Category Archives: House of Representatives

House Democrats revive armor piercing bullet ban

Posted on by

m855ammoAR15WASHINGTON — The Bloomers are at it again. After the failed attempt by the BATFE to unconstitutionally outlaw ammunition, the Representative of New York have taken up the gauntlet. Representative Eliot L. Engel (D-NY-16) submitted H.R.1358—the Armor-Piercing Bullets Act of 2015.

This bill would actually increase the types of ammunition considered “armor-piercing” and include shotgun “slugs.” The kicker in the bill is that it would change 921(a)(17) of title 18 to allow:

“…the Attorney General may treat a projectile as not primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes if substantial evidence exists that the projectile is not primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes”

Who determines what is intended for “sporting purposes” is the Attorney General.

H.R. 1358 was submitted on March 13, but the Republicans have not remained silent. On March 16, Representative Patrick McHenry [R-NC-10] has submitted the Ammunition and Firearms Protection Act, H.R.1365. The Republican bill would change Section 921(a)(17) of title 18, to read:

“(D) Notwithstanding subparagraph (B), the term ‘armor piercing ammunition’ does not include—
“(i) any M855 (5.56 mm x 45 mm) or SS109 type ammunition; or
“(ii) any ammunition designed, intended, and marketed for use in a rifle.”.

H.R. 1358 is currently in the House Committee on the Judiciary while the Republican bill has moved to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations. If co-sponsors are any indication, the ammo ban bill has nine while the Republican bill sports 41.

Representative Michael Honda [D-CA-17] submitted H.R.378 – Responsible Body Armor Possession Act in January. This bill with five co-sponsors has been in the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations since February. This euphemistically titled bill actually states that private citizens are not responsible enough to possess body armor.

The problem is that the Second Amendment does not protect hunters and sport shooting. The amendment does not read “A well-regulated hunters, being necessary to the security of a free State…” Hunting and hunters are protected by the Ninth Amendment.

The Second Amendment does not protect “firearms” and ammunition specifically. The Second Amendment provides that,

…the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The ban on any arms is technically unconstitutional. According to Federalist Paper No. 29. This was so that local militias could protect the rights of themselves and their communities.

Bill introduced to prevent President Obama from renaming McKinley by executive order

Posted on by
Denali_Mt_McKinley

Photo by a NPS employee from Wikipedia.

WASHINGTON — was submitted by the congressional delegation of Ohio fearful that President Obama will rename McKinley to Mount Obama by executive order.

Representative Bob Gibbs of Ohio submitted H.R. 437, the text which reads:

Notwithstanding any other authority of law, the mountain located 63 degrees 04 minutes 12 seconds north, by 151 degrees 00 minutes 18 seconds west shall continue to be named and referred to for all purposes as Mount McKinley.

Okay, that is the April Fools part of the article.

Verily, the name given to the highest mountain in North America has been in dispute for some time. The Alaska Board of Geographic Names lists the mountain as Denali—meaning “the great one” in the Athabaskan language. The United States Board on Geographic Names lists it as Mount McKinley.

William_McKinley1896Efforts by Alaskan authorities have always been thwarted by the congressional delegation from Ohio—such as with this bill H.R. 437. Since being introduced in January, it moved from the House Committee on Natural Resources to the Subcommittee on Federal Lands March 2. The bill has no cosponsors.

Mount McKinley was named after William McKinley—the 25th President of the United States, serving from March 4, 1897, until his assassination in September 1901, six months into his second term. He was born in Ohio and this bill was submitted on January 21—eight days before the date of his birth in 1843.

It is rather interesting that this debate has not been given the same coverage by the media as the name of a football team.

Congressman introduced Life at Conception Act

Posted on by

Alex X. Mooney, West Virginia

Alex X. Mooney, West Virginia

WASHINGTON — Rep. Mooney, Alexander X. [R-WV-2] has introduced H.R. 816—the Life at Conception act. The act would use the 14th Amendment to guarantee the right to life at all stages of life. The bill would also prevent prosecution of a woman for the death of her unborn child.

The bill defines a human person or human being as:

…every member of the species homo sapiens at all stages of life, including the moment of fertilization, cloning, or other moment at which an individual member of the human species comes into being.

The bill provides:

However, nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize the prosecution of any woman for the death of her unborn child.

The bill is broadly defined to include cloning or any other method of fertilization which results in an embryo.

The bill, which was introduced February 9, has 82 co-sponsors and was referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice on March 16. Only one Democrat has co-sponsored the bill.

Saving America’s Pollinators Act to ban neonicotinoids

Posted on by

Beautiful flowers attract bees, butterflies and other insects.

Is CCD the result of neonicotinoids?

WASHINGTON — Representative John Conyers Jr. [D-MI-13] introduced a bill which should have Monsanto lobbyists working overtime. H.R. 1284, titled Saving America’s Pollinators Act, would ban neonicotinoids—A strain of pesticides said to be the cause of colony collapse disorder (CCD).

CCD is the decline of honeybee colonies which may be the result of neonicotinoids. It is tempting to use the famed Einstein quote about bees, but it is uncertain that he ever related bees to the decline and fall of man.

The “Findings” of the Congress in the bill says that

Scientists have linked the use of a certain class of systemic insecticides, known as neonicotinoids, to the rapid decline of pollinators and to the deterioration of pollinator health.

A 2014 Forbes article apparently disagrees that there is a problem in a September 9, 2014 article. It contends that even if all of the honeybees were killed off, there are other pollinating insects—including other bees. In addition, some plants, such as corn, are pollinated by the air.

The text of the bill, however, claims:

Native pollinators, such as bumble bees, have also suffered alarming population declines. There are currently more than 40 pollinator species federally-listed as threatened or endangered, and most recently, the iconic monarch butterfly has declined by 90 percent.

Europe banned the pesticide in 2013 drawing the ire of a Forbes opinion piece. reported in an article that:

Neonicotinoids are extremely effective. Applied to the soil, sprayed on the crop or used as a seed treatment, they are taken up in the plant, discouraging pests from wrecking havoc on crops.

This, of course, begs the question that if these pesticides are drawn into the plant, are consumers eating the pesticides, as well. They obviously cannot be “washed off.” That issue is beyond the scope of this article.

While Forbes contends that it is no big deal if a few honeybees give their lives to save a few acres of crops (assuming that we are not ingesting the pesticide), the bill claims:

A recent national survey sponsored by the Federal Government indicates that United States beekeepers experienced a 45.2 percent annual mortality rate with their hives during the period beginning in April 2012 and ending in March 2013. During the winter of 2013–2014, two-thirds of beekeepers experienced loss rates greater than the established acceptable winter mortality rate.

If true, beekeepers probably do not agree with Forbes.

The bill, however, would not be permanent. The bill allows:

Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall suspend the registration of imidacloprid, clothianidin, thiamethoxam, dinotafuran, and any other members of the nitro group of neonicotinoid insecticides to the extent such insecticide is registered, conditionally or otherwise, under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.) …

until the EPA determines whether or not these insecticides are actually causing harm to pollinators in general and honeybees specific.

While other bees, and even wasps, do produce honey, none do on the scale necessary to provide a food source. Their honey is also different and not as nutritious as that of the honeybee.

It seems that farmers and beekeepers are finding themselves in the situation of ranchers and sheep herders in the days of yore.

Government wonders: What’s in your old emails?

Posted on by

r99U5.AuSt.91By Lindsay Wise
McClatchy Washington Bureau – February 11, 2015

WASHINGTON — If you’ve been remiss in cleaning out your email in-box, here’s some incentive: The federal government can read any emails that are more than six months old without a warrant.

Little known to most Americans, ambiguous language in a communications law passed in 1986 extends Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure only to electronic communications sent or received fewer than 180 days ago.

The language, known as the “180-day rule,” allows government officials to treat any emails, text messages or documents stored on remote servers – popularly known as the cloud – as “abandoned” and therefore accessible using administrative subpoena power, a tactic that critics say circumvents due process.

As you rush to purge your Gmail and Dropbox accounts, however, be forewarned that even deleted files still could be fair game as long as copies exist on a third-party server somewhere.

Read more at MC Clatchy DC

Steve Stockman of Texas introduces bill to address border crisis

Posted on by
House Photo

House Photo

WASHINGTON D.C. – A bill was introduced by Texas House Republican Steve Stockman on July 31 to address the border crisis. It includes dealing with MS-13 gang members who brag to Border Patrol agents about the murders they committed in Central America.

According to the Stockman House web site, the bill would, “…would end the current border crisis by building a full double fence along the US/Mexican border, deploying additional law enforcement to the border, detaining gang members, punishing countries that refuse to accept repatriated illegals and banning welfare benefits for amnestied illegals.”

The text and information about the bill—which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary and other committees—is not yet posted on the Thomas.gov web site. H.R. 5316 is entitled The SECURITY Act (Safely Exacting Cautious Useful Rules for Immigration This Year).

The nine sections of the bill provide for several things including prohibiting criminal gang members from receiving asylum, National Guard deployment and fencing and punishing countries refusing to repatriate refugees. The President of Guatemala is attempting to extort $2 billion to stop the flow of illegal aliens.

The measures of the bill are:

Section 2. Metrics
• Establishes metrics to evaluate the security of the border by defining operational control.
• Penalizes the budget of the DHS Undersecretary for Management for failure to achieve operational control.

Section 3. Fencing
• Requires completion of double-layered fencing along the entire Southern border.
• Requires initial plan and periodic progress reports on status of construction.
• Penalizes the DHS Secretary’s budget for failure to submit plan and progress reports.

Section 4. Border Patrol
• Requires House and Senate Committees to be notified if there are closures of Border Patrol stations and the reasons for the closure and plans for redistribution of personnel.

Section 5. National Guard
• Deploys additional members of the National Guard to support Border Patrol.
• Provides federal assistance for state border control activities.

Section 6. Detention
• Allows detention of dangerous criminal aliens beyond 6 months.

Section 7. Gangs
• Prohibits foreign criminal gang members from receiving asylee or refugee status.

Section 8. Judges
• Requires the Attorney General to submit annual requests to Congress for immigration judges.

Section 9. Facilities
• Requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to submit annual requests to Congress for detention facilities.

Section 10. Incentives
• Closes the additional child tax credit loophole.
• Prohibits an alien deemed to have lawful presence via executive order or policy directive from being defined as a qualified alien for purposes of public benefits.

Stockman complains that the border invasion of illegal aliens began as a result of Obama’s push for a DREAM act amnesty for illegal aliens. The problem is that the DREAM act is only supposed to apply to illegals already in America who grew up here and have no ties to foreign countries.

The gang members are a big problem.

“Gang members with face tattoos openly tell Border Patrol agents about the murders they committed in Central America. Immigration laws prevent agents from detaining these bragging killers,” said Stockman. “Under Obama’s amnesty scheme these killer gang members are set loose in the United States to later get amnesty. Obama doesn’t care. The SECURITY Act puts a stop to that by detaining gang members and stopping Obama’s plan to give them amnesty.”

“These illegals say they are coming because Obama promised them welfare benefits. The invasion stops once Congress passes this bill, which cuts off welfare benefits to these illegals even if Obama issues an Executive Order giving them amnesty,” said Stockman.

(Corrected 10:05 AM)

ACLJ: Decision to Hold Former IRS Official Lois Lerner in Contempt of Congress “Justified”

Posted on by

Lois LernerWASHINGTON D.C. – The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), which represents 41 organizations in a federal lawsuit challenging the IRS, said today’s decision by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to hold former IRS official Lois Lerner in contempt of Congress is “justified” for failing to cooperate with Congressional investigators to provide information regarding her role in the unlawful targeting of conservative and tea party groups.

“The decision to hold Lois Lerner in contempt comes 11 months to the day since she revealed this unlawful scheme with a question she planted at an ABA meeting,” said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ. “From the very beginning, she has ignored a Congressional subpoena – refused to answer questions on two occasions by pleading the Fifth Amendment. We believe – as many others do – that she waived her constitutional right to remain silent because she invoked it after she publicly proclaimed her innocence. Lerner has misled the American people and Congress from the very start. Contempt is justified and the appropriate sanction in this case.”

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform today voted to hold Lerner in contempt of Congress. The measure now goes before the full House for consideration.

Today’s action comes just one day after the House Committee on Ways and Means voted to send a letter to the Attorney General saying Lerner should be prosecuted for her actions in the unlawful targeting scheme.

The contempt vote comes as the ACLJ has heard from more than 70,000 people in just several days calling on Congress to hold Lerner in contempt.

The ACLJ federal lawsuit, which also names Lois Lerner as a defendant, is progressing. The ACLJ represents 41 organizations in 22 states. Of the 41 groups, 24 organizations received tax-exempt status after lengthy delays, 11 are still pending, 5 withdrew applications because of frustration with the IRS process, and 1 had their file closed by the IRS after refusing to answer the unconstitutional requests for more information.

See Also: New Emails Show Lois Lerner Was in Contact With DOJ About Prosecuting Tax Exempt Groups

Current legislation of interest to veterans.

Posted on by

Veterans and current military members are certainly aware of the reduction of retiree pay while blocking Republican efforts to close tax credits for illegal aliens.

The Air Force Sergeants Association Facebook page has compiled a list of current legislation of interest to the military and veterans.

Many of the efforts address the reduction in veteran retirement in one fashion or another. Democrat Daniel B. Maffei of New York, for example, would restore military pay while closing “corporate tax loopholes.”

The list from the Air Force Sergeants Association is as follows:

H.R. 3787, by Rep. James Lankford, R-Okla., would repeal of annual adjustment of retired pay and retainer pay amounts for retired members of the Armed Forces under age 62. Note: This bill would restore $6 billion to replace the cuts in military retirement by combining DoD and VA drug-buying power, that Lankford contends would save an estimated $7 billion.

H.R. 3788, by Rep. Michael G. Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., (and 45 cosponsors), would repeal the reductions in military retirement benefits made by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013; and require inclusion of the taxpayer’s social security number to claim the refundable portion of the child tax credit.

H.R. 3789, by Rep. Jeff Miller, R-Fla., (and 120 cosponsors), would exempt the retired pay of certain disabled veterans from the reduced adjustment of retired pay and retainer pay amounts for retired members of the Armed Forces under age 62; and prevent any adverse impact of the reduced adjustment on annuities under the Survivor Benefit Plan based on retired or retainer pay.

H.R. 3790, by Rep. Jeff Miller, R-Fla., (and 87 cosponsors), would repeal of annual adjustment of retired pay and retainer pay amounts for retired members of the Armed Forces under age 62.

H.R. 3792, by Rep. Robert J. Wittman, R-Va., would bill to repeal the reduction in the annual percentage increases of retired pay and retainer pay amounts for retired members of the Armed Forces under age 62.

H.R. 3793, by Rep. Daniel B. Maffei, D-N.Y., (and 36 cosponsors), would restore full military retirement benefits by closing corporate tax loopholes.

H.R. 3794, by Rep. Gus Bilirakis, R-Fla., would repeal the annual adjustment of retired pay and retainer pay amounts for retired members of the Armed Forces under age 62.

H.R. 3797, by Rep. Scott DesJarlais, R-Tenn., would repeal an annual adjustment of retired pay and retainer pay amounts for retired members of the Armed Forces under age 62.

H.R. 3798, by Rep. Scott DesJarlais, R-Tenn., would repeal an annual adjustment of retired pay and retainer pay amounts for retired members of the Armed Forces under age 62.

H.R. 3801, by Rep. Darrell E. Issa, R-Calif., would repeal the reductions in military retirement benefits made by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013; and authorize the United States Postal Service to implement a modified Saturday delivery schedule.

S. 1869, by Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., would repeal section 403 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, relating to an annual adjustment of retired pay for members of the Armed Forces under the age of 62, and provide an offset.

S. 1872, by Sen. Mark L. Pryor, D-Ark., would provide that the annual adjustment of retired pay for members of the Armed Forces under the age of 62 under the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 shall not apply to members retired for disability and to retired pay used to compute certain Survivor Benefit Plan annuities.

S. 1880, by Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., would provide that the annual adjustment of retired pay for members of the Armed Forces under the age of 62 under the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 shall not apply to members retired for disability and to retired pay used to compute certain Survivor Benefit Plan annuities.

Does God Love Online Poker? Texas Congressman Has Shocking Answer

Posted on by

Congressman Joe Barton (R-Texas) at the Congressional hearing regarding the Internet Poker Freedom Act

Congressman Joe Barton (R-Texas) at the Congressional hearing regarding the Internet Poker Freedom Act

By Katherine Weber, Christian Post Reporter
December 12, 2013|8:56 am

During a Congressional hearing earlier this week concerning the new Internet Poker Freedom Act, Texas Rep. Joe Barton, a staunch supporter of online poker, argued that God enabled him to travel to the congressional hearing in Washington D.C., and therefore the Almighty must be in support of online poker and the passing of the online gaming bill.

Barton, speaking during the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing Tuesday in D.C., said that “God must be for this bill because I got up this morning at four o’clock in Texas, outside Dallas, and braved icy roads and 20 degree temperatures to get to DFW airport where my good friends at American Airlines left exactly on time. God put a 200 mile tail wind behind our plane, and I got here an hour early. So that tells me that God is for this bill,” Barton, a Republican, said jokingly, garnering laughter from those attending the subcommittee hearing.

The Internet Poker Freedom Act, also known as House Bill 2666, would allow more people to play internet poker by setting certain regulations to the online game, including establishing a program for states and federally recognized Indian tribes to license the game. The legality of online poker in the U.S. folded in 2011 after the Department of Justice ended many online gaming operations, and earlier in 2006 Congress passed a law banning the use of credit cards for illegal internet gaming.

Barton, who is backing the Internet Poker Freedom Act , went on to argue at Tuesday’s congressional hearing that he believes fans of poker should be able to play online, saying the game is superior to other games such as slots or roulette, because it requires skill and not just luck. “Now we have the Internet and iPhones and iPads and apps and all these things,” he said. “Just about the only thing you can’t do [online] anymore is play poker. And that is changing.”

Read more at The Christian Post

House Republicans back new constitutional challenge to ObamaCare

Posted on by

Forty House Republicans filed a brief last week in support of a legal challenge against ObamaCare that argues the law imposes billions of dollars in new taxes but did not originate in the House, as tax bills must under the Constitution.

Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) spearheaded the effort by filing a “friend of the court” brief on Friday with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. That brief argued that ObamaCare violated the Origination Clause of the Constitution, which holds that all bills for raising revenue “shall originate in the House.”

The brief recounted how ObamaCare was ultimately passed — the Senate took an unrelated bill that gave tax breaks to certain veterans and added what ultimately became the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).

“If the Senate can introduce the largest tax increase in American history by simply peeling off the House number from a six-page unrelated bill which does not raise taxes and pasting it on the ‘Senate Health Care Bill,’ and then claim with a straight face that the resulting bill originated in the House, in explicit contravention of the supreme law of the land, then the American ‘rule of law’ has become no rule at all,” the GOP brief said.

Read more at The Hill