UPDATE -- #ADOS / #ADOE: H.R. 40 (Reparations Study) Presented by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee - 1/3/19
- Thread starter xoxodede
- Start date
-
- Tags
- aagang ados reparations
Citi Trends
aka milobased
sending emails until i can get letters out
which issue should this fall under on the congressional site?
Im between banking and finance, budget and economy, economy, or other
which issue should this fall under on the congressional site?
Im between banking and finance, budget and economy, economy, or other
xoxodede
Superstar
Can be an issue for some -- meaning if you go their respective websites -- they ask for your zipcode or address -- and if it doesn't fall under their areas - you don't get their info -- or to send a email via their website.
It it simpler to fax or send letter.
xoxodede
Superstar
Oh well I urge thecoli to email tweet and call every representatives office. Even the republicans lol.Yes
xoxodede
Superstar
Letters are important -- but we more than just co-sponsoring --- we need them to SPEAK OUT and list their support on their websites and platforms.
Please read the piece below.
Please read the piece below.
D.C.'s favorite time-wasting scam: Cosponsoring bills
D.C.'s favorite time-wasting scam: Cosponsoring bills
A former House aide explains why lawmakers spend so much time meaninglessly cosponsoring bills
ANTHONY CLARK
AUGUST 2, 2013 11:26PM (UTC)
As your representatives in the least productive Congress in history head out on a five-week vacation, it’s worth considering what it is they do with their two-and-a-half day work weeks. They’re not funding the government. They’re not solving problems. They’re not passing legislation.
They do, however, spend a significant amount of time and effort on a well-known but not well-understood practice: bill co-sponsorships. And despite the inordinate attention given to rounding up co-sponsors, bragging about co-sponsors and arguing about co-sponsors, it turns out that co-sponsoring bills in Congress doesn’t matter. At least not legislatively.
Conventional wisdom says that the higher the number of co-sponsors, the greater the chance a bill has of becoming law – and that a bill with a low number of co-sponsors is doomed. These are both wrong.
My review of recent Congresses demonstrates that co-sponsorship is not a reliable indicator of a bill’s legislative success. While there may be non-legislative (read: political) reasons for co-sponsoring legislation, the effort spent on adding names to a bill in order to get it passed into law is wasted.
The House has only allowed members to co-sponsor bills since 1967, and permitted an unlimited number of co-sponsors only since 1978 (the Senate has allowed the practice since at least 1930). At any given moment, thousands of people – senators, representatives, former members, staffers, interns, organizers, activists, lobbyists, political operatives, advocates, constituents and concerned citizens – are engaged in the time-honored ritual of the search for co-sponsors.
Members buttonhole one another on the floor, in committee rooms and at events. Their staffs call, and email, and text. Activists tweet, and post, and share, and link and petition. Lobbyists ask, cajole and beg. Everyone distributes one-sheets, Dear Colleagues, buttons, posters and tchotchkes. They’re wasting their time: In the last three Congresses, an average of 78 percent of all non-commemorative bills enacted into law had 10 or fewer co-sponsors, and just over 21 percent had no co-sponsors at all. (For the purposes of this discussion, I have not included “commemorative” legislation with specific co-sponsor requirements – the renaming of post offices, courthouses and other federal buildings; bills producing ceremonial coins or medals; and other ceremonial designations such as scenic rivers, wildlife refuges, etc.)
This isn’t a little-known, back-room parliamentary practice. Lobbyists boast to their clients about how many co-sponsors they’ve snagged. Members heavily engage their constituents in the process. Whether or not a candidate has been a co-sponsor of a bill is a serious question in elections – particularly primaries. But it doesn’t get a bill passed.
This may come as a surprise to anyone who has ever organized, participated in or even simply followed with interest the process of rounding up co-sponsors. Even more surprising is the fact that the more co-sponsors a bill has, the less likely it is to be enacted. And it takes almost twice as long to enact bills with 100 or more co-sponsors than bills with none.
Depending on how one views the process, the effort isn’t always wasted; scoring a co-sponsor from the other side of the aisle can give a bill that most elusive of appearances: bipartisanship. Members who collect sponsors from the other party claim that they are proud to offer a “bipartisan” bill – even if the tally includes only a single Democrat or Republican. In this bitter, highly political climate, members welcome anything that removes – or even appears to remove – the charge of partisanship.
There are other advantages. A lesser-known member can raise his or her visibility by frequently co-sponsoring legislation – and thereby bank favors. Although, in my experience, a member who co-sponsors other legislators’ bills in the hopes of receiving reciprocal co-sponsorships shouldn’t hold their breath: While they may not mean much legislatively, so many people keep track of who’s “on” or “not on” a bill that co-sponsorships can’t simply be traded as quid pro quos.
And everyone increases their networking and communication. This is especially helpful with bills that are out of one’s area of expertise; I was introduced to organizations, advocates and lobbyists I would otherwise never have met if not for their requests for co-sponsorship.
In early June House Majority Leader Eric Cantor brought the public into the process with "Cosponsor.gov." This flashy new taxpayer-funded website allows citizens like you and me to “sign on” to legislation before Congress. The site, Cantor promised, would allow us to have “direct impact” on bills; while this site may add to his "techie" credentials, he won't promise it will “impact” his decision to bring any bill to the floor for a vote (and, so far, it hasn't).
Until I crunched the numbers, I wasn’t aware that co-sponsors had so little effect on legislative success; when I found out, though, I wasn’t shocked. When I was a legislative director, I often felt that co-sponsorships – both those that sought us and those we sought – were not a good use of our time. That they were for show. That they really only made it seem as if something was getting done, or that a member “supported” a bill, a cause, an ideal.
About a third of all emails I received as LD were requests to co-sponsor (or not co-sponsor) legislation. When lobbyists, advocates and activists weren’t calling to request a meeting, they were calling to talk about co-sponsoring a bill. The Dear Colleague service quickly and efficiently disperses hundreds of co-sponsorship requests a day to every member office.
More than whatever positive effects might be gained from co-sponsoring, Members and staff are more often motivated by the negative effects of not being a co-sponsor on an “important” bill than with whatever helpful legislative consequences could result from the addition of one more name. And not being on a “bad” bill is often as or even more important than being on the “good” ones.
A significant portion of our member office electronic mail and social media comments were questions about why we weren’t “on” a particular bill. Most – if not all – commenters had no idea that not only would the addition of a new co-sponsor not help the bill’s movement, but that simply putting one’s name on a bill means nothing. That, of course, didn’t matter: If we were asked to be on a bill, we at least had to investigate it. If we absolutely could not co-sponsor it, most of the time we had to provide a good reason – because most people who asked thought that it would move the bill along.
Just as there are members who habitually “drop” dozens – even hundreds – of bills each session, and then do little or nothing to advance them, there are members who habitually co-sponsor bills with no intention of doing anything further on them.
Some members and staffers truly do advocate for a bill they have co-sponsored by contacting the referred committees, helping to line up witnesses for hearings, tallying votes before a markup, and urging leadership to bring the bill to the floor. However, the “involvement” of the vast majority of co-sponsors on any given bill ends the moment they agree to co-sponsor it. And since the fact of the co-sponsorship does little or nothing to advance the bill, it turns out to be a kind of well-orchestrated scam.
As a professional staff member, charged with making decisions about which bills referred to the subcommittee should be considered, I found the number of co-sponsors had no bearing; if I believed the bill had merit, I would try to get it marked up. What was most surprising was that no original sponsors – and certainly no co-sponsors – of any bill referred to our subcommittee ever contacted us to push it along, urged us to consider it or even to inquire about its status.
As an LD, exactly as I was taught, every time I received a request to co-sponsor a bill I first looked at the list of current co-sponsors; not the bill summary or the status (nor, most times, even the subject). “Who’s on it already?” was, if not the dispositive question, certainly the first of several gates. If an intern or staffer presented me with a suggested bill to co-sponsor, the first page of the “coverage” they gave me had to be the list of co-sponsors.
Sometimes there are good reasons to be the only Democrat on a Republican bill, or the only member of a particular caucus, or the second – and lone – co-sponsor, but those aren’t the most important considerations. It is considered more essential to not be the odd person out or the one who seems to be against a bill by not being on it.
This practice creates tastemakers, who signal to others the “importance” of a bill by being on it or not. And the same groups of members tend to coalesce around the same original sponsors and issues. That, in turn, makes the omission of an expected name – or the addition of an unexpected one – newsworthy. But it doesn’t help to pass the bill.
That's because co-sponsoring bills is legislatively ineffective. An inordinate amount of time, money and effort is expended on something that is almost certain to fail. And yet, the custom plays out session after session, because, obviously, the participants find something worthwhile in it. After all that work and expense, however, what they don’t find is their bills getting passed into law.
D.C.'s favorite time-wasting scam: Cosponsoring bills
A former House aide explains why lawmakers spend so much time meaninglessly cosponsoring bills
ANTHONY CLARK
AUGUST 2, 2013 11:26PM (UTC)
As your representatives in the least productive Congress in history head out on a five-week vacation, it’s worth considering what it is they do with their two-and-a-half day work weeks. They’re not funding the government. They’re not solving problems. They’re not passing legislation.
They do, however, spend a significant amount of time and effort on a well-known but not well-understood practice: bill co-sponsorships. And despite the inordinate attention given to rounding up co-sponsors, bragging about co-sponsors and arguing about co-sponsors, it turns out that co-sponsoring bills in Congress doesn’t matter. At least not legislatively.
Conventional wisdom says that the higher the number of co-sponsors, the greater the chance a bill has of becoming law – and that a bill with a low number of co-sponsors is doomed. These are both wrong.
My review of recent Congresses demonstrates that co-sponsorship is not a reliable indicator of a bill’s legislative success. While there may be non-legislative (read: political) reasons for co-sponsoring legislation, the effort spent on adding names to a bill in order to get it passed into law is wasted.
The House has only allowed members to co-sponsor bills since 1967, and permitted an unlimited number of co-sponsors only since 1978 (the Senate has allowed the practice since at least 1930). At any given moment, thousands of people – senators, representatives, former members, staffers, interns, organizers, activists, lobbyists, political operatives, advocates, constituents and concerned citizens – are engaged in the time-honored ritual of the search for co-sponsors.
Members buttonhole one another on the floor, in committee rooms and at events. Their staffs call, and email, and text. Activists tweet, and post, and share, and link and petition. Lobbyists ask, cajole and beg. Everyone distributes one-sheets, Dear Colleagues, buttons, posters and tchotchkes. They’re wasting their time: In the last three Congresses, an average of 78 percent of all non-commemorative bills enacted into law had 10 or fewer co-sponsors, and just over 21 percent had no co-sponsors at all. (For the purposes of this discussion, I have not included “commemorative” legislation with specific co-sponsor requirements – the renaming of post offices, courthouses and other federal buildings; bills producing ceremonial coins or medals; and other ceremonial designations such as scenic rivers, wildlife refuges, etc.)
This isn’t a little-known, back-room parliamentary practice. Lobbyists boast to their clients about how many co-sponsors they’ve snagged. Members heavily engage their constituents in the process. Whether or not a candidate has been a co-sponsor of a bill is a serious question in elections – particularly primaries. But it doesn’t get a bill passed.
This may come as a surprise to anyone who has ever organized, participated in or even simply followed with interest the process of rounding up co-sponsors. Even more surprising is the fact that the more co-sponsors a bill has, the less likely it is to be enacted. And it takes almost twice as long to enact bills with 100 or more co-sponsors than bills with none.
Depending on how one views the process, the effort isn’t always wasted; scoring a co-sponsor from the other side of the aisle can give a bill that most elusive of appearances: bipartisanship. Members who collect sponsors from the other party claim that they are proud to offer a “bipartisan” bill – even if the tally includes only a single Democrat or Republican. In this bitter, highly political climate, members welcome anything that removes – or even appears to remove – the charge of partisanship.
There are other advantages. A lesser-known member can raise his or her visibility by frequently co-sponsoring legislation – and thereby bank favors. Although, in my experience, a member who co-sponsors other legislators’ bills in the hopes of receiving reciprocal co-sponsorships shouldn’t hold their breath: While they may not mean much legislatively, so many people keep track of who’s “on” or “not on” a bill that co-sponsorships can’t simply be traded as quid pro quos.
And everyone increases their networking and communication. This is especially helpful with bills that are out of one’s area of expertise; I was introduced to organizations, advocates and lobbyists I would otherwise never have met if not for their requests for co-sponsorship.
In early June House Majority Leader Eric Cantor brought the public into the process with "Cosponsor.gov." This flashy new taxpayer-funded website allows citizens like you and me to “sign on” to legislation before Congress. The site, Cantor promised, would allow us to have “direct impact” on bills; while this site may add to his "techie" credentials, he won't promise it will “impact” his decision to bring any bill to the floor for a vote (and, so far, it hasn't).
Until I crunched the numbers, I wasn’t aware that co-sponsors had so little effect on legislative success; when I found out, though, I wasn’t shocked. When I was a legislative director, I often felt that co-sponsorships – both those that sought us and those we sought – were not a good use of our time. That they were for show. That they really only made it seem as if something was getting done, or that a member “supported” a bill, a cause, an ideal.
About a third of all emails I received as LD were requests to co-sponsor (or not co-sponsor) legislation. When lobbyists, advocates and activists weren’t calling to request a meeting, they were calling to talk about co-sponsoring a bill. The Dear Colleague service quickly and efficiently disperses hundreds of co-sponsorship requests a day to every member office.
More than whatever positive effects might be gained from co-sponsoring, Members and staff are more often motivated by the negative effects of not being a co-sponsor on an “important” bill than with whatever helpful legislative consequences could result from the addition of one more name. And not being on a “bad” bill is often as or even more important than being on the “good” ones.
A significant portion of our member office electronic mail and social media comments were questions about why we weren’t “on” a particular bill. Most – if not all – commenters had no idea that not only would the addition of a new co-sponsor not help the bill’s movement, but that simply putting one’s name on a bill means nothing. That, of course, didn’t matter: If we were asked to be on a bill, we at least had to investigate it. If we absolutely could not co-sponsor it, most of the time we had to provide a good reason – because most people who asked thought that it would move the bill along.
Just as there are members who habitually “drop” dozens – even hundreds – of bills each session, and then do little or nothing to advance them, there are members who habitually co-sponsor bills with no intention of doing anything further on them.
Some members and staffers truly do advocate for a bill they have co-sponsored by contacting the referred committees, helping to line up witnesses for hearings, tallying votes before a markup, and urging leadership to bring the bill to the floor. However, the “involvement” of the vast majority of co-sponsors on any given bill ends the moment they agree to co-sponsor it. And since the fact of the co-sponsorship does little or nothing to advance the bill, it turns out to be a kind of well-orchestrated scam.
As a professional staff member, charged with making decisions about which bills referred to the subcommittee should be considered, I found the number of co-sponsors had no bearing; if I believed the bill had merit, I would try to get it marked up. What was most surprising was that no original sponsors – and certainly no co-sponsors – of any bill referred to our subcommittee ever contacted us to push it along, urged us to consider it or even to inquire about its status.
As an LD, exactly as I was taught, every time I received a request to co-sponsor a bill I first looked at the list of current co-sponsors; not the bill summary or the status (nor, most times, even the subject). “Who’s on it already?” was, if not the dispositive question, certainly the first of several gates. If an intern or staffer presented me with a suggested bill to co-sponsor, the first page of the “coverage” they gave me had to be the list of co-sponsors.
Sometimes there are good reasons to be the only Democrat on a Republican bill, or the only member of a particular caucus, or the second – and lone – co-sponsor, but those aren’t the most important considerations. It is considered more essential to not be the odd person out or the one who seems to be against a bill by not being on it.
This practice creates tastemakers, who signal to others the “importance” of a bill by being on it or not. And the same groups of members tend to coalesce around the same original sponsors and issues. That, in turn, makes the omission of an expected name – or the addition of an unexpected one – newsworthy. But it doesn’t help to pass the bill.
That's because co-sponsoring bills is legislatively ineffective. An inordinate amount of time, money and effort is expended on something that is almost certain to fail. And yet, the custom plays out session after session, because, obviously, the participants find something worthwhile in it. After all that work and expense, however, what they don’t find is their bills getting passed into law.
Citi Trends
aka milobased
yeah i know, was just doing something in the meantime while i just have my phone, since i've had a few addresses
i've gotten about 8 and have the templates saved for the letters
dj-method-x
Superstar
Just to give some quick context, don't worry so much if your rep hasn't signed on as a co-sponsor yet. This really doesn't mean all that much. But definitely contact them to make sure they vote YES.
As an example, for the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), it had 40 democratic co-sponsors out of 243 dem reps, compared to HR 40's 38 co sponsors out of 235 dem reps. Almost the entire democratic caucus voted for ACA when it was time. 38 co-sponsors is actually a GREAT GREAT start.
As an example, for the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), it had 40 democratic co-sponsors out of 243 dem reps, compared to HR 40's 38 co sponsors out of 235 dem reps. Almost the entire democratic caucus voted for ACA when it was time. 38 co-sponsors is actually a GREAT GREAT start.
I've updated the list with the twitter links and @ handles. We just need a hashtag going. something like #HR40 @OfficialCBC or something like that. Is anyone here really good at Twitter?
xoxodede
Superstar
This is why they bill haven't left the floor -- we need to apply pressure HERE -- send letters to THEM as well -- asking why they have not set a date or pushed for the H.R. 40 bill to be passed into law.
It keeps getting referred to House Judiciary Subcommittee on Constitution and Civil Justice -- and they let it DIE.
Committees - H.R.40 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): Commission to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African-Americans Act
Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
The Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties has jurisdiction over all matters concerning the United States Constitution, including amendments and constitutional rights.
Chair
Steve Cohen
Tennessee
Vice Chair
Jamie Raskin
Maryland
Democratic Members
Eric Swalwell
California
Mary Gay Scanlon
Pennsylvania
Madeleine Dean
Pennsylvania
Sylvia R. Garcia
Texas
Veronica Escobar
Texas
Sheila Jackson Lee
Texas
Ranking Member
Mike Johnson
Louisiana
Republican Members
Louie Gohmert
Texas
Jim Jordan
Ohio
Guy Reschenthaler
Pennsylvania
Ben Cline
Virginia
Kelly Armstrong
North Dakota
Recent Activity
There are no items to display
Subcommittee's Activity in Previous Congress
Constitution and Civil Justice (115th Congress)
Constitution and Civil Justice (114th Congress)
It keeps getting referred to House Judiciary Subcommittee on Constitution and Civil Justice -- and they let it DIE.
Committees - H.R.40 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): Commission to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African-Americans Act
Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
The Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties has jurisdiction over all matters concerning the United States Constitution, including amendments and constitutional rights.
Chair
Steve Cohen
Tennessee
Vice Chair
Jamie Raskin
Maryland
Democratic Members
Eric Swalwell
California
Mary Gay Scanlon
Pennsylvania
Madeleine Dean
Pennsylvania
Sylvia R. Garcia
Texas
Veronica Escobar
Texas
Sheila Jackson Lee
Texas
Ranking Member
Mike Johnson
Louisiana
Republican Members
Louie Gohmert
Texas
Jim Jordan
Ohio
Guy Reschenthaler
Pennsylvania
Ben Cline
Virginia
Kelly Armstrong
North Dakota
Recent Activity
There are no items to display
Subcommittee's Activity in Previous Congress
Constitution and Civil Justice (115th Congress)
Constitution and Civil Justice (114th Congress)
House Judiciary Subcommittee on Constitution and Civil Justice
U.S. House Committee On The Judiciary
Committee Hearing Room
2141 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
202-225-3951
Rayburn Staff Office
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
202-225-3951
U.S. House Committee On The Judiciary
Committee Hearing Room
2141 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
202-225-3951
Rayburn Staff Office
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
202-225-3951
xoxodede
Superstar
We keep getting to Step one -- and then nothing.
The Legislative Process
Introduction
Anyone may draft a bill; however, only members of Congress can introduce legislation, and by doing so become the sponsor(s). There are four basic types of legislation: bills, joint resolutions, concurrent resolutions, and simple resolutions. The official legislative process begins when a bill or resolution is numbered – H.R. signifies a House bill and S. a Senate bill – referred to a committee and printed by the Government Printing Office.
Step 1. Referral to Committee
With few exceptions, bills are referred to standing committees in the House or Senate according to carefully delineated rules of procedure.
Step 2. Committee Action
When a bill reaches a committee it is placed on the committee’s calendar. A bill can be referred to a subcommittee or considered by the committee as a whole. It is at this point that a bill is examined carefully and its chances for passage are determined. If the committee does not act on a bill, it is the equivalent of killing it.
Step 3. Subcommittee Review
Often, bills are referred to a subcommittee for study and hearings. Hearings provide the opportunity to put on the record the views of the executive branch, experts, other public officials, supporters and opponents of the legislation. Testimony can be given in person or submitted as a written statement.
Step 4. Mark Up
When the hearings are completed, the subcommittee may meet to “mark up” the bill, that is, make changes and amendments prior to recommending the bill to the full committee. If a subcommittee votes not to report legislation to the full committee, the bill dies.
[Do you need to influence lawmakers? Check out our advocacy software.]
Step 5. Committee Action to Report A Bill
After receiving a subcommittee’s report on a bill, the full committee can conduct further study and hearings, or it can vote on the subcommittee’s recommendations and any proposed amendments. The full committee then votes on its recommendation to the House or Senate. This procedure is called “ordering a bill reported.”
Step 6. Publication of a Written Report
After a committee votes to have a bill reported, the committee chairman instructs staff to prepare a written report on the bill. This report describes the intent and scope of the legislation, impact on existing laws and programs, position of the executive branch, and views of dissenting members of the committee.
Step 7. Scheduling Floor Action
After a bill is reported back to the chamber where it originated, it is placed in chronological order on the calendar. In the House there are several different legislative calendars, and the Speaker and majority leader largely determine if, when, and in what order bills come up. In the Senate there is only one legislative calendar.
Step 8. Debate
When a bill reaches the floor of the House or Senate, there are rules or procedures governing the debate on legislation. These rules determine the conditions and amount of time allocated for general debate.
Step 9. Voting
After the debate and the approval of any amendments, the bill is passed or defeated by the members voting.
Step 10. Referral to Other Chamber
When a bill is passed by the House or the Senate it is referred to the other chamber where it usually follows the same route through committee and floor action. This chamber may approve the bill as received, reject it, ignore it, or change it.
Step 11. Conference Committee Action
If only minor changes are made to a bill by the other chamber, it is common for the legislation to go back to the first chamber for concurrence. However, when the actions of the other chamber significantly alter the bill, a conference committee is formed to reconcile the differences between the House and Senate versions. If the conferees are unable to reach agreement, the legislation dies. If agreement is reached, a conference report is prepared describing the committee members recommendations for changes. Both the House and the Senate must approve of the conference report.
Step 12. Final Actions
After a bill has been approved by both the House and Senate in identical form, it is sent to the President. If the President approves of the legislation he/she signs it and it becomes law. Or, the President can take no action for ten days, while Congress is in session, and it automatically becomes law. If the President opposes the bill he/she can veto it; or, if he/she takes no action after the Congress has adjourned its second session, it is a “pocket veto” and the legislation dies.
Step 13. Overriding a Veto
If the President vetoes a bill, Congress may attempt to “override the veto.” This requires a two thirds roll call vote of the members who are present in sufficient numbers for a quorum.
The Legislative Process
Introduction
Anyone may draft a bill; however, only members of Congress can introduce legislation, and by doing so become the sponsor(s). There are four basic types of legislation: bills, joint resolutions, concurrent resolutions, and simple resolutions. The official legislative process begins when a bill or resolution is numbered – H.R. signifies a House bill and S. a Senate bill – referred to a committee and printed by the Government Printing Office.
Step 1. Referral to Committee
With few exceptions, bills are referred to standing committees in the House or Senate according to carefully delineated rules of procedure.
Step 2. Committee Action
When a bill reaches a committee it is placed on the committee’s calendar. A bill can be referred to a subcommittee or considered by the committee as a whole. It is at this point that a bill is examined carefully and its chances for passage are determined. If the committee does not act on a bill, it is the equivalent of killing it.
Step 3. Subcommittee Review
Often, bills are referred to a subcommittee for study and hearings. Hearings provide the opportunity to put on the record the views of the executive branch, experts, other public officials, supporters and opponents of the legislation. Testimony can be given in person or submitted as a written statement.
Step 4. Mark Up
When the hearings are completed, the subcommittee may meet to “mark up” the bill, that is, make changes and amendments prior to recommending the bill to the full committee. If a subcommittee votes not to report legislation to the full committee, the bill dies.
[Do you need to influence lawmakers? Check out our advocacy software.]
Step 5. Committee Action to Report A Bill
After receiving a subcommittee’s report on a bill, the full committee can conduct further study and hearings, or it can vote on the subcommittee’s recommendations and any proposed amendments. The full committee then votes on its recommendation to the House or Senate. This procedure is called “ordering a bill reported.”
Step 6. Publication of a Written Report
After a committee votes to have a bill reported, the committee chairman instructs staff to prepare a written report on the bill. This report describes the intent and scope of the legislation, impact on existing laws and programs, position of the executive branch, and views of dissenting members of the committee.
Step 7. Scheduling Floor Action
After a bill is reported back to the chamber where it originated, it is placed in chronological order on the calendar. In the House there are several different legislative calendars, and the Speaker and majority leader largely determine if, when, and in what order bills come up. In the Senate there is only one legislative calendar.
Step 8. Debate
When a bill reaches the floor of the House or Senate, there are rules or procedures governing the debate on legislation. These rules determine the conditions and amount of time allocated for general debate.
Step 9. Voting
After the debate and the approval of any amendments, the bill is passed or defeated by the members voting.
Step 10. Referral to Other Chamber
When a bill is passed by the House or the Senate it is referred to the other chamber where it usually follows the same route through committee and floor action. This chamber may approve the bill as received, reject it, ignore it, or change it.
Step 11. Conference Committee Action
If only minor changes are made to a bill by the other chamber, it is common for the legislation to go back to the first chamber for concurrence. However, when the actions of the other chamber significantly alter the bill, a conference committee is formed to reconcile the differences between the House and Senate versions. If the conferees are unable to reach agreement, the legislation dies. If agreement is reached, a conference report is prepared describing the committee members recommendations for changes. Both the House and the Senate must approve of the conference report.
Step 12. Final Actions
After a bill has been approved by both the House and Senate in identical form, it is sent to the President. If the President approves of the legislation he/she signs it and it becomes law. Or, the President can take no action for ten days, while Congress is in session, and it automatically becomes law. If the President opposes the bill he/she can veto it; or, if he/she takes no action after the Congress has adjourned its second session, it is a “pocket veto” and the legislation dies.
Step 13. Overriding a Veto
If the President vetoes a bill, Congress may attempt to “override the veto.” This requires a two thirds roll call vote of the members who are present in sufficient numbers for a quorum.
xoxodede
Superstar
This is why they bill haven't left the floor -- we need to apply pressure HERE -- send letters to THEM as well -- asking why they have not set a date or pushed for the H.R. 40 bill to be passed into law.
It keeps getting referred to House Judiciary Subcommittee on Constitution and Civil Justice -- and they let it DIE.
Committees - H.R.40 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): Commission to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African-Americans Act
Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
The Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties has jurisdiction over all matters concerning the United States Constitution, including amendments and constitutional rights.
Chair
Steve Cohen
Tennessee
Vice Chair
Jamie Raskin
Maryland
Democratic Members
Eric Swalwell
California
Mary Gay Scanlon
Pennsylvania
Madeleine Dean
Pennsylvania
Sylvia R. Garcia
Texas
Veronica Escobar
Texas
Sheila Jackson Lee
Texas
Ranking Member
Mike Johnson
Louisiana
Republican Members
Louie Gohmert
Texas
Jim Jordan
Ohio
Guy Reschenthaler
Pennsylvania
Ben Cline
Virginia
Kelly Armstrong
North Dakota
Recent Activity
There are no items to display
Subcommittee's Activity in Previous Congress
Constitution and Civil Justice (115th Congress)
Constitution and Civil Justice (114th Congress)
House Judiciary Subcommittee on Constitution and Civil Justice
U.S. House Committee On The Judiciary
Committee Hearing Room
2141 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
202-225-3951
Rayburn Staff Office
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
202-225-3951
And guess what -- 5 are former Confederate states.... -- so we definitely have to fight harder if they are over the committee.
Also, one is Jewish -- Mr. Cohen and two are Hispanic -- hit up their organizations and urge them to urge their reps to push this pass the committee.
johnedwarduado
Banned
I thought you militants and ADOS said democrats and republicans are the same and in fact democrats are worse? Why aren't you contacting any republican? This bill has absolutely no chance of passing in this congress, the republican senate will not bring it up to a vote and if they for some reason bring it up it will fail to get the votes. Trump wont sign it. Contact republicans and see if they will even listen or pick up your call. Ask republicans and see what their response is and then maybe you idiots will stop saying democrats and republicans are the same.
Citi Trends
aka milobased
are you a black ados?