DOCSLIB.ORG

CREC-2021-01-13-Pt1-Pgh151-8.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 117 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION Vol. 167 WASHINGTON, WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 13, 2021 No. 8 Senate The Senate was not in session today. Its next meeting will be held on Friday, January 15, 2021, at 10 a.m. House of Representatives WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 13, 2021 The House met at 9 a.m. and was We have taken our obligations freely, tempore (Mr. BROWN) at 9 o’clock and called to order by the Speaker pro tem- but we remain beholden to Your guid- 16 minutes a.m. pore (Mr. BROWN). ance. Hold us, then, accountable to f f Your powerful Word. In the strength of Your holy name, PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION DESIGNATION OF THE SPEAKER we pray. OF H. RES. 24, IMPEACHING DON- PRO TEMPORE Amen. ALD JOHN TRUMP, PRESIDENT The SPEAKER pro tempore laid be- f OF THE UNITED STATES, FOR fore the House the following commu- HIGH CRIMES AND MIS- THE JOURNAL nication from the Speaker: DEMEANORS WASHINGTON, DC, The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursu- Mr. MCGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by di- January 13, 2021. ant to section 5(a)(1)(A) of House Reso- rection of the Committee on Rules, I I hereby appoint the Honorable ANTHONY lution 8, the Journal of the last day’s call up House Resolution 41 and ask for G. BROWN to act as Speaker pro tempore on proceedings is approved. its immediate consideration. this day. f The Clerk read the resolution, as fol- NANCY PELOSI, Speaker of the House of Representatives. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE lows: H. RES. 41 f The SPEAKER pro tempore. Will the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Resolved, That upon adoption of this reso- PRAYER lution it shall be in order without interven- MCGOVERN) come forward and lead the tion of any point of order to consider in the The Chaplain, Reverend Margaret House in the Pledge of Allegiance. Grun Kibben, offered the following House the resolution (H. Res. 24) impeaching Mr. MCGOVERN led the Pledge of Al- Donald John Trump, President of the United prayer: legiance as follows: States, for high crimes and misdemeanors. God, our judge, nothing is hidden I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the The previous question shall be considered as from Your sight. Thus, we stand before United States of America, and to the Repub- ordered on the resolution and on any amend- You to give account for our role in to- lic for which it stands, one nation under God, ment thereto to adoption without inter- day’s momentous decisions. In our indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. vening motion or demand for division of the deepest desire to carry out our respon- f question except two hours of debate equally sibilities to govern, protect, and pre- divided and controlled by the chair and rank- RECESS serve this Nation, while yet unsettled ing minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees. by the events of this past week, we find The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursu- ant to clause 12(a) of rule I, the Chair SEC. 2. Until completion of proceedings en- ourselves seizing the scales of justice abled by the first section of this resolution— from the jaws of mobocracy. declares the House in recess for a pe- (a) the Chair may decline to entertain any Almighty God, wield Your sword and riod of less than 15 minutes. intervening motion, resolution, question, or penetrate the confusion and discontent Accordingly (at 9 o’clock and 2 min- notice; and of our country. Lay bare our attitudes utes a.m.), the House stood in recess. (b) the Chair may decline to entertain the of vengeance that You would show us f question of consideration. how to serve as instruments of Your SEC. 3. Upon adoption of House Resolution b 0916 24— pure judgment and peace. Divide our AFTER RECESS (a) House Resolution 40 is hereby adopted; rhetoric from the light of Your truth. and Judge our partisan thoughts and con- The recess having expired, the House (b) no other resolution incidental to im- vict us to attend to the common good. was called to order by the Speaker pro peachment relating to House Resolution 24 b This symbol represents the time of day during the House proceedings, e.g., b 1407 is 2:07 p.m. Matter set in this typeface indicates words inserted or appended, rather than spoken, by a Member of the House on the floor. H151 . VerDate Sep 11 2014 02:41 Jan 14, 2021 Jkt 019060 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 0636 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A13JA7.000 H13JAPT1 dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with HOUSE H152 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE January 13, 2021 shall be privileged during the remainder of election was an egregious assault on Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield my- the One Hundred Seventeenth Congress. democracy. self such time as I may consume. SEC. 4. Section 5 of House Resolution 8, He said Vice President PENCE ‘‘was Mr. Speaker, before I begin my for- agreed to January 4, 2021, is amended by going to have to come through for us.’’ mal remarks, I want to ask for God’s striking ‘‘January 28’’ each place that it ap- blessing and protection on you; on my pears and inserting ‘‘February 11’’. Trump then told this mob to ‘‘walk down to the Capitol.’’ friend, Mr. MCGOVERN; for all who The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gen- The signal was unmistakable: These come to this Chamber today to speak tleman from Massachusetts is recog- thugs should stage a coup so Donald and to vote; for our wonderful staff nized for 1 hour. Trump can hang on to power. The peo- that make this possible; and most espe- Mr. MCGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for ple’s will be damned. cially for the men and women of the the purpose of debate only, I yield the This beacon of democracy became Capitol Police and the other affiliated customary 30 minutes to the distin- the site of a vicious attack. Rioters law enforcement agencies that are here guished gentleman from Oklahoma chanted, ‘‘Hang Mike Pence,’’ as noose to protect everybody and to make sure (Mr. COLE), pending which I yield my- and gallows were built a stone’s throw that this proceeding can go forward. self such time as I may consume. Dur- from the Capitol steps. Capitol police With that, Mr. Speaker, I want to ing consideration of this resolution, all officers were beaten and sprayed with thank the gentleman from Massachu- time yielded is for the purpose of de- pepper spray. Attackers hunted down setts, my very good friend, the distin- bate only. lawmakers to hold them hostage or guished chairman of the Rules Com- GENERAL LEAVE worse. Staff barricaded doors. People mittee, Mr. MCGOVERN, for yielding me Mr. MCGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask sent text messages to their families to the customary 30 minutes. unanimous consent that all Members tell them they loved them. They Mr. Speaker, today is a sad day for be given 5 legislative days to revise and thought they were saying good-bye, all of us, for me personally, for the extend their remarks. Mr. Speaker. Rules Committee, for the entire House The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there This was not a protest. This was an of Representatives, and most certainly objection to the request of the gen- insurrection. This was a well-organized for the American people. tleman from Massachusetts? attack on our country that was incited For the second time in 13 months, we There was no objection. by Donald Trump. are meeting to discuss the impeach- Mr. MCGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, yes- Domestic terrorists broke into the ment of the President of the United terday, the Rules Committee met and United States Capitol that day and it States. Our meeting today does not reported a closed rule, House Resolu- is a miracle more people didn’t die. As arise in a vacuum and comes at what I tion 41, providing for consideration of my colleagues and I were being evacu- hope and pray is the end of a tumul- H. Res. 24, impeaching Donald John ated to safety, I never ever will forget tuous period for our country. Less than 1 week ago, Congress met Trump, President of the United States, what I saw when I looked into the eyes to certify the results of the 2020 Presi- for high crimes and misdemeanors. of those attackers right in the Speak- dential election. What started out as The rule provides 2 hours of debate er’s lobby there. I saw evil, Mr. Speak- peaceful protests, turned into a riot as equally divided and controlled by the er. Our country came under attack not an untold number of individuals chair and ranking member of the Com- from a foreign nation, but from within. stormed the Capitol Building. Six peo- mittee on the Judiciary. The rule also These were not protesters. These ple died as a result of this mob. It is provides that upon adoption of H. Res. were not patriots. These were traitors. only by the grace of God and the brave 24, H. Res. 40 is hereby adopted. These were domestic terrorists, Mr. acts of the U.S. Capitol Police; the Finally, the rule extends recess in- Speaker, and they were acting under Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police; structions, suspension authority, and the orders of Donald Trump. the FBI; the ATF; and other respond- same-day authority through February Some of my colleagues on the other ing agencies that there was not more 11, 2021.
Recommended publications
  • Half of Americans Approve of the Job President Biden Is Doing, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Most Say Conspiracy Theories in the U.S

    Half of Americans Approve of the Job President Biden Is Doing, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Most Say Conspiracy Theories in the U.S

    Tim Malloy, Polling Analyst (203) 645-8043 Doug Schwartz, Associate Vice President and Director (203) 582-5294 FOR RELEASE: FEBRUARY 17, 2021 HALF OF AMERICANS APPROVE OF THE JOB PRESIDENT BIDEN IS DOING, QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY NATIONAL POLL FINDS; MOST SAY CONSPIRACY THEORIES IN THE U.S. ARE OUT OF CONTROL Four weeks after being sworn into office, President Joe Biden receives a positive job approval rating as Americans approve 50 – 38 percent, with 13 percent not offering an opinion, according to a Quinnipiac (KWIN- uh-pe-ack) University national poll of 1,056 adults released today. This is little changed from February 3rd when Americans approved 49 – 36 percent, with 16 percent not offering an opinion. There are sharp partisan divides with Democrats approving 91 – 2 percent and independents approving 50 – 34 percent, while Republicans disapprove 82 – 11 percent. When only considering registered voters, Biden’s job approval is 52 – 38 percent. It is nearly the inverse of former President Trump’s negative 38 – 55 percent job approval rating at roughly the same period during his presidency in a February 22, 2017 poll. “One month in, these are solid, but not particularly dazzling approval numbers for the new president. There may be some solace in the knowledge that his predecessor spent four years in office without getting very close to 50 percent,” said Quinnipiac University Polling Analyst Tim Malloy. Americans approve 58 – 32 percent of the way Biden is handling the response to the coronavirus. On his handling of the economy, they approve 48 – 39 percent. When it comes to the Biden administration’s handling of the reopening of schools, the public is mixed with 42 percent approving, 38 percent disapproving, and 20 percent not offering an opinion.
  • Jewish Historical Studies Transactions of the Jewish Historical Society of England

    Jewish Historical Studies Transactions of the Jewish Historical Society of England

    Jewish Historical Studies Transactions of the Jewish Historical Society of England Editorial: Introduction: Setbacks and shocks to the system: adjustments and particularly painful losses Michael Berkowitz1,* How to cite: Berkowitz, M. ‘Introduction: Setbacks and shocks to the system: adjustments and particularly painful losses’. Jewish Historical Studies, 2021, 52(1), pp. xi-xix. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14324/111.444.jhs.2021v52.001. Published: 03 June 2021 Peer Review: This article has been peer reviewed through the journal’s standard editorial peer review. Copyright: © 2020, The Author(s). This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY) 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited • DOI: https://doi.org/10.14324/111.444.jhs.2021v52.001 Open Access: Jewish Historical Studies is a peer-reviewed open access journal. *Correspondence: [email protected] 1UCL, UK https://doi.org/10.14324/111.444.jhs.2021v52.001 introduction Setbacks and shocks to the system: adjustments and particularly painful losses The previous issue of Transactions, volume 51, largely comprised articles originating in a London conference about the Kindertransport (January 2019) – the migration to Britain of nearly ten thousand (mostly) Jewish children, in the wake of “the Night of the Broken Glass” in Nazi Germany, November 1938, to the outbreak of the Second World War. In February 2019, the colleagues who initiated that conference, Lesley Urbach and Jennifer Craig-Norton of Southampton University, along with Susan Cohen, approached me with the idea of hosting a related meeting on the history of internment.
  • Motions Explained

    Motions Explained

    MOTIONS EXPLAINED Adjournment: Suspension of proceedings to another time or place. To adjourn means to suspend until a later stated time or place. Recess: Bodies are released to reassemble at a later time. The members may leave the meeting room, but are expected to remain nearby. A recess may be simply to allow a break (e.g. for lunch) or it may be related to the meeting (e.g. to allow time for vote‐counting). Register Complaint: To raise a question of privilege that permits a request related to the rights and privileges of the assembly or any of its members to be brought up. Any time a member feels their ability to serve is being affected by some condition. Make Body Follow Agenda: A call for the orders of the day is a motion to require the body to conform to its agenda or order of business. Lay Aside Temporarily: A motion to lay the question on the table (often simply "table") or the motion to postpone consideration is a proposal to suspend consideration of a pending motion. Close Debate: A motion to the previous question (also known as calling for the question, calling the question, close debate and other terms) is a motion to end debate, and the moving of amendments, on any debatable or amendable motion and bring that motion to an immediate vote. Limit or extend debate: The motion to limit or extend limits of debate is used to modify the rules of debate. Postpone to a certain time: In parliamentary procedure, a postponing to a certain time or postponing to a time certain is an act of the deliberative assembly, generally implemented as a motion.
  • 117Th Illinois Congressional Delegation

    117Th Illinois Congressional Delegation

    ILLINOIS CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION 117th Congress Two Senators represent each state in the U.S. Senate and are elected to serve six-year terms. U.S. Senator Dick Durbin (D) of Springfield was elected to represent Illinois for a fifth term in 2020. Tammy Duckworth of Hoffman Estates (D) was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2016. (See pages 16-19 for U.S. Senator photos and biographies.) In the November 2020 general election, Illinois voters elected 18 candidates to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives for two-year terms. Thirteen Democratic and five Republican U.S. Representatives were elected to serve in the 117th Congress. The November 2020 general election was historical, with the most women ever elect- ed to serve in Congress. Democrat Marie Newman and Republican Mary Miller — repre- senting districts that were previously held by men — added to the increase of female Representatives. Newman definitively won the general election to represent the 13th District after defeating 16-year incumbent U.S. Rep. Dan Lipinksi (D) in the March pri- mary. Miller won the 15th District seat that was previously held by U.S. Rep. John Shimkus (R), who served 12 terms in Congress and opted not to run for reelection. Since 1818, Illinois has had a total of 20 female U.S. Representatives. In 2021, seven are currently rep- resenting our state — a record-breaking total. The 117th Congress serves from Jan. 3, 2021, to Jan. 3, 2023. A view of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. 36 | 2021-2022 ILLINOIS BLUE BOOK 1st Congressional District BOBBY L.
  • Simplified Parliamentary Procedure

    Simplified Parliamentary Procedure

    Extension to Communities Simplifi ed Parliamentary Procedure 2 • Iowa State University Extension Introduction Effective Meetings — Simplifi ed Parliamentary Procedure “We must learn to run a meeting without victimizing the audience; but more impor- tantly, without being victimized by individuals who are armed with parliamentary procedure and a personal agenda.” — www.calweb.com/~laredo/parlproc.htm Parliamentary procedure. Sound complicated? Controlling? Boring? Intimidating? Why do we need to know all those rules for conducting a meeting? Why can’t we just run the meetings however we want to? Who cares if we follow parliamentary procedure? How many times have you attended a meeting that ran on and on and didn’t accomplish anything? The meeting jumps from one topic to another without deciding on anything. Group members disrupt the meeting with their own personal agendas. Arguments erupt. A few people make all the decisions and ignore everyone else’s opinions. Everyone leaves the meeting feeling frustrated. Sound familiar? Then a little parliamentary procedure may just be the thing to turn your unproductive, frustrating meetings into a thing of beauty — or at least make them more enjoyable and productive. What is Parliamentary Procedure? Parliamentary procedure is a set of well proven rules designed to move business along in a meeting while maintaining order and controlling the communications process. Its purpose is to help groups accomplish their tasks through an orderly, democratic process. Parliamentary procedure is not intended to inhibit a meeting with unnecessary rules or to prevent people from expressing their opinions. It is intended to facilitate the smooth func- tioning of the meeting and promote cooperation and harmony among members.
  • Timeline of Potential Administration and Congressional Action on ACA Repeal / Replace Legislation; Other Key Dates; and Activities of Tribes1

    Timeline of Potential Administration and Congressional Action on ACA Repeal / Replace Legislation; Other Key Dates; and Activities of Tribes1

    Current understanding of proposed -- Timeline of Potential Administration and Congressional Action on ACA Repeal / Replace Legislation; Other Key Dates; and Activities of Tribes1 As of June 22, 2017 This brief provides a timeline on potential / completed congressional, Trump Administration, and Tribal organization actions regarding repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Activities and dates are updated according to ongoing press reports. Congressional / Administration actions appear in black; Tribal organization actions appear in green. Timeline of Potential Administration and Congressional Action on ACA Repeal / Replace Legislation Late 2016 January 2017 February 2017 March 2017 April/May 2017 June/July 2017 August 2017 1/4 1/27 2/21 3/9 3/17 5/4 6/22 11/8 12/20 1/3 1/9-1/13 1/23 2/10 3/8 3/15 3/24 4/28 5/21 6/21 6/29 7/28 8/15 Election of TSGAC signs on Stated dates for IHS issues letter House E&C and House Republicans (Tentative) due date House/Senate President- to Tribal Senate/House to identifying W&M Com. withdraw (2c) ACA for first status report conference to Elect Trump request to vote (1b) on exclusions from introduce and repeal bill prior to in House GOP lawsuit combine bills; GOP retain IHCIA budget resolution federal employee approve (2a) ACA vote seeking to end CSRs plans to hold votes hiring freeze repeal bill (3c) on ACA repeal bill pre-August Trump imposes Appeal proceedings resume in Federal Federal spending (Revised) due date recess federal employee House GOP lawsuit seeking to debt limit authority for
  • Impeachment in Florida

    Impeachment in Florida

    Florida State University Law Review Volume 6 Issue 1 Article 1 Winter 1978 Impeachment in Florida Frederick B. Karl Marguerite Davis Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr Part of the President/Executive Department Commons Recommended Citation Frederick B. Karl & Marguerite Davis, Impeachment in Florida, 6 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 1 (1978) . https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr/vol6/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Florida State University Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW VOLUME 6 WINTER 1978 NUMBER 1 IMPEACHMENT IN FLORIDA FREDERICK B. KARL AND MARGUERITE DAVIS TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. HISTORY OF IMPEACHMENT AUTHORITY ..... 5 II. EFFECTS OF IMPEACHMENT ................... 9 III. GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT .................. 11 IV. IMPEACHMENT FOR ACTS PRIOR TO PRESENT TERM OF OFFICE .................... 30 V. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS 39 VI. IMPEACHMENT PROCEDURE: THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ..................... ........ 43 VII. IMPEACHMENT PROCEDURE: THE SENATE ......... 47 VIII. IMPEACHMENT ALTERNATIVES .................... 51 A. CriminalSanctions .......................... 52 B . Incapacity ........ ... ... ............... 53 C. Ethics Commission ......................... 53 D. Judicial QualificationsCommission ........... 53 E . B ar D iscipline .............................. 54 F. Executive Suspension ........................ 55 IX . C ON CLUSION ................................... 55 X . A PPEN DIX ....... ............................ 59 2 FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 6:1 IMPEACHMENT IN FLORIDA FREDERICK B. KARL* AND MARGUERITE DAVIS** What was the practice before this in cases where the chief Magis- trate rendered himself obnoxious? Why recourse was had to assas- sination in wch.
  • The Impeachment and Trial of a Former President

    The Impeachment and Trial of a Former President

    Legal Sidebari The Impeachment and Trial of a Former President January 15, 2021 For the second time in just over a year, the House of Representatives has voted to impeach President Donald J. Trump. The House previously voted to impeach President Trump on December 18, 2019, and the Senate voted to acquit the President on February 5, 2020. Because the timing of this second impeachment vote is so close to the end of the Trump Administration, it is possible that any resulting Senate trial may not occur until after President Trump leaves office on January 20, 2021. This possibility has prompted the question of whether the Senate can try a former President for conduct that occurred while he was in office. The Constitution’s Impeachment Provisions The Constitution grants Congress authority to impeach and remove the President, Vice President, and other federal “civil Officers” for treason, bribery, or “other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Impeachment is one of the various checks and balances created by the Constitution, and it serves as a powerful tool for holding government officers accountable. The impeachment process entails two distinct proceedings carried out by the separate houses of Congress. First, a simple majority of the House impeaches—or formally approves allegations of wrongdoing amounting to an impeachable offense. The second proceeding is an impeachment trial in the Senate. If the Senate votes to convict with a two-thirds majority, the official is removed from office. The Senate also can disqualify an official upon conviction from holding a federal office in the future; according to Senate practice, this vote follows the vote for conviction.
  • Leadership PAC $6000 Byrne for Congress Rep. Bradley

    Leadership PAC $6000 Byrne for Congress Rep. Bradley

    L3Harris Technologies, Inc. PAC 2020 Cycle Contributions Name Candidate Office Total ALABAMA American Security PAC Rep. Mike Rogers (R) Leadership PAC $6,000 Byrne for Congress Rep. Bradley Byrne (R) Congressional District 1 $2,000 Defend America PAC Sen. Richard Shelby (R) Leadership PAC $5,000 Doug Jones for Senate Committee Sen. Doug Jones (D) United States Senate $5,000 Martha Roby for Congress Rep. Martha Roby (R) Congressional District 2 $3,000 Mike Rogers for Congress Rep. Mike Rogers (R) Congressional District 3 $11,000 Robert Aderholt for Congress Rep. Robert Aderholt (R) Congressional District 4 $3,500 Terri Sewell for Congress Rep. Terri Sewell (D) Congressional District 7 $10,000 Together Everyone Realizes Real Impact Rep. Terri Sewell (D) Leadership PAC $5,000 (TERRI) PAC ALASKA Alaskans For Dan Sullivan Sen. Dan Sullivan (R) United States Senate $5,000 Lisa Murkowski For US Senate Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R) United States Senate $5,000 ARIZONA David Schweikert for Congress Rep. David Schweikert (R) Congressional District 6 $2,500 Gallego for Arizona Rep. Ruben Gallego (D) Congressional District 7 $3,000 Kirkpatrick for Congress Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick (D) Congressional District 2 $7,000 McSally for Senate, Inc Sen. Martha McSally (R) United States Senate $10,000 Sinema for Arizona Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D) United States Senate $5,000 Stanton for Congress Rep. Greg Stanton (D) Congressional District 9 $8,000 Thunderbolt PAC Sen. Martha McSally (R) Leadership PAC $5,000 ARKANSAS Crawford for Congress Rep. Rick Crawford (R) Congressional District 1 $2,500 Womack for Congress Committee Rep. Steve Womack (R) Congressional District 3 $3,500 CALIFORNIA United for a Strong America Rep.
  • Illinois Congressional Delegation Bios

    Illinois Congressional Delegation Bios

    Illinois Congressional Delegation Bios Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) Senator Dick Durbin, a Democrat from Springfield, is the 47th U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois, the state’s senior senator, and the convener of Illinois’ bipartisan congressional delegation. Durbin also serves as the Assistant Democratic Leader, the second highest ranking position among the Senate Democrats. Also known as the Minority Whip, Senator Durbin has been elected to this leadership post by his Democratic colleagues every two years since 2005. Elected to the U.S. Senate on November 5, 1996, and re-elected in 2002, 2008, and 2014, Durbin fills the seat left vacant by the retirement of his long-time friend and mentor, U.S. Senator Paul Simon. Durbin sits on the Senate Judiciary, Appropriations, and Rules Committees. He is the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution and the Appropriations Committee's Defense Subcommittee. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth is an Iraq War Veteran, Purple Heart recipient and former Assistant Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs. She was among the first Army women to fly combat missions during Operation Iraqi Freedom. Duckworth served in the Reserve Forces for 23 years before retiring from military service in 2014 at the rank of Lieutenant Colonel. She was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2016 after representing Illinois’s Eighth Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives for two terms. In 2004, Duckworth was deployed to Iraq as a Black Hawk helicopter pilot for the Illinois Army National Guard.
  • Official List of Members

    Official List of Members

    OFFICIAL LIST OF MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES of the UNITED STATES AND THEIR PLACES OF RESIDENCE ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS • DECEMBER 15, 2020 Compiled by CHERYL L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the House of Representatives http://clerk.house.gov Democrats in roman (233); Republicans in italic (195); Independents and Libertarians underlined (2); vacancies (5) CA08, CA50, GA14, NC11, TX04; total 435. The number preceding the name is the Member's district. ALABAMA 1 Bradley Byrne .............................................. Fairhope 2 Martha Roby ................................................ Montgomery 3 Mike Rogers ................................................. Anniston 4 Robert B. Aderholt ....................................... Haleyville 5 Mo Brooks .................................................... Huntsville 6 Gary J. Palmer ............................................ Hoover 7 Terri A. Sewell ............................................. Birmingham ALASKA AT LARGE Don Young .................................................... Fort Yukon ARIZONA 1 Tom O'Halleran ........................................... Sedona 2 Ann Kirkpatrick .......................................... Tucson 3 Raúl M. Grijalva .......................................... Tucson 4 Paul A. Gosar ............................................... Prescott 5 Andy Biggs ................................................... Gilbert 6 David Schweikert ........................................ Fountain Hills 7 Ruben Gallego ............................................
  • State of California Office of Administrative Law

    State of California Office of Administrative Law

    STATE OF CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW In re: ) ) DECISION REGARDING AGENCY: STATE BOARD OF ) DISAPPROVAL OF A EDUCATION ) CHANGE WITHOUT ) REGULATORY EFFECT ) (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 1, RULEMAKING ACTION: ) sec. 100) Repeal sections 303, 304, and 352 ) of title 5 of the California Code of ) OAL File No. 05-0308-01N Regulations ) PROPOSED CHANGE WITHOUT REGULATORY EFFECT The State Board of Education (Board) proposes to repeal as changes without regulatory effect the following three regulations, which were adopted in 1969. Rule 303 provides: “A pupil may not leave the school premises at recess, or at any other time before the regular hour for closing school, except in case of emergency, or with the approval of the principal of the school.” Rule 304 provides: “Every pupil shall leave the schoolroom at recess unless it would occasion an exposure of health.” Rule 352 provides: “A pupil shall not be required to remain in school during the intermission at noon, or during any recess.” SUMMARY OF DECISION On April 19, 2005, the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) disapproved the above-referenced proposed change without regulatory effect. The reasons for the disapproval are summarized here and explained in detail below. The Board has not demonstrated that the proposed changes would “not materially alter any requirement, right, responsibility, condition, prescription, or other regulatory element of any California Code of Regulations provision,” as is required by California Code of Regulations, title 1, section 100. DISCUSSION A state agency may make changes without regulatory effect to the California Code of Regulations using the procedure set out in section 100 of title 1 of the California Code of regulations.1 That procedure requires the agency to demonstrate to OAL that the change “does 1 California Code of Regulations, tit.