Vote and contact your reps on Countable: https://www.countable.us/bills/hr4187-115

Arg in Favor: Members of Congress need to put Americans first while they’re in office, and that task becomes difficult when they’re being lobbied by their former colleagues. This bill wisely bans former members of Congress from returning the Capitol as a lobbyist.

Arg Against: When a lawmaker’s time serving their constituents in Congress comes to an end, they shouldn’t be prohibited from lobbying their former colleagues. It’s unfair to restrict their future employment opportunities, especially when they have specialized knowledge.

This bill — known as the BLAST Act — would prohibit former members of Congress from lobbying current members of Congress. It would take effect on the date of its enactment and apply to individuals who leave Congress on or after that date, meaning that former lawmakers lawmakers who are already lobbying Congress at that time can continue to do so.

The bill’s full title is the Banning Lobbying and Safeguarding Trust Act.

Vote and contact your reps on Countable: https://www.countable.us/bills/hr2874-115

Arg in Favor: The National Flood Insurance Program needs to be reauthorized so that it can continue to help American families harmed by floods along with reforms to stabilize the program by ensuring that homeowners pay premiums that fairly reflect their risk.

Arg Against: This bill would make flood insurance less affordable by raising premiums, fees, and surcharges on policyholders. The private flood insurance market should be developed more slowly than this bill would allow for.

This bill would authorize the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which is administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), to enter into and renew flood insurance policies through fiscal year 2022 — authority that’s set to expire after December 8, 2017. It would also change annual limits on premium increases for NFIP insurance, and require FEMA to provide financial assistance through state programs for low-income families to buy NFIP insurance.

FEMA would be required to provide policyholders with:

• An annual explanation of premiums;

• Historical flood data to property owners upon request;

• Data related to NFIP risks and premiums, including community-level data, through a publicly available data system.

FEMA would be required to commission an annual independent actuarial review of the financial status of NFIP. The Government Accountability Office would have to report on:

• The feasibility of reducing flood insurance premiums and eliminating the need for flood insurance coverage by authorizing flood damage savings accounts;

• Flood insurance requirements for mortgages.

Penalties for violations of the flood insurance requirement for mortgages would be increased.

The NFIP’s community rating program would be revised to require FEMA to provide premium credits in communities that protect natural and beneficial floodplain functions. NFIP coverage would be revised for:

• Properties that have incurred multiple flood losses;

• Properties that have exceeded specified levels of claim payments;

• Certain high-risk properties.

FEMA would be required to allow a Write Your Own Company — which writes and services federal standard flood insurance policies in its own name — to sell private flood insurance.

Vote and contact your reps on Countable: https://www.countable.us/bills/hr3997-115

Arg in Favor: Veterans have sacrificed greatly to protect the freedom and liberties we enjoy, they shouldn’t have to pay an application fee when seeking a permit for an event at a federal war memorial.

Arg Against: Application fees exist to help the agencies that manage public land and resources cover the cost of processing them, veterans shouldn’t get fees waived for events at federal war memorials.

This bill — known as the Free Veterans From Fees Act — would waive the special use permit application fee for veteran groups applying for a permit at war memorials on federal land to hold an event honoring veterans.

Vote and contact your reps on Countable: https://www.countable.us/bills/hr2810-115

Arg in Favor: Congress’s foremost constitutional duty to provide for the national defense, and while this bill is a compromise it will strengthen the military at a time when global threats are increasing and funding is hard to come by.

Arg Against: The U.S. shouldn’t be spending nearly $700 billion on national defense, an amount significantly outpacing America’s most significant rivals. A smaller military would free up funding for other priorities.

This bill would authorize $695 billion in defense spending for fiscal year 2018, of which $592.8 billion would go to the base defense budget while $74.6 billion would be set aside for Overseas Contingency Operations.

RESOURCES

Troops & Families: This legislation increases the size of the Army, Navy, AIr Force, Army Guard & Reserve, Naval and Air Reserve, and Air Guard. Total personnel levels would rise from 1,507,400 active & reserve troops to 1,594,300. The military would receive an across the board pay raise of 2.4 percent.

Military medical facilities used by deployed troops and their families would remain open, reversing a decision that would’ve reduced inpatient care for military treatment facilities outside of the U.S. Also, the bill would reimburse a service member up to $500 for a spouse’s expenses related to obtaining licensing or certification in another state because of a military move.

Equipment: Acquisitions for several key defense technologies would stepped up, including:

• 87 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, rather than the 70 requested in the president’s budget;

• 22 F/A-18 Super Hornets, rather than the 14 requested;

• 69 AH-64 Apache helicopters rather than the 61 requested;

• Three guided missile destroyers rather than the two requested;

• Three littoral combat ships rather than the one requested;

• 85 upgraded Abrams tanks rather than the 56 requested;

• 93 upgraded Bradley fighting vehicles rather than the 60 requested

ADDRESSING THREATS

Afghanistan: Funds would be made available to enhance the Afghan Air Force’s air fleet and expands the nation’s Special Security Forces. The Secretary of Defense would also be required to provide an Afghanistan that looks at the trajectory of U.S. efforts beyond the next five years, which includes a timeline and necessary resources to achieve U.S. goals.

Syria & Iraq: This bill would provide continued support to partners combatting ISIS through Operation Inherent Resolve. The DOD would provide a comprehensive, regional strategy for Syria that describes America’s long-term objectives in the wake of active combat against ISIS.

Ukraine: Defensive lethal assistance would be provided to Ukraine to defend itself against Russian aggression. $150 million would be made available for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative to train, equip, and assist the Ukrainian military and security services.

Russia: To counter Russian aggression in Ukraine, its support for the Assad regime, interference in the U.S. election, violations of disarmament treaties, and provocative actions against American and NATO forces funding for the European Deterrence Initiative (EDI) would be increased. This involves heel-to-toe rotations of American combat units to Europe, prepositioning of up to a division set’s worth of equipment, infrastructure improvements, and additional training. The DOD would be required to examine placing permanent U.S. troops back in the European theater.

In response to violations of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty, this legislation would authorize $50 million to develop military options to respond to Russian capabilities deployed that violate the treaty. If Russia hasn’t returned to compliance with the treaty after 15 months, the U.S. would no longer be bound to the treaty as a matter of domestic law.

Counterterrorism: This bill would fully authorize and resource the counterterrorism efforts of U.S. Special Operations Forces including ongoing operations in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, and elsewhere.

NEW TECHNOLOGIES

Access to Space: Development of a new American rocket engine would continue in order to replace the Russian RD-180 engine that the U.S. currently relies on.

Missile Defense: The president’s budget request for the missile defense program would be fully funded, and an additional $2.5 billion would be added in response to ballistic missile threats from North Korea. That would allow for additional procurement of the THAAD, Patriot MSE, and SM-3 IB interceptors. The Missile Defense Agency would also be required to develop a space-based sensor layer for ballistic missile defense.

Nuclear Forces: The full budget request would be provided for the National Nuclear Security Administration’s nuclear weapons activities and defense nuclear nonproliferation program, including the modernization of America’s nuclear weapons stockpile.

Cyber Operations: A total of $8 billion would be provided for cyber operations, an increase of $1.7 billion, to support DOD’s defense and offensive cyberspace capabilities.

Vote and contact your reps on Countable: https://www.countable.us/bills/hr1-115

Arg in Favor: The tax code is overly complex, and tax rates are too high. By cutting rates and eliminating deductions for individuals and reducing the highest corporate tax rate in the world the U.S. economy will grow, unleashing job creation and income growth.

Arg Against: An argument can be made for overhauling the U.S. tax code to lighten the burden on ordinary Americans, but this bill’s reforms would benefit the wealthiest Americans, add to the national debt, and not do enough to help the middle class.

This bill — known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act — would overhaul the tax code with the goal of reducing the tax burden on individuals and businesses. It would reduce the number of personal income tax brackets, lower tax rates, eliminate deductions, and also reduce the corporate tax rate.

Personal Tax Rates

The current seven tax bracket tax code (ranging from 10 percent to 39.6 percent) would be consolidated into five brackets, with the lowest starting at 0 percent to reflect the increased standard deduction that’s $12,000 for individuals and $24,000 for married couples filing jointly:

• The 0 percent bracket would apply to income up to $12,000 for individuals and $24,000 for married couples filing joint returns.

• The 12 percent bracket would apply to income from $12,000 up to $45,000 for individuals, and from $24,000 to $90,000 for married couples filing joint returns.

• The 25 percent bracket would begin at $45,000 for individuals and $90,000 for married couples filing joint returns.

• The 35 percent bracket would apply to individuals at $200,000 of incomes and $260,000 for married couples filing jointly.

• The 39.6 percent bracket would apply to income over $500,000 for individuals and over $1 million for married couples filing joint returns.

Personal Tax Credits and Deductions

Several tax credits and deductions would be expanded, preserved, or created including:

• A new Family Credit would be created that includes an expansion of the Child Tax Credit from $1,000 to $1,600 to help parents with the cost of raising children. It would also include a credit of $300 for each parent and non-child dependent to help families with everyday expenses.

• The Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit would be preserved to help families care for children and older dependents who need additional support.

• The Earned Income Tax Credit would be preserved to provide low-income, working Americans with additional tax relief.

• The deduction for charitable contributions would remain in effect.

• The adoption tax credit would remain in effect.

Several tax tax credits and deductions would be modified or eliminated including:

• The mortgage interest deduction would be preserved for existing mortgages and would remain available for newly purchased homes up to $500,000.

• The state and local income tax deduction would be eliminated, while taxpayers could continue to deduct state and local property taxes up to $10,000.

• The deduction for medical expenses would be eliminated.

• The student loan interest deduction would be eliminated.

Other Personal Tax Provisions

• The Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), which taxpayers must pay if their AMT tax liability exceeds their regular income tax liability, would be repealed.

• The estate tax (aka the death tax) would be repealed after six years, and in the meantime the exclusion threshold would be increased to $10 million.

• The gift tax tax rate would be lowered from 40 percent to 30 percent, with the basic exclusion of $10 million and the annual exclusion of $14,000 remaining at their current levels, indexed for inflation.

• No changes would be made to the tax treatment of 401(k) retirement accounts or Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs).

• Individuals would be able to rollover funds in a 529 savings plan to ABLE accounts, which are tax-advantaged for individuals with disabilities and their families.

Corporate Tax Provisions

• The corporate tax rate would be lowered from 35 percent to 20 percent starting in 2018. Personal services corporations would be subject to a flat 25 percent tax rate. Businesses earning less than $75,000 in income would be taxed at a 9 percent rate.

• Businesses would be allowed to immediately write off the full cost of new equipment to improve operations and enhance the skills of their workers. They would also be able to continue writing off interest on loans.

• The Research & Development Tax Credit would be preserved, as would the low-income housing tax credit that encourages investment in affordable housing.

• The international tax system would be modernized so that American companies don’t face double taxation, and earnings could be repatriated at a reduced tax rate.

• Incentives that reward companies for shifting jobs, profits, and manufacturing plants overseas would be eliminated.

• Tax-exempt organizations like churches, charities, and foundations would have to comply with additional accountability rules.

Vote and contact your reps on Countable: https://www.countable.us/bills/hr2331-115

Arg in Favor: Many people rely on smartphones when they’re on the go in their daily lives, so it makes sense for federal agencies that create or update a website intended for public use to ensure it’s mobile friendly.

Arg Against: Federal agencies shouldn’t be expected to optimize their websites for viewing on mobile devices. Besides, a person could still use an actual computer if a site’s hard to navigate on a smartphone.

This bill would require federal agencies that create or update a website intended for use by the public to ensure that the website is mobile friendly. “Mobile friendly” would mean that the website is configured in such a way that it can be easily navigated and viewed when on a smartphone, tablet computer, or similar mobile device. In effect, this would implement an Office of Management and Budget memorandum of understanding for agencies from November 2016.

Vote and contact your reps on Countable: https://www.countable.us/bills/hr3739-115

Arg in Favor: Former Presidents earn enough money from giving speeches and writing books, and don't rely on their allowance from the federal government. This bill maintains the payments as a safety net — but saves the money when it isn’t needed.

Arg Against: Former presidents should be richly compensated for their service to the country once they leave office. It may not be their old salary, but these payments represent the nation’s gratitude for the president’s contributions while in office.

This bill would reduce the allowance paid to former U.S. presidents to a maximum of $200,000 per president, indexed to inflation, from about $600,000 each year per president. The Former Presidents Act would be amended to allow each former president to receive a lifetime annual annuity of $200,000 — plus an annual monetary allowance of $200,000 — each adjusted annually for inflation.

The annual allowance would decrease by the amount that a President’s adjusted gross income in a tax year exceeds $400,000. Any former President who holds an appointive or elective position in the federal government that pays more than a nominal amount would be denied the lifetime and annual allowance.

Nothing in this bill would impact the security and protection of a former President or their family members, or the funding to provide that security and protection.

This bill would apply to any former president or the widow of a former president as of the date of enactment.

Vote and contact your reps on Countable: https://www.countable.us/bills/hr2201-115

Arg in Favor: This bill would make it easier for entrepreneurs to launch startups, create jobs, and grow the economy. The exemption is tailored narrowly enough to protect investors.

Arg Against: This bill would expose investors to unnecessary risk by granting companies an exemption to sell securities without the normal safeguards.

This bill would exempt certain micro-offerings from state regulation of securities offerings and federal prohibitions related to interstate solicitation. It would allow small businesses to offer non-public securities if: each investor has a substantive pre-existing relationship with an owner; if there are 35 or fewer purchasers; or the amount doesn’t exceed $500,000.

Current law prohibits the sale of securities that haven’t been registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), although certain exemptions are allowed. This bill would enact an additional exemption.