House of Representatives

The House of Representatives is currently considering a bill, H.R. 5, which would reform medical malpractice laws. Several Congresswomen drafted an amendment to this bill which would have limited the bill’s malpractice protections if the malpractice claim is based on a violation of the health care reform law related to the women’s preventive health services. The Congresswomen went through the usual steps that an amendment must go through before it can be proposed. They worked with the Office of Legislative Counsel in drafting it. It was reviewed by the Congressional Budget Office who said its provisions would have no cost. The House Parliamentarian declared that it was germane, meaning that it was related to the underlying bill so that it could be proposed. The next step before the amendment could be debated on the floor was to have the Rules Committee allow the amendment. And then the Rules Committee attempted to silence these women, just as Rep. Issa tried to silence Sandra Fluke. Read more »

Last week we told you about the House Committee on Oversight hearing that spent three hours addressing why employers should not have to cover birth control – without a single woman on the first panel of witnesses. Representative Darrell Issa, Chairman of the Committee, barred Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke from the panel.

Chairman Issa questioned Fluke’s experience and he said that, as a student, she wasn’t qualified to testify. Thursday, Sandra responded to that assertion. “I’m an American woman who uses contraceptives,” she said. That’s what makes her qualified.

Well, this week she received the respect she deserved and ears to listen. Sandra made it on to a number of news shows, and on Thursday – a week after being rejected from the initial hearing – she finally got her chance to speak on Capitol Hill. Fluke then explained that since Georgetown University doesn’t cover contraceptives, a friend of hers eventually had to have one of her ovaries surgically removed. Oral contraceptives would have prevented the growth of a cyst the size of a tennis ball, but her friend could not afford the out-of-pocket costs. Read more »

You’ve probably seen the photo by now of the witness panel at yesterday morning’s House hearing entitled “Lines Crossed: Separation of Church & State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion?” What you may not be able to tell immediately by looking at this photo is that there is no witness to represent the House minority viewpoint. What is immediately obvious is that there were no female witnesses on that panel. But, I was there to witness it and I am here to testify.

From the title and from Chairman Issa’s opening statement, you would have thought that this was a hearing on freedom of religion. But from the start, it wasn’t. The Chairman rejected the minority’s witness, Sandra Fluke, a third-year law student at Georgetown University who was going to testify about experiences of students who don’t have contraceptive coverage. Rep. Issa said that he wanted only the most “qualified” clergy and lay people to discuss the issue of religious freedom. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton and Rep. Carolyn Maloney walked out on the hearing, furious that Chairman Issa wouldn’t allow them to have a witness.

Then, it was time for that all-male panel you’ve seen in the picture to give their opening statements. What did they say? Bishop Lori compared requiring preventive health services, including birth control, to requiring Kosher delis to serve ham sandwiches. Read more »

It's Valentine's Day, and we have an idea about how our Senators could show all Americans how much they care about us!

Millions of hardworking Americans will be cut off of unemployment insurance (UI) unless Congress acts to fully renew the federal UI program that's set to expire at the end of this month. But House Republican leaders are at it again, trying to slash benefits, impose onerous new burdens on unemployed workers, and dismantle the UI system that is a lifeline for so many families.

We need your help! Call your Senators toll-free today at 1-888-245-3381 and ask them to have a heart this Valentine's Day: fully and cleanly renew unemployment insurance for the rest of the year with no cuts and no barriers to benefits! Read more »

I’m very happy to report that millions of jobless workers and their families can rest a little easier over the holidays. Last night, House Republican leadership agreed to move forward with a two-month extension of federal emergency unemployment insurance (UI) and other measures, like the payroll tax cut, that were set to expire December 31. This morning, Congress approved a slightly modified version of the extension that the Senate passed 89-10 last Saturday, ending the standoff that began when House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) announced Sunday that the House intended to reject the Senate bill. President Obama is expected to sign the bill shortly.    Read more »

As I followed the news over the weekend, I felt some measure of relief when the Senate passed a two-month extension of federal unemployment insurance (UI) and other measures like the payroll tax cut on Saturday. No, two months isn’t long enough – it means we’ll be fighting the same battles early in the new year – and yes, it’s disappointing that millionaires still haven’t been asked to contribute an extra dime. But given the overwhelmingly bipartisan vote in favor of the Senate compromise bill (89 to 10!), I expected that the House would quickly pass it – and the nearly 2 million unemployed workers who would face benefit cutoffs in January without a federal UI extension might get a little peace during the holiday season.

But no. Suddenly critical of the “short-term fix” that he appeared to support just last Friday, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) announced on Sunday that the House would likely reject the Senate bill. And today, House Republican leaders refused even to allow an up-or-down vote on the two-month extension. Instead, the House voted along party lines to refer the bill to a House-Senate conference committee for negotiation, killing the chance to prevent the UI benefits and payroll tax cut from expiring on December 31. Read more »

As expected, the House voted this afternoon on a balanced budget constitutional amendment, H.J. Res. 2. The good news: it failed, 261 to 165. (A constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds majority to pass.) If you’re wondering why it’s so great that the House rejected an amendment that would require a balanced budget, check out my recent blog post with the top five reasons why the BBA is such a terrible idea. In short, approval of a BBA in the House would have brought us one big step closer to longer and deeper recessions, with major cuts to programs that women and their families depend on. Read more »

The House plans to vote tomorrow or Friday on H.J. Res. 2, a balanced budget constitutional amendment (BBA) sponsored by Rep. Goodlatte (R-VA).  The amendment is not new – it nearly came to the House floor over the summer, and similar amendments have been proposed many times over the years, especially in the 1990s.  But amending the Constitution to require the federal government to balance its budget every year was a terrible idea then, and it’s a terrible idea today. 

So terrible that a group of more than 1,000 economists, including 11 Nobel laureates, issued a joint statement in 1997 that said, “We condemn the proposed ‘balanced-budget’ amendment to the federal Constitution.  It is unsound and unnecessary…[and] mandates perverse actions in the fact of recessions.”

So terrible that five winners of the Nobel Prize for Economics issued a statement  in July opposing a BBA because of the negative effect it would have on an already troubled economy.

So terrible that Macroeconomic Advisers, a private economic forecasting firm, recently concluded that if a BBA had been ratified and were now being enforced for fiscal year 2012, “the effect on the economy would be catastrophic” and “recessions would be deeper and longer.”  According to the report, if the budget were balanced through spending cuts in 2012, about 15 million more people would lose their jobs and the unemployment rate would double (from 9 percent to a staggering 18 percent).  

Still not convinced?  Here’s a recap of my top five reasons why the House should reject the BBA:  Read more »

Despite dreary weather yesterday afternoon, the rally in support of House Resolution 72 persevered outside the Capitol building. To catch you up, Representative John Conyer Jr.’s (D-MI) resolution opposes cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

The rally was comprised of a multitudinous array of advocates and supporters, including representatives from NOW, AAUW and NWLC. The crowd was clearly passionate in their support of these vital programs. Signs boasted slogans ranging from, “Social Security: A Shared Commitment Across the Generations,” to “Hands Off My Medicare & Medicaid,” to “Women Depend on Medicare!” Additionally, various pieces of literature were circulated as to educate the participants further. Read more »

The contrast couldn’t be more striking.

Today, the Senate is expected to address the most urgent deficit facing this country: the jobs deficit. Senators will vote tonight on the President’s plan to put people back to work and get the economy moving again. The plan would keep teachers and first responders on the job, invest in rebuilding our nation's infrastructure, provide job training, create incentives to hire the long-term unemployed, provide help for disadvantaged workers, extend emergency unemployment benefits, and prohibit discrimination against jobless workers.   Read more »