|
||||||||||
|
Washington Update Congressman J. Randy Forbes, Virginia's Fourth Congressional District Week of January 5 - 9, 2008 |
||||||||||
|
ü Cosponsored H.R. 156, which would prevent Members of Congress from receiving an automatic cost of living adjustment in 2010. Congressman Forbes has never supported the annual cost of living adjustment for Members. Under the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, increases in salaries for Members are an automatic annual cost of living adjustment (COLA) that is mandated by law unless otherwise declined by Congress. Congressman Forbes has consistently voted against the pay raise each year it has been considered by the House of Representatives. ü Opposed H.R. 35, the Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2009, which would significantly burden current and former presidents and may raise constitutional separation of powers issues. This bill would modify current procedures for requesting and releasing presidential records by setting deadlines for the release of records being made public, and requiring that presidents notify the Archivist and Congress when asserting constitutional privilege against disclosure of records. This bill would unreasonably restrict the time that presidents have to review documents necessary to assert relevant claims of executive privilege. Such restriction would lead to sweeping, blanket claims of privilege over large quantities of material by presidents. ü Opposed H.R. 36, the Presidential Library Donation Reform Act of 2009, over concerns that the bill disregards sound federal criminal law and would establish a law that could be easily abused. This bill would amend the Presidential Libraries Act to impose additional reporting requirements on donations to presidential libraries, require public disclosure of donation records, and impose civil and criminal penalties for violations. This bill includes provisions that would include up to five years in prison for submitting false material information or omitting material information with respect to a donation as small as $200. Such penalties are well-intended, but these provisions stray from a balanced approach necessary to support sound federal criminal law. ü Supported S.J.Res.3, a joint resolution ensuring that the compensation of the Secretary of the Interior complies with the Constitution. With the imminent appointment of Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO) to the position of the Secretary of the Interior, legislation is needed to avoid any violations of the emoluments clause of the Constitution. Specifically, the emoluments clause states that it is unconstitutional to appoint elected officials to government positions when they have voted on the salary for the position during their most recent term in office. Reverting the salary back to the level that existed prior to 2005 should rectify this violation of the emoluments clause.
ü Selected as House Armed Services Readiness Subcommittee Ranking Member. As the top Republican on the Readiness Subcommittee, Congressman Forbes oversees more than 30% of the military budget authority, military construction, Base Realignment and Closure, and logistics, training, and maintenance issues. To read more about Congressman Forbes' role on the Readiness Subcommittee, click here.
ü Opposed H. Res. 5, the 111th Congress rules package. Rules packages are voted on at the beginning of each new Congress and set procedural guidelines for how legislation will be considered. The rules package included a number of concerning provisions. For example, tax bills that are designated as “emergency” will receive an exception from the House’s pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) rules, increasing the likelihood of large budget deficits. The six-year term limit on House committee chairmen has been repealed in this rules package, making seniority more important than merit. Also, this rules package prevents minority party members from offering amendments to bills on the floor that would send the bill back to the appropriate committee with specific instructions.
ü Opposed H.R. 11, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, legislation that would effectively eliminate the statute of limitations for employment-related discrimination claims. This bill would allow employees to file charges of alleged discrimination within 180 days of the last paycheck received that is affected by alleged employment discrimination. This would severely undermine efforts to expeditiously and fairly resolve workplace discrimination cases. By permitting such claims to be brought within 180 days — not of a discriminatory pay decision, but of a paycheck affected by that decision — the measure would eliminate the statute of limitations on such cases. There is no evidence to suggest that the current statute of limitations has resulted in any demonstrable prejudice against claims by employees of pay discriminations. ü Opposed H.R. 12, the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would allow trial lawyers to sue employers for unlimited compensatory and punitive damages in pay discrimination cases, even when a disparity in pay was unintentional. It would also add non-retaliation requirements, increase penalties on employers, and includes other wage-related provisions, at a cost of $15 million over five years. In addition, the bill would change current class action lawsuit requirements from “opt-in” to “opt-out,” allowing trial lawyers to submit massive class action suits without the knowledge or express consent of each plaintiff.
ü Signed on as an original cosponsor of H.R. 227, the Sanctity of Life Act, in the 111th Congress. This bill would declare that the life of each human begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, at which point every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional rights and privileges of a person.
ü Signed on as a cosponsor of H.R. 235, the Social Security Fairness Act, in the 111th Congress. This bill would eliminate the Government Pension Offset (GPO) and Windfall Elimination Provisions (WEP) that limit the retirement security of more than 1.3 million federal, state, county and municipal employees and their spouses. The GPO reduces or eliminates Social Security spousal benefits if a worker's spouse has a government pension based on work that was not covered by Social Security. Likewise, the WEP reduces Social Security worker benefits based on work history by applying a less generous formula to the calculation of benefits. These provisions can significantly decrease the retirement pay of millions of hard-working public servants even though they have worked for relatively lower wages than most workers in the private sector.
For a comprehensive look at Congressman Forbes' work on legislative issues, visit the Spotlight Issues page on his website.
|
||||||||||
