/PRNewswire/ -- On Thursday the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee will mark up the Fiscal Year 2011 EPA-Interior spending bill. Today the American Chemistry Council and 23 other associations wrote to members of the Senate Appropriations Committee urging them to vote for an amendment that would postpone EPA's planned regulation of greenhouse gases (GHGs) from stationary sources. A letter was also sent to House Appropriators. The letters are available at www.americanchemistry.com/energy.
American Chemistry Council (ACC) President and CEO Cal Dooley issued the following statement:
"The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's planned regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources, slated to begin on January 2, 2011, is one of the top challenges facing American business today. Already, the uncertainty and cost associated with these new regulations is having a chilling effect on investment and job creation vital to the nation's recovery. Governors across the country are baffled as to the requirements for states and how to process and pay for the coming flood of permit applications. Energy efficiency investments that could help reduce GHG emissions are among those thrown into disarray by EPA's new regulations.
"That's why a cross-section of American industry and agriculture representing millions of U.S. jobs has asked Senate Appropriators to immediately postpone the regulations. A postponement amendment will give Congress the time necessary to consider the appropriate regulatory approach for stationary sources and move forward on a national climate policy. According to EPA, as many as six million U.S. industrial facilities, power plants, hospitals, agricultural and commercial establishments eventually will be subject to these rules. Proposed steps such as a codification of the 'tailoring rule' have not resolved the confusion nor provided needed certainty and will not protect the vast majority of American businesses affected by the rules.
"Postponing stationary source regulation should be an urgent priority for Congress. We strongly urge Senate Appropriators and other lawmakers to support efforts to postpone EPA regulation of GHG emissions from all stationary sources. This essential step could be achieved through the appropriations process or legislation such as that proposed by Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) and Congressmen Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.) and Rick Boucher (D-Va.)."
-----
Community News You Can Use
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Showing posts with label amendment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label amendment. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Historic Internet Gambling Regulation Bill Overwhelmingly Passes Committee with Bi-Partisan Support
/PRNewswire/ -- Today the House Committee on Financial Services took a critical step forward in passing Internet gambling legislation by voting to approve the Internet Gambling Regulation and Consumer Protection and Enforcement Act (H.R. 2267), legislation introduced by Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA). The legislation, which passed by a 41-22 vote would regulate Internet gambling activity in the U.S. and require licensed operators to put in place safeguards to protect against underage and problem gambling.
"The Committee's bi-partisan vote to approve Chairman Frank's legislation is nothing short of historic," said Michael Waxman, spokesperson for the Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative. "With Congress bitterly divided and only a handful of bi-partisan bills coming out of the Financial Services Committee, we're pleased Committee members from both sides of the aisle were able to come together to advance this important legislation."
During today's mark-up there were several amendments introduced from both sides of the aisle. Rep. John Campbell (R-CA) offered, and the Committee approved, an amendment that would further strengthen the legislation's already strict consumer protections, including a requirement for licensed operators to have each customer choose his or her loss limits before being able to play on-line. Rep. Campbell's amendment also requires licensees to protect customers by ensuring the customer privacy and security and protecting against fraud and money laundering.
Chairman Frank's legislation, introduced in May 2009, would establish a regulatory and enforcement framework for licensed gambling operators to accept bets and wagers from individuals in the U.S. Beyond an array of required consumer protections, the legislation reinforces the rights of each state to determine whether or not to allow Internet gambling activity for people accessing the Internet within the state and to apply other restrictions on the activity as determined necessary.
As a companion to Rep. Frank's bill, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Tax Enforcement Act of 2010 (H.R. 4976) introduced by Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) in March 2010, would ensure the collection of license fees and taxes on regulated Internet gambling activities.
Generating significant attention are the economic benefits of online gambling regulation. According to a Joint Committee on Taxation tax revenue analysis, regulated Internet gambling is expected to generate as much as $42 billion in federal government revenue over its first 10 years. Additionally, a recent analysis by H2 Gambling Capital predicts that Internet gambling regulation would create as many as 32,000 jobs over its first five years. There would also be additional economic benefits associated with jobs creation.
"The momentum of today's vote and growing bi-partisan support for online gambling regulation demonstrates to congressional leaders in the House and Senate that this issue is a priority and should be addressed," said Waxman. "Leaving in place a failed prohibition should no longer be the government's misguided policy approach, leaving millions of Americans vulnerable as they continue to find a way to gamble online in a thriving underground marketplace."
The legislation has drawn the support of 69 bi-partisan co-sponsors. Support for the legislation was also announced last week by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Financial Services Roundtable and the National Association of Federal Credit Unions.
-----
Community News You Can Use
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
"The Committee's bi-partisan vote to approve Chairman Frank's legislation is nothing short of historic," said Michael Waxman, spokesperson for the Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative. "With Congress bitterly divided and only a handful of bi-partisan bills coming out of the Financial Services Committee, we're pleased Committee members from both sides of the aisle were able to come together to advance this important legislation."
During today's mark-up there were several amendments introduced from both sides of the aisle. Rep. John Campbell (R-CA) offered, and the Committee approved, an amendment that would further strengthen the legislation's already strict consumer protections, including a requirement for licensed operators to have each customer choose his or her loss limits before being able to play on-line. Rep. Campbell's amendment also requires licensees to protect customers by ensuring the customer privacy and security and protecting against fraud and money laundering.
Chairman Frank's legislation, introduced in May 2009, would establish a regulatory and enforcement framework for licensed gambling operators to accept bets and wagers from individuals in the U.S. Beyond an array of required consumer protections, the legislation reinforces the rights of each state to determine whether or not to allow Internet gambling activity for people accessing the Internet within the state and to apply other restrictions on the activity as determined necessary.
As a companion to Rep. Frank's bill, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Tax Enforcement Act of 2010 (H.R. 4976) introduced by Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) in March 2010, would ensure the collection of license fees and taxes on regulated Internet gambling activities.
Generating significant attention are the economic benefits of online gambling regulation. According to a Joint Committee on Taxation tax revenue analysis, regulated Internet gambling is expected to generate as much as $42 billion in federal government revenue over its first 10 years. Additionally, a recent analysis by H2 Gambling Capital predicts that Internet gambling regulation would create as many as 32,000 jobs over its first five years. There would also be additional economic benefits associated with jobs creation.
"The momentum of today's vote and growing bi-partisan support for online gambling regulation demonstrates to congressional leaders in the House and Senate that this issue is a priority and should be addressed," said Waxman. "Leaving in place a failed prohibition should no longer be the government's misguided policy approach, leaving millions of Americans vulnerable as they continue to find a way to gamble online in a thriving underground marketplace."
The legislation has drawn the support of 69 bi-partisan co-sponsors. Support for the legislation was also announced last week by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Financial Services Roundtable and the National Association of Federal Credit Unions.
-----
Community News You Can Use
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Friday, December 11, 2009
New Healthcare Amendment Will Preserve Access to Care for Millions of Patients
/PRNewswire/ -- Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA) today proposed a new amendment to the current healthcare reform bill which will preserve access to care for millions of Medicare patients seen by a medical specialist.
Senate Amendment 3163 would require the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to delay for one year implementation of its decision to eliminate consultation codes for specialists. A survey of its members recently conducted by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) indicated that if the consultation codes were eliminated four out of five endocrinologists would be forced to drastically reduce or eliminate the number of Medicare patients seen in their practices.
The American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) fully endorses the Specter Amendment. AACE has opposed the CMS ruling since it was originally announced. In a letter sent August 26, 2009, AACE cautioned CMS that the result of the ruling "will be a significant reduction in the quality of care received by older Americans when they need it the most." The CMS rule, which goes into effect on January 1, 2010, would no longer allow endocrinologists and other specialists to bill for consultations provided for patients referred to them by primary care physicians.
"The Specter amendment will enable Medicare patients, the major segment of our population that is most vulnerable to serious illness, to continue to have access to specialists," AACE President and Chief of Endocrinology at Harvard Vanguard Medical Associates, Dr. Jeffrey R. Garber said. "It will also give CMS and Congress a chance to critically re-examine this flawed proposal."
In addition to AACE, the amendment is being endorsed by: American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (AAAAI), American Academy of Neurology (AAN), American Medical Group Association (AMGA), American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (ACAAI), American College of Cardiology (ACC), American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), American College of Rheumatology (ACR), American Gastroenterological Association (AGA), American Medical Association (AMA), American Psychiatric Association (APA), American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE), American Urological Association (AUA), Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations (CSRO), Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (JCAAI), North American Neuro-Ophthalmology Society (NANOS), Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) and The Endocrine Society (TES).
AACE is encouraging all medical specialists and their patients to write their Members of Congress asking them to support the Specter Amendment and to sign an online petition to reverse the elimination of these codes at www.keepthecodes.com.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Senate Amendment 3163 would require the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to delay for one year implementation of its decision to eliminate consultation codes for specialists. A survey of its members recently conducted by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) indicated that if the consultation codes were eliminated four out of five endocrinologists would be forced to drastically reduce or eliminate the number of Medicare patients seen in their practices.
The American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) fully endorses the Specter Amendment. AACE has opposed the CMS ruling since it was originally announced. In a letter sent August 26, 2009, AACE cautioned CMS that the result of the ruling "will be a significant reduction in the quality of care received by older Americans when they need it the most." The CMS rule, which goes into effect on January 1, 2010, would no longer allow endocrinologists and other specialists to bill for consultations provided for patients referred to them by primary care physicians.
"The Specter amendment will enable Medicare patients, the major segment of our population that is most vulnerable to serious illness, to continue to have access to specialists," AACE President and Chief of Endocrinology at Harvard Vanguard Medical Associates, Dr. Jeffrey R. Garber said. "It will also give CMS and Congress a chance to critically re-examine this flawed proposal."
In addition to AACE, the amendment is being endorsed by: American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (AAAAI), American Academy of Neurology (AAN), American Medical Group Association (AMGA), American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (ACAAI), American College of Cardiology (ACC), American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), American College of Rheumatology (ACR), American Gastroenterological Association (AGA), American Medical Association (AMA), American Psychiatric Association (APA), American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE), American Urological Association (AUA), Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations (CSRO), Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (JCAAI), North American Neuro-Ophthalmology Society (NANOS), Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) and The Endocrine Society (TES).
AACE is encouraging all medical specialists and their patients to write their Members of Congress asking them to support the Specter Amendment and to sign an online petition to reverse the elimination of these codes at www.keepthecodes.com.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Friday, November 13, 2009
Planned Parenthood and ACLU Obstruct People's Rights with Lawsuit against Personhood Nevada
/Standard Newswire/ -- Planned Parenthood and the ACLU have filed a lawsuit against the sponsors of a Nevada ballot initiative defining the term "person."
The simple, one-sentence amendment states, "In the great state of Nevada, the term 'person' applies to every human being."
Blogger Emmily Bristol, the woman participating in the lawsuit, seems to admit on her blog that the measure is easy to understand. She claims, "It is designed to leave voters scratching their heads and saying, 'Well, duh, a person is a person.' "
"Exactly," answered Keith Mason of Personhood USA. "It's simple, easy to understand, and if even the folks behind the lawsuit can see that it's that simple, the voters shouldn't have any trouble. Every human being is a person. Period."
"Children in the womb today have fewer rights than dogs or cats," continued Mason. "Planned
Parenthood, the ACLU, and Emmily Bristol are seeking to keep it that way."
Nevada's personhood amendment was filed on October 21, 2009. An amendment much like this one was introduced in Colorado and was found to be a single-subject issue. In 2007, Planned Parenthood and the ACLU teamed up to try to defeat the Colorado Personhood Amendment, but failed even up to the Colorado Supreme Court.
"This is clearly a single subject issue, easy to understand, and simply recognizes the rights of every human being," stated Keith Mason, of Personhood USA. "Planned Parenthood's lawsuit is not only stifling the people's right to a ballot initiative, but it appears desperate. Once personhood is properly recognized, Planned Parenthood stands to lose over a billion dollars in annual profit."
"This is now the third time that the ACLU and Planned Parenthood have ganged up to silence the voice of the people, and their right to ballot initiatives," concluded Mason. "In Colorado, they failed. They are trying to silence us, and to keep the vote away from the people. The citizens have a right to ballot initiatives, and human beings have a right to live."
Personhood USA is a grassroots Christian organization founded to establish personhood efforts
across America to create protection for every child by love and by law. Personhood USA is committed to assisting and supporting Personhood Legislation and Constitutional Amendments and building local pro-life organizations through raising awareness of the personhood of the pre-born.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
The simple, one-sentence amendment states, "In the great state of Nevada, the term 'person' applies to every human being."
Blogger Emmily Bristol, the woman participating in the lawsuit, seems to admit on her blog that the measure is easy to understand. She claims, "It is designed to leave voters scratching their heads and saying, 'Well, duh, a person is a person.' "
"Exactly," answered Keith Mason of Personhood USA. "It's simple, easy to understand, and if even the folks behind the lawsuit can see that it's that simple, the voters shouldn't have any trouble. Every human being is a person. Period."
"Children in the womb today have fewer rights than dogs or cats," continued Mason. "Planned
Parenthood, the ACLU, and Emmily Bristol are seeking to keep it that way."
Nevada's personhood amendment was filed on October 21, 2009. An amendment much like this one was introduced in Colorado and was found to be a single-subject issue. In 2007, Planned Parenthood and the ACLU teamed up to try to defeat the Colorado Personhood Amendment, but failed even up to the Colorado Supreme Court.
"This is clearly a single subject issue, easy to understand, and simply recognizes the rights of every human being," stated Keith Mason, of Personhood USA. "Planned Parenthood's lawsuit is not only stifling the people's right to a ballot initiative, but it appears desperate. Once personhood is properly recognized, Planned Parenthood stands to lose over a billion dollars in annual profit."
"This is now the third time that the ACLU and Planned Parenthood have ganged up to silence the voice of the people, and their right to ballot initiatives," concluded Mason. "In Colorado, they failed. They are trying to silence us, and to keep the vote away from the people. The citizens have a right to ballot initiatives, and human beings have a right to live."
Personhood USA is a grassroots Christian organization founded to establish personhood efforts
across America to create protection for every child by love and by law. Personhood USA is committed to assisting and supporting Personhood Legislation and Constitutional Amendments and building local pro-life organizations through raising awareness of the personhood of the pre-born.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Leading Pro-Life Group Outraged by the Defeat of Pro-Life Amendments in Senate Finance Committee
/PRNewswire/ -- Today, in a vote of 10-13 in the Senate Finance Committee, the Hatch Amendment #C14 was defeated. The amendment would have explicitly prohibited federal funding and coverage of abortions. The Committee also voted down an amendment by Senator Hatch that would have prevented discrimination against any individual or entity who refused to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.
Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President of Americans United for Life recently met with the White House to discuss conscience protection and the lack of explicit language banning abortion funding and coverage in health care reform.
Dr. Yoest said that the defeat of these important amendments illustrate the gap between rhetoric and reality on the Hill over abortion in health care reform:
"President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid have all told the American people that abortion will not be in health care reform. Nevertheless, the defeat of these amendments demonstrates the gap between rhetoric and reality. These rhetorical assurances are not adding up to action. The pro-life community will continue a vigorous fight to keep abortion out of health care reform."
Here are the defeated pro-life amendments voted down in the Senate Finance Committee:
Hatch Amendment #C14 Description:
No funds authorized or appropriated under this Mark may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.
Nothing in this amendment would preclude an insurance issuer from offering a separate, supplemental policy to cover additional abortions. Such a supplemental policy would be funded solely by supplemental premiums paid for by individuals choosing to purchase the
policy.
SENATE VOTE
Republicans
CHUCK GRASSLEY - yes
ORRIN G. HATCH - yes
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE - no
JON KYL - yes
JIM BUNNING - yes
MIKE CRAPO - yes
PAT ROBERTS - yes
JOHN ENSIGN - yes
MIKE ENZI - yes
JOHN CORNYN - yes
Democrats
MAX BAUCUS - no
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER - no
KENT CONRAD - yes
JEFF BINGAMAN - no
JOHN F. KERRY - no
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN - no
RON WYDEN - no
CHARLES E. SCHUMER - no
DEBBIE STABENOW - no
MARIA CANTWELL - no
BILL NELSON - no
ROBERT MENENDEZ - no
THOMAS CARPER - no
Not Agreed to (10-13)
Hatch Amendment #C13: Non-discrimination on abortion and respect for right of
conscience
Description:
Non-Discrimination on abortion and respect for rights of conscience
(a) NON DISCRIMINATION.-A Federal agency or program, and any State or
local government that receives Federal financial assistance under this Act ( or and amendment made by this Act), may not-
1) subject any individual or institutional health care entity to
discrimination, or
2) require any health plan created or regulated under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act), to subject any individual or institutional health care entity to discrimination, on the basis that the health care entity does not provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.
(b) DEFINITION.-In this section, the term "health care entity" includes an individual physician or other health care professional, a hospital, a provider-sponsored organization, a health maintenance organization, a health insurance plan, or any other kind of health care facility, organization, or plan.
(c) ADMINISTRATION.-The Office for Civil Right of the Department of Heath and Human Services is designated to receive complaints of discrimination based on this section, and coordinate the investigation of such complaints.
SENATE VOTE
Republicans
CHUCK GRASSLEY - yes
ORRIN G. HATCH - yes
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE - no
JON KYL - yes
JIM BUNNING - yes
MIKE CRAPO - yes
PAT ROBERTS - yes
JOHN ENSIGN - yes
MIKE ENZI - yes
JOHN CORNYN - yes
Democrats
MAX BAUCUS - no
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER - no
KENT CONRAD - yes
JEFF BINGAMAN - no
JOHN F. KERRY - no
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN - no
RON WYDEN - no
CHARLES E. SCHUMER - no
DEBBIE STABENOW - no
MARIA CANTWELL - no
BILL NELSON - no
ROBERT MENENDEZ - no
THOMAS CARPER - no
Not Agreed to (10-13)
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President of Americans United for Life recently met with the White House to discuss conscience protection and the lack of explicit language banning abortion funding and coverage in health care reform.
Dr. Yoest said that the defeat of these important amendments illustrate the gap between rhetoric and reality on the Hill over abortion in health care reform:
"President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid have all told the American people that abortion will not be in health care reform. Nevertheless, the defeat of these amendments demonstrates the gap between rhetoric and reality. These rhetorical assurances are not adding up to action. The pro-life community will continue a vigorous fight to keep abortion out of health care reform."
Here are the defeated pro-life amendments voted down in the Senate Finance Committee:
Hatch Amendment #C14 Description:
No funds authorized or appropriated under this Mark may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.
Nothing in this amendment would preclude an insurance issuer from offering a separate, supplemental policy to cover additional abortions. Such a supplemental policy would be funded solely by supplemental premiums paid for by individuals choosing to purchase the
policy.
SENATE VOTE
Republicans
CHUCK GRASSLEY - yes
ORRIN G. HATCH - yes
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE - no
JON KYL - yes
JIM BUNNING - yes
MIKE CRAPO - yes
PAT ROBERTS - yes
JOHN ENSIGN - yes
MIKE ENZI - yes
JOHN CORNYN - yes
Democrats
MAX BAUCUS - no
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER - no
KENT CONRAD - yes
JEFF BINGAMAN - no
JOHN F. KERRY - no
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN - no
RON WYDEN - no
CHARLES E. SCHUMER - no
DEBBIE STABENOW - no
MARIA CANTWELL - no
BILL NELSON - no
ROBERT MENENDEZ - no
THOMAS CARPER - no
Not Agreed to (10-13)
Hatch Amendment #C13: Non-discrimination on abortion and respect for right of
conscience
Description:
Non-Discrimination on abortion and respect for rights of conscience
(a) NON DISCRIMINATION.-A Federal agency or program, and any State or
local government that receives Federal financial assistance under this Act ( or and amendment made by this Act), may not-
1) subject any individual or institutional health care entity to
discrimination, or
2) require any health plan created or regulated under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act), to subject any individual or institutional health care entity to discrimination, on the basis that the health care entity does not provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.
(b) DEFINITION.-In this section, the term "health care entity" includes an individual physician or other health care professional, a hospital, a provider-sponsored organization, a health maintenance organization, a health insurance plan, or any other kind of health care facility, organization, or plan.
(c) ADMINISTRATION.-The Office for Civil Right of the Department of Heath and Human Services is designated to receive complaints of discrimination based on this section, and coordinate the investigation of such complaints.
SENATE VOTE
Republicans
CHUCK GRASSLEY - yes
ORRIN G. HATCH - yes
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE - no
JON KYL - yes
JIM BUNNING - yes
MIKE CRAPO - yes
PAT ROBERTS - yes
JOHN ENSIGN - yes
MIKE ENZI - yes
JOHN CORNYN - yes
Democrats
MAX BAUCUS - no
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER - no
KENT CONRAD - yes
JEFF BINGAMAN - no
JOHN F. KERRY - no
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN - no
RON WYDEN - no
CHARLES E. SCHUMER - no
DEBBIE STABENOW - no
MARIA CANTWELL - no
BILL NELSON - no
ROBERT MENENDEZ - no
THOMAS CARPER - no
Not Agreed to (10-13)
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Amendments Encourage Senate Finance Committee to Protect Flexible Spending Accounts
/PRNewswire/ -- Following the introduction of health care reform legislation last week by Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), more than a dozen amendments were filed this weekend by members of the Senate Finance Committee to protect flexible spending accounts (FSAs) -- a valuable benefit used by millions of Americans to manage and hold down their health care costs. As reemphasized in updated legislation introduced today, Sen. Baucus proposes to restrict the use of FSAs to help cover a portion of the costs of health care reform.
America's Healthy Future Act, as introduced by Sen. Baucus, contains provisions that would drastically restrict the use of FSAs primarily by imposing a $2,500 cap (initially proposed last week at $2,000) on contributions that - unlike other provisions in the legislation - would not adjust with inflation. The legislation also proposes limiting the use of the benefit for over-the-counter medications without a doctor's prescription and including FSAs together with major medical plans in an excise tax on high-cost insurance plans.
"It's disappointing that Sen. Baucus has focused his sights on restricting the use of flexible spending accounts through an unreasonably low cap on contributions. He appears to be discriminating against FSAs which, unlike other provisions in the bill, is not indexed over time," said Joe Jackson, chairman of Save Flexible Spending Plans and CEO of WageWorks, a benefits company based in San Mateo, California. "Without a change, many who rely on flexible spending accounts, including individuals and families battling chronic conditions with high out-of-pocket costs, will lose the full value of the benefit and be forced to pay higher taxes and health care costs."
Amendments filed by Senate Finance Committee members included proposals to increase or remove the originally planned $2,000 contribution cap, exclude FSAs from the excise tax on high cost health insurance plans and clarify the reimbursement role of FSAs for over-the-counter medications.
"We are encouraged that eight Senators from both sides of the aisle filed amendments to protect a benefit that has helped millions of hardworking Americans manage and hold down their health care costs," said Jackson. "At a minimum, amendments filed that would increase the cap on FSA contributions, including those by Senators Schumer and Snowe, represent a step in the right direction. Without a higher cap, Congress could force plan participants, including many fighting chronic illnesses, to forgo necessary medical treatment, prescriptions and supplies for financial reasons, resulting in a deterioration of health and an increase in hospitalizations and overall health care system costs."
About Flexible Spending Accounts
Flexible spending accounts (FSAs) are voluntary, account-based plans that enable millions of Americans to use pre-tax dollars to pay for eligible out-of-pocket health care expenses like prescription drug co-pays, vision and dental costs, office visits and medical supplies. Most FSA participants are middle income, earning approximately $55,000 annually. Currently, limits on contributions to FSAs are set by individual employers.
In July, the House Ways and Means Committee approved health care reform legislation that includes a ban on using money set aside in FSAs to buy over-the-counter medications such as aspirin and allergy medications.
About Save Flexible Spending Plans
Save Flexible Spending Plans is a national grassroots advocacy organization protect against the restricted use of flexible spending accounts in health care reform efforts. The campaign is sponsored by the Employers Council on Flexible Compensation (ECFC), www.ecfc.org, a non-profit organization dedicated to the maintenance and expansion of private employee benefit programs on a tax-advantaged basis. To learn more, take action and read the personal stories of FSA participants, please visit www.savemyflexplan.org.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.artsacrossgeorgia.com
Arts Across Georgia
America's Healthy Future Act, as introduced by Sen. Baucus, contains provisions that would drastically restrict the use of FSAs primarily by imposing a $2,500 cap (initially proposed last week at $2,000) on contributions that - unlike other provisions in the legislation - would not adjust with inflation. The legislation also proposes limiting the use of the benefit for over-the-counter medications without a doctor's prescription and including FSAs together with major medical plans in an excise tax on high-cost insurance plans.
"It's disappointing that Sen. Baucus has focused his sights on restricting the use of flexible spending accounts through an unreasonably low cap on contributions. He appears to be discriminating against FSAs which, unlike other provisions in the bill, is not indexed over time," said Joe Jackson, chairman of Save Flexible Spending Plans and CEO of WageWorks, a benefits company based in San Mateo, California. "Without a change, many who rely on flexible spending accounts, including individuals and families battling chronic conditions with high out-of-pocket costs, will lose the full value of the benefit and be forced to pay higher taxes and health care costs."
Amendments filed by Senate Finance Committee members included proposals to increase or remove the originally planned $2,000 contribution cap, exclude FSAs from the excise tax on high cost health insurance plans and clarify the reimbursement role of FSAs for over-the-counter medications.
"We are encouraged that eight Senators from both sides of the aisle filed amendments to protect a benefit that has helped millions of hardworking Americans manage and hold down their health care costs," said Jackson. "At a minimum, amendments filed that would increase the cap on FSA contributions, including those by Senators Schumer and Snowe, represent a step in the right direction. Without a higher cap, Congress could force plan participants, including many fighting chronic illnesses, to forgo necessary medical treatment, prescriptions and supplies for financial reasons, resulting in a deterioration of health and an increase in hospitalizations and overall health care system costs."
About Flexible Spending Accounts
Flexible spending accounts (FSAs) are voluntary, account-based plans that enable millions of Americans to use pre-tax dollars to pay for eligible out-of-pocket health care expenses like prescription drug co-pays, vision and dental costs, office visits and medical supplies. Most FSA participants are middle income, earning approximately $55,000 annually. Currently, limits on contributions to FSAs are set by individual employers.
In July, the House Ways and Means Committee approved health care reform legislation that includes a ban on using money set aside in FSAs to buy over-the-counter medications such as aspirin and allergy medications.
About Save Flexible Spending Plans
Save Flexible Spending Plans is a national grassroots advocacy organization protect against the restricted use of flexible spending accounts in health care reform efforts. The campaign is sponsored by the Employers Council on Flexible Compensation (ECFC), www.ecfc.org, a non-profit organization dedicated to the maintenance and expansion of private employee benefit programs on a tax-advantaged basis. To learn more, take action and read the personal stories of FSA participants, please visit www.savemyflexplan.org.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.artsacrossgeorgia.com
Arts Across Georgia
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
If Majority Leader Reid Supports E-Verify Why Does the Senate Block Its Long-Term Reauthorization?
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- For the second time in as many months, the United States Senate had an opportunity to reauthorize the highly effective E-Verify system and chose not to. By rejecting an amendment to the Omnibus Appropriations bill offered by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) to extend E-Verify through 2014, the Senate leadership belied their contention that they support this program that protects U.S. workers from losing jobs to illegal aliens.
E-Verify is a federal program that allows employers to voluntarily determine whether workers are legally authorized to work in the U.S. by electronically verifying their Social Security numbers. According to the Department of Homeland Security, E-Verify has a 99.6 percent accuracy rate.
In a letter to his Nevada constituents, Majority Leader Harry Reid states, "I strongly support programs like E-Verify that are designed to ensure that employers only hire those who are legally authorized to work in the United States, and believe we need to strengthen enforcement against employers who knowingly hire individuals who are not authorized to work." In fact, in 2006 and 2007, Senator Reid supported not only reauthorizing E-Verify, but making it mandatory for all employers nationwide.
But now, Sen. Reid and the Democratic leadership are singing a different tune:
-- In February, Sen. Reid blocked inclusion of amendments to the economic
stimulus bill that would have reauthorized E-Verify for five years,
and required that employers who receive stimulus money use E-Verify to
ensure they hire only legal U.S. workers. These provisions were
included in the House bill.
-- During the House-Senate conference committee finalizing the economic
stimulus package, Sen. Reid, together with Speaker Nancy Pelosi,
stripped the E-Verify provisions from the bill sent to President
Obama.
-- Today, Sen. Reid and the Democratic majority voted down Sen. Sessions'
five year reauthorization of E-Verify.
Because of these actions, the vital protections that E-Verify offers to American workers at a time when unemployment is rising rapidly are on tenuous life support only until September 30. They also confirm that Senate leadership's primary interest in E-Verify is to use it as a bargaining chip in an effort to gain amnesty for illegal aliens.
"If the Senate leadership were truly interested in protecting American jobs from being filled by illegal aliens, E-Verify would have been reauthorized for five years and steps would have been taken to make its use mandatory by all employers," said Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).
"The fact that E-Verify will only receive a six-month reauthorization, and the fact that employers receiving taxpayer stimulus money are not required to verify that workers are legal U.S. residents is not an oversight. It is a deliberate decision of the Senate leaders who place the interests of low wage employers and illegal aliens over the interests of millions of unemployed American workers who desperately need jobs.
"The defeat of the Sessions amendment demonstrates conclusively that the Senate leadership, contrary to what they say, is unwilling to protect the jobs of American workers," Stein concluded.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
E-Verify is a federal program that allows employers to voluntarily determine whether workers are legally authorized to work in the U.S. by electronically verifying their Social Security numbers. According to the Department of Homeland Security, E-Verify has a 99.6 percent accuracy rate.
In a letter to his Nevada constituents, Majority Leader Harry Reid states, "I strongly support programs like E-Verify that are designed to ensure that employers only hire those who are legally authorized to work in the United States, and believe we need to strengthen enforcement against employers who knowingly hire individuals who are not authorized to work." In fact, in 2006 and 2007, Senator Reid supported not only reauthorizing E-Verify, but making it mandatory for all employers nationwide.
But now, Sen. Reid and the Democratic leadership are singing a different tune:
-- In February, Sen. Reid blocked inclusion of amendments to the economic
stimulus bill that would have reauthorized E-Verify for five years,
and required that employers who receive stimulus money use E-Verify to
ensure they hire only legal U.S. workers. These provisions were
included in the House bill.
-- During the House-Senate conference committee finalizing the economic
stimulus package, Sen. Reid, together with Speaker Nancy Pelosi,
stripped the E-Verify provisions from the bill sent to President
Obama.
-- Today, Sen. Reid and the Democratic majority voted down Sen. Sessions'
five year reauthorization of E-Verify.
Because of these actions, the vital protections that E-Verify offers to American workers at a time when unemployment is rising rapidly are on tenuous life support only until September 30. They also confirm that Senate leadership's primary interest in E-Verify is to use it as a bargaining chip in an effort to gain amnesty for illegal aliens.
"If the Senate leadership were truly interested in protecting American jobs from being filled by illegal aliens, E-Verify would have been reauthorized for five years and steps would have been taken to make its use mandatory by all employers," said Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).
"The fact that E-Verify will only receive a six-month reauthorization, and the fact that employers receiving taxpayer stimulus money are not required to verify that workers are legal U.S. residents is not an oversight. It is a deliberate decision of the Senate leaders who place the interests of low wage employers and illegal aliens over the interests of millions of unemployed American workers who desperately need jobs.
"The defeat of the Sessions amendment demonstrates conclusively that the Senate leadership, contrary to what they say, is unwilling to protect the jobs of American workers," Stein concluded.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Monday, March 9, 2009
Utah 1st State to Give Voters Right to Constitutionally Secure Secret Ballots, Will Be on 2010 Ballot
SOS Ballot Secures Public Vote in Utah for Secret Ballot Constitutional Amendment; 1st State to Give Voters Right to Constitutionally Secure Secret Ballots Strongly Backed by Gov. Huntsman, Sen. Hatch, AG Shurtleff
/PRNewswire/ -- A constitutional amendment to guarantee the use of secret ballots in Utah elections, including in union organizing elections, has passed the Utah State Senate, ensuring a place on the November 2010 ballot. House Joint Resolution 8 was introduced in the State House by Rep. Carl Wimmer (R-Herriman), where the measure also passed with a 2/3rd vote earlier in the week. The amendment had the strong backing of Governor Huntsman, US Senator Orrin Hatch and Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, and becomes the first of what is likely to be a dozen or more states to place constitutional guarantees for secret ballots before the voters. Attorney General Shurtleff is a member of the National Advisory Board of Save Our Secret Ballot, the national group organizing similar movements in states throughout the country.
SOS Ballot National Advisory Board Chairman Rep. Ernest Istook commented, "Utahans are fortunate to have leaders like Rep. Wimmer as well as Governor Huntsman, Senator Hatch and Attorney General Shurtleff who understand just how imperiled and vulnerable the right to a secret ballot is. We applaud their leadership in making this issue a top priority and look forward to working with them to make sure Utahans never have to fear losing their right to a secret ballot. While Utah is the first state, it will soon be joined by other states in giving voters the right to protect the secret ballot. We won in Utah because voters want secret ballots protected. We will win in a dozen or more states this election cycle because voters are appalled that Congress would acquiesce to the extreme demands of Union bosses and threaten the right to a secret ballot."
Similar efforts have been launched by SOS Ballot in Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina and South Dakota with additional states soon to be announced. The 47-word amendment says:
"The right of individuals to vote by secret ballot is fundamental. Where state or federal law requires elections for public office or public votes on initiatives or referenda, or designations or authorizations of employee representation, the right of individuals to vote by secret ballot shall be guaranteed."
Utah Governor John Huntsman extended his support to HJR 8 with the following statement:
"It is ever important for Utahans to have the right to vote their conscience in areas that are critical to their democratic representation and the representation within their employment without the fear of retribution or persecution. This constitutional amendment would ensure that individuals will be constitutionally guaranteed the right to a secret ballot for these types of important election. This issue is fundamental to our economic development efforts as a State and safeguards our State's long tradition of being a 'right to work' state Â- a position that is grounded in individual rights and freedoms," he continued.
Recent public opinion polls taken in the states where SOS Ballot has announced efforts show huge public support of 81% to 94%, with Union members even more supportive of the constitutional guarantee for a secret ballot than non-union members.
The secret ballot was used locally as an act of post-Civil war southern reconstruction, first as a way to impose a literacy requirement on newly freed slaves. But the secret ballot also protected mostly black voters who faced physical intimidation, even lynching, depending on how their vote was cast. Secret ballots were first used statewide in the Massachusetts governor's race 1888 and nationally in 1892 to elect President Grover Cleveland.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
/PRNewswire/ -- A constitutional amendment to guarantee the use of secret ballots in Utah elections, including in union organizing elections, has passed the Utah State Senate, ensuring a place on the November 2010 ballot. House Joint Resolution 8 was introduced in the State House by Rep. Carl Wimmer (R-Herriman), where the measure also passed with a 2/3rd vote earlier in the week. The amendment had the strong backing of Governor Huntsman, US Senator Orrin Hatch and Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, and becomes the first of what is likely to be a dozen or more states to place constitutional guarantees for secret ballots before the voters. Attorney General Shurtleff is a member of the National Advisory Board of Save Our Secret Ballot, the national group organizing similar movements in states throughout the country.
SOS Ballot National Advisory Board Chairman Rep. Ernest Istook commented, "Utahans are fortunate to have leaders like Rep. Wimmer as well as Governor Huntsman, Senator Hatch and Attorney General Shurtleff who understand just how imperiled and vulnerable the right to a secret ballot is. We applaud their leadership in making this issue a top priority and look forward to working with them to make sure Utahans never have to fear losing their right to a secret ballot. While Utah is the first state, it will soon be joined by other states in giving voters the right to protect the secret ballot. We won in Utah because voters want secret ballots protected. We will win in a dozen or more states this election cycle because voters are appalled that Congress would acquiesce to the extreme demands of Union bosses and threaten the right to a secret ballot."
Similar efforts have been launched by SOS Ballot in Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina and South Dakota with additional states soon to be announced. The 47-word amendment says:
"The right of individuals to vote by secret ballot is fundamental. Where state or federal law requires elections for public office or public votes on initiatives or referenda, or designations or authorizations of employee representation, the right of individuals to vote by secret ballot shall be guaranteed."
Utah Governor John Huntsman extended his support to HJR 8 with the following statement:
"It is ever important for Utahans to have the right to vote their conscience in areas that are critical to their democratic representation and the representation within their employment without the fear of retribution or persecution. This constitutional amendment would ensure that individuals will be constitutionally guaranteed the right to a secret ballot for these types of important election. This issue is fundamental to our economic development efforts as a State and safeguards our State's long tradition of being a 'right to work' state Â- a position that is grounded in individual rights and freedoms," he continued.
Recent public opinion polls taken in the states where SOS Ballot has announced efforts show huge public support of 81% to 94%, with Union members even more supportive of the constitutional guarantee for a secret ballot than non-union members.
The secret ballot was used locally as an act of post-Civil war southern reconstruction, first as a way to impose a literacy requirement on newly freed slaves. But the secret ballot also protected mostly black voters who faced physical intimidation, even lynching, depending on how their vote was cast. Secret ballots were first used statewide in the Massachusetts governor's race 1888 and nationally in 1892 to elect President Grover Cleveland.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Blunt Votes Against Releasing Additional Taxpayer Funds, Supports Accountability Report
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Missouri Congressman Roy Blunt today voted against releasing the second installment of funds under the government's financial rescue package, called the Troubled Assets Relief Program.
"Congress passed a financial rescue package with taxpayer protections last year but that package has become nothing more than a bailout," Blunt said. "I agree with the majority of Americans and Missourians that we cannot release the second installment of taxpayer funds."
The House voted on a "resolution of disapproval," meaning Blunt's yes vote would block access to the bailout funds.
Blunt yesterday voted for an amendment requiring the Treasury Department to obtain information from TARP fund recipients on how the money was allocated and conduct an analysis on the use of the funds. The original package passed by Congress, and negotiated with Treasury officials, contained taxpayer protections and outlined how the funds could be used. The Treasury Department, however, used the funds in ways not intended or discussed during negotiations.
"I am disappointed that the administration of this program has failed in its most basic goal of granting more credit for deserving families and businesses," Blunt said. "There has been too much irresponsibility in the management of the first installment and I believe the Treasury owes it to the American taxpayers to disclose how their money was spent.
"The second half of these funds will ultimately be used. I hope that it is used for the program's original intent and not as an unaccountable handout that doesn't do what we intended to help our economy."
Under the guidelines of the package Congress passed last year, both the House and Senate would have to pass the disapproval resolution for additional funds to be stopped. The Senate has already voted to allow the release of the second TARP installment.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
"Congress passed a financial rescue package with taxpayer protections last year but that package has become nothing more than a bailout," Blunt said. "I agree with the majority of Americans and Missourians that we cannot release the second installment of taxpayer funds."
The House voted on a "resolution of disapproval," meaning Blunt's yes vote would block access to the bailout funds.
Blunt yesterday voted for an amendment requiring the Treasury Department to obtain information from TARP fund recipients on how the money was allocated and conduct an analysis on the use of the funds. The original package passed by Congress, and negotiated with Treasury officials, contained taxpayer protections and outlined how the funds could be used. The Treasury Department, however, used the funds in ways not intended or discussed during negotiations.
"I am disappointed that the administration of this program has failed in its most basic goal of granting more credit for deserving families and businesses," Blunt said. "There has been too much irresponsibility in the management of the first installment and I believe the Treasury owes it to the American taxpayers to disclose how their money was spent.
"The second half of these funds will ultimately be used. I hope that it is used for the program's original intent and not as an unaccountable handout that doesn't do what we intended to help our economy."
Under the guidelines of the package Congress passed last year, both the House and Senate would have to pass the disapproval resolution for additional funds to be stopped. The Senate has already voted to allow the release of the second TARP installment.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)