PoliticalAction.com: Political Action Committee Homepage





Archive for the ‘Bills and Resolutions’ Category

How a Bill Becomes a Law

Wednesday, July 24th, 2013

Creating laws is the U.S. House of Representatives’ most important job. All laws in the United States begin as bills. Before a bill can become a law, it must be approved by the U.S. House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate, and the President. Let’s follow a bill’s journey to become law.

The Bill Begins

Laws begin as ideas. These ideas may come from a Representative—or from a citizen like you. Citizens who have ideas for laws can contact their Representatives to discuss their ideas. If the Representatives agree, they research the ideas and write them into bills.

The Bill Is Proposed

When a Representative has written a bill, the bill needs a sponsor. The Representative talks with other Representatives about the bill in hopes of getting their support for it. Once a bill has a sponsor and the support of some of the Representatives, it is ready to be introduced.

The Bill Is Introduced

  The Hopper

In the U.S. House of Representatives, a bill is introduced when it is placed in the hopper—a special box on the side of the clerk’s desk. Only Representatives can introduce bills in the U.S. House of Representatives.

When a bill is introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives, a bill clerk assigns it a number that begins with H.R. A reading clerk then reads the bill to all the Representatives, and the Speaker of the House sends the bill to one of the House standing committees.

The Bill Goes to Committee

When the bill reaches committee, the committee members—groups of Representatives who are experts on topics such as agriculture, education, or international relations—review, research, and revise the bill before voting on whether or not to send the bill back to the House floor.

If the committee members would like more information before deciding if the bill should be sent to the House floor, the bill is sent to a subcommittee. While in subcommittee, the bill is closely examined and expert opinions are gathered before it is sent back to the committee for approval.

The Bill Is Reported

When the committee has approved a bill, it is sent—or reported—to the House floor. Once reported, a bill is ready to be debated by the U.S. House of Representatives.

The Bill Is Debated

When a bill is debated, Representatives discuss the bill and explain why they agree or disagree with it. Then, a reading clerk reads the bill section by section and the Representatives recommend changes. When all changes have been made, the bill is ready to be voted on.

The Bill Is Voted On

  Electronic Voting Machine

There are three methods for voting on a bill in the U.S. House of Representatives:

  1. Viva Voce (voice vote): The Speaker of the House asks the Representatives who support the bill to say “aye” and those that oppose it say “no.”
  2. Division: The Speaker of the House asks those Representatives who support the bill to stand up and be counted, and then those who oppose the bill to stand up and be counted.
  3. Recorded: Representatives record their vote using the electronic voting system. Representatives can vote yes, no, or present (if they don’t want to vote on the bill).

If a majority of the Representatives say or select yes, the bill passes in the U.S. House of Representatives. The bill is then certified by the Clerk of the House and delivered to the U.S. Senate.

The Bill Is Referred to the Senate

When a bill reaches the U.S. Senate, it goes through many of the same steps it went through in the U.S. House of Representatives. The bill is discussed in a Senate committee and then reported to the Senate floor to be voted on.

Senators vote by voice. Those who support the bill say “yea,” and those who oppose it say “nay.” If a majority of the Senators say “yea,” the bill passes in the U.S. Senate and is ready to go to the President.

The Bill Is Sent to the President

When a bill reaches the President, he has three choices. He can:

  1. Sign and pass the bill—the bill becomes a law.
  2. Refuse to sign, or veto, the bill—the bill is sent back to the U.S. House of Representatives, along with the President’s reasons for the veto. If the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate still believe the bill should become a law, they can hold another vote on the bill. If two-thirds of the Representatives and Senators support the bill, the President’s veto is overridden and the bill becomes a law.
  3. Do nothing (pocket veto)—if Congress is in session, the bill automatically becomes law after 10 days. If Congress is not in session, the bill does not become a law.

The Bill Is a Law

If a bill has passed in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate and has been approved by the President, or if a presidential veto has been overridden, the bill becomes a law and is enforced by the government.

Glossary

Place your mouse over a word highlighted in blue to see its definition, or look at the full list.

For Teachers

Looking to bring the U.S. House of Representatives into your Grade School classroom? Visit our For Teachers section for resources, activities, and lesson plans that complement the material on this site.

Share

Music Issues Up For Congress

Tuesday, January 22nd, 2013

Musicians and artists are finding the economy tougher than ever on the music business. The legislature has six issues on the agenda.

Excerpts from Billboard
By Glenn Peoples

From performance royalties to deciding how musicians travel with their instruments on airplanes, numerous issues central to the music industry are alive Washington D.C. The highest profile topic is webcasting royalties, a holdover from the Internet Radio Fairness Act introduced last year that sparked a strong public relations fight between its supporters, including Pandora and Clear Channel, and its opponents, mainly record labels and artists.

The music industry will have a receptive House during this 113th Congress. Although the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet lost Howard Berman, a longtime supporter of music industry issues it is now chaired by Rep. Howard Coble (R-NC), who sources say has a reputation for being friendly to content owners’ interests. In fact, RIAA senior vice president Mitch Glazier was Coble’s chief of staff. Mel Watt (D-NC), the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee, is also said to be a supporter of music industry causes.

1. Radio and Internet Royalties. Rep. Bob Goodlatte, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, has indicated he wants to continue the discussion on music licensing issues that began with the November hearing on webcasting royalties. Many insiders expect 2013 will see a follow-up to the Internet Radio Freedom Act, the webcasting-focused bill introduced last year and expired at the end of the last Congress, and a counter bill that would seek to address broadcast radio’s lack of performance royalties for sound recordings. Performance royalty legislation won’t be a top priority, however. The House Judiciary is likely to deal with legislation on gun control and immigration early in the year.

Sony/ATV Negotiates 25% Royalty Increase From Pandora: Report

2. Section 115 Reform. Related to the performance royalties for sound recordings will be a move to address change to Section 115, the part of copyright law that grants a compulsory license to make and distribute phonorecords. David Israelite, president of the National Association of Music Publishers, says music publishers and digital media companies have “largely agreed on the framework for a solution.” A higher rate standard in Section 115 would be consistent with Section 114 and would lead to “higher rates for songwriters, especially in the area of digital downloads.” As will be the case with performance royalties, a busy Judiciary Committee will handle Section 115 reform.

3. Intellectual property enforcement. There are rumors that Victoria Espinel, the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator for the White House, will not stay a second term, according to sources (a request for a comment from her office was not received). Espinel has been well received in the music industry for her work encouraging intermediaries to voluntarily address piracy. For example, her office was instrumental in the statement of best practices released in May by the Association of National Advertisers and the American Association of Advertising Agencies that outlined a commitment not to support web sites that facilitate copyright infringement. “I think the office will try to be helpful in advancing those agreements and having a role,” says one executive, “[but] nobody has an expectation there will be more than that.”

4. PRO IP Act Reform. Rep. Zoe Lofgren is considering introducing a bill that will reform how the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Department of Justice seizes and blocks domain names from sites found to infringe on copyrights. The PRO IP Act, passed in 2008, allows law enforcement to seize property used to commit copyright infringement. Along with law enforcement agencies in other countries, ICE has seized hundreds of domains for websites that illegally sold counterfeit merchandise or hosted illegal downloads or streams. Lofgren explained that her proposal would focus on seizures “based on accusations that a website facilitates copyright infringement and not, for example, accusations of obscenity or libel.”

5. Copy Culture Legislation. Expect some sort of legislation will be introduced that tries to advance the type of concepts — reducing the term of copyright, limiting statutory damages — held by opponents to the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). These concepts appeared in a policy brief by the Republican Study Committee in November that claimed copyright law “destroys entire markets” rather than serve the original intent of the Constitution and suggested sharply reduced copyright terms (the report was quickly retracted and the staffer was fired). The bills may not go anywhere but will publicize the concepts, says one source.

6. Traveling With Instruments. Last year Congress passed legislation that reauthorized the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for another four years. Part of that bill was a provision to create a national policy for carrying musical instruments on airplanes. This year the FAA will draft rules from that legislation. The bill set standard weights and size requirements for checked instrument and allows musicians to purchase a seat for large instruments that are too fragile to be checked as baggage. This may sound wonky, but it will directly affect a lot of people.

Share

Ron Paul and Barney Frank Introduce Hemp Farming Legislation – HR 1866

Monday, October 25th, 2010

Originally posted on RonPaul.com on April 3, 2009
It has become even more relevant since last year.

http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-04-03/ron-paul-and-barney-frank-introduce-hemp-farming-legislation-hr-1866/

A federal bill was introduced yesterday that, if passed into law, would remove restrictions on the cultivation of non-psychoactive industrial hemp. The chief sponsors of HR 1866, “The Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2009,” Representatives Barney Frank (D-MA) and Ron Paul (R-TX), were joined by nine other U.S. House members split between Republicans and Democrats.

“It is unfortunate that the federal government has stood in the way of American farmers, including many who are struggling to make ends meet, from competing in the global industrial hemp market,” said Representative Ron Paul during his introduction of the bill yesterday before the U.S. House. “Indeed, the founders of our nation, some of whom grew hemp, would surely find that federal restrictions on farmers growing a safe and profitable crop on their own land are inconsistent with the constitutional guarantee of a limited, restrained federal government. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to stand up for American farmers and co-sponsor the Industrial Hemp Farming Act,” concluded Paul.

“With so much discussion lately in the media about drug policy, it is surprising that the tragedy of American hemp farming hasn’t come up as a ‘no-brainer’ for reform,” says Vote Hemp President, Eric Steenstra. “Hemp is a versatile, environmentally-friendly crop that has not been grown here for over fifty years because of a politicized interpretation of the nation’s drug laws by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). President Obama should direct the DEA to stop confusing industrial hemp with its genetically distinct cousin, marijuana. While the new bill in Congress is a welcome step, the hemp industry is hopeful that President Obama’s administration will prioritize hemp’s benefits to farmers. Jobs would be created overnight, as there are numerous U.S. companies that now have no choice but to import hemp raw materials worth many millions of dollars per year,” adds Steenstra.

U.S. companies that manufacture or sell products made with hemp include Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps, a California company who manufactures the number-one-selling natural soap, and FlexForm Technologies, an Indiana company whose natural fiber materials are used in over two million cars on the road today. Hemp food manufacturers, such as French Meadow Bakery, Hempzels, Living Harvest, Nature’s Path and Nutiva, now make their products from Canadian hemp. Although hemp now grows wild across the U.S., a vestige of centuries of hemp farming here, the hemp for these products must be imported. Hemp clothing is made around the world by well-known brands such as Patagonia, Bono’s Edun and Giorgio Armani.

There is strong support among key national organizations for a change in the federal government’s position on hemp. The National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) “supports revisions to the federal rules and regulations authorizing commercial production of industrial hemp.” The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) has also passed a pro-hemp resolution.

Numerous individual states have expressed interest in and support for industrial hemp as well. Sixteen states have passed pro-hemp legislation, and eight states (Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Montana, North Dakota, Vermont and West Virginia) have removed barriers to its production or research. North Dakota has been issuing state licenses to farmers for two years now. The new bill will remove federal barriers and allow laws in these states regulating the growing and processing of hemp to take effect.

“Under the current national drug control policy, industrial hemp can be imported, but it can’t be grown by American farmers,” says Steenstra. “The DEA has taken the Controlled Substances Act’s antiquated definition of marijuana out of context and used it as an excuse to ban industrial hemp farming. The Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2009 will return us to more rational times when the government regulated marijuana, but allowed farmers to continue raising industrial hemp just as they always had.”

More information about hemp legislation and the crop’s many uses can be found at www.VoteHemp.com.

Statement of Congressman Ron Paul
United States House of Representatives
Statement Introducing HR 1866, Industrial Hemp Farming Act
April 2, 2009

Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Industrial Hemp Farming Act. The Industrial Hemp Farming Act requires the federal government to respect state laws allowing the growing of industrial hemp.

Eight States–Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Montana, North Dakota, Vermont, and West Virginia–allow industrial hemp production or research in accord with state laws. However, federal law is standing in the way of farmers in these states growing what may be a very profitable crop. Because of current federal law, all hemp included in products sold in the United States must be imported instead of being grown by American farmers.

Since 1970, the federal Controlled Substances Act’s inclusion of industrial hemp in the schedule one definition of marijuana has prohibited American farmers from growing industrial hemp despite the fact that industrial hemp has such a low content of THC (the psychoactive chemical in the related marijuana plant) that nobody can be psychologically affected by consuming hemp. Federal law concedes the safety of industrial hemp by allowing it to be legally imported for use as food.

The United States is the only industrialized nation that prohibits industrial hemp cultivation. The Congressional Research Service has noted that hemp is grown as an established agricultural commodity in over 30 nations in Europe, Asia, North America, and South America. The Industrial Hemp Farming Act will relieve this unique restriction on American farmers and allow them to grow industrial hemp in accord with state law.

Industrial hemp is a crop that was grown legally throughout the United States for most of our nation’s history. In fact, during World War II, the federal government actively encouraged American farmers to grow industrial hemp to help the war effort. The Department of Agriculture even produced a film “Hemp for Victory” encouraging the plant’s cultivation.

In recent years, the hemp plant has been put to many popular uses in foods and in industry. Grocery stores sell hemp seeds and oil as well as food products containing oil and seeds from the hemp plant. Industrial hemp is also included in consumer products such as paper, cloths, cosmetics, and carpet. One of the more innovative recent uses of industrial hemp is in the door frames of about 1.5 million cars. Hemp has even been used in alternative automobile fuel.

It is unfortunate that the federal government has stood in the way of American farmers, including many who are struggling to make ends meet, competing in the global industrial hemp market. Indeed, the founders of our nation, some of whom grew hemp, would surely find that federal restrictions on farmers growing a safe and profitable crop on their own land are inconsistent with the constitutional guarantee of a limited, restrained federal government. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to stand up for American farmers and cosponsor the Industrial Hemp Farming Act.

Share

Peter Schiff: Why Obamacare is unconstitutional.

Thursday, March 25th, 2010

Peter Schiff Youtube: Why Obamacare is unconstitutional. Why the war on drugs is illegal.

Share

Towne Announces Support of Ron Paul’s HR 4248

Thursday, January 21st, 2010

Jake Towne, independent candidate for US Congress in PA-15, today announced his support of HR 4248, the Free Competition in Currency Act of 2009, and urges the current incumbent to co-sponsor the bill. The short 374-word bill is inline with the campaign’s theme of sound money and would revoke legal tender laws enabling Americans to use other currencies if they so choose to compete with the unbacked script currency issued by the Federal Reserve.

Towne just released his “Sound Money and Jobs” campaign plank (attached in PDF) which explains to all residents the dire importance of sound money, and provides evidence linking the troubles of the American economy to the governments’ actions to devalue the dollar and suppress the gold price. While unknown to most Americans, gold is one of the world’s largest financial markets, trading over $20 billion USD per trading DAY on the London exchange alone.

The campaign’s last “Towne” Hall was well attended by many newcomers, and the next event open to the public at no cost is Monday, February 1, 2010 at the Bethlehem Township Community Center, 2900 Farmersville Road at 7 PM. (Details here.)

Towne is not endorsed by nor affiliated with the sponsor of HR 4248, Pennsylvania-born Dr. Ronald Paul. Paul also recently introduced HR 1207, a bill to audit the Federal Reserve – which has never been thoroughly audited since its founding in 1913. Towne successfully petitioned the incumbent Congressman for several months before he agreed to co-sponsor this no-brainer piece of legislation and hopes the same can be done here. (The incumbent’s fundamental lack of understanding on monetary policy is demonstrated in this question I asked at a town hall.)

January 21, 2010

Contact: Jake Towne

Email: TowneForCongress@gmail.com

Website: TowneForCongress.com

Full Page Article

Share

Vote NO on H.R. 3962 (Health Care Reform) — Consider the 2010 Campaign

Thursday, November 5th, 2009

Vote NO on H.R. 3962 (Health Care Reform) — Consider the 2010 Campaign

Let’s face it. We’re all tired of this health care reform debate. We know what’s at stake — an eventual complete government takeover of our health care system.

We know that the various health care reform bill price tags of just below one trillion dollars are all deceptive. Government health care programs always end up costing much more than initially advertised. And, as for the ten-year CBO estimates, the system is being gamed by starting the taxes immediately and phasing in the benefits later in the ten year period, not to mention separating the Medicare doctor payment fix (hundreds of billions of dollars in new costs) from the main health care reform bills.

Let’s call it what it is: socialized medicine. And, it’s not just the Democrats. Many Republicans are itching to give us socialized medicine-lite.

In light of the horrible fiscal situation our nation is in, it is utterly fiscally irresponsible to vote yes for one of these trillion dollar health care reform bills, such as the 1900-page H.R. 3962, which is currently being considered by the House.

Furthermore, in light of the rampant congressional disregard for constitutional restraints on the federal government, it is utterly irresponsible to vote yes on one of these bills, which would establish a huge, new unconstitutional activity of the federal government.

Bottom line, whether H.R. 3962 passes or not, how each congressman votes on it will be a top issue in the congressional election campaign of 2010. This is a good time to let your congressman know what impact his vote on H.R. 3962 will have on your participation in the campaign of 2010. This is ultimately the only leverage you have on your congressman. Use it!

Contact your congressman in opposition to H.R. 3962 via his DC and district offices by means of personal visits, phone calls, faxes, and emails. Debate on the House floor is expected to begin late on Friday, November 6; a vote is expected on Friday or Saturday, the 6th or 7th.

Click here to take immediate action by sending an email to your representative.

Thanks.

Your friends at The John Birch Society

Share

We Need Sunlight to Disinfect the Legislative Process!

Monday, August 24th, 2009

Texas Straight Talk – A weekly Column
Rep. Ron Paul (R) – TX 14

During August recess, many legislators have heard an unexpected amount of discontent from their constituents about what is happening on Capitol Hill, particularly regarding healthcare. Some people are justifiably terrified at what the government could do to healthcare, should it get its claws even further into it. Others demand a public option for health insurance and are adamant that healthcare be treated as yet other absolute entitlement. One thing everyone agrees on is that the final bill needs to be read and understood by all legislators before a vote is taken. To any American, this is common sense. In Washington, that is unlikely to happen.

There is much confusion and debate over what is and is not in the reform plan being considered. Are there or are there not so-called death panels? What are the end-of-life consultations really for? How will private insurance be affected? Can you keep your current plan or will you eventually be forced into a government plan? Will it pay for elective abortions or not? What are the implications for medical privacy? The truth is no one knows what will be in the final bill until it is on the House floor, and provisions could be added in and taken out in the wee hours of the morning before.

In February, the House was forced to vote on an over 1,000 page “stimulus” bill that had first been posted on the internet just after midnight the morning of the vote. It passed. Then in June, House leaders rushed a vote on the cap-and-trade bill, even though an over 300 page “manager’s amendment” making substantive changes to the bill, was introduced shortly after 3:00 a.m. the morning of the vote.

Washington thrives on crisis. If enough people can be convinced that we are in an emergency, they will more likely tolerate rushing legislation to the floor like this. Last minute changes will be slipped in, benefitting who knows what special interests and at what expense to the taxpayer. But the mantra is repeated over and over: We are in a crisis. We must act immediately.

It should be unconscionable for legislators to vote in favor of legislation they have not had the opportunity to read. This is why I have re-introduced the Sunlight Rule, H.Res 216. The Sunlight Rule prohibits any piece of legislation from being brought before the House of Representatives unless it has been available to read for at least 10 days.

The Sunlight Rule allows citizens to move for censure of any House Member who votes for a bill in violation of this act. Because the Sunlight Rule could never be waived, any Member could raise a point of order requiring any bill in violation to be immediately pulled from the House calendar until it can be brought to the floor in a manner consistent with this rule. This rule does not require that Members read the bills. It merely guarantees the opportunity to do so. It has 4 cosponsors.

Justice Louis Brandeis famously said, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.” The Sunlight Rule would do much towards negating the cycle of pseudo-crises and cleaning up the legislative process here in Washington. I sincerely hope this is the year Congress remembers its deliberative duties and passes it.

Share

HR 2629 – Coercion is Not Health Care Act

Monday, June 1st, 2009

111th CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. 2629

To protect the American people’s ability to make their own health care decisions by ensuring the Federal Government shall not force any American to purchase health insurance.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

May 21, 2009

Mr. PAUL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce


A BILL

To protect the American people’s ability to make their own health care decisions by ensuring the Federal Government shall not force any American to purchase health insurance.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the `Coercion is Not Health Care Act’.

SEC. 2. NO FEDERAL REQUIREMENT FOR HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE.

    Participation in, or access to, any program of the Federal Government or eligibility to receive any benefit under Federal law shall not be conditioned on the purchase or maintenance of health insurance coverage.

SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON FEDERAL AUTHORITY.

    No individual or agency of the Federal Government shall ever require any individual to purchase health insurance coverage.
Share

HR2630 – Protect Patients and Physicians Privacy Act

Monday, June 1st, 2009

111th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 2630

To protect the privacy of patients and physicians.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

May 21, 2009

Mr. PAUL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To protect the privacy of patients and physicians.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Protect Patients and Physicians Privacy Act’.

SEC. 2. PATIENT RIGHT TO OPT OUT OF ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS SYSTEM.

All individuals shall have the ability to opt out of any Federally mandated, created, or funded electronic system for maintaining health care information.

SEC. 3. REPEAL OF STANDARD UNIQUE HEALTH IDENTIFIERS.

(a) In General-

(1) Section 1173 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320d-2) is amended by striking subsection (b).

(2) Section 1177(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1320d-6(a)) is amended by striking paragraph (1).

(b) Prohibition of Federal Expenditures- No Federal funds shall be used to support, encourage, or otherwise promote the use of standard unique health identifiers (such as those described in section 1173(b) of the Social Security Act, before the amendment made by subsection (a)(1)) in any Federal, State, or private health care plan.

SEC. 4. REQUIREMENT OF INFORMED CONSENT FOR SHARING INFORMATION FROM ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORDS.

(a) Limitation on Sharing Information From EMRs-

(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (2), no information from any electronic medical record maintained by a health care provider and created pursuant to a Federally mandated, created, or funded program may be shared with another health care provider absent a signed, informed consent from the patient involved.

(2) EXCEPTION FOR EMERGENCIES- Paragraph (1) shall not apply in a medical emergency.

(b) Limitation on Merger of Information- No health care information from an individual medical record shall be placed in a Federally mandated, created, or funded electronic system of health care information, absent a signed, informed consent from the patient involved.

(c) Definitions- In this subsection:

(1) INFORMED CONSENT- The term `informed consent’ means, with respect to the sharing of information concerning a patient, a written document certifying that the patient gives permission to such sharing of information.

(2) MEDICAL EMERGENCY- The term `medical emergency’ means any situation where the failure to provide immediate medical treatment or assistance could result in serious injury, loss of life, or both.

SEC. 5. PROVIDER FREEDOM FROM REQUIRED PARTICIPATION IN AN ELECTRONIC HEALTH CARE RECORDS PROGRAM.

(a) In General- The Federal Government may not require a health care provider to participate in any Federally mandated, created, or funded electronic system of maintaining health care information.

(b) Limitation- No health care provider shall be denied participation in, or otherwise sanctioned with respect to participation in, a Federal health care program because the provider refuses to participate in a Federally mandated, created, or funded electronic system of maintaining health care information.

Share

Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2009

Thursday, May 21st, 2009

HR 1866 IH
(Introduced in House)

111th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 1866

To amend the Controlled Substances Act to exclude industrial hemp from the definition of marihuana, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

April 2, 2009

Mr. PAUL (for himself, Ms. BALDWIN, Mr. CLAY, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. HINCHEY, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California, Mr. ROHRABACHER, Mr. STARK, and Ms. WOOLSEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To amend the Controlled Substances Act to exclude industrial hemp from the definition of marihuana, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2009′.

SEC. 2. EXCLUSION OF INDUSTRIAL HEMP FROM DEFINITION OF MARIHUANA.

Paragraph (16) of section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802(16)) is amended–

(1) by striking `(16)’ at the beginning and inserting `(16)(A)’; and

(2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

`(B) The term `marihuana’ does not include industrial hemp. As used in the preceding sentence, the term `industrial hemp’ means the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of such plant, whether growing or not, with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration that does not exceed 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.’.

SEC. 3. INDUSTRIAL HEMP DETERMINATION TO BE MADE BY STATES.

Section 201 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 811) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

`(i) Industrial Hemp Determination To Be Made by States- In any criminal action, civil action, or administrative proceeding, a State regulating the growing and processing of industrial hemp under State law shall have exclusive authority to determine whether any such plant meets the concentration limitation set forth in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (16) of section 102 and such determination shall be conclusive and binding.’.

Share