Civics Corner

H.R. 1207: Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009

2009-06-12T08:17:00.000-07:00

BILL FACTS:
H.R. 1207 was introduced in the House of Representatives on February 26 by Rep. Ron Paul [R-TX]. The full text of the bill is brief and direct. If enacted, H.R. 1207 would require a full Congressional audit of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRS) and the Federal reserve banks. The deadline for this audit would be the end of 2010, with a full report made within 90 of its completion.

Since its introduction in February, co-sponsorship for H.R. 1207 has soared from 11 to 221, which is just over half of the House's 435 members. (Rep. Paul, it should be noted, has also introduced legislation in 111th Congress that would abolish the Federal Reserve System entirely. Read the full text of this bill, H.R. 833, on GovTrack.)

The FRS was created by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 (read the full text on the Fed's website, or as it appears in U.S. Code from Cornell Law), and signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson.

The FRS has a unique position: It is neither private, nor public. It derives its powers from Congress, but uses those powers as it sees fit. The FRS controls monetary policy, manages the nation's money supply, controls interest rates, supervises the nation's banking system, and manages risk in financial markets. (The many activities of the FRS are summarized by "Purposes & Functions", its own publication.)

According to the FRS, there is substantial oversight of its operations, including annual reports to the Speaker of the House and twice-annual reports on monetary policy to Congressional banking committees. (Those reports are available here.) They even have an annual independent audit and appear before Congress when requested.

BILL ANALYSIS:
So, with all this reporting, why do we need H.R. 1207 for a full Congressional audit? In fact, Congress already has the right to order an audit of the FRS. But, here's the rub: The United States Code lays out the following restrictions on audits of the FRS in Title 31, Section 714:

"Audits of the Federal Reserve Board and Federal reserve banks may not include - (1) transactions for or with a foreign central bank, government of a foreign country, or nonprivate international financing organization; (2) deliberations, decisions, or actions on monetary policy matters, including discount window operations, reserves of member banks, securities credit, interest on deposits, and open market operations; (3) transactions made under the direction of the Federal Open Market Committee; or (4) a part of a discussion or communication among or between members of the Board of Governors and officers and employees of the Federal Reserve System related to clauses (1)-(3) of this subsection."

These restrictions are more than substantial. Aside from check processing activities, currency storage, and the Fed's functions as a bank examiner - every major function is off limits to Congressional audit. Indeed, if there is any doubt that our Congress desires certain information that the Fed refuses to deliver, watch this exchange between Sen. Sanders [I-VT] and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke.

The FRS has too much authority and power to operate in secrecy. This is antithetical to democracy. H.R. 1207 would remove the restrictions to a Congressional audit, thus allowing Congress to regulate its creation, our democratic nation's central bank. This legislation is long-overdue and should be passed. Given the swell of bi-partisan support, look for H.R. 1207 to do just that.

S. 696: Appalachia Restoration Act

2009-06-10T09:58:00.000-07:00

The text of the Appalachia Restoration Act is a relatively short. If passed, it's only function would be "to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (known as the "Clean Water Act") to include a definition of fill material." Before we analyze the massive consequences of this small change, let's take a look at the facts.

BILL FACTS:
S. 696: Appalachia Restoration Act was introduced in the Senate on March 25, 2009 by the bi-partisan team of Sen. Benjamin Cardin [D-MD] and Sen. Lamar Alexander [R-TN]. Currently, there are four other cosponsors. This bill is now in the hands of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, which is chaired by Sen. Barbara Boxer [D-CA] and includes both Cardin and Alexander.

There is a similar piece of legislation in the House, H.R. 1310: Clean Water Protection Act, which was introduced by Rep. Frank Pallone [D-NJ] with a legion of 151 cosponsors. H.R. 1310 also amends the Clean Water Act to include definition of "fill material," stating that fill may not include pollutants disposed as waste material. However, unlike S. 696, H.R. 1310 does not specifically exclude "spoil material" from the definition of "fill material."

The Environmental Protection agency summarizes the Clean Water Act as follows: "The Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States and regulating quality standards for surface waters."

BILL ANALYSIS:
Under the Clean Water Act, the Army Corps of Engineers issues permits to place "fill material" into waterways as long as the purpose is not waste disposal. The prohibition of waste disposal, many believe (including a number of federal judges), made the placement of mining waste into valley streams unlawful. However, the Bush administration completed a rule change begun by the Clinton administration that removed regulations over waste disposal, essentially opening the door to many more permits for valley fills and, hence, many more mountaintop removal operations. (Here is a detailed analysis of the rule change.) S. 696 would restore the Clean Water Act to its pre-2001 status and would include specific language outlawing fill permits for mining waste.

S. 696 is about one thing: mountaintop removal mining (MTR). This technique of coal extraction involves the clear-cutting of forests and the explosion of mountaintops to expose seams of coal. The rubble resulting from the explosions is then dumped down the remaining hillside into valleys and waterways.

We at Civics Corner believe that S. 696 is an excellent bill as it maintains the intent of the Clean Water Act: protecting our invaluable water resources. Estimates of the percentage of U.S. coal derived from MTR operations is between 5%-10%, an amount which could be offset by increases in efficiency and reductions in demand. The pittance of energy offered by MTR does not justify the hundreds of mountains and the thousands of miles of freshwater streams that are now gone from this world.

S. 560: Employee Free Choice Act of 2009

2009-06-07T14:20:00.000-07:00

BILL FACTS:
The Employee Free Choice Act's stated purpose is to "To amend the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to establish an efficient system to enable employees to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to provide for mandatory injunctions for unfair labor practices during organizing efforts, and for other purposes."

S. 560 is sponsored by Sen. Edward Kennedy [D-MA] and was introduced in the Senate on March 10. This bill is currently in the hands of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, which is chaired by Sen. Kennedy [D-MA]. GovTrack reports 39 cosponsors, all of whom are Democrats with the exceptions of Bernard Sanders [I-VT] and Joseph Lieberman [I-CT].

This bill has three components: 1) stream-lining the unionization process, 2) creating a time limit for unions and companies to reach a contract before a federal arbitration board creates a binding two-year agreement, and 3) providing stronger consequences for anti-organizing tactics.

Watch Sen. Brown [D-OH] speak in support of S. 560.

And here's Rep. Wilson [R-SC] speaking in opposition.

BILL ANALYSIS:
Currently, the National Labor Relations Act states that if a group of workers collect a majority of their signatures in favor of union representation, then their employer or the union can recognize can call for a secret ballot election. Typically, the company takes this course. The crafters of S. 560 want to change the law to give union recognition upon a majority "card-check" because they believe companies can wield too much control over the election process.

However, rather than make the unionization process fair, the Employee Free Choice Act would, in effect, transform this company-favored secret ballot process into a union-favored card-check process. Fixing the problems with the secret ballot process should be the aim of this legislation.

Debate of S. 560 has been dominated by the integrity of the secret ballot. Currently, a union or employees may request a secret ballot election to certify a union; or, represented employees may file a petition to de-certify a union; or, an employer, in response to a demand for recognition, may call for a secret ballot election. These should remain the case, which would require the alteration of Section 2.

Sections 3 and 4 of the EFCA have been shuffled to the bottom of this three card deck by the debate over secret ballots, but they deserve discussion. Section 3 gives companies 120 days to contract with a newly formed union. Currently, companies must bargain "in good faith," but they never have to agree. Section 3 demands results for a recognized union, which is overdue legislation. Section 4 increases penalties for companies that engage in unfair labor practices. But, just like Section 2, this Section addresses company abuse of the unionization process without changing penalties for unions that engage in unfair labor practices. In the interest of fairness, this should be included as an amendment.

A fair secret ballot is the ideal means to determine whether or not a workforce should be unionized. That should be immovable. New legislation should make this process free of undue influence by companies and unions alike. Unfortunately, both supporters and opponents of this bill are taking a "no compromise" stance - leaving two possible outcomes 1) the passage of a bill with problems, or 2) the defeat of a bill that would do some good.

Welcome.

2009-05-28T13:57:00.000-07:00

Hello everybody and welcome to the new blog, Civics Corner. Here, we will investigate current federal legislation. Our running analysis of bills will be rooted in the facts and will cover legislation from many angles: What does the bill say? Who sponsored it? How has it been amended? How do the votes break down?...and much more.

We'll also explore the power, influence, and conflict surrounding legislation by investigating Congressional committees, money trails, and dissenting opinions.

By providing quick access to online tools and describing research tactics, we hope that Civics Corner will be a useful guide for navigating the labyrinth of federal legislation. Feel free to join our discussion.