Tuesday, May 10, 2011

Overcriminalized.com Legislative Update

From Overcriminalized.com:

Table of Contents




New:



H.R. 1657:

H.R. 1591: Sanctity of Eternal Rest for Veterans Act (SERVE Act) of 2011

H.R. 1588: Consumer Rental Purchase Agreement Act

H.R. 1579: Robert C. Byrd Mine Safety Protection Act of 2011

H.R. 1566: Protecting Servicemembers from Mortgage Abuses Act of 2011

H.R. 1537: Uniting American Families Act of 2011

H.R. 1493: Paycheck Fairness Act

H.R. 1483: Drug Safety Enhancement Act of 2011

S. 847: Safe Chemicals Act of 2011

S. 824: Foreclosure Fraud and Homeowner Abuse Prevention Act of 2011

S. 821: Uniting American Families Act (UAFA Act)

S. 815: Sanctity of Eternal Rest for Veterans Act (SERVE Act) of 2011

S. 788: Fair Pay Act of 2011

Updates:



S. 216: Food Safety Accountability Act of 2011

S. 52: International Fisheries Stewardship and Enforcement Act

S. 46: Coral Reef Conservation Amendments Act



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



H.R. 1657:



Sponsor: Stutzman (R - IN)



Official Title: A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to revise the enforcement penalties for misrepresentation of a business concern as a small business concern owned and controlled by veterans or as a small business concern owned and controlled by service-disabled veterans.



Status:

4/15/2011: Introduced in House

4/15/2011: Referred to House Veteran Affairs Committee

5/3/2011: Hearing Held by House Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity

5/5/2011: Mark up in the House Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity

5/5/2011: Forwarded to full committee by voice vote in the House Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity



Commentary: This bill would amend section 8127 of Title 38, U.S. Code, to strengthen the enforcement penalties available to punish government contractors who misrepresent their business concerns as small business concerns owned and controlled by veterans or service-disabled veterans for the purpose of receiving favorable treatment in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) contracting process. Under current law (38 U.S.C. § 8127(g)), any business concern contracting with the VA that misrepresents its status as a "small business concern owned and controlled by veterans or as a small business concern owned and controlled by service-disabled veterans" is subject to debarment for "a reasonable period of time, as determined by the Secretary [of VA]." H.R. 1657 would amend section 8127(g) to mandate that such misrepresenting business concerns and all of their principals be subject to debarment from contracting with the VA for a period of at least five years.





H.R. 1591: Sanctity of Eternal Rest for Veterans Act (SERVE Act) of 2011



Sponsor: Bass (R - NH)



Official Title: A bill to guarantee that military funerals are conducted with dignity and respect.



Status:

4/15/2011: Introduced in House

4/15/2011: Referred to House Judiciary Committee

4/15/2011: Referred to House Veteran Affairs Committee

4/15/2011: Referred to House Armed Services Committee



Commentary: This bill, like its Senate counterpart (S. 815), 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. H.R. 1591 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. H.R. 1591 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.





H.R. 1588: Consumer Rental Purchase Agreement Act



Sponsor: Canseco (R - TX)



Official Title: A bill to amend the Consumer Credit Protection Act to assure meaningful disclosures of the terms of rental-purchase agreements, including disclosures of all costs to consumers under such agreements, to provide certain substantive rights to consumers under such agreements, and for other purposes.



Status:

4/15/2011: Introduced in House

4/15/2011: Referred to House Financial Services Committee

5/2/2011: Referred to House Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit



Commentary: This bill is substantially similar to S. 738 from the 111th Congress, which was introduced by Senator Landrieu (D-LA). Like S. 738, H.R. 1588 would amend the Consumer Credit Protection Act (CCPA) (15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq.) to require merchants offering goods under rental-purchase agreements to make detailed disclosures to consumers. The bill also creates a new criminal offense punishing any party that "willfully and knowingly gives false or inaccurate information or fails to provide information which he is required to disclose under the provisions of [the CCPA] or any regulation issued thereunder." Violations of this provision would be punishable by criminal sanctions of up to one year imprisonment, fines of up to $5,000, or both.





H.R. 1579: Robert C. Byrd Mine Safety Protection Act of 2011



Sponsor: Miller (D - CA)



Official Title: A bill to improve compliance with mine safety and health laws, empower miners to raise safety concerns, prevent future mine tragedies, and for other purposes.



Status:

4/15/2011: Introduced in House

4/15/2011: Referred to House Education and the Workforce Committee



Commentary: This bill is substantially similar to H.R. 6495 from the 111th Congress, also introduced by Representative Miller. Under current law, section 820(d) of Title 30, U.S. Code, prohibits "willfully" violating a mandatory mining health or safety standard or "knowingly" violating or refusing to comply with certain orders issued by the Secretary of Labor. H.R. 1579 would maintain the "knowingly" criminal intent standard for violations of orders issued by the Secretary of Labor, but would significantly lower the protectiveness of the mental state required to prove violations of mandatory mining health and safety standards from "willfully" to "knowingly." Violators of such standards or orders are currently subject to imprisonment for up to one year, a fine of up to $250,000, or both for the first conviction, and imprisonment for up to five years, a fine of $500,000, or both for subsequent convictions. H.R. 1579 would keep most of this penalty structure in place, but would increase the maximum criminal fine for subsequent violations to a maximum of $1,000,000. The bill would also create an enhanced penalty scheme for knowing violations of 820(d) that "recklessly expose[] a miner to significant risk of serious injury, serious illness, or death." Violations satisfying this (non-strenuous) standard would be subject to criminal sanctions of up to five years imprisonment, fines of up to $1,000,000, or both on the first conviction, and sanctions of up to 10 years imprisonment, fines of up to $2,000,000, or both for subsequent convictions. In addition, H.R. 1579 would make it a criminal violation to knowingly retaliate against an individual because they provide information related to an apparent health or safety violation to a Department of Labor representative, state or local mine safety or health official, or other law enforcement officer. Violations of this provision would be punishable by criminal sanctions of up to five years imprisonment, fines under Title 18 of the U.S. Code, or both. It is also important to note that this bill broadens the potential for criminal liability of corporate officers in the mining context. Under 30 U.S.C. § 820(c), a director, officer, or agent of a corporate violator who "knowingly authorized, ordered, or carried out" the conduct leading to the violation is subject to prosecution to the same extent as the corporation. H.R. 1579 goes even further in holding corporate officers criminally responsible for the knowing authorization of any "policy or practice" that leads to the violation. This is particularly problematic given that the term "knowingly" will not necessarily be interpreted by the courts to require the government to prove that the director, officer, or agent had any actual knowledge that the policy or practice he authorized, ordered, or carried out would lead to an unlawful violation.





H.R. 1566: Protecting Servicemembers from Mortgage Abuses Act of 2011



Sponsor: Walz (D - MN)



Official Title: To amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to enhance protections for members of the uniformed services relating to mortgages, mortgage foreclosure, and eviction, and for other purposes.



Status:

4/14/2011: Introduced in House

4/14/2011: Referred to House Judiciary Committee

4/14/2011: Referred to House Veteran Affairs Committee



Commentary: This bill, like its Senate counterpart (S. 486), would amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (50 U.S.C. App. 501 et seq.) to increase the criminal penalties for landlords and mortgage lienholders who violate the mandates of the act's property-law protections for active military servicemembers. Currently, the SCRA makes it a criminal misdemeanor for a mortgage lienholder to "knowingly make[] or cause[]" the sale, foreclosure, or seizure of military servicemember property without a proper court order prior to the conclusion of a 90-day grace period following the end of active service (50 U.S.C. App. § 533). Violations of this provision are currently punishable by up to one year imprisonment, fines under Title 18 of the U.S. Code, or both. H.R. 1566 would make violations a criminal felony and increase the maximum incarceration penalty for such a violation from a limit of up to one year imprisonment to a maximum of up to two years imprisonment. The SCRA also currently makes it a criminal misdemeanor for a landlord to "knowingly take[] part in an eviction or distress" associated with certain premises that are occupied or intended to be occupied as a residence by a servicemember or the dependents of a servicemember without a proper court order (50 U.S.C. App. § 531). Knowing "attempts to do so" without such a court order are also sanctionable as a criminal misdemeanor under the SCRA. Violations of these eviction or distress provisions are currently punishable by up to one year imprisonment, fines under Title 18 of the U.S. Code, or both. H.R. 1566 would make such violations a criminal felony and increase the maximum term of incarceration from one year to two years. The bill fails to define with adequate clarity what knowledge of the law and the facts that an accused landlord or mortgage lienholder must have in order to be convicted of its criminal offenses.





H.R. 1537: Uniting American Families Act of 2011



Sponsor: Nadler (D - NY)



Official Title: A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to promote family unity, and for other purposes.



Status:

4/14/2011: Introduced in House

4/14/2011: Referred to House Judiciary Committee



Commentary: This bill, much like its Senate companion bill (S. 821), would make amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq.) to allow the "permanent partners" of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents to apply for permanent resident status under federal immigration laws in the same manner as the legal spouses of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. H.R. 1537 defines a "permanent partner" as an individual age 18 or older who is: (a) "in a committed, intimate relationship with another individual 18 years of age or older in which both individuals intend a lifelong commitment"; (b) "financially interdependent with that other individual"; (c) "not married to, or in a permanent partnership with, any individual other than that other individual"; (d) "unable to contract with that other individual a marriage cognizable under this Act"; and (e) "not a first, second, or third degree blood relation of that other individual." In addition, H.R. 1537 would make the criminal penalties that are applicable to spouses who evade U.S. immigration laws by misrepresenting or concealing facts concerning the nature of their marital relationship applicable to permanent partners. Specifically, the bill would amend 8 U.S.C. § 1325(c) to prohibit any individual from "knowingly enter[ing] into a marriage or permanent partnership for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws." Violations of this provision would be punishable by criminal sanctions of up to five years imprisonment, fines of up to $250,000, or both.





H.R. 1493: Paycheck Fairness Act



Sponsor: Holmes Norton (D - DC)



Official Title: A bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to prohibit discrimination in the payment of wages on account of sex, race, or national origin, and for other purposes.



Status:

4/12/2011: Introduced in House

4/12/2011: Referred to House Education and the Workforce Committee



Commentary: This bill, much like its Senate counterpart S. 788, would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) (29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.) to expand the anti-discrimination and equal-pay protections of the FLSA for a range of employee classifications, including those related to sex, race, and national origin. Specifically, H.R. 1493 would add a new section (section 6(h)) to the FLSA's wage regulation provisions (29 U.S.C. § 206), which would prohibit the "paying [of] wages to employees ... in a job that is dominated by employees of a particular sex, race, or national origin at a rate less than the rate at which the employer pays wages to employees ... in another job that is dominated by employees of the opposite sex or of a different race or national origin, respectively, for work on equivalent jobs." In addition, the bill would add two prohibitions to the provisions of 29 U.S.C. § 215(a) that forbid specific forms of employer discrimination. The first new provision would prohibit an employer from "discriminat[ing] against any individual because such individual has opposed any act or practice made unlawful by section 6(h) [of the FLSA] or because such individual made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing to enforce section 6(h) [of the FLSA]." The second new provision would forbid an employer from "discharge[ing] or in any other manner discriminat[ing] against, coerc[ing], intimidate[ing], threaten[ing], or interfer[ing] with any employee or any other person because the employee inquired about, disclosed, compared, or otherwise discussed the employee's wages or the wages of any other employee, or because the employee exercised, enjoyed, aided, or encouraged any other person to exercise or enjoy any right granted or protected by section 6(h) [of the FLSA]." Violations of either of these provisions would be punishable under 29 U.S.C. § 216(a) through criminal sanctions of up to six months imprisonment, fines of up to $10,000, or both.





H.R. 1483: Drug Safety Enhancement Act of 2011



Sponsor: Dingell (D - MI)



Official Title: A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to improve the safety of drugs, and for other purposes.



Status:

4/12/2011: Introduced in House

4/12/2011: Referred to House Energy and Commerce Committee



Commentary: This bill, which is nearly identical to H.R. 6543 from the 111th Congress (also sponsored by Rep. Dingell), would amend the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDC Act) to expand the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) authority to monitor drug production domestically and overseas. H.R. 1483 would grant FDA additional enforcement mechanisms, including mandatory recall authority, increased civil and criminal penalties, and expanded authority to subpoena records related to possible violations. Title 21 U.S.C. § 333 currently punishes initial violations of the FDC Act with criminal sanctions of up to one year imprisonment, fines of up to $1,000, or both, and subsequent violations of the Act with criminal sanctions of up to three years imprisonment, fines of up to $10,000, or both. H.R. 1483 would amend section 333 of Title 21 to increase criminal sanctions for certain violations under the FDC Act, particularly infringements of 21 U.S.C. §§ 331(a), (b), (c), (d), (f), (g), (i), (k), and (jj)(3). Violations of these sections would be punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment, fines under Title 18 of the U.S. Code, or both. H.R. 1483 would also lift the cap on criminal fines for "prescription drug marketing violations" by amending section 333 of Title 21 to allow for fines in accordance with Title 18 of the U.S. Code rather than fines of up to $250,000. Finally, the bill would also amend section 333 of Title 21 to allow for the criminal forfeiture of "any property, real or personal, constituting or traceable to the gross proceeds obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of" any violation, or conspiracy to commit any violation, of the FDC Act with respect to drugs.





S. 847: Safe Chemicals Act of 2011



Sponsor: Lautenberg (D - NJ)



Official Title: A bill to amend the Toxic Substances Control Act to ensure that risks from chemicals are adequately understood and managed, and for other purposes.



Status:

4/14/2011: Introduced in Senate

4/14/2011: Referred to Senate Environment and Public Works Committee



Commentary: This bill is substantially similar to S. 3209 from the 111th Congress, which was also introduced by Senator Lautenberg. At present, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) establishes a regulatory scheme for chemical substances and mixtures that includes testing for safety and the regulation or prohibition on the manufacture, distribution, or use of substances or mixtures that present an "unreasonable" risk of harm to health or the environment. Section 2614 of Title 15, U.S. Code, prohibits specified acts relating to the covered substances, including failing to comply with a rule or regulation promulgated by the EPA Administrator. Section 2615 of Title 15 specifies the civil and criminal penalties for such violations. This bill would change the criminal-intent (mens rea) requirement for section 2615 from "knowingly or willfully" to simply "knowingly." It would also increase the maximum term of incarceration for knowing violations of section 2615 from one year to five years and increase the maximum fine from $25,000 per day of violation to $50,000 per day. In addition, S. 847 would create a new offense under the TCSA for any person who "knowingly violates any provision of [the] Act and who knows at the time that the violation places another person in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury." A violation by an individual would be punishable by imprisonment for up to 15 years, a fine of up to $250,000, or both. A violation by an organization would be punishable by a fine of up to $1 million.





S. 824: Foreclosure Fraud and Homeowner Abuse Prevention Act of 2011



Sponsor: Brown (D - OH)



Official Title: A bill to provide for enhanced mortgage-backed and asset-backed security investor protections, to prevent foreclosure fraud, and for other purposes.



Status:

4/14/2011: Introduced in Senate

4/14/2011: Referred to Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee



Commentary: This bill would amend various provisions of the Trust Indenture Act (TIA) (15 U.S.C. § 77aa et seq.), the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. § 1631 et seq.), the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (12 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq.), and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.) to broaden the scope of each act to include both mortgage-backed and asset-backed securities. In addition, S. 824 would increase the existing criminal penalties for violations of the TIA (15 U.S.C. § 77yyy). Currently, willful violations of the TIA, and false statements or material omissions related to any "application, report, or document filed or required to be filed under the provisions" of the TIA, are punishable by criminal sanctions of up to five years imprisonment, fines of up to $10,000, or both. S. 824 would increase the maximum allowable criminal fine under section 77yyy from $10,000 to $40,000.





S. 821: Uniting American Families Act (UAFA Act)



Sponsor: Leahy (D - VT)



Official Title: A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to eliminate discrimination in the immigration laws by permitting permanent partners of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents to obtain lawful permanent resident status in the same manner as spouses of citizens and lawful permanent residents and to penalize immigration fraud in connection with permanent partnerships.



Status:

4/14/2011: Introduced in Senate

4/14/2011: Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee



Commentary: This bill, much like its House companion bill (H.R. 1537), would make amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq.) to allow the "permanent partners" of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents to apply for permanent resident status under federal immigration laws in the same manner as the legal spouses of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. S. 821 defines a "permanent partner" as an individual age 18 or older who is: (a) "in a committed, intimate relationship with another individual 18 years of age or older in which both individuals intend a lifelong commitment"; (b) "financially interdependent with that other individual"; (c) "not married to, or in a permanent partnership with, any individual other than that other individual"; (d) "unable to contract with that other individual a marriage cognizable under this Act"; and (e) "not a first, second, or third degree blood relation of that other individual." In addition, S. 821 would make the criminal penalties that are applicable to spouses who evade U.S. immigration laws by misrepresenting or concealing facts concerning the nature of their marital relationship applicable to permanent partners. Specifically, the bill would amend 8 U.S.C. § 1325(c) to prohibit any individual from "knowingly enter[ing] into a marriage or permanent partnership for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws." Violations of this provision would be punishable by criminal sanctions of up to five years imprisonment, fines of up to $250,000, or both.





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



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.





S. 788: Fair Pay Act of 2011



Sponsor: Harkin (D - IA)



Official Title: A bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to prohibit discrimination in the payment of wages on account of sex, race, or national origin, and for other purposes.



Status:

4/12/2011: Introduced in Senate

4/12/2011: Referred to Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee



Commentary: This bill, much like its House counterpart H.R.1493, would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) (29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.) to expand the anti-discrimination and equal-pay protections of the FLSA for a range of employee classifications, including those related to sex, race, and national origin. Specifically, S. 788 would add a new section (section 6(h)) to the FLSA's wage regulation provisions (29 U.S.C. § 206), which would prohibit the "paying [of] wages to employees ... in a job that is dominated by employees of a particular sex, race, or national origin at a rate less than the rate at which the employer pays wages to employees ... in another job that is dominated by employees of the opposite sex or of a different race or national origin, respectively, for work on equivalent jobs." In addition, the bill would add two prohibitions to the provisions of 29 U.S.C. § 215(a) that forbid specific forms of employer discrimination. The first new provision would prohibit an employer from "discriminat[ing] against any individual because such individual has opposed any act or practice made unlawful by section 6(h) [of the FLSA] or because such individual made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing to enforce section 6(h) [of the FLSA]." The second new provision would forbid an employer from "discharge[ing] or in any other manner discriminat[ing] against, coerc[ing], intimidate[ing], threaten[ing], or interfer[ing] with any employee or any other person because the employee inquired about, disclosed, compared, or otherwise discussed the employee's wages or the wages of any other employee, or because the employee exercised, enjoyed, aided, or encouraged any other person to exercise or enjoy any right granted or protected by section 6(h) [of the FLSA]." Violations of either of these provisions would be punishable under 29 U.S.C. § 216(a) through criminal sanctions of up to six months imprisonment, fines of up to $10,000, or both.





S. 216: Food Safety Accountability Act of 2011



Sponsor: Leahy (D - VT)



Official Title: A bill to increase penalties for certain knowing and intentional violations relating to food that is misbranded or adulterated.



Status:

1/27/2011: Introduced in Senate

1/27/2011: Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee

3/31/2011: Mark up in the Senate Judiciary Committee

3/31/2011: Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute by Senate Judiciary Committee

3/31/2011: Reported to Senate with an amendment in the nature of a substitute by Senate Judiciary Committee

3/31/2011: Placed on Senate calendar

4/14/2011: Senate passage with amendment by unanimous consent

4/15/2011: Received in House

4/15/2011: Referred to House Judiciary Committee

4/15/2011: Referred to House Energy and Commerce Committee



Commentary: This bill would create new criminal offenses under Title 18 of the U.S. Code for certain violations of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. § 321 et seq.). Specifically, S. 216 would criminalize food violations of subsections 301(a), (b), (c), and (k) of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (codified at 21 U.S.C. § 331) that a person engages in "knowingly and intentionally to defraud or mislead" and "with conscious disregard or reckless disregard of a risk of death or serious bodily injury." Such violations would subject an individual to criminal sanctions of up to ten years imprisonment, fines under Title 18 of the U.S. Code, or both. S. 216 has a slightly more protective criminal-intent (mens rea) requirement than S. 3767 from the 111th Congress (Senator Leahy's 2010 version of the legislation). However, the new bill still authorizes redundant criminal punishment for acts that are already criminalized under 21 U.S.C. §§ 331 and 333. Under current law, violations are punishable by up to three years imprisonment, up to $10,000 in fines, or both when they involve an "intent to defraud or mislead" on the part of the defendant. [Ed. note: The amended version of S. 216 that the Senate Judiciary Committee reported out for consideration by the full Senate addresses most of the redundancy problem described above, but the criminal offenses remain vague, overly broad, and insufficiently protective of those making innocent mistakes.]





S. 52: International Fisheries Stewardship and Enforcement Act



Sponsor: Inouye (D - HI)



Official Title: A bill to establish uniform administrative and enforcement procedures and penalties for the enforcement of the High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Protection Act and similar statutes, and for other purposes.



Status:

1/25/2011: Introduced in Senate

1/25/2011: Referred to Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee

5/5/2011: Mark up in the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee

5/5/2011: Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute by Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee



Commentary: This bill is similar to several bills introduced in the 110th and 111th Congresses dealing with the enforcement mechanisms available to stop and deter illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing operations. S. 52's new criminal provisions apply to violations of a number of existing statutes, including the High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Protection Act and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, which cover various forms of protected marine life. In addition to criminalizing violations of those acts, the bill establishes criminal penalties, including large maximum fines, for a wide range of offenses. In particular, S. 52 would make it a criminal offense to: (1) violate any provision of the legislation or any regulation promulgated thereunder; (2) "refuse to permit any authorized officer to board, search, or inspect a vessel, conveyance, or shoreside facility" subject to inspection under the Act; (3) "forcibly assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, or interfere with any such authorized officer in the conduct of any search, investigation, or inspection" authorized under the Act; (4) "resist a lawful arrest for any act" prohibited by the legislation; (5) "interfere with, delay, or prevent, by any means, the apprehension, arrest, or detection of another person, knowing that such person has committed" a violation of the Act; (6) "forcibly assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, sexually harass, bribe, or interfere with any observer [or data collector] on a vessel" subject to inspection under the Act; (7) "import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce" any fish or fish product taken in violation of any treaty or agreement to which the United States is a party; or (8) make or submit a false record, account, label for, or identification of any fish that passes in interstate or foreign commerce. Violations of prohibitions 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 by individual actors would be punishable by criminal sanctions of up to five years imprisonment, fines of up to $500,000, or both, regardless of the criminal intent of the accused. The maximum term of imprisonment would be raised to ten years for individuals who used a "dangerous weapon," engaged in conduct that caused bodily injury to a government enforcement officer, or placed any such officer in "fear of imminent bodily injury." Entities violating prohibitions 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 would be subject to an elevated maximum fine of $1,000,000. "Knowing" violations of any of S. 52's criminal prohibitions by an individual actor would be punishable by criminal sanctions of up to five years imprisonment, fines of up to $500,000, or both. "Knowing" violations of S. 52's criminal provisions by an entity would subject that entity to a criminal fine of up to $1,000,000. A person or entity convicted of a criminal violation under the provisions of this bill would also be subject to criminal forfeiture of "any property, real or personal, constituting or traceable to the gross proceeds obtained, or retained, as a result of the offense," including any marine species taken in connection with the offense, and "any property, real or personal, used or intended to be used to commit or to facilitate the commission of the offense," including all relevant shoreside property.





S. 46: Coral Reef Conservation Amendments Act



Sponsor: Inouye (D - HI)



Official Title: A bill to reauthorize the Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000, and for other purposes.



Status:

1/25/2011: Introduced in Senate

1/25/2011: Referred to Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee

5/5/2011: Mark up in the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee

5/5/2011: Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute by Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee



Commentary: This bill reauthorizes the Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000. With certain limited exceptions, the bill makes it unlawful to "destroy, take, cause the loss of, or injure any coral reef" or component; to "possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship" coral taken in violation of the Act; or to violate permits issued or regulations promulgated pursuant to the Act by the Department of Interior or Department of Commerce. A person who "knowingly violates" one of these provisions is subject to up to five years imprisonment, criminal fines, or both. The bill also criminalizes the refusal to permit federal officers to board a vessel for purposes of inspection and enforcement of the Coral Reef Conservation Act, and criminalizes "resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating, harassing, bribing, interfering with, ... forcibly assaulting," or submitting false information to any federal official in connection with such searches or inspections. A person who "knowingly commits" one of these acts is subject to up to five years imprisonment, criminal fines of up to $500,000 ($1 million for organizations), or both. If a dangerous weapon is used that "causes bodily injury" to the officer or places him "in fear of imminent bodily injury," the maximum prison term is doubled to 10 years.





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

Over-Criminalization: An Explosion Of Federal Criminal Law

From The Heritage Foundation:


Overcriminalization: An Explosion of Federal Criminal Law

Published on April 27, 2011Factsheet #86







Too Many Laws, Too Little Oversight

■Too Many New Laws: Federal criminal law has exploded in size and scope and deteriorated in quality. It used to focus on inherently wrongful conduct: treason, murder, counterfeiting, and the like. Today, an unimaginably broad range of socially and economically beneficial conduct is criminalized.

■Unjust Punishment: More and more Americans who have worked diligently to abide by the law are being trapped and unjustly punished due to vague, overly broad criminal offenses. Congress must halt its overcriminalization rampage.



How We Got Here

■Explosion of Federal Criminal Law: The number of criminal offenses in the U.S. Code increased from 3,000 in the early 1980s to 4,000 by 2000 to over 4,450 by 2008.

■Criminalization by Bureaucrat: Scores of federal departments and agencies have created so many criminal offenses that the Congressional Research Service itself admitted that it was unable to even count all of the offenses. The service’s best estimate? “Tens of thousands.” In short, Congress’s own experts do not have a clear understanding of the size and scope of federal criminalization.

■Deeply Flawed Criminal Offenses: A recent Heritage-NACDL joint study reported that three out of every five new non-violent offenses have inadequate criminal-intent requirements. This means that they fail to protect from unjust criminal punishment Americans who engaged in conduct that they did not know was illegal or otherwise wrongful.

■Breakneck Pace Continues: Despite existing overcriminalization, Congress continues to criminalize at an average rate of one new crime for every week of every year (including when its Members are not in session). All inherently wrongful conduct has been criminalized several times over, yet from 2000 through 2007, Congress enacted 452 new criminal offenses.



Fix the Problem

■New Criminal Laws Must Be Necessary and Precise: Before enacting any new criminal law, Congress should review the questions raised by the Criminal Law Checklist for Federal Legislators, which is produced by a wide coalition of organizations. Its questions help ensure that any new criminal laws stay within the bounds of fairness, the rule of law, and the U.S. Constitution.

■Congress Must Justify All New Criminalization: Congress should require written analysis for every new or modified criminal offense or penalty. Such a report should include a description of the problem that the new law is intended to redress, specific cases and concerns motivating the legislation, and an analysis of overlaps that the new law will have with existing federal and state law.

■Congress’s Carelessness Should Not Endanger You: Federal law should codify the venerable rule of lenity. Rather than favoring the prosecution, the rule ensures that the benefit of the doubt under vague, overbroad laws is given to the person accused.

■Honest Mistakes Should Not Result in Prison Time: Every criminal conviction must require proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the person acted with criminal intent. Federal criminal laws should require such proof.

■Bureaucrats Should Not Be Making New Crimes: Congress should not “delegate” its power to criminalize to unelected officials in the scores of federal departments and agencies. Such decisions should be made by the American people’s elected representatives.

■Repeal Unjust Laws: Congress seems to have forgotten that it can repeal bad laws. It can and should. The worst, most unjust criminal offenses should be thrown into the legislative dumpster.



For case studies, research, and other information, please visit: http://Overcriminalized.com.

Monday, May 9, 2011

The Attack On The Washing Machine

From Campaign For Liberty:

The Attack on the Washing Machine


By Mark Thornton

View all 6 articles by Mark Thornton

Published 05/05/11



Printer-friendly version





Other companies followed with products that were even better. Between the 1920s and the 1970s, washing clothes went from a grueling full-time job to a weekly activity that could be accomplished by young children.



Demographic researcher Hans Rosling has called the washing machine the greatest invention in the history of the Industrial Revolution. It liberated homemakers from boiling water and washing clothes. For women around the world, it makes the difference between poverty and prosperity.



Only two generations ago, nearly every mother in the world slaved at washing clothes. Today, no one in the developed world does this. Instead, they can read, do professional work, teach children, hold parties, and generally apply their time to building civilization. As Rosling says, "even the hard core of the green movement use the washing machine."



But government is working on systematically reversing these advances -- attacking the washing machine's workings at the most fundamental level.



In 1996, Consumer Reports tested 18 models of washing machines. It rated 13 models as excellent and 5 models as very good. They found that with enough hot water and any decent laundry detergent, any machine would get your clothes clean.



The invisible fist of government is the source of social problems.



In 2007, Consumer Reports tested 21 models and rated none of them as excellent and 7 models as poor; the rest of the models were rated mediocre. The old top-loading machines were mediocre or worse.



Consumer Reports found that in most cases your clothes were nearly as dirty as they were before washing. The newer front-loading machines worked better, but they were much more expensive and had mold problems, and you cannot add a dropped sock once the machine is started. None of the top-loading machines performed as well as a mediocre model from 1996.



This would seem to be a case of a broken invisible hand. The truth is that government's meddlesome hand is at fault. Between 1996 and 2007 the government's energy-efficiency standards were dramatically increased. In order to meet those standards, manufacturers had to switch to the inferior front-loading washers, which are more "energy efficient," and to design models that used less water. Less water in the machine means the machine uses less energy to rotate the clothes with the water and detergent. It also means less rinsing, which is a vital component to getting clothes clean.



The result is that clothes come out of the washer still dirty. The easy stuff like sweat is mostly removed, but all the tough stuff like grease and body oils largely remains. Most people are unaware of this problem either because they have an older model, they don't do their own laundry, or they are just oblivious to this type of thing.



Among those who face this problem, the answers are few. Some do multiple smaller loads with larger water levels, but of course this results in higher -- not lower -- energy and water usage. Others have tried to solve the problem by using more detergent, but this usually does not help -- it can make the situation worse -- and it reduces the durability of the machine -- yet another inefficiency.



So there you have it. Politicians, environmentalists, and meddlesome bureaucrats have teamed up to dream up another attempt to serve the public interest. Left to its own the invisible hand of entrepreneurial competition would have naturally made doing laundry easier, better, cheaper, and more efficient. Instead we have more expensive, more inefficient, and truly ineffective clothes-washing machines.



Then there have been changes to laundry detergent, which have in combination with the "energy efficient machines" led to a return of "Ring around the Collar."



The invisible hand of the marketplace is the foundation of a free society and the source of prosperity. The invisible fist of government is the foundation of plunder and the source of social problems.



If we chart social progress by clean clothing, it is clear that we are headed backward in time. But the trend is easily reversed with a small change toward laissez-faire.





Reprinted from Mises.org



Sunday, May 8, 2011

More Assaults By The Federal Food Police

From Personal Liberty Digest:

More Assaults By The Food Police






May 4, 2011 by Bob Livingston



More Assaults By The Food PoliceThe fascist government elites continued their assault on American liberty last week with separate raids on an Amish farm that was committing the “crime” of selling raw milk and a natural supplement company that violated U.S. Food and Drug Administration labeling rules.



In Pennsylvania, armed Federal thugs wearing flak jackets swooped in on Rainbow Acres Farms and bashed in doors like they were raiding Osama bin Laden’s compound. The raid came after a months-long “investigation” that saw agents using assumed names and surreptitiously purchasing products from across State lines so they could apply the misused “interstate commerce clause” of the Constitution, according to a report in The Washington Times.



In Oregon, the FDA, IRS and FBI raided Maxam Nutraceutics, a company that produces and sells nutritional supplements primarily for autism spectrum disorders and Alzheimer’s disease.



Maxam’s “crime” was using customer testimonials about its products. According to the medical fascists in the FDA, repeating what customers say about your products turns those products into unapproved drugs.



So the FDA’s position is that natural products — like raw milk, which man has consumed as far back as time can be recorded — are illegal and harmful, but falsely marketed drugs from Big Pharma, with at best dubious research on their effectiveness, are perfectly okay for consumers. And falsely labeling food products by claiming they contain fruit, even though they only contain artificial fruit concoctions and contain no fruit whatsoever, is legal, but using the words of actual customers to promote products is not.



The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the FDA take the position that raw milk can be contaminated with harmful bacteria and that pasteurized milk provides all the nutrients of raw milk without the danger. The truth is, pasteurized milk is a dead food. All the benefits of the milk are removed in the pasteurization process. And there had been no complaints of anyone becoming ill from consuming Rainbow Acres Farms milk.



This is just another example of the medical tyranny and corporatocracy in which we now live.



Hat Tip: Naturalnews.com

Thursday, May 5, 2011

From The People Who Brought You The Low-Flow Toilet...Meet The "Energy Efficient Washing Machine"

From Floyd Reports:




From the People Who Brought You the Low-Flow Toilet…Meet the “Energy Efficient Washing Machine”





Posted on April 26, 2011 by Guest Writer















by Suzanne Eovaldi







While you were sleeping, your industrious federal government was busy establishing new guidelines for 2011 washing machines that, according to my source, cut down on efficiency, deceive the customer about the levels of hot and cold, and drain her household power so badly that her lights flicker.



Doing things on the sly is a characteristic of the Obama administration that I find especially odious, and this “Energy Efficient Washing Machine” two-step is cloying, to say the least. My source, who has always proven most reliable, reports that she bought a new basic model and was shocked to discover after doing her first load of laundry, “when set on Hot, the sensor automatically adds Cold along with the Hot. The warm is a mix of both, and the Cold setting adds Hot, as well.”



She thought the dealer had installed the machine incorrectly, but upon referring to the manual, she learned that “the manual states some Cold is added to the Hot to conserve energy and Hot is added to the Cold to activate the detergent.”



She also was informed, after she purchased the new 2011 washer, that “it will not fill up with water as much as your previous washer, therefore allowing you to do only a small or medium load, to conserve energy.” She noticed the lower amount of water forces her new agitator to be so aggressive (to compensate) that it “causes lights to flicker in my home, where the three previous washers never put such a load on the electrical system.”



She feels consumers should be getting the tax break for complying with this new draconian environmental law and not the manufacturer. Sure enough, page two of the new Whirlpool manual states:





This washer is designed to use less water and energy, and complies with all 2011 energy standards. Wash cycles with controlled temperatures are designed to maintain cleaning performance while using less water and energy compared to older traditional washers. As a result, water levels will be lower, and Hot and Warm wash temperatures may not be as warm as you are used to. (Emphasis added.)



One salesman even told my source she’ll probably need a new type of detergent to clean her clothes. What about all of the germs not being killed because only hot water will attack them?



How hypocritical for the Obama crew to deprive American consumers of an efficient machine while earlier he is alleged to have burned up 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to plant a tree on Earth Day.



Chinese Light Bulbs



I received an e-mail about the fire hazard of some Chinese-made light bulbs. Incidentally, we now do not have one U.S. company making them as our leaders have seen fit to outsource these new corkscrew bulbs to China at a cost to us of three times what the old workhorse incandescent bulbs cost us. And the final straw is having to don Haz-Mat gear to clean up a dropped bulb.



Again, just consider Obama’s hypocrisy of using Air Force One as his private taxi for family trips overseas and campaign forays stateside. Yet again, we average citizens are being punched in our laundry rooms. BTW, my source returned her first washer for a second one. When it did the same things, she returned it for a good reconditioned washing machine that uses hot water…and doesn’t make her lights flicker.



To contact your Congressional Representative use this link: http://www.contactingthecongress.org



This article originally appeared on CoachIsRight.com and is reprinted with permissio

EPA Ruling Kills Shell's Plans To Drill Offshore Alaska

From Red State:

EPA Ruling Kills Shell’s Plans to Drill Offshore Alaska






So will they refund Shell's $2 billion?





Posted by Steve Maley (Profile)



Monday, April 25th at 6:30PM EDT

33 Comments



A ruling by the Environmental Appeals Board of the EPA has scuttled Shell Oil Company’s plan to drill its initial exploratory test in Alaska’s Chukchi Sea. This is at least the second time drilling has been deferred or delayed due to environmental concerns. But this time, the reason proffered by EPA seems to be “Because we can.”





The EPA’s appeals board ruled that Shell had not taken into consideration emissions from an ice-breaking vessel when calculating overall greenhouse gas emissions from the project. Environmental groups were thrilled by the ruling.



We have handed radical environmentalists veto power over domestic development. It matters little whether the pretext is (as in this case) ship exhaust 70 miles distant from the nearest human settlement, “burning water” or a 3-inch lizard in West Texas, environmental extremists are hell-bent on shutting down any and all development of conventional fuels in the United States. EPA offers them all the tools they need.



Let’s stipulate for the time being that a reasonable development time frame for a large-scale, remote oil development in the Arctic offshore is at least ten years. Some of the larger fields in the Gulf of Mexico have taken that long; compared to the Chukchi Sea, off Alaska’s northwest coast, the Gulf of Mexico is a bathtub. Ten years spans two and a half Presidential terms, five Congresses and at least one election cycle for each Senator. All the EPA’s anti-industry careerists need do is wait patiently for the opportunity to stop any large-scale development dead in its tracks.



Shell bought the Chukchi Sea leases from a willing Federal government in 2008 at a cost of $2 billion. They have spent another $2 billion on the pre-drill exploratory phase. When you’re a capitalist with a large investment on the line, time is not your friend. Since the weather window for Arctic operations is limited to the summer, a delay of a couple of months effectively kills a year. (Which raises an interesting question: Since Shell bought its leases in good faith and the stroke of an administrative pen took its rights away, shouldn’t the US be willing to refund Shell’s $2 billion?)





[Shell's VP Pete Slaiby is] especially frustrated over the appeal board’s suggestion that the Arctic drill would somehow be hazardous for the people who live in the area. “We think the issues were really not major,” Slaiby said, “and clearly not impactful for the communities we work in.”



The closest village to where Shell proposed to drill is Kaktovik, Alaska. It is one of the most remote places in the United States. According to the latest census, the population is 245 and nearly all of the residents are Alaska natives. The village, which is 1 square mile, sits right along the shores of the Beaufort Sea, 70 miles away from the proposed off-shore drill site.



We can go through this perverse kabuki dance that Shell’s air permit was with held up

1.for the indigenous people

2.for the children

3.for the polar bear

4.all of the above,



but the real motivation, the real prize, is the Trans Alaska Pipeline System. The design throughput of the pipe is in excess of 2 million barrels of oil per day; recent throughput is around 600,000 barrels per day. At some limiting rate (I’ve heard 200,000 barrels per day), the cost to operate the line will exceed the value of operating it, and it will be shut down.



Pipeline shut-down is the ultimate goal of the environmental movement. Not just ANWR, but any new development must be stopped so that TAPS dies an early and unnatural death.



According to the US Geological Survey, the Arctic regions of the world hold 90 billion barrels of oil and 1,670 trillion cubic feet of natural gas resources. (This is a scientific guess, because the region is so lightly drilled.) Only recently, Statoil announced a large discovery in the Barents Sea, north of Norway. Russia also has active plans to develop its extensive Arctic resources. And while it’s not in the Arctic, Canada has produced several large fields offshore Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, an area known for hostile sea conditions with the threat of icebergs.



We as Americans have done nothing to curtail our demand for petroleum, but we have allowed the supposed protectors of our environment to block development at almost every turn. When we go, hat in hand, to OPEC or foreign regimes seeking access to oil, they ask a legitimate question: “Why are you asking us to do things that you refuse to do for yourselves?”





Location of Shell Oil's leases in the Chukchi Sea, offshore Alaska







Cross-posted at stevemaley.com.

Wednesday, May 4, 2011

Obama Regime's Regulatory Tsunami More Destructive Than Taxes

From Town Hall:




Lurita Doan



Obama's Regulatory Tsunami More Destructive than Taxes

Email Lurita Doan
Columnist's Archive







































Share Buzz





0digg







Sign-Up







As Obama travels about the country, speaking of the need for “shared sacrifice” and the need to increase taxes, he doesn’t say a word about the tsunami of new Obama regulations ranging from light bulbs to ozone pollution to painkillers to foreign travel to vending machines that is about to hit America. Their impact will be huge and do serious damage to our economy.



Obama's regulatory tsunami began during his first month in office and has continued relentlessly since. Each week, new, more intrusive rules are rolled out, some through Executive Order, but many issued from federal agencies, often without any fanfare or publicity. In every month since his inauguration, President Obama has heaped regulations on unsuspecting Americans, non-profit organizations, large and small businesses.



You can argue that some of these new regulations are not destructive to our economy, but just look at the number of regulations. Their range, their grasp and their intrusiveness into American life is staggering. And to think, several thousand new pages of new regulatory guidelines and added bureaucracy are still being drafted by the Obama Administration as required by healthcare, recovery act, financial reform, small business and TARP legislation. These new regulations will be piled atop the Mt. Everest pile of regulations Obama has already produced.



January 2009-Housing Voucher regulations



February 2009-PLA (Project Labor Agreements) forcing government contractors to provide bids that show union labor as a component.



March 2009-Stem Cell regulations



April 2009-Hedge Fund regulations



May 2009-EPA issues new fuel standards



June 2009-Regulations issued to influence Venture Capital activity



July 2009-EPA Training requirements for workers on building renovation projects



August 2009-E-Rule (electronic rulemaking) regulation



September 2009-EPA issues ozone pollution regulations



October 2009-Greenhouse gas reporting requirements



November 2009-Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) regulations



December 2009-Natural Gas Pipeline safety regulations



January 2010-Visa regulations



February 2010-Organic Foods Program regulations



March 2010-Credit Card regulations



April 2010-Residential Water Heaters regulations



May 2010-Coal Ash regulations



June 2010-Truth in Lending regulations



July 2010-Revised ADA regulations



August 2010-Bedbugs and Pesticide regulations



September 2010-Portland Cement regulations



October 2010-Truck regulations



November 2010-Perfume / Fragrance regulations



December 2010-CAFE standards, MPG regulations



January 2011-New Cuba Travel regulations



February 2011-"Conscience protection" rules for health care providers



March 2011-Menu and Vending machine rules issued



April 2011-Tougher Painkiller regulations



This ubiquitous level of federal governmental involvement in almost every aspect of the lives of American citizens seems anti-Democratic and certainly anti-liberty. Worse, Obama’s regulatory activities reek of a know-it-all, know-better-than-you kind of attitude that's un-American and certainly hostile to the laissez-faire kinds of policies that, in the past, spurred our nation to grow. Obama is championing an unabashed and rather dramatic new growth in government’s influence and control over virtually every aspect of our lives.



Regulatory reform is desperately needed in the federal government. For example,it takes some 7 years for the federal government to construct a new building because of the difficulty navigating all the time-consuming and expensive regulations. An astute leader would be willing to reduce the stifling bureaucratic process and regulatory regime that throttles all infrastructure projects in the US. In this way, projects could hire builders and construction teams more quickly; projects would be completed faster, at less cost too. But that is not what Obama does.



Instead, in January 2011, after a mind-boggling two years of ever greater strangulation of the economy through regulation, Obama does lip service to the idea of regulatory reform and calls for a top-down review of all federal regulations to determine which, if any, need to be reformed. And then, in typical, hypocritical, Obama-contradictory fashion, he delivers a State of the Union Address a week later that adds no less than a dozen, new regulations that he wants to impose on Americans.



The Obama Administration does not seem to understand that federal regulations have a cost, both in implementing and reporting as well as a cost in lost opportunity. Many of these regulations are shrouded in smugness and imply that the regulations are intended to make us into better people-- and that somehow those in the Obama Administration know what criteria are important to make us better people. Unbelievable!



Innovation, competitiveness, job creation and economic growth have traditionally been the hallmark of our great nation. But the effect of these new, governmental regulations will throttle those once uniquely American virtues. Permanently higher unemployment, less rapid business creation leading to far less innovation will be the result. Our economy is going to continue to be smothered, and small businesses will continue to be strangled until a new, and more capable, national leader emerges to roll back the self-imposed regulatory destruction that Obama has unleashed.



On the other hand, for any company that manufactures red tape, this is going to be a bumper year.















Tags: Energy and Environment , Global Warming









Lurita Doan

Lurita Alexis Doan is an African American conservative commentator who writes about issues affecting the federal government.



Tuesday, May 3, 2011

EPA Official Admits Jobs Don't Matter To The Agency

From The Patriot Update:

EPA official says jobs don’t matter




April 18, 2011



175Share







The Obama administration has repeatedly said job creation is a top priority, but apparently the memo seems to have missed the bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).



This became evident when EPA Assistant Administrator Mathy Stanislaus testified Thursday before an Environment and Energy subcommittee hearing that his agency does not take jobs into account when it issues new regulations.



“We have not directly taken a look at jobs in the proposal,” Stanislaus said, referring to a regulation that would govern industries that recycle coal ash and other fossil fuel byproducts.



Stanislaus made his comments in response to questioning by Colorado GOP Rep. Cory Gardner looking into whether the EPA is complying with a recent presidential executive order and considering jobs in its regulatory regime. The EPA issued a April 30, 2010 statement in the appendix of its regulatory impact analysis for proposed regulation under the Resources and Recovery Act (RCRA) of coal ash.



That statement said: “The [regulatory impact assessment] does not include either qualitative or quantitative estimation of the potential effects of the proposed rule on economic productivity, economic growth, employment, job creation or international economic competitiveness.”



The statement contradicts Executive Order 13563, which President Obama signed in January requiring rules to take job creation into account when federal agencies issue new rules.



“To me, I don’t see how you can talk about economic analysis without talking about jobs… and you said that you would not promulgate a rule where the costs would exceed the benefits,” Gardner continued. “But if you are not taking into account jobs, I don’t see how that goes.”



Gardner’s line of questioning had Stanislaus visibly dumbfounded, and he repeatedly told the congressman he would have to get back to him with the answers to his questions.



Watch the video: