16/2011: Introduced in House
6/16/2011: Referred to House Judiciary Committee
Commentary: This bill would make it a crime to knowingly transfer, transport, or possess confined exotic animals in interstate commerce for the purpose of killing or injuring the animals for entertainment or for a trophy. The penalty would be imprisonment of less than one year and/or a fine under Title 18. The bill defines “confined exotic animal” as an animal not indigenous to the U.S. that has been held in captivity for the majority of its life or for at least one continuous year. The bill would also would ban the interstate movement of equipment for computer-assisted remote hunting punishable by a maximum of five years in prison and a fine under Title 18.
H.R. 2168: Geolocational Privacy and Surveillance (GPS) Act
Sponsor: Chaffetz (R - UT)
Official Title: A bill to amend Title 18, United States Code, to specify the circumstances in which a person may acquire geolocation information and for other purposes.
Status:
6/14/2011: Introduced in House
6/14/2011: Referred to House Judiciary Committee
6/14/2011: Referred to House Select Intelligence Committee
Commentary: This act would make misappropriation of certain geolocation information a criminal offense. “Geolocation information” is “with respect to a person, any information that is not the content of a communication, concerning the location of a wireless communication device or tracking device . . . that, in whole or in part, is generated by or derived from the operation of that device and that could be used to determine or infer information regarding the location of the person.” These offenses include 1) intentionally intercepting, attempting to intercept, or procuring another’s geolocation information; 2) intentionally disclosing or using or attempting to disclose or use the geolocation information of another person if the offender knew or had reason to know the information was obtained through interception; and 3) intentionally disclosing, or attempting to disclose geolocation information of another that was obtained through authorized means. A violator would face a five year maximum term of imprisonment and a fine under Title 18. This bill would add additional criminal penalties to the statutory framework for fraud regarding the use of confidential phone records, codified in 18 U.S.C. § 1039. The maximum sentence would be a fine under Title 18 and five years imprisonment.
H.R. 2164: Legal Workforce Act
Sponsor: Smith (R - TN)
Official Title: A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to make mandatory and permanent requirements relating to use of an electronic employment eligibility verification system, and for other purposes.
Status:
6/14/2011: Introduced in House
6/14/2011: Referred to House Education and the Workforce Committee
6/14/2011: Referred to House Judiciary Committee
6/14/2011: Referred to House Ways and Means Committee
Commentary: This bill would require the use of the Employment Eligibility Verification System, commonly known as E-Verify. Individuals would be required to certify that they are in the U.S. legally. Any person supplying identifying information “knowing that the number does not belong to the individual providing the number” would be subject to a criminal fine under Title 18 and a minimum of one year and maximum of 15 years incarceration. Employers who know that the identifying information they provide to the E-Verify system does not belong to the individual they are inquiring about would also be subject to the same criminal sanctions. The act would also establish a good-faith defense for employers.
S. 1199: Protecting the Privacy of Social Security Numbers Act
Sponsor: Feinstein (D - CA)
Official Title: A bill to amend Title 18, United States Code, to limit the misuse of Social Security numbers, to establish criminal penalties for such misuse, and for other purposes.
Status:
6/15/2011: Introduced in Senate
6/15/2011: Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee
Commentary: This bill would prohibit the improper “display, sale, or purchase” of Social Security numbers and prohibit the improper “display, sale, or purchase” of public records that contain Social Security numbers. The bill would also prohibit the obtaining a Social Security number of an individual with the intent to injure or harm that person, or to use that person’s identity for illegal activity. Another provision would limit the disclosure of Social Security number by prohibiting commercial entities from requesting a social security number for goods or services, or denying goods and services on that basis. A conviction on any of these provisions would result in a maximum fine under Title 18 and five years imprisonment.
S. 978:
Sponsor: Klobuchar (D - MN)
Official Title: A bill to amend the criminal penalty provision for criminal infringement of a copyright, and for other purposes.
Status:
5/12/2011: Introduced in Senate
5/12/2011: Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee
6/20/2011: Reported to Senate by Senate Judiciary Committee
6/20/2011: Placed on Senate calendar
Commentary: This bill would amend 17 U.S.C. § 506 and 18 U.S.C. § 2319 to broaden the scope of the criminal offense and penalty provisions for infringement of a copyright. Currently, 17 U.S.C. § 506(a) punishes the willful infringement of a copyright “for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain.” Violations involving the “the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of at least 10 copies or phonorecords, of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $2,500” are punishable under 18 U.S.C. § 2319(b) by up to five years imprisonment, fines under Title 18 of the U.S. Code, or both. S. 978 would maintain this existing statutory framework but add criminal sanctions for unauthorized public performances. Violators would be subject to up to five years imprisonment, fines under Title 18 of the U.S. Code, or both, if “the offense consists of 10 or more public performances by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copyrighted works; and … the total retail value of the performances, or the total economic value of such public performances to the infringer or to the copyright owner, would exceed $2,500; or … the total fair market value of licenses to offer performances of those works would exceed $5,000.”
S. 815: Sanctity of Eternal Rest for Veterans Act (SERVE Act) of 2011
Sponsor: Snowe (R - ME)
Official Title: A bill to guarantee that military funerals are conducted with dignity and respect.
Status:
4/13/2011: Introduced in Senate
4/13/2011: Referred to Senate Veterans Affairs Committee
6/8/2011: Hearing Held by Senate Veterans Affairs Committee
Commentary: This bill, like its House counterpart (H.R.1591), would amend 18 U.S.C. § 1388 and 38 U.S.C. § 2413 to heighten the currently existing restrictions on disruptions of funerals for members or former members of the armed forces as well as the restrictions on demonstrations and disruptions at cemeteries under control of the National Cemetery Administration (NCA) and at Arlington National Cemetery. At present, § 1388 prohibits any person from engaging in prohibited activities “during the period beginning 60 minutes before and ending 60 minutes after” funerals for members or former members of the armed forces. Prohibited activities include “any individual willfully making or assisting in the making of any noise or diversion that is not part of such funeral and that disturbs or tends to disturb the peace or good order of such funeral with the intent of disturbing the peace or good order of that funeral.” Prohibited activities also include “any individual willfully and without proper authorization impeding the access to or egress from such location with the intent to impede the access to or egress from such location.” Violations of these provisions are punishable by criminal sanctions of up to one year imprisonment, fines under Title 18 of the U.S. Code, or both. S. 815 would enhance the applicable criminal penalties for § 1388 violations to a maximum of two years imprisonment, fines under Title 18 of the U.S. Code, or both. Under current law, 38 U.S.C. § 2413 also prohibits“demonstration on the property of a cemetery under the control of the [NCA] or on the property of Arlington National Cemetery unless the demonstration has been approved by the cemetery superintendent or the director of the property on which the cemetery is located.” Violators of this provision are punishable under 18 U.S.C. § 1387 and would be subject to criminal sanctions of up to one year imprisonment, fines under Title 18 of the U.S. Code, or both. S. 815 would enhance the applicable criminal penalties for violations of § 2413 to a maximum of up to two years imprisonment, fines under Title 18 of the U.S. Code, or both. In addition to increasing the criminal penalties for violations of these provisions, the bill would enlarge the demonstration and disturbance buffer zone around all military funerals to a distance of 500 feet and increase the restricted time period at cemeteries from a period of one hour before and after a funeral to a period of two hours before and after a funeral.
Table of Contents
New:
■H.R. 2210: Sportsmanship in Hunting Act of 2011
■H.R. 2168: Geolocational Privacy and Surveillance (GPS) Act
■H.R. 2164: Legal Workforce Act
■S. 1199: Protecting the Privacy of Social Security Numbers Act
Updates:
■S. 978:
■S. 815: Sanctity of Eternal Rest for Veterans Act (SERVE Act) of 2011
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 2210: Sportsmanship in Hunting Act of 2011
Sponsor: Cohen (D - TN)
Official Title: A bill to amend Title 18, United States Code, to prohibit certain interstate conduct relating to exotic animals and certain computer-assisted remote hunting, and for other purposes.
Status:
6/16/2011: Introduced in House
6/16/2011: Referred to House Judiciary Committee
Commentary: This bill would make it a crime to knowingly transfer, transport, or possess confined exotic animals in interstate commerce for the purpose of killing or injuring the animals for entertainment or for a trophy. The penalty would be imprisonment of less than one year and/or a fine under Title 18. The bill defines “confined exotic animal” as an animal not indigenous to the U.S. that has been held in captivity for the majority of its life or for at least one continuous year. The bill would also would ban the interstate movement of equipment for computer-assisted remote hunting punishable by a maximum of five years in prison and a fine under Title 18.
H.R. 2168: Geolocational Privacy and Surveillance (GPS) Act
Sponsor: Chaffetz (R - UT)
Official Title: A bill to amend Title 18, United States Code, to specify the circumstances in which a person may acquire geolocation information and for other purposes.
Status:
6/14/2011: Introduced in House
6/14/2011: Referred to House Judiciary Committee
6/14/2011: Referred to House Select Intelligence Committee
Commentary: This act would make misappropriation of certain geolocation information a criminal offense. “Geolocation information” is “with respect to a person, any information that is not the content of a communication, concerning the location of a wireless communication device or tracking device . . . that, in whole or in part, is generated by or derived from the operation of that device and that could be used to determine or infer information regarding the location of the person.” These offenses include 1) intentionally intercepting, attempting to intercept, or procuring another’s geolocation information; 2) intentionally disclosing or using or attempting to disclose or use the geolocation information of another person if the offender knew or had reason to know the information was obtained through interception; and 3) intentionally disclosing, or attempting to disclose geolocation information of another that was obtained through authorized means. A violator would face a five year maximum term of imprisonment and a fine under Title 18. This bill would add additional criminal penalties to the statutory framework for fraud regarding the use of confidential phone records, codified in 18 U.S.C. § 1039. The maximum sentence would be a fine under Title 18 and five years imprisonment.
H.R. 2164: Legal Workforce Act
Sponsor: Smith (R - TN)
Official Title: A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to make mandatory and permanent requirements relating to use of an electronic employment eligibility verification system, and for other purposes.
Status:
6/14/2011: Introduced in House
6/14/2011: Referred to House Education and the Workforce Committee
6/14/2011: Referred to House Judiciary Committee
6/14/2011: Referred to House Ways and Means Committee
Commentary: This bill would require the use of the Employment Eligibility Verification System, commonly known as E-Verify. Individuals would be required to certify that they are in the U.S. legally. Any person supplying identifying information “knowing that the number does not belong to the individual providing the number” would be subject to a criminal fine under Title 18 and a minimum of one year and maximum of 15 years incarceration. Employers who know that the identifying information they provide to the E-Verify system does not belong to the individual they are inquiring about would also be subject to the same criminal sanctions. The act would also establish a good-faith defense for employers.
S. 1199: Protecting the Privacy of Social Security Numbers Act
Sponsor: Feinstein (D - CA)
Official Title: A bill to amend Title 18, United States Code, to limit the misuse of Social Security numbers, to establish criminal penalties for such misuse, and for other purposes.
Status:
6/15/2011: Introduced in Senate
6/15/2011: Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee
Commentary: This bill would prohibit the improper “display, sale, or purchase” of Social Security numbers and prohibit the improper “display, sale, or purchase” of public records that contain Social Security numbers. The bill would also prohibit the obtaining a Social Security number of an individual with the intent to injure or harm that person, or to use that person’s identity for illegal activity. Another provision would limit the disclosure of Social Security number by prohibiting commercial entities from requesting a social security number for goods or services, or denying goods and services on that basis. A conviction on any of these provisions would result in a maximum fine under Title 18 and five years imprisonment.
S. 978:
Sponsor: Klobuchar (D - MN)
Official Title: A bill to amend the criminal penalty provision for criminal infringement of a copyright, and for other purposes.
Status:
5/12/2011: Introduced in Senate
5/12/2011: Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee
6/20/2011: Reported to Senate by Senate Judiciary Committee
6/20/2011: Placed on Senate calendar
Commentary: This bill would amend 17 U.S.C. § 506 and 18 U.S.C. § 2319 to broaden the scope of the criminal offense and penalty provisions for infringement of a copyright. Currently, 17 U.S.C. § 506(a) punishes the willful infringement of a copyright “for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain.” Violations involving the “the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of at least 10 copies or phonorecords, of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $2,500” are punishable under 18 U.S.C. § 2319(b) by up to five years imprisonment, fines under Title 18 of the U.S. Code, or both. S. 978 would maintain this existing statutory framework but add criminal sanctions for unauthorized public performances. Violators would be subject to up to five years imprisonment, fines under Title 18 of the U.S. Code, or both, if “the offense consists of 10 or more public performances by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copyrighted works; and … the total retail value of the performances, or the total economic value of such public performances to the infringer or to the copyright owner, would exceed $2,500; or … the total fair market value of licenses to offer performances of those works would exceed $5,000.”
S. 815: Sanctity of Eternal Rest for Veterans Act (SERVE Act) of 2011
Sponsor: Snowe (R - ME)
Official Title: A bill to guarantee that military funerals are conducted with dignity and respect.
Status:
4/13/2011: Introduced in Senate
4/13/2011: Referred to Senate Veterans Affairs Committee
6/8/2011: Hearing Held by Senate Veterans Affairs Committee
Commentary: This bill, like its House counterpart (H.R.1591), would amend 18 U.S.C. § 1388 and 38 U.S.C. § 2413 to heighten the currently existing restrictions on disruptions of funerals for members or former members of the armed forces as well as the restrictions on demonstrations and disruptions at cemeteries under control of the National Cemetery Administration (NCA) and at Arlington National Cemetery. At present, § 1388 prohibits any person from engaging in prohibited activities “during the period beginning 60 minutes before and ending 60 minutes after” funerals for members or former members of the armed forces. Prohibited activities include “any individual willfully making or assisting in the making of any noise or diversion that is not part of such funeral and that disturbs or tends to disturb the peace or good order of such funeral with the intent of disturbing the peace or good order of that funeral.” Prohibited activities also include “any individual willfully and without proper authorization impeding the access to or egress from such location with the intent to impede the access to or egress from such location.” Violations of these provisions are punishable by criminal sanctions of up to one year imprisonment, fines under Title 18 of the U.S. Code, or both. S. 815 would enhance the applicable criminal penalties for § 1388 violations to a maximum of two years imprisonment, fines under Title 18 of the U.S. Code, or both. Under current law, 38 U.S.C. § 2413 also prohibits“demonstration on the property of a cemetery under the control of the [NCA] or on the property of Arlington National Cemetery unless the demonstration has been approved by the cemetery superintendent or the director of the property on which the cemetery is located.” Violators of this provision are punishable under 18 U.S.C. § 1387 and would be subject to criminal sanctions of up to one year imprisonment, fines under Title 18 of the U.S. Code, or both. S. 815 would enhance the applicable criminal penalties for violations of § 2413 to a maximum of up to two years imprisonment, fines under Title 18 of the U.S. Code, or both. In addition to increasing the criminal penalties for violations of these provisions, the bill would enlarge the demonstration and disturbance buffer zone around all military funerals to a distance of 500 feet and increase the restricted time period at cemeteries from a period of one hour before and after a funeral to a period of two hours before and after a funeral.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)