H. R. 10108:
“An identification of any challenge to optimizing such a multilateral space situational awareness data-sharing agreement and integrated space and satellite security architecture in the Middle East.”
To require the Secretary of Defense to develop, in cooperation with allies and partners in the Middle East, an integrated space and satellite security capability, and for other purposes.
Introduced in House (11/08/2024)
118th CONGRESS 2d Session
H. R. 10108
To require the Secretary of Defense to develop, in cooperation with allies and partners in the Middle East, an integrated space and satellite security capability, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
November 8, 2024
Mr. Panetta (for himself, Mr. Nunn of Iowa, Mr. Schneider, and Mr. Trone) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
A BILL
To require the Secretary of Defense to develop, in cooperation with allies and partners in the Middle East, an integrated space and satellite security capability, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1.SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “Space Technology and Regional Security Act of 2024” or “STARS Act of 2024”.
SEC. 2. MIDDLE EAST INTEGRATED SPACE AND SATELLITE SECURITY
The COVID-19 pandemic exposed weaknesses of the U.S. public health system, revealing
crucial gaps in readiness, coordination, and trust between the government and public. The
overall response from the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA), and the National Institute of Health (NIH) revealed substantial
issues within these agencies, including communication failures and overly broad mandates
that impacted millions of American citizens.
, the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic will hold a hearing titled “Preparing
for the Next Pandemic: Lessons Learned and The Path Forward.”
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic exposed weaknesses of the U.S. public health system, revealing crucial gaps in readiness, coordination, and trust between the government and public. The overall response from the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the National Institute of Health (NIH) revealed substantial issues within these agencies, including communication failures and overly broad mandates that impacted millions of American citizens. II. HEARING PURPOSE: This hearing will examine the federal government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, including lessons learned to prevent future pandemics. III. WITNESS: Henry Walke, M.D., M.P.H. Director Office of Readiness and Response Centers for Disease Control & Prevention Hilary Marston, M.D., M.P.H. Chief Medical Officer U.S. Food & Drug Administration Lawrence Tabak, D.D.S, Ph.D. Principal Deputy Director National Institutes of Health
SELECT SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING NOTICE November 7, 2024 TO: Members, Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic FROM: Brad Wenstrup, Chairman SUBJECT: Select Subcommittee hearing titled “Preparing for the Next Pandemic: Lessons Learned and The Path Forward”
On Thursday, November 14, 2024, at 11:30 AM ET, the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic will hold a hearing titled “Preparing for the Next Pandemic: Lessons Learned and The Path Forward.” The hearing will convene in room 2154 of the Rayburn House Office Building. If any Members would like to submit documents, exhibits, or other materials into the hearing record, they may submit them through the Committee’s electronic repository at GOP.Oversight.Clerks@mail.house.gov. Members are encouraged to submit such materials at least 24 hours prior to the hearing so they may be circulated to all Members prior to the hearing. Submitting such materials after this period, or during the hearing, may delay both their distribution to other Members and their approval for entering into the record. If you have any questions, please contact Select Subcommittee staff at (202) 225-5074 or Mitch Benzine at Mitchell.Benzine@mail.house.gov.
“Congress should work with State racing commissions to regulate horseracing in a responsible way to ensure racetrack
safety and the economic viability of small tracks across the country.
I will work with any Senator who is willing to stand up for small tracks in the next Congress and fix this broken way of governing.”
– Congressman Lance Gooden
There is a common disagreement regarding both the constitutionality of HISAand, it’s reach.
We therefore DECLARE that HISA is unconstitutional on that ground.
The district court’s decision is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
(Furthermore,) “… the court conceded that, unlike the agencies examined in any other private non-delegation case, the FTC lacked any power “to formally modify the Authority’s rules.” Id. at *23. But this was “not fatal” to the Act’s constitutionality, because relevant precedents did not turn on the agency’s power to modify the private entity’s rules, only on its power to “approve or disapprove” them …”
“… the Supreme Court has limited the types of authority and functions that Congress can delegate to a purely private entity.”
The non-delegation doctrine is the principle that Congress cannot delegate its legislative powers or lawmaking ability to other entities. This prohibition typically involves Congress delegating its powers to administrative agencies or to private organizations. Thus, the non-delegation doctrine is most commonly used in connection with administrative law and constitutional law.
ArtI.S1.5.1 Overview of Nondelegation Doctrine
Article I, Section 1:
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
The nondelegation doctrine is rooted in certain separation of powers principles.1 In limiting Congress’s power to delegate, the nondelegation doctrine exists primarily to prevent Congress from ceding its legislative power to other entities not vested with legislative authority under the Constitution. As interpreted by the Court, the doctrine seeks to ensure that legislative decisions are made through a bicameral legislative process by the elected Members of Congress or governmental officials subject to constitutional accountability.2 Reserving the legislative power for a bicameral Congress was “intended to erect enduring checks on each Branch and to protect the people from the improvident exercise of power by mandating certain prescribed steps.” 3
The nondelegation doctrine, however, does not require complete separation of the three branches of government, and its continuing strength is the question of much debate.4 In its nondelegation jurisprudence, the Supreme Court has recognized the need and importance of coordination among the three branches of government so long as one branch does not encroach on the “constitutional field” of another branch.5 The nondelegation doctrine seeks to distinguish the constitutional delegations of power to other branches of government that may be “necessary” for governmental coordination from unconstitutional grants of legislative power that may violate separation of powers principles.6Footnotes1See Loving v. United States, 517 U.S. 748, 758 (1996) ( “Another strand of our separation-of-powers jurisprudence, the delegation doctrine, has developed to prevent Congress from forsaking its duties.” ). For discussion of the separation of powers, see Intro.7.2 Separation of Powers Under the Constitution.
2See Immigration & Naturalization Serv. v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 959 (1983) ( “There is no support in the Constitution or decisions of this Court for the proposition that the cumbersomeness and delays often encountered in complying with explicit constitutional standards may be avoided, either by the Congress or by the President. With all the obvious flaws of delay, untidiness, and potential for abuse, we have not yet found a better way to preserve freedom than by making the exercise of power subject to the carefully crafted restraints spelled out in the Constitution.” ) (citations omitted). See also Dep’t of Transp. v. Ass’n of Am. R.R., 575 U.S. 43, 61 (2015) (Alito, J., concurring) ( “The principle that Congress cannot delegate away its vested powers exists to protect liberty. Our Constitution, by careful design, prescribes a process for making law, and within that process there are many accountability checkpoints. It would dash the whole scheme if Congress could give its power away to an entity that is not constrained by those checkpoints. The Constitution’s deliberative process was viewed by the Framers as a valuable feature, not something to be lamented and evaded.” ) (citations omitted); Indus. Union Dep’t, AFL-CIO v. API, 448 U.S. 607, 687 (1980) ( “It is the hard choices, and not the filling in of the blanks, which must be made by the elected representatives of the people. When fundamental policy decisions underlying important legislation about to be enacted are to be made, the buck stops with Congress and the President insofar as he exercises his constitutional role in the legislative process.” ).
3Immigration & Naturalization Serv. v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 957–58 (1983).
5J.W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 394, 406 (1928).
6Id. at 406. See also Chadha, 462 U.S. at 944 ( “[T]he fact that a given law or procedure is efficient, convenient, and useful in facilitating functions of government, standing alone, will not save it if it is contrary to the Constitution. Convenience and efficiency are not the primary objectives—or the hallmarks—of democratic government.” ).
In J.W. Hampton v. United States, 276 U.S. 394 (1928), the Supreme Court clarified that when Congress does give an agency the ability to regulate, Congress must give the agencies an “intelligible principle” on which to base their regulations. This standard is viewed as quite lenient, and has rarely, if ever, been used to strike down legislation.
ArtI.S1.6.5 Private Entities and Legislative Power Delegations
Article I, Section 1:
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
In contrast to the relative latitude given to delegations to other branches of the government under the “intelligible principle” standard,1 the Supreme Court has limited the types of authority and functions that Congress can delegate to a purely private entity.2 The seminal case addressing delegations to a private entity is Carter v. Carter Coal Co.3 In Carter Coal, the Supreme Court invalidated the Bituminous Coal Conservation Act of 1935, a law that granted a majority of coal producers and miners in a given region the authority to impose maximum hour and minimum wage standards on all other miners and producers in that region.4 The Court reasoned that by conferring on a majority of private individuals the authority to regulate “the affairs of an unwilling minority,” the law was “legislative delegation in its most obnoxious form; for it is not even delegation to an official or an official body, presumptively disinterested, but to private persons whose interests may be and often are adverse to the interests of others in the same business.” 5 The Court did not apply the “intelligible principle” standard, but instead focused on the regulatory and “coercive” power given to private entities over its competitors and the due process concerns raised by such delegations.6
Although Carter Coal concerned the delegation of authority to private entities and not governmental bodies, some courts and commentators have suggested that the Carter Coal decision may more accurately be viewed as a due process case.7 The Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause prohibits the Federal Government8 from depriving any person of “life, liberty, or property without due process of law,” 9 which the Court has interpreted as establishing certain principles of fundamental fairness, including the notion that decision makers must be disinterested and unbiased.10 In striking down the delegation to coal producers and miners to impose standards on other producers and miners, the Supreme Court in Carter Coal centered its analysis on the coercive power that the majority could exercise over the “unwilling minority.” 11 The opinion articulated the due process problems involved with providing regulatory authority to private entities, stating:
The difference between producing coal and regulating its production is, of course, fundamental. The former is a private activity; the latter is necessarily a governmental function, since, in the very nature of things, one person may not be entrusted with the power to regulate the business of another, and especially of a competitor. And a statute which attempts to confer such power undertakes an intolerable and unconstitutional interference with personal liberty and private property. The delegation is so clearly arbitrary, and so clearly a denial of rights safeguarded by the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, that it is unnecessary to do more than refer to decisions of this court which foreclose the question.12
The Court’s reasoning in Carter Coal suggests that delegating authority to coal producers and miners to impose standards on its competitors is in tension with both the nondelegation doctrine and the Due Process Clause.13
After its Carter Coal decision, the Supreme Court did not comprehensively ban private involvement in regulation. In the context of private parties aiding in regulatory functions and decisions, the Court has indicated that Congress may empower a private party to play a more limited and supervised role in the regulatory process. For example, in Currin v. Wallace,14 the Court upheld a law that authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to issue a regulation respecting the tobacco market, but only if two-thirds of the growers in that market voted for the Secretary to do so.15 In distinguishing Carter Coal, the Court stated that “this is not a case where a group of producers may make the law and force it upon a minority.” 16 Rather, it was Congress that had exercised its “legislative authority in making the regulation and in prescribing the conditions of its application.” 17
Similarly, in Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. v. Adkins,18 the Supreme Court upheld a provision of the Bituminous Coal Act of 1937,19 which authorized private coal producers to propose standards for the regulation of coal prices.20 Those proposals were provided to a governmental entity, which was then authorized to approve, disapprove, or modify the proposal.21 The Court approved this framework, heavily relying on the fact that the private coal producers did not have the authority to set coal prices, but rather acted “subordinately” to the governmental entity (the National Bituminous Coal Commission).22 In particular, the Sunshine Anthracite Court noted that the Commission and not the private industry entity determined the final industry prices to conclude that the “statutory scheme” was “unquestionably valid.” 23
In the same vein as Carter Coal, the Supreme Court in Currin and Sunshine Anthracite did not evaluate whether Congress laid out an “intelligible principle” guiding the delegations to the private entities. Rather than applying the “intelligible principle” standard, the Court reviewed whether the responsibilities given to the private entities were acts of legislative or regulatory authority.24 In these nondelegation cases involving private entities, the Court drew the “line which separates legislative power to make laws, from administrative authority” to administer laws.25 In both Currin and Adkins, the Court reasoned that the private entities did not exercise legislative power because they did not impose or enforce binding legal requirements.26 Because the private entity’s responsibilities were primarily administrative or advisory, the Court determined that the statutes did not violate the nondelegation doctrine.27Footnotes1See ArtI.S1.5.3 Origin of Intelligible Principle Standard.
2See A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495, 537 (1935) (holding that delegation to trade and industrial associations of the power to develop codes of “fair competition” for the poultry industry “is unknown to our law and utterly inconsistent with the constitutional prerogatives and duties of Congress” ).
5Id. at 311. The Court appeared to characterize the wage and hour provisions as an unlawful “delegation” to a private entity, but also held that the provision in question was “clearly a denial of rights safeguarded by the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment,” id. at 311–12, leading some to question whether Carter should be considered a nondelegation case at all.
6Seeid. at 311 ( “The difference between producing coal and regulating its production is, of course, fundamental. The former is a private activity; the latter is necessarily a governmental function, since, in the very nature of things, one person may not be entrusted with the power to regulate the business of another, and especially of a competitor.” ).
7At least one court has debated on whether Carter Coal is a nondelegation or due process decision. See Ass’n of Am. R.R. v. Dep’t of Transp., 821 F.3d 19, 31 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (explaining that it was unclear what aspect of the “delegation [in Carter Coal] offended the Court. By one reading, it was the Act’s delegation to ‘private persons rather than official bodies. By another, it was the delegation to persons ‘whose interests may be and often are adverse to the interests of others in the same business’ rather than persons who are ‘presumptively disinterested,’ as official bodies tend to be. Of course, the Court also may have been offended on both fronts. But as the opinion continues, it becomes clear that what primarily drives the Court to strike down this provision is the self-interested character of the delegatees’ . . . .” ).
8The Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, by its very nature, only applies to the actions of the Federal Government. See Farrington v. Tokushige, 273 U.S. 284, 299 (1927) ( “[T]he inhibition of the Fifth Amendment—’No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law’—applies to the federal government and agencies set up by Congress for the government of the Territory.” ). For discussion of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, see Amdt5.5.1 Overview of Due Process. The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause as applied to actions of the states is discussed at Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1.
9U.S. Const. amend. V. See also Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc., 446 U.S. 238, 242 (1980) ( “The Due Process Clause entitles a person to an impartial and disinterested tribunal in both civil and criminal cases.” ); Carter Coal, 298 U.S. at 311; Eubank v. City of Richmond, 226 U.S. 137, 143–44 (1912) (invalidating a city ordinance on the grounds that it established “no standard by which the power thus given is to be exercised; in other words, the property holders who desire and have the authority to establish the line may do so solely for their own interest, or even capriciously. . . . ” ). See Amdt5.5.1 Overview of Due Process.
10See, e.g., Marshall, 446 U.S. at 242.
11Carter Coal, 298 U.S. at 311.
12Id. at 311–12.
13The intersection of the Due Process Clause and the nondelegation doctrine as illustrated by the Court’s decision in Carter Coal may arise when Congress delegates authority to government-created corporations that have both public and private aspects. For example, in Department of Transportation v. Association of American Railroads, the Supreme Court held that “Amtrak is a governmental entity, not a private one” for purposes of reviewing Congress’s power to delegate regulatory authority to Amtrak, a for-profit entity created by Congress. Dep’t of Transp. v. Ass’n of Am. R.R., 575 U.S. 43, 45, 54 (2015). The Court, however, did not reach the issue of whether the delegation of coercive power given to Amtrak over its competitors violates the Due Process Clause or the nondelegation doctrine. Id. at 55–56.
Federal Courthouse Conveyance Act;
Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States is committed to ensuring a safe and healthy climate for future generations, and thus to restoring the climate.;
IMPACT Act 2.0;
Peggy Lillis Clostridioides difficile Inclusion Act
H.R.10101 [118th] – Huntsville Federal Courthouse Conveyance Act
H.Res.1563 [118th] – Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States is committed to ensuring a safe and healthy climate for future generations, and thus to restoring the climate.
Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Information Technology, and Government
Innovation and the Subcommittee on National Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs joint
hearing titled “Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena: Exposing the Truth”
November 6, 2024 TO: Members, Committee on Oversight and Accountability FROM: James Comer, Chairman
This hearing follows an unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP) hearing held last summer by the Subcommittee on National Security, the Border and Foreign Affairs. It will explore continued concerns about disclosure of UAP-related programs and information held by federal agencies. It will explore transparency issues surrounding the Department of Defense (DoD) and the intelligence community, including its disclosure of spending information and its policies and procedures regarding classification and declassification. The hearing will also examine the work of DoD’s Congressionally mandated All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO). II. HEARING PURPOSE: This hearing will broadly examine issues related to overclassification of information along with a reluctance to declassify information where appropriate. It will attempt to shed further light on recent journalistic accounts concerning secret federal research programs on UAPs not disclosed to the American public. III. WITNESSES: To be determined
SUBJECT: Subcommittee on Cybersecurity Information, Technology, and Government Innovation and the Subcommittee on National Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs joint hearing titled “Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena: Exposing the Truth”
On Wednesday, November 13, 2024, at 11:30 a.m. ET, the Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Information Technology, and Government Innovation and
the Subcommittee on National Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs will hold a joint hearing titled “Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena: Exposing the Truth.” The hearing will convene in room 2154 of the Rayburn House Office Building. If any Members would like to submit documents, exhibits, or other materials into the hearing record, they may submit them through the Committee’s electronic repository at
GOP.Oversight.Clerks@mail.house.gov.
Members are encouraged to submit such materials at least 24 hours prior to the hearing so they may be circulated to all Members prior to the hearing.
Submitting such materials after this period, or during the hearing, may delay both their distribution to other Members and their approval for entering into the record.
If you have any questions, please contact Committee staff at (202) 225-5074 or Mallory Cogar at Mallory.Cogar@mail.house.gov.
“To amend the State Department Basic Authorities Act to establish a Deputy Secretary of State for Economic Security, redesignate and relocate other offices of the Department of State, and for other purposes. …”
H. RES. 1563 Ensuring a Save and Healthy Climate for Future Generations, and thus to Restore the Climate:
ia Senate passed SR–34,
becoming the first State to pass a resolution formally
recognizing an obligation to future generations to restore
the atmospheric CO2 concentration to a safe level,… and calling for action by the Federal Government, in the form of an
international climate treaty,
torestore and stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations as a common climate goal,,,’…”
ensuring a safe and healthy climate for future generations, and thus to restoring the climate
“…the urgent action needed to restore a safe climate is consistent with H. Res. 975, introduced in 2022, and H. Res. 259, introduced in 2023, which are resolutions that recognize the mental health impacts of recurrent climate-related disasters on youth, a group especially vulnerable to the physical and mental health impacts of climate-related disasters, and the far greater suffering young people and future generations will endure if the climate continues to worsen; and Ver Date Sep 11 2014 23:45 Nov 05, 2024 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\HR1563.IH HR1563 kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB 4 •HRES 1563 IH Whereas, on July 3, 2023, the California Senate passed SR– 34, becoming the first State to pass a resolution formally recognizing an obligation to future generations to restore the atmospheric CO2 concentration to a safe level, below 300 ppm, and calling for action by the Federal Government, in the form of an international climate treaty, to restore and stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations as a common climate goal: Now, therefore, be it. ,,,”
H.J.Res.100 [118th] – Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Securities and Exchange Commission relating to “Cybersecurity Risk Management, Strategy, Governance, and Incident Disclosure”.
“To direct certain institutions of higher education to pay the medical
costs of students who were diagnosed with certain diseases following a
required COVID-19 vaccination…”
H.R. 10077: University Forced Vaccination Student Injury Mitigation Act of 2024
To direct certain institutions of higher education to pay the medical costs of students who were diagnosed with certain diseases following a required COVID-19 vaccination, and for other purposes.
“(1) means funds made available under the heading “Bilateral Economic Assisstance—Funds Appropriated to the President—Economic Support Fund” of title IV of the Ukraine Security Supplemental Appropriations Act (Public Law 118–50); and
(2) does not include such funds that are made available to prevent and respond to food insecurity.”
H.R. 10069: To transfer certain unobligated funds to the Disaster Relief Fund, and for other purposes
Mr. Higgins of Louisiana (for himself, Mr. Bishop of North Carolina, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Norman, and Mr. Ogles) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Appropriations
A BILL
To transfer certain unobligated funds to the Disaster Relief Fund, and for other purposes.
H.R. 10067:
“A BILL
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from tax-exempt status entities which provide goods or services to individuals who are not citizens or nationals of the United States.”
“Helping Americans by Restricting Resources to Immigrant Services Act of 2024” or the “HARRIS Act of 2024”.
H. R. 10067
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from tax-exempt status entities which provide goods or services to individuals who are not citizens or nationals of the United States.
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from tax-exempt status entities which provide goods or services to individuals who are not citizens or nationals of the United States.
“…to study alternatives for a nonpartisan congressional office or agency to project the net greenhouse gas emissions likely to be caused by Federal legislation,…”
118th CONGRESS 2d Session
H. R. 10074
To direct the Comptroller General of the United States, in coordination with the National Academy of Sciences, to study alternatives for a nonpartisan congressional office or agency to project the net greenhouse gas emissions likely to be caused by Federal legislation, and for other purposes.
To direct the Comptroller General of the United States, in coordination with the National Academy of Sciences, to study alternatives for a nonpartisan congressional office or agency to project the net greenhouse gas emissions likely to be caused by Federal legislation, and for other purposes.
Vector illustration of a red republican elephant and a blue democratic donkey facing off. Concept for US politics, elections, election debates, confrontation and presidential election.
“…shall develop and implement a training program for covered Federal employees on the
limitations with respect to opposing, obstructing, or impeding lawful
directives from the President, Vice President, or any other political
appointee, including Executive orders, National Security Presidential
Memoranda, Presidential Decision Directives, Agency Directives….”
[Congressional Bills 118th Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] [H.R. 10053 Introduced in House (IH)]
<DOC>
118th CONGRESS 2d Session H. R. 10053
To require the Director of the Office of Personnel Management to develop and implement mandatory training for covered Federal employees regarding compliance with directives from the President, Vice President, and other political appointees, and for other purposes.
Introduced in House (08/27/2024)
“To recognize the right to assisted reproductive technology and to limit liability for certain actions committed during the course of providing assisted reproductive technology”
118th CONGRESS 2d Session
H. R. 9416
Introduced in House (08/27/2024)
To recognize the right to assisted reproductive technology and to limit liability for certain actions committed during the course of providing assisted reproductive technology.
introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
A BILL
To recognize the right to assisted reproductive technology and to limit liability for certain actions committed during the course of providing assisted reproductive technology.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1.SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “Securing Access to Fertility Everywhere Act ”or as the “SAFE Act”.
SEC. 2. RIGHT TO ASSISTED REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY.
(a) In General.—No individual acting under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, may subject, or cause to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other individual within the jurisdiction thereof to any undue burden on the right to use assisted reproductive technology, including in vitro fertilization.
(b) Limitation On Liability.—No individual acting under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, may subject, or cause to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other individual within the jurisdiction thereof to liability for wrongful death for non-negligent accidents occurring during the processing, transporting, or storing of human embryonic or gamete tissues and cells created using assisted reproductive technology, including in vitro fertilization, that cause unintended damage to the viability of a human embryo.
(c) Definition.—The term “assisted reproductive technology” means all treatments or procedures which include the handling of human oocytes or embryos, including in vitro fertilization, gamete intrafallopian transfer, zygote intrafallopian transfer, and such other specific technologies as the Secretary may by rule determine.
To strengthen and enhance the competitiveness of cement, concrete, asphalt binder, and asphalt mixture production in the United States through the research, development, demonstration, and commercial application of technologies to reduce emissions from cement, concrete, asphalt binder, and asphalt mixture production, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 25, 2024
Mrs. Foushee (for herself and Mr. Miller of Ohio) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, and Education and the Workforce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
A BILL
To strengthen and enhance the competitiveness of cement, concrete, asphalt binder, and asphalt mixture production in the United States through the research, development, demonstration, and commercial application of technologies to reduce emissions from cement, concrete, asphalt binder, and asphalt mixture production, and for other purposes.
To protect the health and welfare of covered horses and improve the integrity and safety of horseracing by authorizing States to enter into an interstate compact to develop and enforce scientific medication control rules and racetrack safety rules that are uniform for each equine breed, and for other purposes.
To protect the health and welfare of covered horses and improve the integrity and safety of horseracing by authorizing States to enter into an interstate compact to develop and enforce scientific medication control rules and racetrack safety rules that are uniform for each equine breed, and for other purposes.
TITLE VII--FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION OVERSIGHT OF HORSERACING INTEGRITY
AND SAFETY AUTHORITY
SEC. 701. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION OVERSIGHT OF HORSERACING
INTEGRITY AND SAFETY AUTHORITY.
Section 1204(e) of the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act of 2020
(15 U.S.C. 3053(e)) is amended to read as follows:
``(e) Amendment by Commission of Rules of Authority.--The
Commission, by rule in accordance with section 553 of title
[[Page 136 STAT. 5232]]
5, United States Code, may abrogate, add to, and modify the rules of the
Authority promulgated in accordance with this Act as the Commission
finds necessary or appropriate to ensure the fair administration of the
Authority, to conform the rules of the Authority to requirements of this
Act and applicable rules approved by the Commission, or otherwise in
furtherance of the purposes of this Act.''.
3817 NW Expressway #780 Oklahoma City, OK 73112 (405) 246-0025
15 W 6th St. Suite #2100 Tulsa, OK 74119 (918) 921-8520
330 Hart Senate Building Washington, DC 20510 (202) 224-4721
introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce
A BILL
To provide an extension of authority for the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY FOR THE HORSERACING INTEGRITY AND SAFETY AUTHORITY.
Section 1202(14) of the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act of 2020 (15 U.S.C. 3051(14)) is amended by striking “July 1, 2022” and inserting “January 1, 2024”.”
“Ensuring Seniors’ Access to COVID Treatments Act”:
H. R. 975:
“Ensuring Seniors’ Access to COVID Treatments Act”
“To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to require coverage under Medicare PDPs and MA–PD plans, without the imposition of cost sharing or utilization management requirements, of drugs intended to treat COVID–19 during certain emergencies.”
117th CONGRESS 1st Session
H. R. 975
To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to require coverage under Medicare PDPs and MA–PD plans, without the imposition of cost sharing or utilization management requirements, of drugs intended to treat COVID–19 during certain emergencies.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 11, 2021
Mr. Casten introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
A BILL
To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to require coverage under Medicare PDPs and MA–PD plans, without the imposition of cost sharing or utilization management requirements, of drugs intended to treat COVID–19 during certain emergencies.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1.SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “Ensuring Seniors’ Access to COVID Treatments Act”.
The Horseracing Integrity Act
116th Congress
House Sponsors: Paul Tonko (D-NY) & Andy Barr (R-KY)
Senate Sponsors: Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) & Martha McSally (R-AZ)
The Horseracing Integrity Act:
116th Congress House Sponsors: Paul Tonko (D-NY) & Andy Barr (R-KY) Senate Sponsors: Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) & Martha McSally (R-AZ) “Our goal has to be zero horse deaths in horseracing. I won’t stop working on this issue until we make that happen.” ❖ Paul Tonko Horseracing is a Major Economic Driver
The horseracing industry generates some $15.6 billion in direct economic impact
More than 241,000 U.S. jobs are supported by the horseracing industry
Many states benefit from the horseracing industry in the form of economic and job development o In New York, horseracing contributes more than $3 billion annually o In Maryland, some 20,000 jobs are sustained by the horseracing industry Lack of Uniformity Hurts Horses & the Sport
There are 38 unique state racing commissions, each with different rules and regulations
Roughly half of all Thoroughbred starts in the U.S. are from horses that compete in more than one state and nearly eighty percent of wagers are across state lines
Nearly every country except for the U.S. has banned race-day medication, limiting the ability of American breeders, trainers and horses to compete abroad Congress Needs to Stop Horsing Around! The Horseracing Integrity Act would establish a uniform national medication program, encourage fair competition, modernize regulations across state lines and prioritize the safety and welfare of the people and equine athletes involved in the noble sport of kings. The Horseracing Integrity Act
Provides for the increased safety and welfare of horses, jockeys and drivers
Establishes a conflict-free, self-regulatory organization responsible for creating and implementing an anti-doping program for the entire horseracing industry
Develops standardized list of permitted and prohibited substances, treatments and methods for all covered races in the United States
Bans the use of all medications within 24 hours of a race
Requires full & fair information disclosure to breeding stock purchasers and the wagering public Supported by: Humane Society of the U.S., New York Racing Association, American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), Animal Welfare Institute, the Water Hay Oats Alliance, the Jockey Club, Animal Wellness Action, the Breeders’ Cup, Keeneland Association, the Kentucky Thoroughbred Association, the Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association, the Stronach Group, and some of the nation’s top trainers. Congress can strengthen the competitiveness and legitimacy of America’s sport of kings while lifting up the health and nobility of the equine athlete. The time to act is now!
Crime Control Act of 1970
“…It is the purpose of this Act to seek the eradication of organized
crime in the United States by strengthening the legal to0ls in the evidence-gathering process, by establishing new penal prohibitions, and
by providing enhanced sanctions and new remedies to deal with the
unlawful activities of those engaged in organized crime. …”
“AN ACT Relating to the control of organized crime in the United States. Organized Crime ]enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled^ That this Act may be cited as the “Organized Crime Control Act of 1970.” STAITIMENT OF FINDINGS AND PURPOSE The (Congress finds that (1) organized crime in the United States is a highly sophisticated, diversified, and widespread activity that annually drains billions of dollars from America’s economy by unlawful conduct and the illegal use of force, fraud, and corruption;
“…(a) Any person subject to this chapter who wrongfully takes, obtains, or withholds, by any means, from the possession of the owner or of any other person any money, personal property, or article of value of any kind-
(1) with intent permanently to deprive or defraud another person of the use and benefit of property or to appropriate it to his own use or the use of any person other than the owner, steals that property and is guilty of larceny; or
(2) with intent temporarily to deprive or defraud another person of the use and benefit of property or to appropriate it to his own use or the use of any person other than the owner, is guilty of wrongful appropriation. …”
10 USC 921: Art. 121. Larceny and wrongful appropriation
Text contains those laws in effect on November 2, 2024
From Title 10-ARMED FORCES Subtitle A-General Military Law PART II-PERSONNEL CHAPTER 47-UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE SUB CHAPTER X-PUNITIVE ARTICLES
§921. Art. 121. Larceny and wrongful appropriation
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who wrongfully takes, obtains, or withholds, by any means, from the possession of the owner or of any other person any money, personal property, or article of value of any kind-
(1) with intent permanently to deprive or defraud another person of the use and benefit of property or to appropriate it to his own use or the use of any person other than the owner, steals that property and is guilty of larceny; or
(2) with intent temporarily to deprive or defraud another person of the use and benefit of property or to appropriate it to his own use or the use of any person other than the owner, is guilty of wrongful appropriation.
(b) Any person found guilty of larceny or wrongful appropriation shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
In subsection (a), the words “whatever” and “true” are omitted as surplusage. The word “it” is substituted for the words “the same” in clauses (1) and (2).
“Administrative Procedure
Act”:
“To improve the administration of justice by prescribing fair
administrative procedure”:
“No subsequent legislation shall
be held to supersede or modify the provisions of this Act except to
the extent that such legislation shall do so expressly”
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT [PUBLIC LAW 404—79TH CONGRESS] [CHAPTER 324—2D SESSION] [S. 7] AN ACT To improve the administration of justice by prescribing fair administrative procedure Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, TITLE SECTION 1. This Act may be cited as the “Administrative Procedure Act”.
“embezzlement, n. The fraudulent taking of personal property with which one has been entrusted, esp. as a fiduciary. • The criminal intent for embezzlement — unlike larceny and false pretenses – arises after taking possession (not before or during the taking). — Also termed defalcation; peculation. See LARCENY; FALSE PRETENSES. — embez-zle, ub. — embezzler, n.”
“embezzlement, n. The fraudulent taking of personal property with which one has been entrusted, esp. as a fiduciary. • The criminal intent for embezzlement — unlike larceny and false pretenses – arises after taking possession (not before or during the taking). — Also termed defalcation; peculation. See LARCENY; FALSE PRETENSES. — embez-zle, ub. — embezzler, n.”
“false pretenses: The crime of knowingly obtaining title to another’s personal property by misrepresenting a fact with the intent to defraud. “
FALSE PRETENSES
“false pretenses. The crime of knowingly obtaining title to another’s personal property by misrepresenting a fact with the intent to defraud. • Although unknown to English common law, false pretenses became a misdemeanor under a statute old enough to make it common law in the United States.
Modern American statutes make it either a felony or a misdemeanor, depending on the property’s value. — Also termed obtaining property by false pretenses; fraudulent pretenses. Cf. larceny by trick under LARCENY; EMBEZZLEMENT.”
