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Defense Council, who says, "Clearly, consumers, the economy and the environment will suffer if these standards are repealed."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.
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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
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
The 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
More Assaults By The Food Police
May 4, 2011 by Bob Livingston
The 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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)