DOCSLIB.ORG

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE, Vol. 158, Pt. 5 May 9, 2012 Right Thing to Do

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE, Vol. 158, Pt. 5 May 9, 2012 Right Thing to Do 6418 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE, Vol. 158, Pt. 5 May 9, 2012 right thing to do. This amendment is b 1800 rent resolution on the budget for fiscal not. Let’s defeat this amendment. So I just think that this is kind of a year 2013, which was referred to the I yield back the balance of my time. meat-ax approach. If you do have con- Union Calendar and ordered to be Mr. POLIS. I move to strike the last cerns, let’s do it in the regular legisla- printed. word. f The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman tive order, not just say that we’re from Colorado is recognized for 5 min- going to eliminate that whole ability COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, utes. for them to resolve conflicts. You’re AND RELATED AGENCIES APPRO- Mr. POLIS. I yield to the gentleman going to end up with more lawsuits and PRIATIONS ACT, 2013 a lot of concerns by people who are from Pennsylvania. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursu- going to wonder what the future holds Mr. FATTAH. Again, this is a little ant to House Resolution 643 and rule without a good, comprehensive plan. bit different than the optimism in Chi- XVIII, the Chair declares the House in So I again compassionately ask my cago at the Coastal Zone Conference the Committee of the Whole House on colleagues on both sides of the aisle to where the Ocean Policy just had such the state of the Union for the further reject this amendment. It would be a an enthusiastic response from constitu- consideration of the bill, H.R. 5326. very dangerous thing for this country encies all around the country and in Will the gentleman from Georgia to do, to adopt this amendment. other parts of the world. (Mr. PRICE) kindly resume the chair. The development of this is bipar- Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman tisan: the Pew Foundation, from Pennsylvania and the gentleman b 1803 headquartered in my home city of from California for their hard work on IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Philadelphia; the Lenfest Foundation, this issue, and I yield back the balance Accordingly, the House resolved led by Gerry Lenfest, and their invest- of my time. itself into the Committee of the Whole ments in studying the oceans. We’ve The Acting CHAIR. The question is House on the state of the Union for the seen the work that has been done on the amendment offered by the gen- further consideration of the bill (H.R. that’s led to this. tleman from Texas (Mr. FLORES). 5326) making appropriations for the De- I would hope that we would oppose The question was taken; and the Act- partments of Commerce and Justice, this amendment and we would work to ing Chair announced that the noes ap- Science, and Related Agencies for the build a further consensus and hopefully peared to have it. fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, have legislation come out of the Nat- Mr. FLORES. Mr. Chairman, I de- and for other purposes, with Mr. PRICE ural Resources Committee. mand a recorded vote. of Georgia (Acting Chair) in the chair. I thank the gentleman for yielding to The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to The Clerk read the title of the bill. me, and I hope that we vote this clause 6 of rule XVIII, further pro- The Acting CHAIR. When the Com- amendment down. ceedings on the amendment offered by mittee of the Whole rose earlier today, Mr. POLIS. Reclaiming my time, I the gentleman from Texas will be post- a request for a recorded vote on an would like to yield to the gentleman poned. amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. FARR). Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move from Texas (Mr. FLORES) had been Mr. FARR. Thank you very much for that the Committee do now rise. postponed and the bill had been read yielding. The motion was agreed to. through page 101, line 10. I think you can note the passion I’ve Accordingly, the Committee rose; had on this issue because we worked at ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE ACTING CHAIR and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. HAS- it a long time. And I want to assure The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to TINGS of Washington) having assumed you—I’m ranking member of the Ag clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will the chair, Mr. PRICE of Georgia, Acting now resume on those amendments on Appropriations Committee. I probably Chair of the Committee of the Whole represent more productive agriculture which further proceedings were post- House on the state of the Union, re- poned, in the following order: than anybody in Congress. I have just ported that that Committee, having An amendment by Mr. CHAFFETZ of one county I represent that has 85 had under consideration the bill (H.R. crops in it. We do about $4.2 billion of Utah. 5326) making appropriations for the De- An amendment by Mr. TIERNEY of agriculture out of that county. partments of Commerce and Justice, I can assure you that coastal States’ Massachusetts. Science, and Related Agencies for the agriculture is very much concerned An amendment by Mrs. BLACKBURN of fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, about all of these issues that are com- Tennessee. and for other purposes, had come to no ing up and really supports the ideas Amendment No. 38 by Mr. DUNCAN of resolution thereon. that we can have a coordinated effort. South Carolina. This is a long effort. We had the mili- f An amendment by Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. tary involved in this. We’ve got FEMA REPORT ON H.R. 4966, SEQUESTER An amendment by Mr. SCHWEIKERT of involved in this. We’ve got the Depart- REPLACEMENT ACT OF 2012 ment of Agriculture involved in this. Arizona. We’ve got every other agency. And it’s Mr. CHAFFETZ, from the Committee Amendment No. 46 by Mr. WEBSTER how you resolve conflicts that are on the Budget, submitted a privileged of Florida. there. report (Rept. No. 112–469, Part 1) on the The first amendment by Mr. FLORES Yes, we in Congress have enacted an bill (H.R. 4966) to amend the Balanced of Texas. awful lot of laws. And I want to say Budget and Emergency Deficit Control The second amendment by Mr. FLO- there isn’t anything the President has Act of 1985 to replace the sequester es- RES of Texas. done or any of these agencies are doing tablished by the Budget Control Act of The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes that isn’t authorized in law. We gave 2011, which was referred to the Union the minimum time for any electronic them those authorities. We just never Calendar and ordered to be printed. vote after the first vote in this series. required them to all sit down and talk f AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. CHAFFETZ about those conflicts and how to re- The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished solve those conflicts. REPORT ON H.R. 5652, SEQUESTER business is the demand for a recorded We have a huge responsibility here. REPLACEMENT RECONCILIATION vote on the amendment offered by the This is a long effort to create a Na- ACT OF 2012 gentleman from Utah (Mr. CHAFFETZ) tional Ocean Policy. It’s the smart Mr. CHAFFETZ, from the Committee on which further proceedings were thing to do. It’s got all the Federal on the Budget, submitted a privileged postponed and on which the ayes pre- agencies at the table, finally, and it’s report (Rept. No. 112–470) on the bill vailed by voice vote. got all the user groups, both private (H.R. 5652) to provide for reconciliation The Clerk will redesignate the and public. pursuant to section 201 of the concur- amendment. VerDate Sep 11 2014 14:19 Apr 19, 2018 Jkt 079102 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 0688 Sfmt 0634 E:\BR12\H09MY2.000 H09MY2 jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with BOUND RECORD May 9, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE, Vol. 158, Pt. 5 6419 The Clerk redesignated the amend- Miller (NC) Rigell Smith (WA) Stated for: ment. Miller, Gary Rivera Southerland Miller, George Roby Speier Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 226, I was RECORDED VOTE Moore Roe (TN) Stearns away from the Capitol due to prior commit- Mulvaney Rogers (AL) The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote Stivers ments to my constituents. Had I been present, Murphy (CT) Rogers (KY) Stutzman I would have voted ‘‘aye.’’ has been demanded. Murphy (PA) Rogers (MI) Sullivan A recorded vote was ordered. Myrick Rohrabacher Sutton AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. TIERNEY Nadler Rokita Terry The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished The vote was taken by electronic de- Napolitano Rooney Thompson (CA) business is the demand for a recorded vice, and there were—ayes 381, noes 41, Neal Ros-Lehtinen Thompson (MS) not voting 9, as follows: Neugebauer Roskam Thompson (PA) vote on the amendment offered by the Noem Ross (AR) Thornberry gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. [Roll No. 226] Nugent Ross (FL) Tiberi TIERNEY) on which further proceedings Nunes Roybal-Allard Tierney AYES—381 Nunnelee Royce were postponed and on which the noes Tipton Ackerman Culberson Holden Olson Runyan Tonko prevailed by voice vote. Adams Cummings Holt Olver Ruppersberger Towns The Clerk will redesignate the Aderholt Davis (CA) Hoyer Owens Rush Tsongas Akin Davis (KY) Huelskamp Palazzo Ryan (OH) amendment. Turner (NY) Alexander DeFazio Huizenga (MI) Pallone Ryan (WI) The Clerk redesignated the amend- Turner (OH) Altmire DeLauro Hultgren Pastor (AZ) Sa´ nchez, Linda ment. Amash Denham Hunter Paul T. Upton Amodei Dent Hurt Paulsen Sanchez, Loretta Van Hollen RECORDED VOTE ´ Austria DesJarlais Israel Pearce Sarbanes Velazquez The Acting CHAIR.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Johnson Amendment in Light of Recent Supreme Court Precedent
    REGENT UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW Volume 24 2011–2012 Number 2 LBJ, THE IRS, AND CHURCHES: THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE JOHNSON AMENDMENT IN LIGHT OF RECENT SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT Erik W. Stanley* TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 238 I. CHURCH TAX EXEMPTION IN HISTORY ................................................... 241 A. A Brief History of Church Tax Exemption Generally ..................... 241 B. Restrictions on the Exemption ......................................................... 242 1. The 1954 U.S. Senate Race in Texas ......................................... 244 2. The Johnson Amendment........................................................... 246 II. IRS ENFORCEMENT OF THE JOHNSON AMENDMENT ............................ 248 A. Vague Enforcement .......................................................................... 249 1. “Facts and Circumstances” ........................................................ 249 2. “Code Words” ............................................................................... 251 3. “Issue Advocacy” or “Campaign Intervention”? ........................ 251 4. Who Is a “Candidate”? ................................................................ 252 5. Vague Enforcement Leading to Self-Censorship ...................... 252 B. Drawing the Line at Speech from the Pulpit .................................. 253 C. Unequal Application ........................................................................ 255 D.
    [Show full text]
  • Richard G. Hewlett and Jack M. Holl. Atoms
    ATOMS PEACE WAR Eisenhower and the Atomic Energy Commission Richard G. Hewlett and lack M. Roll With a Foreword by Richard S. Kirkendall and an Essay on Sources by Roger M. Anders University of California Press Berkeley Los Angeles London Published 1989 by the University of California Press Berkeley and Los Angeles, California University of California Press, Ltd. London, England Prepared by the Atomic Energy Commission; work made for hire. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Hewlett, Richard G. Atoms for peace and war, 1953-1961. (California studies in the history of science) Bibliography: p. Includes index. 1. Nuclear energy—United States—History. 2. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission—History. 3. Eisenhower, Dwight D. (Dwight David), 1890-1969. 4. United States—Politics and government-1953-1961. I. Holl, Jack M. II. Title. III. Series. QC792. 7. H48 1989 333.79'24'0973 88-29578 ISBN 0-520-06018-0 (alk. paper) Printed in the United States of America 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 CONTENTS List of Illustrations vii List of Figures and Tables ix Foreword by Richard S. Kirkendall xi Preface xix Acknowledgements xxvii 1. A Secret Mission 1 2. The Eisenhower Imprint 17 3. The President and the Bomb 34 4. The Oppenheimer Case 73 5. The Political Arena 113 6. Nuclear Weapons: A New Reality 144 7. Nuclear Power for the Marketplace 183 8. Atoms for Peace: Building American Policy 209 9. Pursuit of the Peaceful Atom 238 10. The Seeds of Anxiety 271 11. Safeguards, EURATOM, and the International Agency 305 12.
    [Show full text]
  • Getting Ready for Health Reform 2020: What Past Presidential Campaigns Can Teach Us
    REPORT JUNE 2018 Getting Ready for Health Reform 2020: What Past Presidential Campaigns Can Teach Us Jeanne M. Lambrew Senior Fellow The Century Foundation ABSTRACT KEY TAKEAWAYS ISSUE: The candidates for the 2020 presidential election are likely to Campaign plans are used by emerge within a year, along with their campaign plans. Such plans will supporters and the press to hold presidents accountable. Though include, if not feature, health policy proposals, given this issue’s general voters are unlikely to believe that significance as well as the ongoing debate over the Affordable Care Act. politicians keep their promises, GOAL: To explain why campaign plans matter, review the health policy roughly two-thirds of campaign components of past presidential campaign platforms, and discuss the promises were kept by presidents likely 2020 campaign health reform plans. from 1968 through the Obama years. METHODS: Review of relevant reports, data, party platforms, and policy documents. Health policy will likely play FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Proposals related to health care have a significant role in the 2020 grown in scope in both parties’ presidential platforms over the past election, with Republicans focused on deregulation and century and affect both agendas and assessments of a president’s capped federal financing success. Continued controversy over the Affordable Care Act, potential and Democrats backing the reversals in gains in coverage and affordability, and voters’ concern Affordable Care Act and a suggest a central role for health policy in the 2020 election. Republicans Medicare-based public plan will most likely continue to advance devolution, deregulation, and option. capped federal financing, while Democrats will likely overlay their support of the Affordable Care Act with some type of Medicare-based public plan option.
    [Show full text]
  • A Historical Perspective of the Permeable IRS Prohibition on Campaigning by Churches Patrick L
    Boston College Law Review Volume 42 Issue 4 The Conflicted First Amendment: Tax Article 1 Exemptions, Religious Groups, And Political Activity 7-1-2001 More Honored in the Breach: A Historical Perspective of the Permeable IRS Prohibition on Campaigning by Churches Patrick L. O'Daniel Follow this and additional works at: http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr Part of the Religion Law Commons, and the Tax Law Commons Recommended Citation Patrick L. O'Daniel, More Honored in the Breach: A Historical Perspective of the Permeable IRS Prohibition on Campaigning by Churches, 42 B.C.L. Rev. 733 (2001), http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr/vol42/iss4/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Boston College Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MORE HONORED IN THE BREACH: A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF THE PERMEABLE IRS PROHIBITION ON CAMPAIGNING BY CHURCHES PATRICK L. O'DANIEL* Abstract: Since 1954, there has been a prohibition on certain forms of intervention in political campaigns by entities exempt frOm taxation under section 501(c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code—including most. churches. This Article provides a historical perspective on the genesis of this prohibition—the 1954 U.S. Senate campaign of its sponsor, Lyndon Baines Johnson, and the involvement of religious entities and other 501 (c) (3) organizations in his political campaign. Although Johnson was not opposed to using churches to advance his own political interests, lie (lid seek to prevent ideological, tax-exempt organizations from funding McCarthyite candidates including his opponent in the Democratic primary, Dudley Dougherty.
    [Show full text]
  • REVIEW of INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SECTION 501(C)(3) REQUIREMENTS for RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS
    REVIEW OF INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SECTION 501(c)(3) REQUIREMENTS FOR RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT OF THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION MAY 14, 2002 Serial No. 107–69 Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means ( U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 80–331 WASHINGTON : 2002 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate 11-MAY-2000 01:17 Aug 15, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 W:\DISC\80331.XXX txed01 PsN: txed01 COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS BILL THOMAS, California, Chairman PHILIP M. CRANE, Illinois CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York E. CLAY SHAW, JR., Florida FORTNEY PETE STARK, California NANCY L. JOHNSON, Connecticut ROBERT T. MATSUI, California AMO HOUGHTON, New York WILLIAM J. COYNE, Pennsylvania WALLY HERGER, California SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan JIM MCCRERY, Louisiana BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland DAVE CAMP, Michigan JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington JIM RAMSTAD, Minnesota GERALD D. KLECZKA, Wisconsin JIM NUSSLE, Iowa JOHN LEWIS, Georgia SAM JOHNSON, Texas RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts JENNIFER DUNN, Washington MICHAEL R. MCNULTY, New York MAC COLLINS, Georgia WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, Louisiana ROB PORTMAN, Ohio JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee PHIL ENGLISH, Pennsylvania XAVIER BECERRA, California WES WATKINS, Oklahoma KAREN L. THURMAN, Florida J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas JERRY WELLER, Illinois EARL POMEROY, North Dakota KENNY C.
    [Show full text]
  • The First Amendment
    Columbus Bar LAWYERS Winter 2018 QUARTERLY Winter 2018 Special Issue THE FIRST AMENDMENT In this issue, Columbus Bar Lawyers Quarterly examines the First Amendment: from fake news to hate speech, lawyer advertising to protests and religious freedoms to freedom of speech. This issue also explores the importance of networking, staying healthy and discussing diversity. A publication of the Columbus Bar Association • www.cbalaw.org Table of LAWYERS Contents QUARTERLY Winter 2018 How to Ethically Tell Your Story A Message from the 26 (and Theirs) Columbus Bar Association Executive Director Kwame Christian Editorial Board 4 When Did Your Future Become Book Review: Business and About Money? 28 Commercial Litigation Jill Snitcher McQuain Angela Baldree Chair Janyce Katz President’s Page The First Amendment Board Members The Very Best of Our Profession: Our Moment in History: Protesting Jack D’Aurora 6 Legal Aid, Pro Bono and Our 30 and Censorship Jeffrey Eyerman Commitment to Access to Justice Elizabeth Bonham Amy Koorn Lisa Pierce Reisz Melanie Tobias 32 Lawyer Advertising under the Bar Insider First Amendment Jason H. Beehler Norton Webster: 30 Years of Free Speech or Discrimination: Editor 8 Service, a Lifetime of Impact 34 When Cake Shops Stop Serving Kelsey Pohlman Kelsey Pohlman Carly Edelstein What If You Threw a Party and From a Media Perspective: Fake News Design/Production 10 Nobody Came? 36 Colleen Marshall Sarah Curran Hon. Charles Schneider From a Citizen’s Perspective: Fake News Have the Tough Conversations 38 12 About Diversity and Inclusion Janyce C. Katz Lindsay Ford Ellis Check, Please! Hate Speech and the Columbus Bar Association 42 First Amendment 175 S.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record—House H6912
    H6912 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE October 1, 2002 From 1981–2001, New York lists the highest the last year. We will remember the impact dren, the Foundation is now creating the first number of firefighters in the country who were these brave firefighters have made in towns National Park to memorialize fallen firefighters lost in the line of duty. New York is at the very and communities throughout America and the in Emmitsburg, Maryland. And this Sunday, top of an extremely unfortunate list. Last year heroism that has saved countless lives. October 6th, the Foundation will sponsor a alone there were 347 dedicated firefighters On behalf of the First Congressional District memorial weekend to honor the commitment, who died in the World Trade Center disaster. of New York—home to several fallen fire- bravery and sacrifice of the 446 firefighters Overall, the dragon kills about 4,500 people fighters—I join my colleagues in support of H. who died in the line of duty in the past year, per year, more than all natural disasters com- Con. Res. 476. 343 whose lives were taken on September bined. Another 27,000 people are injured, not Mr. GEKAS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in 11th, 2001. to mention the emotional and financial injuries strong support of H. Con. Res. 476 and urge No one could have anticipated the mag- incurred by the families of fallen firefighters. my colleagues to support this important piece nitude of destruction and loss of life that oc- The families of firefighters live a life of un- of legislation as well.
    [Show full text]
  • The Tax Legislative Process: a Byrd's Eye View
    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship 2018 The Tax Legislative Process: A Byrd's Eye View Ellen P. Aprill Daniel Hemel Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/journal_articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Ellen Aprill & Daniel Hemel, "The Tax Legislative Process: A Byrd's Eye View," 81 Law and Contemporary Problems 99 (2018). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. APRILL_HEMEL_FINAL (DO NOT DELETE) 5/16/2018 4:54 PM THE TAX LEGISLATIVE PROCESS: A BYRD’S EYE VIEW ELLEN P. APRILL* AND DANIEL J. HEMEL** I INTRODUCTION The year 2017 was, among other distinctions, the year of the Byrd rule. This once-obscure Senate procedural provision—on the books since 1985 but only recently the stuff of page one news1— featured prominently in several failed attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act in the spring and summer. Then again at year’s end, the Byrd rule played a central role in the successful effort to rewrite large swaths of the Internal Revenue Code. While the Byrd rule has influenced the legislative process in the past, never before has it drawn so much attention from the mainstream and trade press, and never before has it shaped so consequential a law in such a significant way. One theme that runs throughout this article is that when it comes to the budget math mandated by the Byrd rule, numbers can obscure the truth.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyright © 2010 by Roger Colinvaux. All Rights Reserved. PRELIMINARY
    PRELIMINARY DRAFT – PLEASE DO NOT QUOTE OR DISTRIBUTE WITHOUT PERMISSION. October 14, 2010 Citizens United and the Political Speech of Charities: A Conservative Approach* Roger Colinvaux Table of Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 3 I. Historical Background of a Noble Rule ....................................................................... 6 A. A Brief History of the Prohibition: A Noncontroversial Rule ................................. 6 B. Legislative Developments After Enactment .......................................................... 12 C. Criticisms of and Reasons For The Rule .............................................................. 14 II. Does Citizens United Condemn the Political Activities Prohibition? .......................... 21 A. Introduction ........................................................................................................ 21 B. Purpose of the Rule ............................................................................................. 23 C. Sanctions ............................................................................................................. 30 D. A Ban on Speech .................................................................................................. 32 E. Identity Discrimination ........................................................................................ 35 F. Existing Jurisprudence Supports the Political Activities Prohibition .....................
    [Show full text]
  • A NN0UAL 1R E6 PORT Americans United’S Mission
    AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE 2A NN0UAL 1R E6 PORT Americans United’s Mission Americans United for Separation of Church and State is a nonpartisan educa - tional and advocacy organization dedicated Contents to advancing the constitutional principle of 3 Letter from the Director church-state separation as the only way to 4 Protect Thy Neighbor Project 7 Project Fair Play ensure freedom of religion, including the right 8 Private School Vouchers to believe or not believe, for all Americans. 10 Freedom of Conscience Americans United, or AU, is a 501(c)(3) 12 The Chapter Network nonprofit advocacy organization based in 14 Outreach and Education 16 Organizational Structure Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, Ameri - 17 National Staff cans United works in the courts, in Congress 18 Financial Statement and state legislatures, with federal, state and 20 AU Contributors local policymakers and in the arena of public opinion to uphold religious freedom. We envision an America where everyone can freely choose a faith and support it voluntar - ily, or follow no religious or spiritual path at all, and where the government does not promote religion over non-religion or favor one faith over another. 2 A Letter From Barry W. Lynn, Executive Director Of Americans United Thanks to your support, Americans United had an extremely productive and successful 2016. The year saw a dramatic escalation of AU’s Protect Thy Neighbor (PTN) project, a spe - cial effort launched in 2015 that focuses on the importance of religious liberty. PTN, which involves all of AU’s departments, reminds Americans that religious freedom is de - signed to be an instrument to protect individual beliefs, not a device to take away the rights of others.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record—House H323
    January 11, 2017 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H323 Cheney Hice, Jody B. Murphy (FL) Thornberry Vela´ zquez Wenstrup REGULATORY ACCOUNTABILITY Chu, Judy Higgins (LA) Murphy (PA) Tiberi Visclosky Westerman Cicilline Higgins (NY) Napolitano Tipton Wagner Williams ACT OF 2017 Clark (MA) Hill Neal Titus Walberg Wilson (FL) GENERAL LEAVE Clarke (NY) Himes Newhouse Tonko Walden Wilson (SC) Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask Cleaver Holding Noem Torres Walker Wittman Coffman Hollingsworth Nolan Trott Walorski Womack unanimous consent that all Members Cohen Hoyer Norcross Tsongas Walters, Mimi Woodall may have 5 legislative days within Cole Hudson Nunes Turner Walz Yarmuth which to revise and extend their re- Collins (GA) Huffman O’Halleran Upton Wasserman Yoder marks and include extraneous mate- Collins (NY) Huizenga O’Rourke Valadao Schultz Yoho Comer Hultgren Olson Vargas Weber (TX) Young (AK) rials on H.R. 5. Comstock Hurd Palazzo Veasey Webster (FL) Young (IA) The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there Conaway Issa Pallone Vela Welch Zeldin objection to the request of the gen- Connolly Jayapal Palmer NAYS—17 tleman from Virginia? Conyers Jeffries Panetta There was no objection. Cook Jenkins (KS) Pascrell Amash Gosar Labrador Cooper Jenkins (WV) Paulsen Brat Griffith Massie The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Correa Johnson (LA) Pearce Brooks (AL) Grothman Perry ALLEN). Pursuant to House Resolution Costa Johnson (OH) Pelosi Buck Hunter Poe (TX) 33 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares Costello (PA) Johnson, Sam Peters Budd Jones Sanford the House in the Committee of the Courtney Joyce (OH) Peterson Gohmert Jordan Whole House on the state of the Union Cramer Kaptur Pingree NOT VOTING—31 Crawford Katko Pittenger for the consideration of the bill, H.R.
    [Show full text]
  • Law Within Congress Abstract
    JONATHAN S. GOULD Law Within Congress abstract. Procedure has long shaped how Congress operates. Procedural battles have been central to legislative contestation about civil rights, the welfare state, tax policy, and presidential impeachments. In these instances and many others, procedural disputes often turn not on written rules but on parliamentary precedents. These precedents constitute a hidden system of law that has received little scholarly attention, despite being critical to shaping what goes on in Congress. This Article explores parliamentary precedent in Congress. Parliamentary precedent mostly resembles judicial precedent: both are common-law systems that rely on the arguments of adver- sarial parties. But the two systems differ in key respects. Parliamentary decision-making employs an especially strong form of stare decisis, is minimalist in the extreme, and relies freely on legisla- tive purpose and legislative history as tools of interpretation. These seemingly legal dynamics play out in the shadow of congressional politics. Understand- ing parliamentary precedent requires understanding the institutional positions of the parliamen- tarians, the nonpartisan officials who resolve procedural disputes. The parliamentarians’ distinc- tive jurisprudence reflects their tenuous positions—namely, that they can be removed, overruled, or circumvented by the majority party. Drawing on novel interviews with parliamentarians and the legislative staffers who work closely with them, this Article illuminates the intersection of law and politics in the making of parliamentary precedent. A better understanding of parliamentary precedent contributes to our understanding of how Congress operates and the fault lines that emerge in an age of polarization and hardball. These dynamics also hold lessons for public law more broadly.
    [Show full text]