How a Bill Becomes a Law - Term Paper Example

? Assignment is Due> How a Bill Becomes a Law This term paper describes the process used for a bill to become a law and is comprised of two parts. Part one is a summary of the book All Roads Lead to Congress by Costas Panagopoulos and Joshua Schenk published in 2008. The second part of the assignment involved researching a selected bill from the 110th (2008-2009) Congress. The bill selected was the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination bill (later named GINA) H.R. 493. Gaining knowledge and understanding of the process for lawmaking is helpful in gaining an appreciation for the complexity of political decisions and outcomes for various regulations and national policy. This information can be used to better the nation, local community, career, and life as it moves forward. All Roads Lead to Congress is a case study of the proposal and passage of H.R. 3: Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity Act (SAFETEA - LU) from the 109th Congress 2005 - 2006. This case study is presented from two different authors’ perspectives. One author is a political scientist, Costas Panagopoulos, and the other is an urban planner, Joshua Schank, who has been involved in transportation his entire career. Schank was Senator Hillary Clinton’s transportation fellow being brought in from Columbia University specifically to help work on this bill specifically. The book is organized by chapters telling the reader simply, “How a bill becomes law; bill introduction and markup; floor fight; conference; back to the drawing board; passage and politics; and the aftermath. In Chapter one, The four P’s are discussed including power, process, policy, pots of money (price). Members of congress are most concerned about getting re-elected and use position taking, credit claiming, and advertising to get ahead. The suggestion is made that politicians worry more and do more about advertising their pork barrel projects than they do about passing solid pieces of legislation. Since their primary concern from day one in office is with getting re-elected, every move they make centers on that issue, the entire time they are in office. Public opinion of Congress as a whole is typically low, but constituent approval of some individual members of Congress is high. Transportation is a popular place to include pork barrel projects. There is a lot of detail provided in each chapter about what happens behind the scenes in the Congressional process, regarding deadlines, extensions of deadlines, “constituent meeting”, “surrogate meeting”, stall tactics, additional conversations, and so on, all in an effort to get a working piece of legislation that a bi-partisan group will be comfortable passing (p. 31). This bill was introduced in the house May 14, 2003 and was signed into law August 10, 2005 by President Bush. The final act was passed before the bridge collapse in Minnnesota on August 1, 2007, on I-35W at the height of rush hour. The bridge, as well as fifty vehicles, fell into the Mississippi River. Five people were killed. The investigation showed that popular, new roads and projects were funded, while the mundane, routine and maintenance projects were neglected. This was not the direct cause of the accident, but transportation has been bankrolling many other projects than the maintenance and safety of the existing roadways for years. The path taken by the highway funding bill followed the schematic in Figure 1.1 on page 6 of Panagopoulos and Schank. The bill is draft and proposed to both the House and the Senate. The Senate and House have committees that the bill goes to. In the committees the bill is marked up and reported out back to the Senate or the House with recommended changes. The bill then goes to the House rules committee. The bill post revisions makes its’ way back to the Senate and House floor for discussion, which if proceeding forward, follows with conference meetings to reconcile the differences between the Senate and the House. The reconciliations then go back to both the Senate and the House and once agreement has been reached once again, the bill goes to the president for his or her signature. In amongst all of this process there are side conversations going on as to which constituents and projects bicker regarding priority of the dollars to be spent. The second part of the assignment has involved researching a selected bill from the 110th (2008-2009) Congress. The bill selected was the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination bill H.R. 493. In summary the bill is aimed at protecting the general public from possible discrimination in employment and their health insurance through the use of genetic information that has now become available through advances in medical science. The human genomes do not show themselves outwardly, but many genetic conditions and disorders are associated with specific racial and ethnic groups and gender. This has resulted in specific groups or members being scrutinized or discriminated against as this genetic information is revealed as early as the 1970s. For example, African-Americans tested as significant carriers of sickle cell anemia. Congress learned of examples of genetic discrimination in the workplace. These include the use of pre-employment genetic screening involving a company that lost a lawsuit and was found guilty of discrimination. The courts ruled in favor of the employees. Congress felt compelled to protect the public interest. Reviewing the federal law, it was found to be lacking in certain areas. Even though certain states had covered specifics, there was a lack of consistency and depth. Thomas (2011) [110th] H.R.493 : Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA), Sponsor: Rep Slaughter, Louise McIntosh [NY-28] (introduced on 1/16/2007), Cosponsors (224), Committees: House Education and Labor; House Energy and Commerce; House Ways and Means, House Reports: 110-28 Part 1, 110-28 Part 2, 110-28 Part 3, 110-28 Part 4, Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 110-233 [GPO: Text, PDF] Note: For further action, see H.R.1424 , which became Public Law 110-343 on 10/3/2008. What this bill hoped to accomplish was to provide federal legislation to establish national uniform standards to fully protect the public from discrimination and quell any concerns about the potential for discrimination, thereby allowing individuals to take advantage of genetic testing and technologies, research, and new therapies without fear of retribution or retaliation in some form either through repercussions in a job search or on the job or health insurance loss. At the time of the initial proposal, the main populations this bill was focused on assisting was the American population, specifically targeted minority and other populations that were testing positive for genetically transmitted diseases, the American public, and the medical community. It had been said that the existing structure of state laws and inadequate federal laws was not sufficient to protect the greater population from discrimination. The timeline for the bill was as follows per Thomas.loc.gov as quoted from http://www.genome.gov/245: January 16, 2007: Introductory remarks on measure: Hon. Louise M. Slaughter January 16, 2007: Referred to the Committee on Education and Labor, and in addition to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, and Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. January 16, 2007: Referred to House Education and Labor February 14, 2007: Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held February 14, 2007: Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote January 16, 2007: Referred to House Energy and Commerce January 16, 2007: Referred to House Ways and Means January 18, 2007: Referred to the Subcommittee on Health March 5, 2007 at 3:47p.m.: Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Education and Labor. H. Rept. 110-28, Part I March 5, 2007 at 3:48 p.m.: House Committee on Energy and Commerce Granted an extension for further consideration ending not later than March 23, 2007 March 5, 2007 at 3:49 p.m.: House Committee on Ways and Means granted an extension for further consideration ending not later than March 23, 2007. March 21, 2007: House committee/subcommittee actions: Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote March 26, 2007: Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Ways and Means. H. Rept. 110-28, Part II. March 29, 2007: Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 110-28, Part III. March 29, 2007: Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 46. Bills are referred to the Union Calendar if they directly or indirectly deal with money. April 25, 2007: House passes act. May 1, 2008: Introduced in House May 1, 2008: Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed to by voice vote. May 1, 2008: Passed/agreed to in Senate: Received in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment by Unanimous Consent. May 21, 2008: President Bush Signs H.R. 493, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 Senate Bill (S.) 358: The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2007 [thomas.loc.gov] January 22, 2007: Introductory remarks on measure : Sen. Olympia J. Snowe January 22, 2007: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. January 31, 2007: Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably. March 29, 2007: Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Reported by Senator Kennedy with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report. March 29, 2007: Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 97. April 10, 2007: By Senator Kennedy from Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions filed written report. Report No. 110-48 April 24, 2008: Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 95 - 0. Record Vote Number: 113. May 5, 2008: Resolving differences — House actions: On motion that the House agree to the Senate amendment Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 414 - 1 (Roll no. 234). May 5, 2008: Cleared for White House. May 21, 2008: President Bush Signs H.R. 493, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 The primary sponsor who introduced the bill and stated in her introductory speech that she had worked closely with the issue for 12 years, was the honorary Louise Slaughter from the New York House of Representatives. Ms. Slaughter states in her opening comments that the bill had significant support from the medical and health communities, The Coalition for Genetic Fairness (141 organizations) was showing support for GINA. Also, from the House, Slaughter was joined by Biggert, Eshoo, and Walden as well as over 135 original cosponsors. The Senate has passed it twice, and the White House has come out in position of support of this bill. There was strong bipartisan support for the bill from the beginning of this reintroduction, but in the past, bipartisan support had not been strong and bills similar to this had stalled out. As Louise Slaughter commented in her opening speech, it had taken her twelve years to get this bill to the point where it was acceptable for a general discussion and debate. The committees and subcommittees this bill was referred to were the House Education and Labor; the House Energy and Commerce, which includes a subcommittee on health; and the House Ways and Means Committee. The reason these referrals are made is that there are a myriad of laws and national policies that need to be reviewed under each of these areas before the bill can be moved through to the next level or be seriously considered. Plus, there are numerous other bills pending that have to be reviewed to ensure there is not a conflict or a revision that may need to be made or discussed with the pertinent parties. Congress is making every effort to ensure that all members are on the same page. Also, committees are referred based on the topic of the bill. For example, since GINA was a topic that reflected employment, health care, and cost issues, those three committees were selected as having an interest in processing that particular bill (GINA 2011; Library of Congress 2011). The groups that testified in favor of GINA were Health and Human Services, the Medical Community, and any other health care professional. Those in health care were looking for specific guidance. Employers were not so much in favor due to the ever rising cost of health care. The employer would have liked the option of screening individuals out of their plan or charging those individuals with a genetically pre-disposed disease a higher rate. This bill was passed into law and final rules have been promulgated as of November 9, 2010. Small businesses with as few as 15 employees are expected to comply with GINA. Works Cited SAFETEA – LU. 25 March 2011. GINA. 25 March 2011 Library of Congress. H.R. 493, Genetic Non-discrimination testing act. 23 March 2011. Panagopoulos, Costas. & Schenk, Joshua. All Roads Lead to Congress. Washington, DC; CQ Press, 2008. National Human Genome Research Institute. 2011. Genetic Nondiscrimination Information Act of 2008, (16 January 2011); Read More