10 Scary, Whacky, and Weird Bills Introduced in Congress

1. H.R. 899:  To terminate the Department of Education. 
   
   Introduced by Thomas Massie (R-KY), Justin Amash (R-MI), Andy Biggs (R-AZ), Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Jody Hice (R-GA), Walter Jones (R-NC), Raul Labrador (R-ID)
   
   This bill is quite simple.  The above congressmen are seeking to terminate the Department of Education in its entirety.  It's latest action has been a referral to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.  Rep.  Thomas Massie, the key Congressman behind this bill, believes that the federal government doesn't have the constitutional authority to dictate what our kids learn and that's where Massie gets it totally wrong.  The Department of Education's mission is to establish policies to federal education funding as well as the administration and monitoring of their use, collecting data and research, using that information to identify major issues in education and inform the public, and lastly, enforcing federal laws prohibiting discrimination (US DoE: What We Do)  So if the Department of Education isn't dictating what kids learn at our public schools, then who does?  The states, themselves.  Massie et al get an F for their failure to understand the US educational system on its most basic level.
   
   
2. H.R. 610 Choices in Education Act of 2017:
   
   Introduced by Steve King (R-IA), Andy Harris (R-MD),  Trent Franks (R-AZ), Pete Olson (R-TX).
   
   This snazzily named bill (it's all about choice and the freedom of it, yo!) essentially repeals the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and, instead of terminating the Department of Education, it just limits its activities to providing block grants to states.  Wait a second...I'm seeing a pattern here.  One bill wants to get rid of the ED altogether, which basically means that the ED will no longer be monitoring how our federal tax dollars are being used, and the second bill wants to also do the same thing.  That's two bills involving money and taking away the federal overseeing body of its use. 
   
   This one, however, is packing that all in with the requirement of providing block grants that provide vouchers for kids in case they want to be either home schooled or enrolled in a private school.  Here's the deal with that though:  How do we know that our tax dollars to these kids are going to equal a basic education?  We won't have a body overseeing that.  On top of it, it's giving kids who opt to go to a private school an additional leg up and what kids tend to go to private schools?   Primarily children of the wealthy and this bill makes no income limits in regards to limiting the usage of these sorts of vouchers to children in financial need.  This bill does nothing to eliminate the increasing wealth and opportunity gaps within the country. 
   
   Part two of this bill is the No Hungry Kids Act.  Again, it sounds great except for the fact that it repeals all the current nutritional standards for national school lunch and breakfast programs so they would no longer be required to have fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and low-fat/fat free milk available to kids as well as getting rid of the limits on sodium, saturated and trans fats, and children's actual caloric requirements.  In short, this portion of H.R. 610 wants to be certain that our kids eat total crap for lunch because having a nation of obese children who learn to eat crap is a great idea.
   
   
3. H.R. 861:  To Terminate the Environmental Protection Agency:
   
   Introduced by Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Steven Palazzo (R-MS), and Barry Loudermilk (R-GA).
   
   I'm not sure what these three bozos were thinking when they introduced this bill because what it really does is get rid of the agency in charge of regulating our existing environmental laws.  Getting rid of the regulating agency doesn't get rid of the environmental laws and those laws would need to be regulated by another (probably pre-existing) agency.  H.R. 861 is just stupid and the three authors of it are all freshmen representatives.  They're new at this whole Congress thing and by god, is it showing with this one.
   
    
4. H.R. 147  Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 2017 (PRENDA):
   
   
   Introduced by 60 Republican Members of the House. 
   
   These illustrious members of Congress want you to know something and that is that discriminating against an unborn child due to its sex, gender, race, or color is not okay.  Do you hear me?  It's not okay!  According to this bill, they want to make sure that everybody knows that and nobody forces any pregnant woman to get rid of a child based on any of the above criteria because apparently, the Republican congressmen are confused by all of their clothing labels that say "Made in China" and think we're living in it.   And if you think it's okay to force or coerce a woman into an abortion on based on these criteria, well, you'll be in big trouble as this law makes it criminal.  What I really want to know is how people can tell what gender a child is before its born considering that gender is sometimes different from sex?
   
   
5. H.R. 586 Sanctity of Human Life Act:
   Introduced by 30 Republican Members of the House
   
   This bill is pretty weird at face value.   I'm just going to quote the summary of the bill so you can read it yourself. 
   

   This bill declares that: (1) the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human and is a person's most fundamental right; (2) each human life begins with fertilization, cloning, or its equivalent, at which time every human has all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and (3) Congress, each state, the District of Columbia, and each U.S. territory have the authority to protect all human lives.

   Most of it is easily understood.  By codifying that human life begins at conception, this bill--if made into a law--essentially makes things from certain IUDs, morning after pills, and abortions murder.  It makes no exclusion on whether or not there is something significantly wrong with the fetus either. All embryos are life without prejudice.  This is explicit in the text of the bill, itself.  Nor does it take into account how the "life" began (no exclusion for rape) or whether or not a pregnancy will kill the mother.  It then affirms that each state will have the authority to protect the lives of all human beings (including fertilized embryos) within their respective jurisdictions. 
   
   What about the truly weird part though?  The cloning.  Why are these congressmen so interested in something that you would typically think would be against their traditional values just on the sheer basis of being pure sci fi?   The most likely answer is pretty simple:  fetal stem cell research.  This form of research is performed using embryos created through cloning.  In 2001, the US was restricted to 19 lines that were being cloned for stem cell research  What would happen if this bill passes into law?  It would mean that those embryos could not be aborted or destroyed and any woman currently carrying a clone for research would be forced to term.  We would have our first human clones walking among us.  Outside of the weird factor and perhaps more importantly, fetal stem cell research is considered to be the best hope for a cure of an innumerable number of chronic and potentially fatal conditions and diseases.
   
   
6. H.R. 83  Mobilizing Against Sanctuary Cities Act:
   
   Introduced by Lou Barletta (R-PA), Walter Jones (R-NC), Jeff Duncan (R-SC), Lamar Smith (R-TX), Tom Marino (PA-10), Mo Brooks (R-AL), Steve King (R-IA), Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Paul Gosar (R-AZ), Mark Sanford (R-SC).
   
   This bill, if passed, would basically take Trump's executive order on punishing sanctuary cities and the states that these cities reside in by withholding federal assistance from them and codifies it.  It also charges the Department of Justice with the duty to monitor whether or not state and local governments are complying with the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.  Whether or not this will be held as constitutional, if passed, is up to question, however, based on a recent ruling in the 9th District of the US Court of Appeals that found the requiring law enforcement agencies to act as ICE to be unconstitutional based on the 10th Amendment (LA Times).
   
   
7.   H.R. 785  National Right-to-Work Act:
   Introduced by Steve King (R-IA), Joe Wilson (R-SC), Robert Pittenger (R-NC), Jeff Duncan (R-SC), Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Andy Barr (R-KY), Larry Bucshon (R-IN), Bob Goodlatte (lol do you think he makes good lattes?) (R-VA), Rick Allen (R-GA), Blake Farenthold (R-TX), Markwayne Mullin (R-OK), Bill Hulzenga (R-MI), Robert Wittman (R-VA), Richard Hudson (R-NC), David Trott (R-MI), Kristi Noem (R-SD). 
   
   This bill basically states that it will "preserve and protect the free choice of individual employees to form, join, or assist labor organizations or to refrain from such activities".  Currently, the law states that employees can form, join or assist labor organizations so what this bill actually does is given an employee the choice to opt out of joining a labor organization at their place of employment.  The proponents for this bill basically argue that the National Labor Relations Act and the Railway Labor Act (for transportation industry unions) is essentially unfair in that it forces workers to join and pay dues to unions.  Sounds great because having a choice is a good thing, right?
   
   Not necessarily as sometimes the direct benefits of something are not immediately felt.  It's because of labor unions that workers have good wages, benefits, and the assurance of safety requirements that were all brokered by unions through collective bargaining.  Basically, if every employee is within the union, that means that it's not an individual fighting for any of the above perks.  It's all of them.  Without the unions, then those protections are at risk as the power of the unions against their employers will be diminished for every employee that opts out.  Period.  This one is a tricky one as we all want a freedom of choice but at the same time, there aren't that many in politics that are really fighting for our workers.  Politicians may say they are but what have they really done?
   
   
8. H.R. 354 Defund Planned Parenthood Act of 2017:
   
   Introduced by 136 Republican Congressmen.
   
   This bill basically deprives Planned Parenthood of all federal funding for any purpose for one year and the only way to restore the funding is if they certify that they or none of their affiliated staff performs abortions and that they do not provide funds for another entity to administer an abortion.  The only exclusions for this are cases of rape, incest or where the pregnancy endangers the mother's life.  Basically, Planned Parenthood clinics across the United States will be stripped of federal funding for any of their services if they opt to perform abortions. 
   
   If they certify that they will not and perform an abortion, they will be forced to repay the federal assistance that they received to the Department of Health and Human Services.  Here's a quick question about that: If a Planned Parenthood clinic performs an abortion based on an allegation of rape and the case ends up being dismissed, is that a violation?   Considering the risks and the frequent length of court times, this bill is pretty nasty even for women who have been raped simply because, if Planned Parenthood is forced to wait for an outcome of a rape case, then it could end up being a late term abortion, which is prohibited.  And that's just one aspect of this bill's grossness as it essentially holds the entity hostage for a right that was already constitutionally protected under Roe v. Wade. 
   
   And lastly, it's an incredible overreach into the legal, non-federally funded activities of a non-profit organization.  The usage of federal funds for abortions is already prohibited by the Hyde Amendment and Planned Parenthood, by law, does not use those funds for the administration of such.  If this one passes, I would love to see an argument about the compelling interest of the state for that case as this bill is clearly punitive, meaning to punish a non-profit organization irrespective of the state laws in which their clinics reside.
   
   
9. H.R. 370  To Repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka "Obamacare")
   
   Introduced by Bill Flores (R-TX).
   
   Brave Bill (or "Crazy" Bill depending on how you look at it) is the sole sponsor for the only bill that introduces a repeal of the ACA.  Nobody else in the House of Representatives seems to want to touch the damn thing and I can't blame them, considering that many of them are currently avoiding their own offices because of angry constituents about this thing.  This bill seems to be traversing through various committees ranging from the Budget to Education and Workforce and heck, even the House Committee on Natural Resources had a chance of chiming in on it.  H.R. 370 is the super ball of bills right now.  The full list of House Committees is almost comic:  Energy and Commerce, Education and Workforce, Ways and Means, Judiciary, Natural Resources, House Rules, House Administration, House Appropriations, House Budget, Subcommittee on Health, and it's currently residing in...wait for it....drum roll please....
   
   The Subcommittee on Indian, Insular, and Alaska Native Affairs.
   
   Never mind.  Despite the very seriousness of this bill for millions of Americans, what's happening to it is hilarious and should give us a small grain of hope as this is clearly the pariah of all the bills introduced to the House.  Keep fighting it, people. It's working.
   
   
10. H.R. 392 Fairness to High-Skilled Immigrants Act of 2017:
    
    Introduced by a bipartisan group of 101 members of Congress.
    
    If you're scratching your head about this one based on all the anti-immigrant rhetoric that we've been hearing so much of along with the accusations of them stealing our jobs, well, behold, for perhaps the first time, a more moderate portion of Congress (except for Chaffetz because he's the nut that wants to get rid of the Department of Education, H.R. 899).   This pro-immigration bill is pretty simple.  It doesn't reduce the number of immigrants into the United States but instead, eliminates the per country limitations on employment-based immigrants and increases the per country limitations for family based immigrants up to 15%.   It also eliminates a portion of an existing law that requires the reduction of annual Chinese immigrant visas.
    
    This increase in immigration, however, is limited to EB-2 or EB-3 visas. In the most basic terms, EB-2 visas are given to "experts" or people with exception abilities.  These people are still required to have a labor certification (a H1B, L-1, or TN status) except in the case where the individual possesses an exceptional ability that is within the national interest.  EB-3's are people who don't meet the expert standards for an EB-2 but are still professionals with labor certifications.  With all the rhetoric about immigrants coming into the country to take jobs and Trump's hold on expedited H1B's (which potential immigrants pay an additional fee for to be processed more quickly), why is Congress looking at passing a bill that increases immigration for certain people? 
    
    There's one answer to that and that's "brain drain".  Brain drain is essentially the emigration of highly educated and skilled individuals from a country.   In short, they leave the country or even their field due to a lack of opportunity.  Coupled with the increasingly prohibitive costs of higher education within the US, the end result is a loss of that expert talent within the country.  The recent severe recession within the US actually sparked a brain drain and now, with Trump in office, the US is likely to experience a more severe brain drain.  Passing a law that opens the door to those highly skilled individuals may help stymie that but not when those individuals are at risk for getting shot and killed.