DOCSLIB.ORG

March 2005 Capview V1.DOC

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
March 2005 Capview V1.DOC Capitol View VOLUME 3, NUMBER 2 MARCH 2005 Four Seats When the 109th Congress convened in January of this year, Republicans in the Senate controlled four more seats than they had in the 108th Congress. This relatively small shift from 51 to 55 Republican Senators has had a significant impact on the ability of the Republicans to pass some of their high priority legislation. A number of these bills had been stalled in the Senate for many years over several Sessions of Congress. On Thursday, March 10, the Senate voted to pass the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (S.256) by a vote of 74-25. This was the culmination of eight years of efforts led by some banks and credit card companies to make it more difficult for individuals to eliminate the payment of all debts by declaring bankruptcy. Under the legislation passed by the Senate, some consumers who in the past could liquidate all debt through a Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding would be placed in a repayment plan under a Chapter 11 or a Chapter 13 proceeding. The bill establishes a means test to determine if certain bankruptcy filers have sufficient financial resources to repay some or all of their debts. During two weeks of debate on the Senate Floor, proponents of S.256 were able to defeat all significant amendments to the underlying bill. This had not been the case in the past. One of the more contentious amendments was offered by Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY). It would have barred violent protestors, including those directed at abortion clinics, from discharging court ordered fines or monetary judgments through bankruptcy proceedings. The Schumer Amendment was defeated by a vote of 46-53. The inclusion of similar language in the bankruptcy reform bills in the 107th and 108th Congress generated enough opposition to prevent final enactment. The House Judiciary Committee voted to approve the identical bankruptcy reform language on March 16 by a vote of 22-13. All attempts to amend the bill in Committee failed. The full House will likely consider the measure when Congress returns from its Spring Recess during the week of April 4. Since both the Senate and House will have passed the same bills, no conference will be needed. President Bush has stated he will sign the bankruptcy reform bill. President Clinton exercised a pocket veto over similar legislation five years ago. Another long standing priority of the Republican Leadership was advanced on March 16 when the Senate voted by 49-51 to reject an amendment offered by Senators Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and John Kerry (D- MA) which would have removed a provision in the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for FY2006 (S. Con. Res. 18) recognizing $2.5 billion in revenues from plans for oil and gas development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska. Some Members of the Senate have lobbied for oil and gas exploration in ANWR for the past 10 years but the budget resolution vote was the first time these efforts had led to success in that body. VALUE ADDED, VALUES DRIVEN.SM CAPITOL VIEW MARCH 2005 2 However, this issue is far from being finally resolved. Although it may be included in the non-binding budget resolution it will not become law unless ANWR exploration is included in the subsequent budget reconciliation legislation that the President actually signs. Nevertheless, the vote on ANWR in the budget resolution is illustrative of the increased Republican strength in the Senate. In 2003, when there were 49 Senate Democrats rather than 44, opponents of ANWR exploration were able to remove a similar provision by a vote of 52-48. Supporters of class action reform have been actively pursuing such legislation over the last three Congresses. Their long-standing efforts finally saw success in the opening weeks of the 109th Congress. The increased Republican Senate majorities eased Senate passage of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (S. 5). The Act amends the Federal diversity of citizenship jurisdiction statute to make it easier for the defendants in large multi-state class actions to remove these suits from state to Federal court. In previous Congresses, similar legislation passed the House but was bogged down in the Senate. (See a more detailed article on class action reform in the February 2005 edition of Capitol View.) President bush signed the bill into law on February 18. The increase in Republican seats has also made implementation of a rule change, or a rule clarification, governing filibusters of the President's judicial nominees more likely. With four more Senators now in the Republican Caucus, Majority Leader Frist may feel he is more likely to succeed than he had been in the 108th Congress when he only had a 51-member Caucus in instituting what he calls the "Constitutional Option" and what the Senate Democrats have termed the "Nuclear Option." While there is some disagreement between Democrats and Republicans over the issue of whether filibusters have been used in the past to oppose a President's judicial nominees, there is no doubt they are being increasingly employed by Senate Democrats to oppose President Bush's appointments to the Federal judiciary. In the 108th Congress, Democrats filibustered 10 of the President's nominees to various Circuit Courts of Appeals and thus required the Majority Leader to produce 60 votes to invoke cloture. None of the 10 nominees was able to overcome the 60 vote obstacle. President Bush has already resubmitted seven of these nominees to the Senate in the 109th Congress. Senator Frist has stated that while filibusters may be appropriate for the Senate when it considers legislation, they infringe on the President's authority to appoint judges when they are employed in the Senate's "advise and consent" considerations. Frist may therefore seek a ruling from the President of the Senate that only a simple majority is needed to end debate on judicial nominees or to clarify Senate rules to the same end. The Majority Leader will need 51 votes to sustain this parliamentary maneuver. Senate Democrats have threatened to shut down most of the work of the Senate if the Republicans implement this procedure. The switch of four Senate seats in the 2004 elections has already had a significant impact on major pieces of legislation in the opening weeks of the 109th Congress. How long this will continue is difficult to predict. If disagreements over the judicial confirmation process are not resolved and the Majority Leader exercises his "Constitutional" or "Nuclear" option, the legislative process in the Senate may be severely curtailed. It is thought that if Senator Frist concludes he needs to implement this option he would likely do so in the May or June timeframe. Kevin Faley is the Editor of Capitol View and a partner in Venable's Legislative Practice Group. Mr. Faley can be reached at 202-344-4706. __________________________________________________________________________________________ VALUE ADDED, VALUES DRIVEN.SM CAPITOL VIEW MARCH 2005 3 Earmarks One of the growth areas in the Washington government relations practice is Congressional appropriations, specifically obtaining Federal funds for clients by means of what is known as an “earmark.” While the general outline of the legislative process is clear to anyone who has read the classic How Our Laws Are Made (first issued from the office of the Parliamentarian* of the House of Representatives in 1953, with updated editions reprinted many times since), the details of how the process actually works and results in the spending of money are less well known to those who have not actually worked in the Congress. Accordingly, a first-hand familiarity with Congressional procedures for allocating funds and an ability to direct Federal funds to designated recipients are marketable commodities in Washington. What Can Be Funded The short answer is: Just about anything for which the federal government provides funding, which is lots and lots and lots and lots of things. These include – · products or services sold to any department or agency of government (and not just the federal government, because the federal government provides money to governments at the state, local, and tribal level as well); · programs and activities (for example, grants for research, training, education, health and medical, etc.) · construction (this is particularly applicable state and local governments and to nonprofits, and can include buildings, roads, bridges, and so forth) In short, for anyone who wishes to sell something to government, or engages in an activity that is government-funded, an earmark may be a possibility. What is an “Earmark”? In general, the Congressional funding process has two steps. These are authorization (which is enactment of legislation providing legal authority for the Executive Branch departments and agencies, and their programs) and appropriation (which is enactment of legislation providing money to the Executive entities). As a general matter of legislative practice, policy issues are supposed to be determined in authorization bills, while appropriation bills are only intended to allocate money. With respect to the latter, the purest form of appropriation is language stating simply that for a specified agency or program, a certain amount of money is provided. However, one method used by Congress to determine with greater specificity Executive entities’ use of money – and by extension, to more precisely limit the policies funds are used to implement – is to include in the appropriations bill language to limit the purposes for which money may be used. These limitations are commonly known as “earmarks,” though the term has no official status in the legislative process. For example, it is not unusual for a appropriations bill section providing funds to an office (“For the Office of [name of program], $X,000,000.”) to be followed immediately by a limitation on a portion of that money (“Provided further, That of the funds appropriated under this heading that are available for [name of program], $Y00,000 may be used only for [subcategory within that program].”) Within this basic framework can be plugged in the names of the office or program, integers in place of “X” and “Y,” and the right number of zeroes.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Legislative Process Lpbooklet 2016 15Th Edition.Qxp Booklet00-01 12Th Edition 11/18/16 3:00 PM Page 1
    LPBkltCvr_2016_15th edition-1.qxp_BkltCvr00-01 12th edition 11/18/16 2:49 PM Page 1 South Carolina’s Legislative Process LPBooklet_2016_15th edition.qxp_Booklet00-01 12th edition 11/18/16 3:00 PM Page 1 THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS LPBooklet_2016_15th edition.qxp_Booklet00-01 12th edition 11/18/16 3:00 PM Page 2 October 2016 15th Edition LPBooklet_2016_15th edition.qxp_Booklet00-01 12th edition 11/18/16 3:00 PM Page 3 THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS The contents of this pamphlet consist of South Carolina’s Legislative Process , pub - lished by Charles F. Reid, Clerk of the South Carolina House of Representatives. The material is reproduced with permission. LPBooklet_2016_15th edition.qxp_Booklet00-01 12th edition 11/18/16 3:00 PM Page 4 LPBooklet_2016_15th edition.qxp_Booklet00-01 12th edition 11/18/16 3:00 PM Page 5 South Carolina’s Legislative Process HISTORY o understand the legislative process, it is nec - Tessary to know a few facts about the lawmak - ing body. The South Carolina Legislature consists of two bodies—the Senate and the House of Rep - resentatives. There are 170 members—46 Sena - tors and 124 Representatives representing dis tricts based on population. When these two bodies are referred to collectively, the Senate and House are together called the General Assembly. To be eligible to be a Representative, a person must be at least 21 years old, and Senators must be at least 25 years old. Members of the House serve for two years; Senators serve for four years. The terms of office begin on the Monday following the General Election which is held in even num - bered years on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.
    [Show full text]
  • Oversight Reform Proposals
    DOCURKNT RESUSE 06261 - [B16466691 Oversight Reform Proposals. June 8, 1978. 17 pF. * enclosure (1 pp.). Testimony before the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration; by Harry S. Havens, Lirector, Program Analysis Div. Contact: Proqraa Analysis Div. Congressional Relevance: Senate Conmittee on Rules and Administration. Authority: S. 2 (95th ConQ.). Deficiencies in the current congressional oversight process include incomplete coverage of the reauthorization process, inadequate attention to broad policy subjects, incomplete review coverage of Federal ;rograns and activities, and lack of clarity and specificity in statemants of the objectives of programs and activities. The key aleaent tc oversight reform is congressional commitment to better oversight and the establishmeat of a disciplined process for the revieu and study of Federal programs in the context of broad policy subjects. The proposed bill, S.2, would establish a mandatcry reauthorizing process for Federal Fprogras, but it would exempt some specific types of programs, including the major Federal income security and health financing programs and tax expenditures. The proposed legislation uculd schedule reauthorization and related reviews of a 6-year cycle in accordance with a timetable written into law; it would force action to reauhorize programs, grouped by budget subfunction, by specified dates and place a ban on future funding fcr programs not reauthorized by specified dates. The period of the authorization of new budget authority would be limited to 6 years. S.2 would base the reauthorization Frocess on a list of all activities of the Federal Government categorized by budget subfunction, establish a statutory schedule by kudget subfunction, provide that Frograms in the sane budget subfunction be acted upon in tne sane Congress, and reguire that an inventory of programs be developed and maiotained by the Conqressional Budqet Office.
    [Show full text]
  • The President's Reorganization Authority
    Order Code RL30876 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web The President’s Reorganization Authority: Review and Analysis March 8, 2001 name redacted Specialist in Government Organization and Management Government and Finance Division Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress The President’s Reorganization Authority: Review and Analysis Summary Among the initiatives being promoted with the beginning of the Administration of President George W. Bush is that of renewing the President’s lapsed authority to submit reorganization plans to Congress. The general rationale offered for renewing this authority is that it would provide additional flexibility and discretion to the President in organizing the executive branch to promote “economy and efficiency” as well as his political priorities. The regular legislative route for considering presidential proposals involving organizational changes is deemed by reorganization authority supporters as being unduly slow and cumbersome. Thus, the proposal to permit the President to submit reorganization plans subject to mandatory congressional consideration with “fast track” procedures is viewed by the reorganization proposal’s proponents as a necessary reform for good government. Critics of the reorganization plan authority reject the arguments and assumptions behind the proposal and defend the efficacy and legitimacy of the regular legislative process for executive reorganization proposals. This report addresses three specific issues: (1) the historical basis and use of the President’s reorganization authority; (2) the factors contributing to the lapse of the President’s reorganization authority in 1984,1 and (3) thoughts on the future of reorganization in the executive branch. 1 It is worth noting that the Reorganization Act of 1977, as amended, remains “on the books,” but is not presently operative for execution as it expired on December 31, 1984.
    [Show full text]
  • Recess Appointments: Frequently Asked Questions
    Recess Appointments: Frequently Asked Questions Henry B. Hogue Specialist in American National Government March 11, 2015 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RS21308 Recess Appointments: Frequently Asked Questions Summary Under the Constitution (Article II, §2, clause 2), the President and the Senate share the power to make appointments to high-level policy-making positions in federal departments, agencies, boards, and commissions. Generally, the President nominates individuals to these positions, and the Senate must confirm them before he can appoint them to office. The Constitution also provides an exception to this process. When the Senate is in recess, the President may make a temporary appointment, called a recess appointment, to any such position without Senate approval (Article II, §2, clause 3). This report supplies brief answers to some frequently asked questions regarding recess appointments. Additional information on recess appointments may be found in other CRS reports: CRS Report R42329, Recess Appointments Made by President Barack Obama, by Henry B. Hogue and Maureen O. Bearden; CRS Report RL33310, Recess Appointments Made by President George W. Bush, by Henry B. Hogue and Maureen O. Bearden; and CRS Report RL33009, Recess Appointments: A Legal Overview, by Vivian S. Chu. This report will be updated as events warrant. Congressional Research Service Recess Appointments: Frequently Asked Questions Contents What Is the Purpose of a Recess Appointment? .......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Contemplating the Congressional Budget Process
    CONTEMPLATING THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET PROCESS Government is aptly compared to architecture; if the superstructure is too heavy for the foundation the building totters, though assisted by outward props of art.1 When the subject of the Congressional budget process arises a common and usually mildly exasperated complaint is often heard: “It is so complex.” The adjective “complex” is usually paired with other adjectives, sometimes adverbs, like “overly”2, “cumbersome”,3 “tedious,”4 “incoherent,”5 or “endlessly.”6 Even “maddeningly”7 has been used, though when this last has been employed, it has been unclear whether the meaning is that it incites anger or causes an impairment of cerebral functioning. The truth of the characterization is manifest: The current budget process system is, in fact, complex, but that, in itself, is not a flaw, fatal or otherwise. Many things are complex: Microcomputers, theoretical mathematics, Hegelianism and Heideggerian hermeneutic phenomenology all may be characterized as such. Even the primary governing document of the American Nation, the U.S. Constitution, is purposefully complex in its construction. In answering a query as to why 1 Though this quote is attributed to Benjamin Franklin from an article published in The Pennsylvania Gazette in April 1737, John Webbe has also been named as its author. Webbe was an essayist and publisher who was Franklin’s contemporary. The sentiment is valuable no matter who held the pen. See The Papers of Benjamin Franklin, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1960, vol. 2, pp. 145–146. 2 Brian M. Riedl , “What’s Wrong with the Federal Budget Process”; Backgrounder #1816 on Federal Budget, The Heritage Foundation, January 25, 2005.
    [Show full text]
  • Recess Appointments: Frequently Asked Questions
    Recess Appointments: Frequently Asked Questions Updated March 11, 2015 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov RS21308 Recess Appointments: Frequently Asked Questions Summary Under the Constitution (Article II, §2, clause 2), the President and the Senate share the power to make appointments to high-level policy-making positions in federal departments, agencies, boards, and commissions. Generally, the President nominates individuals to these positions, and the Senate must confirm them before he can appoint them to office. The Constitution also provides an exception to this process. When the Senate is in recess, the President may make a temporary appointment, called a recess appointment, to any such position without Senate approval (Article II, §2, clause 3). This report supplies brief answers to some frequently asked questions regarding recess appointments. Additional information on recess appointments may be found in other CRS reports: CRS Report R42329, Recess Appointments Made by President Barack Obama, by Henry B. Hogue and Maureen O. Bearden; CRS Report RL33310, Recess Appointments Made by President George W. Bush, by Henry B. Hogue and Maureen O. Bearden; and CRS Report RL33009, Recess Appointments: A Legal Overview, by Vivian S. Chu. This report will be updated as events warrant. Congressional Research Service Recess Appointments: Frequently Asked Questions Contents What Is the Purpose of a Recess Appointment? ........................................................................ 1 How Often Have Recent
    [Show full text]
  • Senate Resolution No. 1705
    Session of 2021 Senate Resolution No. 1705 By Senators Masterson, Suellentrop and Sykes 1-22 1 A RESOLUTION adopting rules for the Senate of the State of Kansas for 2 the terms of the Senators commencing with the 2021 regular session 3 of the Legislature. 4 5 Be it resolved by the Senate of the State of Kansas: The following rules 6 shall be the rules of the Senate for the terms of the Senators 7 commencing with the 2021 regular session of the Legislature. 8 RULES OF THE SENATE 9 2021-2024 10 Rule 1. Time of Meetings. The Senate on the first day of a session 11 shall convene at 2:00 p.m., and at all other times shall convene at 2:30 12 p.m., unless otherwise ordered by the Senate. 13 Rule 2. Convening – Quorum – Assuming Duties of Chair. (a) The 14 President shall take the chair at the hour fixed for the convening of the 15 Senate, and the roll shall be called in order to ascertain if a quorum is 16 present. A majority of the Senators then elected (or appointed) and 17 qualified shall constitute a quorum, and, in the absence of a quorum, the 18 Senators present, by majority vote, may take such measures as they shall 19 deem necessary to secure the presence of a quorum. 20 (b) In the absence of the President, the Vice President shall assume 21 the duties of the President. The President or Vice President may also 22 name any Senator to temporarily perform the duties of the chair, but the 23 Senator so named shall not act as President beyond adjournment, unless 24 by leave of the Senate.
    [Show full text]
  • H. Con. Res. 112
    112TH CONGRESS 2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 112 CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 2 concurring), 3 SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET 4 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013. 5 (a) DECLARATION.—The Congress determines and 6 declares that this concurrent resolution establishes the 2 1 budget for fiscal year 2013 and sets forth appropriate 2 budgetary levels for fiscal years 2014 through 2022. 3 (b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents for 4 this resolution is as follows: Sec. 1. Concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2013. TITLE I—RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS Sec. 101. Recommended levels and amounts. Sec. 102. Major functional categories. TITLE II—RECONCILIATION AND DIRECTIVE TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET Sec. 201. Reconciliation in the House of Representatives. Sec. 202. Directive to the Committee on the Budget of the House of Represent- atives to replace the sequester established by the Budget Con- trol Act of 2011. TITLE III—RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2030, 2040, AND 2050 Sec. 301. Policy statement on long-term budgeting. TITLE IV—RESERVE FUNDS Sec. 401. Reserve fund for the repeal of the 2010 health care laws. Sec. 402. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for the sustainable growth rate of the Medicare program. Sec. 403. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for revenue measures. Sec. 404. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for rural counties and schools. Sec. 405. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for transportation. TITLE V—BUDGET ENFORCEMENT Sec. 501. Limitation on advance appropriations. Sec. 502. Concepts and definitions. Sec. 503. Adjustments of aggregates and allocations for legislation.
    [Show full text]
  • Senator Hammerstrom Offered the Following Concurrent Resolution: Senate Concurrent Resolution No
    Senator Hammerstrom offered the following concurrent resolution: Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 3. A concurrent resolution prescribing the Joint Rules of the Senate and House of Representatives. Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That the following be and are hereby adopted as the Joint Rules of the Senate and House of Representatives: JOINT RULES OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Transmission of Messages. Rule 1. All messages necessary for conducting legislative business between the two Houses shall be communicated in writing and electronically by the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives. Amendments. Rule 2. It shall be in the power of either House to amend an amendment made by the other to any bill or resolution. Conference Committees. Rule 3. (a) The House not concurring in the amendments of the other House shall appoint conferees and notify the amending House of its action. The amending House shall request return of the bill or resolution or appoint conferees. The conference committee shall consist of three members from each House, to be appointed as each House may determine. The first named member of the House in which the bill or resolution originated shall be chairperson of the conference committee. Upon appointment of conferees by both Houses, the bill or resolution shall be referred to the conference committee. When one House amends or substitutes a bill, but then non-concurs in that bill as amended or substituted, those amendments or that substitute shall not be referred. The conference committee shall serve until the conference report has been adopted by both Houses or rejected by a House.
    [Show full text]
  • House Concurrent Resolution No. 5015
    Session of 2021 House Concurrent Resolution No. 5015 By Representative B. Carpenter 3-10 1 A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION urging the United States Congress to 2 reject legislation to federalize elections in the United States of 3 America and oppose the For the People Act of 2021. 4 5 WHEREAS, The For the People Act of 2021, contained in H.R.1 and 6 S.1, is a legislative overreach by the federal government; and 7 WHEREAS, The For the People Act of 2021 impedes upon states' 8 rights by federalizing election administration; and 9 WHEREAS, The For the People Act of 2021 imposes unfunded, 10 burdensome and unconstitutional mandates on states; and 11 WHEREAS, The For the People Act of 2021 intrudes upon our First 12 Amendment rights; and 13 WHEREAS, The For the People Act of 2021 prevents necessary 14 action by states regarding registration or voting that impedes free speech 15 and lawful election activities; and 16 WHEREAS, The For the People Act of 2021 imposes draconian ethics 17 rules that unfairly restrict political activity; and 18 WHEREAS, The For the People Act of 2021 expands government 19 regulation and censorship of campaigns, political speech and activity, 20 including online and policy-related speech for candidates, citizens, civic 21 groups, unions, corporations and nonprofit organizations; and 22 WHEREAS, The For the People Act of 2021 reduces public 23 accountability of elected officials; and 24 WHEREAS, The For the People Act of 2021 blatantly undermines the 25 work of election officials in providing safe and accessible voting options
    [Show full text]
  • Public Law 94-110 94Th Congress Joint Resolution Oct
    89 STAT. 572 PUBLIC LAW 94-110—OCT. 13, 1975 Public Law 94-110 94th Congress Joint Resolution Oct. 13, 1975 rp^ implement the United States proposal for the early-warning system in Sinai. [H.J. Res. 683] Whereas an agreement signed on September 4, 1975, by the Govern­ 22 use 2441 note. ment of the Arab Republic of Egypt and the Government of Israel may, when it enters into force, constitute a significant step toward peace in the Middle East; Whereas the President of the United States on September 1, 1975, transmitted to the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt and to the Government of Israel identical proposals for United States participation in an early-warning system, the text of which has been submitted to the Congress, providing for the assignment of no more than two hundred United States civilian personnel to carry out certain specified noncombat functions and setting forth the terms and conditions thereof; Whereas that proposal would permit the Government of the United States to withdraw such personnel if it concludes that their safety is jeopardized or that continuation of their role is no longer nec­ essary; and Whereas the implementation of the United States proposal for the early-warning system in Sinai may enhance the prospect of compli­ ance in good faith Avith the terms of the Egyptian-Israeli agree­ ments and thereby promote the cause of peace: Now, therefore, be it Resolved hy the Senate and House of Representatives of the United United States States of America in Congress assembled, That the President is proposal for the authorized to implement the "United States Proposal for the Early Early Warning Warning System in Sinai": Provided, however, That United States System in Sinai.
    [Show full text]
  • House Concurrent Resolution 221 Sponsored by Representative KOTEK (At the Request of Joint Committee on the Second Special Session of 2020)
    80th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2020 Second Special Session Enrolled House Concurrent Resolution 221 Sponsored by Representative KOTEK (at the request of Joint Committee on the Second Special Session of 2020) Be It Resolved by the Legislative Assembly of the State of Oregon: That Legislative Branch Personnel Rule 27, as amended and in effect on June 29, 2019, is further amended, and Legislative Branch Personnel Rule 27-A is adopted, as follows: Legislative Branch Personnel Rule 27: Safe, Respectful and Inclusive Workplace. (1) Policy. (a) The Legislative Branch is committed to promoting a respectful and inclusive environment in the State Capitol and in any setting in which conduct has the ability to create a Capitol environ- ment that is intimidating, hostile or offensive, or may constitute conduct that amounts to retaliation for the making of a good-faith complaint under this rule or for participation in an investigation un- der this rule. (b) The Legislative Branch is committed to providing a safe and respectful workplace and to taking proactive steps to improve its culture so that behavior from any source that has a negative impact on the workplace may be effectively reported and promptly addressed and resolved. (c) The Legislative Branch is equally committed to protecting freedom of speech and expression, as guaranteed to all persons through the free expression protections of Article I, section 8, of the Oregon Constitution, and through the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the Legislative Branch recognizes that the constitutional protections guaranteeing freedom of speech and expression must be taken into account in determining the rights afforded to individuals in the State Capitol under this rule.
    [Show full text]