Tag Archives: legislation

Proposed Safe Drinking Water Act of 2017 (HR 1068)

If history is repeated the Democrat proposal to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act is a strategic set-up for 2018 elections.. Yes, the Safe Drinking Water Act needs to be amended and reauthorized. But will the provisions of this bill be seriously considered? Stay tuned.

Full text of HR 1068 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 2017

China may consider new water legislation….

“Chinese national lawmakers have called for better legislation to ensure drinking water quality and for a compensation mechanism to be established for areas that close industrial facilities to reduce water pollution but lose income as a result.”

Click here for the full article.

 

Corrupt California Assembly Rules Committee kills transparency bill

Government Transparency Bill Killed on Partisan Vote
For Immediate Release: May 15, 2012 Jeff Greene 951-894-1232, Craig Deluz 916-319-2066
 

ACA 1 By Jeffries Would Have Required Bill Text be Published 24 Hours Before Votes
SACRAMENTO:  With little discussion, no questions, and no opportunity even to respond to false claims by the committee chair, Assemblyman Kevin Jeffries’ (R-Lake Elsinore) ACA 1 government transparency bill was killed in the Assembly Rules Committee on a straight party-line vote.
Frustrated by the legislative leadership’s unwillingness to allow legislators, the media, and the public the opportunity to read the text of legislation until hours or even minutes before they are voted upon, Kevin Jeffries has continually introduced legislation to require all legislation be publicly available at least 24 hours before they can come to a vote.  Yesterday’s hearing on ACA 1 was the first time one of these bills has received a hearing, after years of trying.
“It is an insult to democracy that the legislature refuses to obey the same basic rules of openness and public participation that they force on local governments with the Brown Act,” said Jeffries.  “We require cities, counties and special districts to follow these rules, but the leadership of the legislature insists on the right to force votes on bills that have not been reviewed or publicly available, often in the dark of night.  The ‘public’s right to know’ has clearly been replaced with the ‘government knows best,’ and that is one of the many reasons that the legislature is held in such incredibly low esteem by the voters in California.”
Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley), the Chair of the Rules Committee, insisted in her brief remarks that existing protections and rules are sufficient, and that ACA 1 was unnecessary, and then called the vote without even giving Jeffries the opportunity to respond to her claims.
“It is ironic that the Chair of the Committee hails from the home of the free speech movement in California, but did not wish to have an actual dialogue about this important issue, and seems intent on keeping the public in the dark on issues that affect them,” said Jeffries.  “It is clear that she was forced into holding this hearing by negative public and media pressure in favor of my bill, but was only willing to give it the most cursory review before killing it.  I’m not sure when government transparency and the people’s right to know became a partisan issue, but it is very unfortunate for all Californians, regardless of party registration.”
ACA 1 had been endorsed by a variety of local governments, newspapers from around the state, and non-partisan organizations, including California League of Cities, California Common Cause, The First Amendment Coalition, and several Chambers of Commerce.  It had received no official opposition, and there was no public analysis of the bill prepared by the Rules Committee.
“Clearly the legislative leadership has no interest in reforming itself, and if change is going to come, it will have to be through the initiative process.  I am hopeful that one of the reform organizations contemplating initiative efforts, will include the 24 hour rule, as well as my other reform measure (ACA 2) that would prohibit midnight sessions out of the view of the public.”

Arizona Tribes want assurance on water deal: “….you can’t drink paper water…”

Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl is attempting to shepherd an American Indian water rights settlement through Congress ahead of his planned retirement.  

An $800 million agreement must be cut down…..but will the final agreement be equitable? Click here for the news article….

Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA): Freedom and the Internet

Press Spin: The Shocking Attack on Common Sense of Americans

When any proposal is made to bring change and reform to Washington, DC regarding environmental regulation, slanderous articles appear calling the opposition names (baby killers, etc) and painting them as uncaring evil people who want to poison us.

This example focuses on raising every hot button drinking water issue…..

Environmental regulation must be based on rational decision making and must be economically susatinable. This is currently not the case. Let’s apply common sense, not this type of hysteria….click here.

    

US House of Representatives defeats [phoney] Balanced Budget Amendment

In any given year, the United States Congress and the Administration (regardless of party) could enact a balanced budget and stick to it…..but do they?……No.

If they can’t do it out of a sense of responsibility to the citizens who elected them, then would a balanced budget amendment with out a spending cap make them do it? ……No.

Always remember: “There are no rules in congress, congress makes the rules.”

HJ Res. 2 (click here for text) was voted on and defeated yesterday by the House of Representatives (click here for vote record).

It would have amended the US Constitution to require a balanced budget be proposed each year. So far, so good.

It would have required a 3/5 approval vote of each chamber to increase the debt limit. But it would have only required a simple majority of each chamber to raise revenues (which means increasing taxes).

However, the resolution as well as the others has a fatal flaw. It did not address spending, and says nothing regarding any spending cap, or any taxation limits. In effect, it is a recipe for never ending tax increases…never ending spending. Without any limits or checks on spending….congress will follow its own rules to go right ahead and increase spending and taxes without measure……

HJ Res 1 is similar, but required a 3/5 vote to increase revenues. This was changed later to get votes….but it weakened the resolution to in effect make it meaningless and resulted in lost votes….

Why HJ Res 2 was brought to a vote is unclear? Have some republican leaders been in congress so long it has impaired their judgement? I think so…..2012 is time for a change.