LOTF: An American Political Roleplay (116th Congress)

by **Vaquas** » Mon Sep 16, 2019 4:18 pm

The 116th Congress
Land Of The Free

"Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress-but I repeat myself."

Samuel Clemens

The 116th Congress is a record-breaking one. The House of Representatives holds a record number of women and minorities, while the Senate boasts among its ranks more new faces than usual. New crops of fiery young legislators tangle with the vanguards of the establishment, as legislators seek to turn mandate into policy, to find success for themselves and their districts, and to bring down their foes by whatever means are required.

Get in, get votes, get things done, and see if you've got what it takes to get the world's most infamous legislative body back in gear.

Bill Format

Code: Select all: Bill Proposal Sheet [align=center][size=150][b]Official Name:[/b][/size][size=120][i]Nickname: (is not mandatory)[/i][/size][/align] Overview: (sum up the bill in a 4-6 sentence paragraph) Section 1: (explain the problem that this bill is trying to fix and why it is a problem) Section 2, 3, 4, 5, etc: (Use as many sections and sub-sections as you need to explain the bill) This bill is then honorably presented to (Insert which house) for consideration in order to (insert a sentence summary) to improve the United States Law and is backed by (your character's name) on (insert the date) [size=10]Do Not Remove: 1337[/size]

House Docket

1. Carbon Fund Act - Julia Piotrowska (D-IL-5)

2. Investing Monetary Resources and Modifying the Tax Code for America's Future for All Act - Emily Davenport (D-CA-34)

3. Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to Forbid the Corporate Influencing of our Elections as Established by the Citizens United Court Decision - Emily Davenport (D-CA-34)

4. A Bill To Establish Election Day as a Federal Holiday (Passed Senate)- Senator Greg Kost (R-FL)

5. Fair House Apportionments Act - Caroline Simone (D-NY-12)

Senate Docket

1. The Student Investment and Deferral Act - Senator Abigail Winthrop (D-MA)

2. Medicare Choice Act - Senator James Moore (D-MI)

3. The Equality Act (Passed House) - Representative Timothy Larson (D-PA-3)

4. Off Fossil Fuels Act - Senator Abigail Winthrop (D-MA)

5. The Off Fossil Fuels Act - Senator Abigail Winthrop (D-MA)

6. The Green Corps for America Act - Senator Abigail Winthrop (D-MA)

7. Green New Deal Resolution - Senator Abigail Winthrop (D-MA)

8. Punishing Acts of Domestic Terrorism Act - Senator Richard Slater (R-AR)

9. The American Opportunity Act - Senator Ben Little (D-MD)

10. Federal Jobs Guarantee Development Act - Senator Abigail Winthrop (D-MA)

11. Heartbeat Protection Act of 2019 - Senator Luke Hawthorne (R-OH)

12. Corporate Freeloader Fee Act - Senator Tim Westra (D-NJ)

13. United States National Health Program Act - Senator Abigail Winthrop (D-MA)

14. Murder Sentencing Act - Senator Barry Anderson (R-MO)

15. The Camera Grant Act of 2019 - Senator James Moore (D-MI)

16. Fair And Independent Redistricting Act - Senator Julia Dayton (D-VA)

Tabled Bills

The Desk of the President

by **Dentali** » Mon Sep 16, 2019 4:43 pm

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Speaker Douglas: "I now call the inaugural session of this One Hundred and Sixteenth Congress to order."

"The floor is open to motions."

by **The Democratic Marxists** » Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:14 pm

Senator Abby Winthrop (D-MA)

“Motion to introduce the Student Investment and Deferment Act of 2019.”

Official Name: The Student Investment and Deferral Act
Nickname: SID Act
Sponsor: Abigail Winthrop
Cosponsor(s): Luke Hawthorne

Overview: A BILL TO dramatically reduce student debt by decreasing student dependence upon the government and private student loan system. This will be accomplished by encouraging a tuition deferment payment process at private colleges. Students will have 75% of their college cost deferred and repay it over 20 years. Such a program will be enforced in privately operated colleges by proposing to revoke individual private colleges’ tax-exempt status if tuition fees are above a certain threshold and if tuition deferment program does not exist. The bill also proposes to cap textbook prices. 
Section 1: Introduction Young people in America understand the value of higher education; sleepless nights and countless dollars are dedicated every year by high school students and their families to ensure that students have a fighting chance at getting into their dream school. Many have argued that the cost of college should represent its significant value. But the staggering cost of private colleges, including tuition fees and boarding, are increasing at a pace faster than inflation and students are racking up debt for it. The sheer cost is steering kids away from higher education; college enrollment has been in a steady decline since 2008 . The current total amount of student debt stands at a startling $1.5 trillion. Moreover, apart from being an unjust burden upon the American student population, some worry that the amount of student debt could usher in the next financial crisis by playing a role in the decline of homeownership in the next few years.

The root cause of the crisis is easy to pinpoint: the cost of college. And yet most proposals concerning the topic are about giving out the loans themselves; refinancing loans, loan forgiveness, regulating loan service providers, etc. Such policies are definitely necessary. However, it is important to recognize that as long as the federal government is lending direct student loans to 92% of borrowers (Center for American Progress), and as long as private lenders offer plans to low-credit families at unholy interest rates, private colleges can continue to raise tuition fees without fearing a loss in revenue. This proposal aims to tackle rising costs by implementing a new system of payment at private colleges.

Section 2: Establishment of Tuition Deferral Programs

Remove the government and private loan middlemen through the creation of federal guidelines for a tuition deferment payment process at all private colleges. This will entail:

a. Students having the option to defer up to 75% of their college cost (including tuition and board fees), and repay it over a 20 year maturity;

b. Private colleges charging an interest rate on the tuition fee of up to 3%;

c. Repayment being based on a sliding percentage of what the student defers and then later earns; students earning below $2,500.00 a month will be subject to a repayment plan that caps debt service at 10% of disposable income;

d. Tuition fees being fee-controlled; increasing the rate by more than 2% of the inflation rate will be illegal. 

Section 3: Enforcement

The establishment of a tuition deferral program at every private nonprofit higher educational institution will be enforced by:

a. Conducting a national inspection of payment processes at all private colleges;

b. Revoking the non-profit, tax exempt status of any private college that does not adopt such a system within the next two years; to clarify, such institutions will then be subject to the regular corporate tax rate.

This bill is honorably presented to the Senate for consideration in order to decrease the debt burden on students is backed by Senator Abigail Winthrop on January 4th, 2019.

Do Not Remove: 1337

by **Alozia** » Mon Sep 16, 2019 10:06 pm

Piotrowska took a seat.

by **Puertollano** » Mon Sep 16, 2019 11:02 pm

Levi Murphy arrived in the Senate Chamber.

by **Agarntrop** » Tue Sep 17, 2019 10:43 am

Anderson took his seat in the Senate.

by **Yaruqo** » Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:01 pm

Tim Larson took a seat in the House chamber.

by **Convallaria** » Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:15 pm

Linda Teasdale took a seat in the house chamber.

by **Yaruqo** » Tue Sep 17, 2019 7:40 pm

"Mr. Speaker,

Motion to introduce the Equality Act of 2019."

Official Name: Equality Act of 2019
Nickname: Equality Act

Overview: This bill prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity in a wide variety of areas including public accommodations and facilities, education, federal funding, employment, housing, credit, and the jury system. Specifically, the bill defines and includes sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity among the prohibited categories of discrimination or segregation. Allows the U.S. Department of Justice to intervene in equal protection actions in federal court on account of sexual orientation and gender identity. The bill expands the definition of public accommodations to include places or establishments that provide (1) exhibitions, recreation, exercise, amusement, gatherings, or displays; (2) goods, services, or programs; and (3) transportation services. Protections against discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin shall include protections against discrimination based on (1) an association with another person who is a member of such a protected class; or (2) a perception or belief, even if inaccurate, that an individual is a member of such a protected class. The bill prohibits the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 from providing a claim, defense, or basis for challenging such protections. The bill prohibits an individual from being denied access to a shared facility, including a restroom, a locker room, and a dressing room, that is in accordance with the individual's gender identity.

Section 1: FINDINGS AND DEFINITIONS

(a) Discrimination can occur on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition of an individual, as well as because of sex-based stereotypes. Each of these factors alone can serve as the basis for discrimination, and each is a form of sex discrimination. Congress finds that regular and ongoing discrimination of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (referred to as “LGBTQ”) people, as well as women, contributes to negative social and economic outcomes, and in the case of public accommodations operated by State and local governments, abridges individuals’ constitutional rights. It is the purpose of this Act to expand as well as clarify, confirm, and create greater consistency in the protections and remedies against discrimination on the basis of all covered characteristics and to provide guidance and notice to individuals, organizations, corporations, and agencies regarding their obligations under the law.
(b) Definitions are as follows:
GENDER IDENTITY. - The term ‘gender identity’ means the gender-related identity, appearance, mannerisms, or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, regardless of the individual’s designated sex at birth.
SEX. - The term ‘sex’ includes: (A) a sex stereotype; (B) pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition; (C) sexual orientation or gender identity; and (D) sex characteristics, including intersex traits.
SEXUAL ORIENTATION. - The term ‘sexual orientation’ means homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality.

Sec. 2: THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964.

(a) The phrase “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin” is amended to read as “race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin” in all places it appears in the Civil Rights Act of 1964; and
(b) Amends Section 201, subsection (b) of such Act-
(i) in paragraph (3), by striking “stadium” and all that follows and inserting “stadium or other place of or establishment that provides exhibition, entertainment, recreation, exercise, amusement, public gathering, or public display;”;
(ii) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (6); and
(iii) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
“(4) any establishment that provides a good, service, or program, including a store, shopping center, online retailer or service provider, salon, bank, gas station, food bank, service or care center, shelter, travel agency, or funeral parlor, or establishment that provides health care, accounting, or legal services;
“(5) any train service, bus service, car service, taxi service, airline service, station, depot, or other place of or establishment that provides transportation service; and”; and
(c) Amends Section 704(b) of such Act by striking “employment.” and inserting “employment, if, in a situation in which sex is a bona fide occupational qualification, individuals are recognized as qualified in accordance with their gender identity.”.

Sec. 3: CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 1995.

The phrase “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin” is amended to read as “race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin” in all places it appears in the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995.

Sec. 4: CIVIL SERVICE REFORM ACT OF 1978.

The phrase “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin” is amended to read as “race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin” in all places it appears in the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978.

Sec. 5: FAIR HOUSING ACT.

The phrase “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin” is amended to read as “race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin” in all places it appears in the Fair Housing Act.

Sec. 6: EQUAL CREDIT OPPORTUNITY ACT.

The phrase “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin” is amended to read as “race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin” in all places it appears in the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.

Sec. 7: JURIES.

The phrase “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin” is amended to read as “race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin” in all places it appears in Chapter 121 of title 28, United States Code.

Sec. 8: MISCELLANEOUS.

Title XI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is amended-

(a) by redesignating sections 1101 through 1104 and sections 1105 and 1106 as sections 1102 through 1105 and sections 1108 and 1109, respectively;
(b) by inserting after the title heading the following:

“SEC. 1101. DEFINITIONS AND RULES.

“(a) Definitions.—In titles II, III, IV, VI, VII, and IX (referred to individually in sections 1106 and 1107 as a ‘covered title’):

“(1) RACE; COLOR; RELIGION; SEX; SEXUAL ORIENTATION; GENDER IDENTITY; NATIONAL ORIGIN.—The term ‘race’, ‘color’, ‘religion’, ‘sex’ (including ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity’), or ‘national origin’, used with respect to an individual, includes:
“(A) the race, color, religion, sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity), or national origin, respectively, of another person with whom the individual is associated or has been associated; and
“(B) a perception or belief, even if inaccurate, concerning the race, color, religion, sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity), or national origin, respectively, of the individual.

“(2) GENDER IDENTITY.—The term ‘gender identity’ means the gender-related identity, appearance, mannerisms, or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, regardless of the individual’s designated sex at birth.

“(3) INCLUDING.—The term ‘including’ means including, but not limited to, consistent with the term's standard meaning in Federal law.

“(4) SEX.—The term ‘sex’ includes: (A) a sex stereotype; (B) pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition; (C) sexual orientation or gender identity; and (D) sex characteristics, including intersex traits.

“(5) SEXUAL ORIENTATION.—The term ‘sexual orientation’ means homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality.

“(b) Rules.—In a covered title referred to in subsection (a):
“(1) (with respect to sex) pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition shall not receive less favorable treatment than other physical conditions; and
“(2) (with respect to gender identity) an individual shall not be denied access to a shared facility, including a restroom, a locker room, and a dressing room, that is in accordance with the individual's gender identity.”; and
“(3) by inserting after section 1105 the following:

“SEC. 1106. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.

“(a) Sex.—Nothing in section 1101 or the provisions of a covered title incorporating a term defined or a rule specified in that section shall be construed—

“(1) to limit the protection against an unlawful practice on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition provided by section 701(k); or

“(2) to limit the protection against an unlawful practice on the basis of sex available under any provision of Federal law other than that covered title, prohibiting a practice on the basis of sex.

“(b) Claims And Remedies Not Precluded.—Nothing in section 1101 or a covered title shall be construed to limit the claims or remedies available to any individual for an unlawful practice on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity), or national origin including claims brought pursuant to section 1979 or 1980 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985) or any other law, including a Federal law amended by the Equality Act, regulation, or policy.

“(c) No Negative Inference.—Nothing in section 1101 or a covered title shall be construed to support any inference that any Federal law prohibiting a practice on the basis of sex does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition, sexual orientation, gender identity, or a sex stereotype.

“SEC. 1107. CLAIMS.

“The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 shall not provide a claim concerning, or a defense to a claim under a covered title, or provide a basis for challenging the application or enforcement of a covered title.”.

This bill is then honorably presented to the House of Representatives for consideration in order to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity to improve the United States Law and is backed by Representative Timothy Larson on January 03, 2019.

Do Not Remove: 1337

by **The Democratic Marxists** » Tue Sep 17, 2019 9:33 pm

The Democratic Marxists wrote:Senator Abby Winthrop (D-MA)

“Motion to introduce the Student Investment and Deferment Act of 2019.”

Official Name: The Student Investment and Deferral Act
Nickname: SID Act
Sponsor: Abigail Winthrop
Cosponsor(s): Luke Hawthorne

Overview: A BILL TO dramatically reduce student debt by decreasing student dependence upon the government and private student loan system. This will be accomplished by encouraging a tuition deferment payment process at private colleges. Students will have 75% of their college cost deferred and repay it over 20 years. Such a program will be enforced in privately operated colleges by proposing to revoke individual private colleges’ tax-exempt status if tuition fees are above a certain threshold and if tuition deferment program does not exist. The bill also proposes to cap textbook prices. 
Section 1: Introduction Young people in America understand the value of higher education; sleepless nights and countless dollars are dedicated every year by high school students and their families to ensure that students have a fighting chance at getting into their dream school. Many have argued that the cost of college should represent its significant value. But the staggering cost of private colleges, including tuition fees and boarding, are increasing at a pace faster than inflation and students are racking up debt for it. The sheer cost is steering kids away from higher education; college enrollment has been in a steady decline since 2008 . The current total amount of student debt stands at a startling $1.5 trillion. Moreover, apart from being an unjust burden upon the American student population, some worry that the amount of student debt could usher in the next financial crisis by playing a role in the decline of homeownership in the next few years.

The root cause of the crisis is easy to pinpoint: the cost of college. And yet most proposals concerning the topic are about giving out the loans themselves; refinancing loans, loan forgiveness, regulating loan service providers, etc. Such policies are definitely necessary. However, it is important to recognize that as long as the federal government is lending direct student loans to 92% of borrowers (Center for American Progress), and as long as private lenders offer plans to low-credit families at unholy interest rates, private colleges can continue to raise tuition fees without fearing a loss in revenue. This proposal aims to tackle rising costs by implementing a new system of payment at private colleges.

Section 2: Establishment of Tuition Deferral Programs

Remove the government and private loan middlemen through the creation of federal guidelines for a tuition deferment payment process at all private colleges. This will entail:

a. Students having the option to defer up to 75% of their college cost (including tuition and board fees), and repay it over a 20 year maturity;

b. Private colleges charging an interest rate on the tuition fee of up to 3%;

c. Repayment being based on a sliding percentage of what the student defers and then later earns; students earning below $2,500.00 a month will be subject to a repayment plan that caps debt service at 10% of disposable income;

d. Tuition fees being fee-controlled; increasing the rate by more than 2% of the inflation rate will be illegal. 

Section 3: Enforcement

The establishment of a tuition deferral program at every private nonprofit higher educational institution will be enforced by:

a. Conducting a national inspection of payment processes at all private colleges;

b. Revoking the non-profit, tax exempt status of any private college that does not adopt such a system within the next two years; to clarify, such institutions will then be subject to the regular corporate tax rate.

This bill is honorably presented to the Senate for consideration in order to decrease the debt burden on students is backed by Senator Abigail Winthrop on January 4th, 2019.

Do Not Remove: 1337

Abby rose to address the Senate. “Mr. President, I’d like to rise to make my colleagues aware of the true extent of this financial debt crisis. More than 45 million student loan borrowers owe student debt, a result of decades of policy neglect in regards to public and especially private higher education that has shifted costs onto students and their families while leaving colleges and universities disincentivized from investing in their students’ futures. As a result of an unlimited flow of loans being provided by the federal government, colleges are not reducing costs, leaving students crushed under a piling sum of ever increasing debt.

Collectively, student debt is over $1.5 trillion, and this debt surpasses all types of household debt other than mortgages. Unlike holders of other types of consumer debt, who have experienced lower levels of delinquency and default since the Great Recession, student loan borrowers remain in distress. Nearly 1 in 4 federal borrowers are in default or struggling to stay current on their loans. When they fall behind on their payments, the consequences are dire: negative credit reports, wage garnishment and diminished options to cure defaulted loans. This leaves students turning to private lenders who lend to borrowers with a shoddier credit rating; these private lending institutions charge staggeringly high interest rates, sometimes up to 12%. This broken system is leaving students stuck within an endless cycle of debt accumulation.

Bills have failed to address the root of the crisis: the cost of college, which results in costly loans. We believe that there is a way to address this crisis in a progressive, bipartisan manner that doesn’t require additional government expenditure or unhelpful interference, which still results in holding private institutions responsible. This comes in the form of a new way to pay at private colleges: tuition deferral.

The idea is that all students will have the option of deferring up to 75% of their tuition and board fees, to be repaid with a little interest over 20 years after graduation. Repayment options will be based on disposable income. This new system removes the private and federal lending middlemen that were causing the price of college to increase. In addition, this gives colleges a reason to fully invest time and resources in students: earning back their tuition fee depends on the student’s success. Colleges will be able to charge a lower interest rate (capped by the bill at 3%) than because of the greater amount of collateral in their possession; the interest rates under this system would be about the same as car loans, in comparison to the average 6% interest rate a college undergraduate pays. The cost of college is also capped at no more than a 3% increase over the rate of inflation.

It’s about time colleges treat students like venture capitalists treat startups: they have the potential to flourish in the future, if they’re granted the investment in the present. Students shouldn’t be exploited any more by the government, by private lenders, or by colleges. It’s time we see students as human beings who can flower when they share in the success of society, not as cogs in the machine of profitable abuse.

This bill is cosponsored by Republican Senator from Ohio, Senator Hawthorne. This is a reality that we owe to all of America’s students and their offspring. They deserve better.

I yield my time to any questions.

by **Vaquas** » Wed Sep 18, 2019 5:39 pm

The Democratic Marxists wrote:
The Democratic Marxists wrote:Senator Abby Winthrop (D-MA)

“Motion to introduce the Student Investment and Deferment Act of 2019.”

Official Name: The Student Investment and Deferral Act
Nickname: SID Act
Sponsor: Abigail Winthrop
Cosponsor(s): Luke Hawthorne

Overview: A BILL TO dramatically reduce student debt by decreasing student dependence upon the government and private student loan system. This will be accomplished by encouraging a tuition deferment payment process at private colleges. Students will have 75% of their college cost deferred and repay it over 20 years. Such a program will be enforced in privately operated colleges by proposing to revoke individual private colleges’ tax-exempt status if tuition fees are above a certain threshold and if tuition deferment program does not exist. The bill also proposes to cap textbook prices. 
Section 1: Introduction Young people in America understand the value of higher education; sleepless nights and countless dollars are dedicated every year by high school students and their families to ensure that students have a fighting chance at getting into their dream school. Many have argued that the cost of college should represent its significant value. But the staggering cost of private colleges, including tuition fees and boarding, are increasing at a pace faster than inflation and students are racking up debt for it. The sheer cost is steering kids away from higher education; college enrollment has been in a steady decline since 2008 . The current total amount of student debt stands at a startling $1.5 trillion. Moreover, apart from being an unjust burden upon the American student population, some worry that the amount of student debt could usher in the next financial crisis by playing a role in the decline of homeownership in the next few years.

The root cause of the crisis is easy to pinpoint: the cost of college. And yet most proposals concerning the topic are about giving out the loans themselves; refinancing loans, loan forgiveness, regulating loan service providers, etc. Such policies are definitely necessary. However, it is important to recognize that as long as the federal government is lending direct student loans to 92% of borrowers (Center for American Progress), and as long as private lenders offer plans to low-credit families at unholy interest rates, private colleges can continue to raise tuition fees without fearing a loss in revenue. This proposal aims to tackle rising costs by implementing a new system of payment at private colleges.

Section 2: Establishment of Tuition Deferral Programs

Remove the government and private loan middlemen through the creation of federal guidelines for a tuition deferment payment process at all private colleges. This will entail:

a. Students having the option to defer up to 75% of their college cost (including tuition and board fees), and repay it over a 20 year maturity;

b. Private colleges charging an interest rate on the tuition fee of up to 3%;

c. Repayment being based on a sliding percentage of what the student defers and then later earns; students earning below $2,500.00 a month will be subject to a repayment plan that caps debt service at 10% of disposable income;

d. Tuition fees being fee-controlled; increasing the rate by more than 2% of the inflation rate will be illegal. 

Section 3: Enforcement

The establishment of a tuition deferral program at every private nonprofit higher educational institution will be enforced by:

a. Conducting a national inspection of payment processes at all private colleges;

b. Revoking the non-profit, tax exempt status of any private college that does not adopt such a system within the next two years; to clarify, such institutions will then be subject to the regular corporate tax rate.

This bill is honorably presented to the Senate for consideration in order to decrease the debt burden on students is backed by Senator Abigail Winthrop on January 4th, 2019.

Do Not Remove: 1337

Abby rose to address the Senate. “Mr. President, I’d like to rise to make my colleagues aware of the true extent of this financial debt crisis. More than 45 million student loan borrowers owe student debt, a result of decades of policy neglect in regards to public and especially private higher education that has shifted costs onto students and their families while leaving colleges and universities disincentivized from investing in their students’ futures. As a result of an unlimited flow of loans being provided by the federal government, colleges are not reducing costs, leaving students crushed under a piling sum of ever increasing debt.

Collectively, student debt is over $1.5 trillion, and this debt surpasses all types of household debt other than mortgages. Unlike holders of other types of consumer debt, who have experienced lower levels of delinquency and default since the Great Recession, student loan borrowers remain in distress. Nearly 1 in 4 federal borrowers are in default or struggling to stay current on their loans. When they fall behind on their payments, the consequences are dire: negative credit reports, wage garnishment and diminished options to cure defaulted loans. This leaves students turning to private lenders who lend to borrowers with a shoddier credit rating; these private lending institutions charge staggeringly high interest rates, sometimes up to 12%. This broken system is leaving students stuck within an endless cycle of debt accumulation.

Bills have failed to address the root of the crisis: the cost of college, which results in costly loans. We believe that there is a way to address this crisis in a progressive, bipartisan manner that doesn’t require additional government expenditure or unhelpful interference, which still results in holding private institutions responsible. This comes in the form of a new way to pay at private colleges: tuition deferral.

The idea is that all students will have the option of deferring up to 75% of their tuition and board fees, to be repaid with a little interest over 20 years after graduation. Repayment options will be based on disposable income. This new system removes the private and federal lending middlemen that were causing the price of college to increase. In addition, this gives colleges a reason to fully invest time and resources in students: earning back their tuition fee depends on the student’s success. Colleges will be able to charge a lower interest rate (capped by the bill at 3%) than because of the greater amount of collateral in their possession; the interest rates under this system would be about the same as car loans, in comparison to the average 6% interest rate a college undergraduate pays. The cost of college is also capped at no more than a 3% increase over the rate of inflation.

It’s about time colleges treat students like venture capitalists treat startups: they have the potential to flourish in the future, if they’re granted the investment in the present. Students shouldn’t be exploited any more by the government, by private lenders, or by colleges. It’s time we see students as human beings who can flower when they share in the success of society, not as cogs in the machine of profitable abuse.

This bill is cosponsored by Republican Senator from Ohio, Senator Hawthorne. This is a reality that we owe to all of America’s students and their offspring. They deserve better.

I yield my time to any questions.

Senator Greg Kost (R-FL): "Senator Winthrop, can you please explain why you believe we should use the heavy hand of the government to intervene in matters of personal financial responsibility? Students who need and earn scholarships receive them, and those who take on loans know what they're signing up for when they do just that. If a student pursues a degree in a field that they know is going to pay poorly, I hate to say it, but they should have seen it coming when they couldn't immediately pay it all off! The Government has no business telling a private University that they have to adopt your policies or be taxed into the stone age, and I'm surprised Senator Hawthorne disagrees. Why do you think that punitive measures against private entities and persons are the answer to every policy issue you come across?"

by **Yaruqo** » Wed Sep 18, 2019 7:30 pm

IGNORE

by **Agarntrop** » Thu Sep 19, 2019 9:16 am

The Democratic Marxists wrote:Senator Abby Winthrop (D-MA)

“Motion to introduce the Student Investment and Deferment Act of 2019.”

Official Name: The Student Investment and Deferral Act
Nickname: SID Act
Sponsor: Abigail Winthrop
Cosponsor(s): Luke Hawthorne

Overview: A BILL TO dramatically reduce student debt by decreasing student dependence upon the government and private student loan system. This will be accomplished by encouraging a tuition deferment payment process at private colleges. Students will have 75% of their college cost deferred and repay it over 20 years. Such a program will be enforced in privately operated colleges by proposing to revoke individual private colleges’ tax-exempt status if tuition fees are above a certain threshold and if tuition deferment program does not exist. The bill also proposes to cap textbook prices. 
Section 1: Introduction Young people in America understand the value of higher education; sleepless nights and countless dollars are dedicated every year by high school students and their families to ensure that students have a fighting chance at getting into their dream school. Many have argued that the cost of college should represent its significant value. But the staggering cost of private colleges, including tuition fees and boarding, are increasing at a pace faster than inflation and students are racking up debt for it. The sheer cost is steering kids away from higher education; college enrollment has been in a steady decline since 2008 . The current total amount of student debt stands at a startling $1.5 trillion. Moreover, apart from being an unjust burden upon the American student population, some worry that the amount of student debt could usher in the next financial crisis by playing a role in the decline of homeownership in the next few years.

The root cause of the crisis is easy to pinpoint: the cost of college. And yet most proposals concerning the topic are about giving out the loans themselves; refinancing loans, loan forgiveness, regulating loan service providers, etc. Such policies are definitely necessary. However, it is important to recognize that as long as the federal government is lending direct student loans to 92% of borrowers (Center for American Progress), and as long as private lenders offer plans to low-credit families at unholy interest rates, private colleges can continue to raise tuition fees without fearing a loss in revenue. This proposal aims to tackle rising costs by implementing a new system of payment at private colleges.

Section 2: Establishment of Tuition Deferral Programs

Remove the government and private loan middlemen through the creation of federal guidelines for a tuition deferment payment process at all private colleges. This will entail:

a. Students having the option to defer up to 75% of their college cost (including tuition and board fees), and repay it over a 20 year maturity;

b. Private colleges charging an interest rate on the tuition fee of up to 3%;

c. Repayment being based on a sliding percentage of what the student defers and then later earns; students earning below $2,500.00 a month will be subject to a repayment plan that caps debt service at 10% of disposable income;

d. Tuition fees being fee-controlled; increasing the rate by more than 2% of the inflation rate will be illegal. 

Section 3: Enforcement

The establishment of a tuition deferral program at every private nonprofit higher educational institution will be enforced by:

a. Conducting a national inspection of payment processes at all private colleges;

b. Revoking the non-profit, tax exempt status of any private college that does not adopt such a system within the next two years; to clarify, such institutions will then be subject to the regular corporate tax rate.

This bill is honorably presented to the Senate for consideration in order to decrease the debt burden on students is backed by Senator Abigail Winthrop on January 4th, 2019.

Do Not Remove: 1337

Barry Anderson (R-MO): "Senator Winthrop, I echo the concerns of Senator Kost. This bill flies in the face of private college's free marketeer right to set their own interest rates and standards. This bill is clearly an attempt to partially nationalise 'Murica's unique free market and is part of the process to turn this country into a communist one, such as Soviet Russia or modern-day perverted socialist Denmark. In conclusion, I would like to ask Senator Winthrop why she wishes to impose that on the land of the free and the home of the brave?"

by **Alozia** » Thu Sep 19, 2019 10:55 am

House floor

Rep. Julia Piotrowska (D-IL-5): "Mr. Speaker, I motion to take up the Equality Act of 2019."

by **Yaruqo** » Thu Sep 19, 2019 11:24 am

Alozia wrote:
House floor

Rep. Julia Piotrowska (D-IL): "Mr. Speaker, I motion to take up the Equality Act of 2019."

Rep. Timothy Larson (D-PA-3): “Mr. Speaker, I second the motion.”

by **The Democratic Marxists** » Thu Sep 19, 2019 7:28 pm

Vaquas wrote:[
Senator Greg Kost (R-FL): "Senator Winthrop, can you please explain why you believe we should use the heavy hand of the government to intervene in matters of personal financial responsibility? Students who need and earn scholarships receive them, and those who take on loans know what they're signing up for when they do just that. If a student pursues a degree in a field that they know is going to pay poorly, I hate to say it, but they should have seen it coming when they couldn't immediately pay it all off! The Government has no business telling a private University that they have to adopt your policies or be taxed into the stone age, and I'm surprised Senator Hawthorne disagrees. Why do you think that punitive measures against private entities and persons are the answer to every policy issue you come across?"

Agarntrop wrote:
The Democratic Marxists wrote:Senator Abby Winthrop (D-MA)

“Motion to introduce the Student Investment and Deferment Act of 2019.”

Official Name: The Student Investment and Deferral Act
Nickname: SID Act
Sponsor: Abigail Winthrop
Cosponsor(s): Luke Hawthorne

Overview: A BILL TO dramatically reduce student debt by decreasing student dependence upon the government and private student loan system. This will be accomplished by encouraging a tuition deferment payment process at private colleges. Students will have 75% of their college cost deferred and repay it over 20 years. Such a program will be enforced in privately operated colleges by proposing to revoke individual private colleges’ tax-exempt status if tuition fees are above a certain threshold and if tuition deferment program does not exist. The bill also proposes to cap textbook prices. 
Section 1: Introduction Young people in America understand the value of higher education; sleepless nights and countless dollars are dedicated every year by high school students and their families to ensure that students have a fighting chance at getting into their dream school. Many have argued that the cost of college should represent its significant value. But the staggering cost of private colleges, including tuition fees and boarding, are increasing at a pace faster than inflation and students are racking up debt for it. The sheer cost is steering kids away from higher education; college enrollment has been in a steady decline since 2008 . The current total amount of student debt stands at a startling $1.5 trillion. Moreover, apart from being an unjust burden upon the American student population, some worry that the amount of student debt could usher in the next financial crisis by playing a role in the decline of homeownership in the next few years.

The root cause of the crisis is easy to pinpoint: the cost of college. And yet most proposals concerning the topic are about giving out the loans themselves; refinancing loans, loan forgiveness, regulating loan service providers, etc. Such policies are definitely necessary. However, it is important to recognize that as long as the federal government is lending direct student loans to 92% of borrowers (Center for American Progress), and as long as private lenders offer plans to low-credit families at unholy interest rates, private colleges can continue to raise tuition fees without fearing a loss in revenue. This proposal aims to tackle rising costs by implementing a new system of payment at private colleges.

Section 2: Establishment of Tuition Deferral Programs

Remove the government and private loan middlemen through the creation of federal guidelines for a tuition deferment payment process at all private colleges. This will entail:

a. Students having the option to defer up to 75% of their college cost (including tuition and board fees), and repay it over a 20 year maturity;

b. Private colleges charging an interest rate on the tuition fee of up to 3%;

c. Repayment being based on a sliding percentage of what the student defers and then later earns; students earning below $2,500.00 a month will be subject to a repayment plan that caps debt service at 10% of disposable income;

d. Tuition fees being fee-controlled; increasing the rate by more than 2% of the inflation rate will be illegal. 

Section 3: Enforcement

The establishment of a tuition deferral program at every private nonprofit higher educational institution will be enforced by:

a. Conducting a national inspection of payment processes at all private colleges;

b. Revoking the non-profit, tax exempt status of any private college that does not adopt such a system within the next two years; to clarify, such institutions will then be subject to the regular corporate tax rate.

This bill is honorably presented to the Senate for consideration in order to decrease the debt burden on students is backed by Senator Abigail Winthrop on January 4th, 2019.

Do Not Remove: 1337

Barry Anderson (R-MO): "Senator Winthrop, I echo the concerns of Senator Kost. This bill flies in the face of private college's free marketeer right to set their own interest rates and standards. This bill is clearly an attempt to partially nationalise 'Murica's unique free market and is part of the process to turn this country into a communist one, such as Soviet Russia or modern-day perverted socialist Denmark. In conclusion, I would like to ask Senator Winthrop why she wishes to impose that on the land of the free and the home of the brave?"

Senator Abby Winthrop (D-MA)

“Senators, thanks for your questions. The direct answer is that this bill is trying to tackle the exact same problem you’ve identified: unwarranted, badly designed government interference that has exacerbated the flaws in an already problematic system. This bill aims to treat students as we should treat promising small businesses. Just as venture capitalists vest their confidence in a startup, students should be granted investment by their private colleges in their future. But we should recognize that a market without rules isn’t a free market, a market without rules is theft. If we had no rules in society, we wouldn’t necessarily be free, we’d just have a lot more murderers. This bill aims to take the load of off students’ backs, make the loan system direct through the colleges instead of encouraging loans from meddling government middlemen, and ultimately find students flourishing like successful small businesses instead of being unable to achieve their dreams. And to your point about finding a good job with a good degree to pay off debt: there are lawyers who are out there still repaying their debt. I had trouble repaying my debt, and I had a law degree from Harvard. You know what the starting salary as a political worker is? About 34,000 dollars a year. That’s a subsistence wage, not enough to repay your law school debt comfortably in 10 years!

We need to change how the government rips off students through the loans process, and we need to hold colleges to account for their price gauging and here’s why: they’re in the way of a free market. By not having differing, low prices amongst most private colleges, colleges are holding students hostage because they know the money will come in whether students have it or not. That’s exploitation and, to an extent, monopolization, not a free market.

Republicans and market conservatives as well as progressives should unite behind this bill which is designed for student consumers and against private as well as government abuse.

I yield my time to Senator Hawthorne to convey the Republican perspective on this.”

by **Dentali** » Thu Sep 19, 2019 10:09 pm

Yaruqo wrote:
Alozia wrote:
House floor

Rep. Julia Piotrowska (D-IL): "Mr. Speaker, I motion to take up the Equality Act of 2019."

Rep. Timothy Larson (D-PA-3): “Mr. Speaker, I second the motion.”

Speaker: With no objections the motion passes, the Representative from Pennsylvania is invited to lay out the bill.

by **Cormactopia Prime** » Thu Sep 19, 2019 10:43 pm

The Democratic Marxists wrote:I yield my time to Senator Hawthorne to convey the Republican perspective on this.

Senator Luke Hawthorne (R-OH)

"Mr. President, I couldn't agree more with Senator Winthrop on this issue.

"We can't talk about personal responsibility for student borrowers while failing to talk about the responsibility of college bureaucrats and the federal government for rising costs. The federal government has rigged this system to ensure student borrowers are subsidizing the excesses of fat cat college administrators, and if the borrowers can't pay, it's taxpayers who foot the bill. It's time we make big spending bureaucrats put a little skin in the game. It's time we insist they control costs. We can't talk about free market principles when this is anything but a free market system. These colleges are receiving public funds, and all the while they're continuing to inflate the cost of higher education to the detriment of our kids and our economy. It's wrong. If you want to talk about responsibility, we have a moral responsibility to stand up to this flagrant abuse and corruption.

"We know what happens when we look the other way while a debt crisis unfolds before our eyes. The economy suffers. The American people suffer. But when the subprime mortgage house of cards came crashing down around us, what did Washington do? Establishment politicians who like to talk about personal responsibility passed a fat bailout for their pals on Wall Street, while for the most part leaving borrowers to lose their homes in the name of, you guessed it, personal responsibility. Bankers brought us the worst recession since the Great Depression, and in return we gave them a taxpayer bailout. If we don't get a handle on rising costs, escalating student debt, and the uptick in defaults, we're going to have a student debt crisis on our hands. We'll end up in another recession. And you can bet establishment politicians will want to bail out colleges and universities while preaching personal responsibility to everyone else. Let's say no to another debt crisis, no to another recession, and no to another bailout for some and not others. Let's rein in exploding higher education costs by imposing a little personal responsibility on college administrators, and let's start with this bill.

"I yield the remainder of my time back to Senator Winthrop."

by **Yaruqo** » Fri Sep 20, 2019 6:09 am

US House of Representatives

Congressman Larson rose and addressed the House. "Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring attention to the pervasive issue of discrimination in our country. I belong to two very unique communities in this country: I am a black man, and I am a gay man. Both are but two parts of myself. I am also a Christian, I am a Democrat, I am a Philadelphian, Pennyslvanian, an Eagles fan, an American, and a human being. Mr. Speaker, under federal law, including but not limited to the Civil Rights Act, it is illegal to deny me service based on the color of my skin. And yet, if I were to show up at a restaurant, much like the ones that African American members of the Civil Rights Movement held sit-ins at demanding desegregation, with a man on my arm, I could be denied service because I am gay. Now, of course, Mr. Speaker, we live in a federal republic, so this statement does not apply everywhere. Why, right here in our nation's capital, I cannot be discriminated against in employment, housing, and public accommodations, neither for my sexual orientation nor for my gender identity. Meanwhile, back in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the protections aren't as legally clear, as for most of the protections, they're interpreting existing state laws regarding sex discrimination and stretching that definition to include sexual orientation and gender identity, without clearly naming them as protected classes. Is it a perfect nondiscrimination protection? No, but it is better than what 26 states and 3 territories offer: nothing. In those 26 states and the territories of American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the US Virgin Islands, there is no nondiscrimination law on the books preventing discrimination against a person based on their perceived or actual sexual orientation and gender identity.

"Mr. Speaker, members of the LGBTQ community face hardships that my straight, cisgender colleagues will thankfully never have to endure. It is no secret that my family disowned me and kicked me out of my home after I came out. Now, I was lucky - I had a support group to be there for me emotionally, and I had a job that ensured I wasn't dependent on my parents. But for many young LGBTQ people, children, they aren't as lucky. According to a 2012 study by the Williams Institute at UCLA Law, about 40% of the 1.6 million homeless kids in our society are LGBTQ. Meanwhile, it is estimated that 7% of our country's youth are LGBTQ. Imagine that, Mr. Speaker: a small minority of our country's youth identify as being LGBTQ, and yet they nearly make up a majority of our country's homeless youth population. That same study points out that 46% of homeless LGBTQ youths ran away because of family rejection of their sexual orientation or gender identity; 43% were forced out by parents, and 32% faced physical, emotional or sexual abuse at home.

"But let's imagine, for a moment, that a young lesbian girl grows up in, say, the proud and beautiful state of North Carolina. Let's say that she was welcomed by her family and by her circle of friends. She goes to college at UNC, grows sweet on a girl there and they date, and they get married in North Carolina. After all, marriage equality is now the law of the land in the whole of these United States. But, in North Carolina, there is nothing legally preventing prospective employers from refusing to hire her and cite her sexual orientation as the reason for their rejection. There is nothing legally preventing a property manager or landlord from refusing a lease to this legally married same-sex couple. There is nothing legally preventing a restaurant to refuse them service based on their sexual orientation because, like many married couples, they dared to exchange a kiss on the cheek. There is nothing legally preventing a bank or other financial institution from denying our North Carolina couple from taking out a loan or opening a line of credit, even if they have phenomenal credit. And, Mr. Speaker, it doesn't matter that this lesbian couples lives in Charlotte, because even though the citizens of Charlotte want to pass nondiscrimination ordinances, the North Carolina government has forbidden local governments from enacting such ordinances. The states of Tennessee and Arkansas have passed similar legislation in an attempt to stifle the march to equality for the LGBTQ community, despite businesses saying that they want these laws on the books to guarantee that their LGBTQ employees living in such states are protected in other facets of their life. So, to summarize, Mr. Speaker, this young woman can marry the love of her life, in the eyes of the law, and yet, she can be denied most anything else, under those same eyes of the law.

"Mr. Speaker, the point I am trying to make is this: discrimination does exist against members of the LGBTQ community. In a November 2017 study commissioned by NPR, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and Harvard's T.H. Chan School of Public Health, this is laid out in two parts. First, there are individual forms of discrimination. 57% of all LGBTQ Americans have experienced slurs, 53% offensive or insensitive comments about their sexual orientation or gender identity. A majority of 57% of LGBTQ people say that they or an LGBTQ friend or family member have been threatened or non-sexually harassed, 51% have been sexually harassed or experienced violence because of their sexuality or gender identity. Furthermore, 34% of all LGBTQ people said that they or an LGBTQ friend or family member have been verbally harassed in the bathroom or been told or asked if they were using the wrong bathroom. Then, there is the institutional discrimination, which this legislation aims to tackle. At least one in five LGBTQ people reported being personally discriminated against because of their sexuality or gender identity when applying for jobs, 22% when being paid equally or considered for promotion, and 22% when trying to rent a room or apartment or buy a house. Additionally, Mr. Speaker, more than a quarter of LGBTQ people, 26%, say that they or a friend or family member who is also LGBTQ have been unfairly stopped or treated by the police or unfairly treated by the courts because they are part of the LGBTQ community.

"Mr. Speaker, Martin Luther King Jr. once said 'The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.' The LGBTQ community has fought for its right to be free and equal passionately since the Stonewall Riots. And since then, the LGBTQ community has faced adversity, a plague, a government indifferent to its suffering, violence, persecution, and discrimination, both individual and institutional. But in that time, this very same community has not given up its dream for equality and social justice much deserved and earned, a hundred times over. As a dollar might compound, so too does injustice if we do not deal with it decisively and resolutely, and so I urge my colleagues in the House to support the passage of the Equality Act, in the hopes that we can ensure a brighter, more just and equitable future for all Americans. And with that, Mr. Speaker, I yield whatever time I have left to the floor for questions."

by **Dentali** » Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:24 pm

Yaruqo wrote:
US House of Representatives

Congressman Larson rose and addressed the House. "Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring attention to the pervasive issue of discrimination in our country. I belong to two very unique communities in this country: I am a black man, and I am a gay man. Both are but two parts of myself. I am also a Christian, I am a Democrat, I am a Philadelphian, Pennyslvanian, an Eagles fan, an American, and a human being. Mr. Speaker, under federal law, including but not limited to the Civil Rights Act, it is illegal to deny me service based on the color of my skin. And yet, if I were to show up at a restaurant, much like the ones that African American members of the Civil Rights Movement held sit-ins at demanding desegregation, with a man on my arm, I could be denied service because I am gay. Now, of course, Mr. Speaker, we live in a federal republic, so this statement does not apply everywhere. Why, right here in our nation's capital, I cannot be discriminated against in employment, housing, and public accommodations, neither for my sexual orientation nor for my gender identity. Meanwhile, back in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the protections aren't as legally clear, as for most of the protections, they're interpreting existing state laws regarding sex discrimination and stretching that definition to include sexual orientation and gender identity, without clearly naming them as protected classes. Is it a perfect nondiscrimination protection? No, but it is better than what 26 states and 3 territories offer: nothing. In those 26 states and the territories of American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the US Virgin Islands, there is no nondiscrimination law on the books preventing discrimination against a person based on their perceived or actual sexual orientation and gender identity.

"Mr. Speaker, members of the LGBTQ community face hardships that my straight, cisgender colleagues will thankfully never have to endure. It is no secret that my family disowned me and kicked me out of my home after I came out. Now, I was lucky - I had a support group to be there for me emotionally, and I had a job that ensured I wasn't dependent on my parents. But for many young LGBTQ people, children, they aren't as lucky. According to a 2012 study by the Williams Institute at UCLA Law, about 40% of the 1.6 million homeless kids in our society are LGBTQ. Meanwhile, it is estimated that 7% of our country's youth are LGBTQ. Imagine that, Mr. Speaker: a small minority of our country's youth identify as being LGBTQ, and yet they nearly make up a majority of our country's homeless youth population. That same study points out that 46% of homeless LGBTQ youths ran away because of family rejection of their sexual orientation or gender identity; 43% were forced out by parents, and 32% faced physical, emotional or sexual abuse at home.

"But let's imagine, for a moment, that a young lesbian girl grows up in, say, the proud and beautiful state of North Carolina. Let's say that she was welcomed by her family and by her circle of friends. She goes to college at UNC, grows sweet on a girl there and they date, and they get married in North Carolina. After all, marriage equality is now the law of the land in the whole of these United States. But, in North Carolina, there is nothing legally preventing prospective employers from refusing to hire her and cite her sexual orientation as the reason for their rejection. There is nothing legally preventing a property manager or landlord from refusing a lease to this legally married same-sex couple. There is nothing legally preventing a restaurant to refuse them service based on their sexual orientation because, like many married couples, they dared to exchange a kiss on the cheek. There is nothing legally preventing a bank or other financial institution from denying our North Carolina couple from taking out a loan or opening a line of credit, even if they have phenomenal credit. And, Mr. Speaker, it doesn't matter that this lesbian couples lives in Charlotte, because even though the citizens of Charlotte want to pass nondiscrimination ordinances, the North Carolina government has forbidden local governments from enacting such ordinances. The states of Tennessee and Arkansas have passed similar legislation in an attempt to stifle the march to equality for the LGBTQ community, despite businesses saying that they want these laws on the books to guarantee that their LGBTQ employees living in such states are protected in other facets of their life. So, to summarize, Mr. Speaker, this young woman can marry the love of her life, in the eyes of the law, and yet, she can be denied most anything else, under those same eyes of the law.

"Mr. Speaker, the point I am trying to make is this: discrimination does exist against members of the LGBTQ community. In a November 2017 study commissioned by NPR, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and Harvard's T.H. Chan School of Public Health, this is laid out in two parts. First, there are individual forms of discrimination. 57% of all LGBTQ Americans have experienced slurs, 53% offensive or insensitive comments about their sexual orientation or gender identity. A majority of 57% of LGBTQ people say that they or an LGBTQ friend or family member have been threatened or non-sexually harassed, 51% have been sexually harassed or experienced violence because of their sexuality or gender identity. Furthermore, 34% of all LGBTQ people said that they or an LGBTQ friend or family member have been verbally harassed in the bathroom or been told or asked if they were using the wrong bathroom. Then, there is the institutional discrimination, which this legislation aims to tackle. At least one in five LGBTQ people reported being personally discriminated against because of their sexuality or gender identity when applying for jobs, 22% when being paid equally or considered for promotion, and 22% when trying to rent a room or apartment or buy a house. Additionally, Mr. Speaker, more than a quarter of LGBTQ people, 26%, say that they or a friend or family member who is also LGBTQ have been unfairly stopped or treated by the police or unfairly treated by the courts because they are part of the LGBTQ community.

"Mr. Speaker, Martin Luther King Jr. once said 'The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.' The LGBTQ community has fought for its right to be free and equal passionately since the Stonewall Riots. And since then, the LGBTQ community has faced adversity, a plague, a government indifferent to its suffering, violence, persecution, and discrimination, both individual and institutional. But in that time, this very same community has not given up its dream for equality and social justice much deserved and earned, a hundred times over. As a dollar might compound, so too does injustice if we do not deal with it decisively and resolutely, and so I urge my colleagues in the House to support the passage of the Equality Act, in the hopes that we can ensure a brighter, more just and equitable future for all Americans. And with that, Mr. Speaker, I yield whatever time I have left to the floor for questions.
"

Speaker: The floor is open for questions

by **Dentali** » Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:55 pm

SENATE FLOOR

James Moore: I would like to submit the following bill for consideration

by **Vaquas** » Sat Sep 21, 2019 6:36 pm

Senate Floor

Senator Kost slips the following bill into the docket.

Official Name: A Bill to Establish Election Day as a Federal Holiday

Sponsor: Greg Kost (R-FL)

Overview: The bill seeks to establish a new federal holiday to commemorate the United States of America's longstanding tradition of rule by the people for the people, with Election Day serving as the apotheosis of that democratic tradition. In the greatest country on earth, people should not be forced to choose between working to provide for their families and exercising their right to vote for their representatives. This bill ensures that no individual will be forced to make that choice.

Section 1: For purposes of any law relating to Federal employment, the Tuesday after the first Monday, in November of 2020 and each even-numbered year thereafter, shall be treated in the same manner as a legal public holiday described in section 6103 of title 5, United States Code.

Section 2: It is the sense of Congress that private employers in the United States should give their employees a day off on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November in 2020 and each even-numbered year thereafter to enable the employees to cast votes in the elections held on that day.

This bill is thus honorably presented to the United States Senate for consideration in order to establish Election Day as a federal holiday, to enhance United States law, and is backed by Senator Greg Kost.

by **Dentali** » Sun Sep 22, 2019 1:06 am

Dentali wrote:
Yaruqo wrote:
US House of Representatives

Congressman Larson rose and addressed the House. "Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring attention to the pervasive issue of discrimination in our country. I belong to two very unique communities in this country: I am a black man, and I am a gay man. Both are but two parts of myself. I am also a Christian, I am a Democrat, I am a Philadelphian, Pennyslvanian, an Eagles fan, an American, and a human being. Mr. Speaker, under federal law, including but not limited to the Civil Rights Act, it is illegal to deny me service based on the color of my skin. And yet, if I were to show up at a restaurant, much like the ones that African American members of the Civil Rights Movement held sit-ins at demanding desegregation, with a man on my arm, I could be denied service because I am gay. Now, of course, Mr. Speaker, we live in a federal republic, so this statement does not apply everywhere. Why, right here in our nation's capital, I cannot be discriminated against in employment, housing, and public accommodations, neither for my sexual orientation nor for my gender identity. Meanwhile, back in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the protections aren't as legally clear, as for most of the protections, they're interpreting existing state laws regarding sex discrimination and stretching that definition to include sexual orientation and gender identity, without clearly naming them as protected classes. Is it a perfect nondiscrimination protection? No, but it is better than what 26 states and 3 territories offer: nothing. In those 26 states and the territories of American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the US Virgin Islands, there is no nondiscrimination law on the books preventing discrimination against a person based on their perceived or actual sexual orientation and gender identity.

"Mr. Speaker, members of the LGBTQ community face hardships that my straight, cisgender colleagues will thankfully never have to endure. It is no secret that my family disowned me and kicked me out of my home after I came out. Now, I was lucky - I had a support group to be there for me emotionally, and I had a job that ensured I wasn't dependent on my parents. But for many young LGBTQ people, children, they aren't as lucky. According to a 2012 study by the Williams Institute at UCLA Law, about 40% of the 1.6 million homeless kids in our society are LGBTQ. Meanwhile, it is estimated that 7% of our country's youth are LGBTQ. Imagine that, Mr. Speaker: a small minority of our country's youth identify as being LGBTQ, and yet they nearly make up a majority of our country's homeless youth population. That same study points out that 46% of homeless LGBTQ youths ran away because of family rejection of their sexual orientation or gender identity; 43% were forced out by parents, and 32% faced physical, emotional or sexual abuse at home.

"But let's imagine, for a moment, that a young lesbian girl grows up in, say, the proud and beautiful state of North Carolina. Let's say that she was welcomed by her family and by her circle of friends. She goes to college at UNC, grows sweet on a girl there and they date, and they get married in North Carolina. After all, marriage equality is now the law of the land in the whole of these United States. But, in North Carolina, there is nothing legally preventing prospective employers from refusing to hire her and cite her sexual orientation as the reason for their rejection. There is nothing legally preventing a property manager or landlord from refusing a lease to this legally married same-sex couple. There is nothing legally preventing a restaurant to refuse them service based on their sexual orientation because, like many married couples, they dared to exchange a kiss on the cheek. There is nothing legally preventing a bank or other financial institution from denying our North Carolina couple from taking out a loan or opening a line of credit, even if they have phenomenal credit. And, Mr. Speaker, it doesn't matter that this lesbian couples lives in Charlotte, because even though the citizens of Charlotte want to pass nondiscrimination ordinances, the North Carolina government has forbidden local governments from enacting such ordinances. The states of Tennessee and Arkansas have passed similar legislation in an attempt to stifle the march to equality for the LGBTQ community, despite businesses saying that they want these laws on the books to guarantee that their LGBTQ employees living in such states are protected in other facets of their life. So, to summarize, Mr. Speaker, this young woman can marry the love of her life, in the eyes of the law, and yet, she can be denied most anything else, under those same eyes of the law.

"Mr. Speaker, the point I am trying to make is this: discrimination does exist against members of the LGBTQ community. In a November 2017 study commissioned by NPR, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and Harvard's T.H. Chan School of Public Health, this is laid out in two parts. First, there are individual forms of discrimination. 57% of all LGBTQ Americans have experienced slurs, 53% offensive or insensitive comments about their sexual orientation or gender identity. A majority of 57% of LGBTQ people say that they or an LGBTQ friend or family member have been threatened or non-sexually harassed, 51% have been sexually harassed or experienced violence because of their sexuality or gender identity. Furthermore, 34% of all LGBTQ people said that they or an LGBTQ friend or family member have been verbally harassed in the bathroom or been told or asked if they were using the wrong bathroom. Then, there is the institutional discrimination, which this legislation aims to tackle. At least one in five LGBTQ people reported being personally discriminated against because of their sexuality or gender identity when applying for jobs, 22% when being paid equally or considered for promotion, and 22% when trying to rent a room or apartment or buy a house. Additionally, Mr. Speaker, more than a quarter of LGBTQ people, 26%, say that they or a friend or family member who is also LGBTQ have been unfairly stopped or treated by the police or unfairly treated by the courts because they are part of the LGBTQ community.

"Mr. Speaker, Martin Luther King Jr. once said 'The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.' The LGBTQ community has fought for its right to be free and equal passionately since the Stonewall Riots. And since then, the LGBTQ community has faced adversity, a plague, a government indifferent to its suffering, violence, persecution, and discrimination, both individual and institutional. But in that time, this very same community has not given up its dream for equality and social justice much deserved and earned, a hundred times over. As a dollar might compound, so too does injustice if we do not deal with it decisively and resolutely, and so I urge my colleagues in the House to support the passage of the Equality Act, in the hopes that we can ensure a brighter, more just and equitable future for all Americans. And with that, Mr. Speaker, I yield whatever time I have left to the floor for questions.
"

Speaker: The floor is open for questions

Speaker: if no one has questions the Speaker would look favorable on a motion to debate or proceed to vote.

by **Yaruqo** » Sun Sep 22, 2019 9:10 am

Dentali wrote:
Dentali wrote:
Speaker: The floor is open for questions

Speaker: if no one has questions the Speaker would look favorable on a motion to debate or proceed to vote.

"Mr. Speaker, I would submit a motion to debate on the Equality Act."

by **Dentali** » Sun Sep 22, 2019 10:01 am

Yaruqo wrote:
Dentali wrote:

Speaker: if no one has questions the Speaker would look favorable on a motion to debate or proceed to vote.

"Mr. Speaker, I would submit a motion to debate on the Equality Act."

Speaker: any seconds or objections?

LOTF: An American Political Roleplay (116th Congress)

LOTF: An American Political Roleplay (116th Congress)

Who is online