+menu-


  • Category Archives Legislated Mumbo Jumbo
  • In An Apparent Shell Game S.2012

    The bill in question is No. S.2012 -the North American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act of 2016

    In an apparent “SHELL GAME” likely intended to disguise a hidden agenda and to confuse the American public, Congress is considering “BEHIND CLOSED DOORS” two versions of S.2012.

    U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski (AK-R) is pushing a massive 792 page Senate Energy bill incorporating more than 393 amendments covering these and other policy areas

    ———————————————-

    Polson, Montana –September 14, 2016

    According to nonprofit Western States Constitutional Rights, LLC,

    S.2012 contains VERY harmful tribal government forest management provisions that could severely diminish the constitutionally protected rights of western and rural private property owners throughout the  United States

    In an apparent “SHELL GAME” likely intended to disguise a hidden agenda and to confuse the American public, Congress is considering “BEHIND CLOSED DOORS” two versions of S.2012.

    ———————————————————————–

    Why would the Politico’s establishment of this Congressional Mumbo Jumbo confuse the American public?

    —————————————————————-

    snippet…

    It is understood that the Senate passed the Murkowski version without forestry measures in April 2016, while the U.S. House of Representatives passed a second version with both forestry and tribal forest management measures in May 2016,namely,H.R. 2647 –the Resilient Federal

    Forests Act of 2015. H.R. 2647 was sponsored by Representative Bruce Westerman (AR-R) and cosponsored by 11 Republicans and 2 Democrats. It seems H.R. 2647 was incorporated within the House version of S.2012 via an amendment adding new Title VII as part of “Division B, Titles I-X”.1 On September 8, 2016, the two versions of House/Senate S.2012 were submitted to a Congressional conference committee to be reconciled for ultimate passage by both chambers and signature into law by President Obama.

    ———————————————–

    DON’T WAIT UNTIL S.2012 IS PASSED  BY CONGRESS, LIKE OBAMACARE, TO FIND OUT WHAT’S IN THE NORTH AMERICAN ENERGY SECURITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE ACT OF 2016  

    We the People must demand an end to the secrecy, shady backroom deals, and usurpation of our natural and constitutional freedoms and property rights.

    ————————————————————–

    WELL NOT REALLY…

    WE THE PEOPLE MUST INFORM AMERICAN CITIZENS REGARDING USURPATION’S of  S.2012

    THAN ON NOV 8, 2016 WE THE PEOPLE  VOTE FOR TRUMP.

    AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TRUMP PUTS AN END TO ALL OF THE SECRECY, SHADY BACKROOM DEALS, AND USURPATION OF OUR NATURAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOMS AND PROPERTY RIGHTS.

    ENDING A MASSIVE  NUMBER OF GOVERNMENT USURPATION’S

    By definition an act of usurping; wrongful or illegal encroachment, infringement, or seizure.

    INCLUDING OBAMA’S EXECUTIVE ORDERS

    —————————————————————-

    A UN and tribal takeover? – Canada Free Press

    canadafreepress.com/…/energybillshidden-tribal-forest-management-amp-other-pro

    2 days ago – Hidden provisions in congressional energy bills undermine America’s … of private property owners throughout the United States, the Western States … shared by many citizens throughout the western and rural United States.

     

    By Lawrence Kogan —— Bio and Archives September 17, 2016

    A MASSIVE 792-PAGE SENATE ENERGY COMMITTEE BILL THREATENS TO AUTHORIZE FEDERAL BUREAUCRATS TO CEDE EXTENSIVE CONTROL OVER WESTERN STATE WATER AND PROPERTY RIGHTS, ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AND FOREST MANAGEMENT TO NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES, LOCAL UN SUSTAINABILITY COUNCILS AND RADICAL ENVIRONMENTALIST GROUPS.

     CERTAIN PROVISIONS COULD UNDERMINE THE FOUNDATIONS OF OUR NATION FROM WITHIN OUR NATION.

    S.2012, the North American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act of 2016, incorporates some 393 amendments. Incredibly, it is being driven forward by U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and other members of Congress behind closed doors. Probably very few have read the bill in its entirety. Virtually none understand its likely impacts on western and other rural land, water and property rights, potentially throughout America, or on the families and communities whose lives will be upended.

    This secretive approach—with no opportunities for meaningful public examination or comment, even by those who will be most affected—is almost unprecedented. It could well become another example of “we have to pass it to find out what’s in it.” But numerous people will have to live with the consequences, while the authors and implementers walk away exempted, unscathed and unaccountable.

    The bill’s tribal government forest management provisions are extremely harmful and could severely diminish the constitutionally protected rights of private property owners throughout the United States, the Western States Constitutional Rights consortium emphasizes. Indeed, the pending legislation is itself unconstitutional, as explained in a legal memorandum the consortium sent to 13 members of Congress.

    This Montana-based nonprofit was formed to safeguard the property rights of farmers, ranchers and other land and business owners against reckless federal, state and local government laws, regulations and policies. WSCR members live on or near the Flathead Irrigation Project within the Flathead Indian Reservation, and in other parts of northwestern Montana. But their concerns are widely shared by many citizens throughout the western and rural United States. It has a long, hard road ahead on these issues.

    The apparent “shell game” is likely intended to disguise a hidden agenda and confuse people. In fact, Congress is quietly considering two versions: a Senate-passedMurkowski version without forestry measures and a House of Representatives version with both forestry and tribal forest management measures (H.R. 2647, the Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2015, sponsored by Representative Bruce Westerman (R-AR) and cosponsored by 11 Republicans and 2 Democrats). Bipartisan chicanery.

    On September 8, the two versions were submitted to a conference committee, to be reconciled so that both chambers can pass a bill and President Obama can sign it into law. The problems are extensive.

    The House/Senate versions’ forestry measures embrace Euro-UN-Agenda 21 sustainable forest management principles, plus United Nations Indigenous Peoples Rights policies that would supersede the U.S. Constitution—while implementing unscientific climate change and sustainability objectives devised by the White House and “Forest Service Strategic Energy Framework.”

    Tribal Forest Management (TFM) provisions in House/Senate S.2012 are more problematic, because they would racially discriminate in favor of Native American tribes. They would do so by using the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to recognize off-reservation aboriginal pre-European land and water rights—where none exist in U.S. law—at the expense of all other Americans’ constitutionally protected private property rights. S.2012s’ TFM provisions would also:

    • Supplant states’ authority and jurisdiction over their natural resources, as recognized by the Tenth Amendment requirement that these resources be held in “public trust” for the benefit of each state’s citizens—including incredibly hard-working western ranchers who put so much food on your table.
    • Enable Native American Tribes to treat “Federal Forest Lands” (including national forests and national parks belonging to all Americans) as “Indian Forest Lands,” merely by establishing that “the Federal forest land is located within, or mostly within, a geographical area that presents a feature or involves circumstances principally relevant to that Indian tribe.” That means a tribe only has to show that the lands are covered by an Indian treaty, are part of a current or former Indian reservation, or were once adjudicated by the former Indian Claims Commission as part of a “tribal homeland.”
    • Provide Native American Tribes near U.S. national forest and park lands with federal “638” contracts to manage, oversee and control such lands and appurtenant water resources for federal regulatory and other purposes, even when they are well beyond the boundaries of Indian reservations.
    • Expand tribal political sovereignty and legal jurisdiction and control, especially over mountainous forest lands—the source of most snowpack and other waters that farmers, ranchers, and even towns and cities rely on for irrigation, drinking and other water needs.
    • Enable tribes to impose new federal fiduciary trust obligations on the U.S. government to protect their religious, cultural and spiritual rights to fish, waters and lands located beyond the boundaries of Indian reservations, by severely curtailing non-tribal members’ constitutionally protected private water and land rights, without paying “just compensation” as required by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

    A recently filed federal lawsuit by the Hoopa Valley Tribe of northern California against the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and National Marine Fisheries Service underscores the importance of this so-called federal fiduciary trust obligation. The tribe wants to compel the agencies to protect the tribe’s alleged off-reservation aboriginal pre-European water and fishing rights in southern Oregon’s Klamath River and Upper Klamath Lake—even though their reservation is more than 240 miles southwest of the lake!

    A tribal court victory would severely curtail Klamath irrigators’ ability to exercise their rights to vitally needed water. Northern California’s Yurok Tribe says it will soon file its own lawsuit. A cascade of such legal actions would disrupt or destroy the entire western water rights system.

    Combined with S.3013 (Montana Democrat Senator John Tester’s Salish and Kootenai Water Rights Settlement Act), the TFM provisions would expand and codify into federal law off-reservation aboriginal water and fishing rights that the tribes now claim. That precedent could then be used by other litigious tribes to override water and private property public trust obligations that Montana, Oregon, California and other western states owe their citizens under state constitutions. It could happen throughout America!

    S.2012 would cause even more problems if Congress adds a Wyden-Merkley Amendment that provides federal funding and implementation for the controversial Klamath Basin Agreements Tribal Rights Settlement. That would greatly expand tribal water rights, in violation of U.S. constitutional requirements that any such expansion be pursuant to Congress’s authority to approve or reject interstate compacts or regulate commerce with Indian tribes.

    It would also create a federal and interstate template for greatly diminishing regional—and potentially all irrigators’—state-based private property rights, in favor of Native American tribes. Its proponents have grossly misrepresented the settlement’s alleged benefits and substantially understated the damage it would impose on Klamath Basin residents.

    If S.2012 is enacted into law with the tribal forest management, Wyden-Merkley Amendment and Salish-Kootenai Settlement, Congress will cede control over western and rural lands and waters to Native American tribes in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth, Ninth, Tenth and Fourteenth Amendments.

    This year’s presidential and congressional elections are a referendum on the role and performance of government.

    We the People must demand an end to the secrecy, shady backroom deals, and usurpation of our natural and constitutional freedoms and property rights.

    Congress’ immediate withdrawal or modification of this grotesque omnibus energy bill would be a good first step in this direction.

    Lawrence Kogan is managing principal of The Kogan Law Group, PC of New York, NY and legal counsel to Western States Constitutional Rights, LLC.

    —————————————-

    Just asking?

    Why would the Politico’s establishment of this Congressional Mumbo Jumbo confuse the American public?

    ————————————————————————————–

    This West Is OUR West: Uniting Western States – Protecting Our Rights

    thiswestisourwest.com/

    Energy Bill’s Hidden Provisions UndermineS.2012 – the North American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act of 2016, which many in Congress … protected rights of western and rural private property owners throughout the United States.

    BREAKING NEWS September 15, 2016

    WESTERN STATES CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, LLC

    PRESS RELEASE

    Energy Bill’s Hidden Provisions Undermine Western and Rural U.S. Property Owners

    The following press release is based on a recently prepared memorandum of law and

    correspondences dispatched to 13 members of Congress explaining the unconstitutionality of pending legislation discussed below

    Polson, Montana – September 14, 2016 –

    Energy and forest management are not generally assumed to be interrelated policies.

    Nevertheless, U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski (AK-R) is pushing a massive 792-page Senate Energy bill incorporating more than 393 amendments covering these and other policy areas. The bill in question is No. S.2012 – the North American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act of 2016, which many in Congress have not likely read.

    According to nonprofit Western States Constitutional Rights, LLC, S.2012 contains VERY harmful tribal government forest management provisions that could severely diminish the constitutionally protected rights of western and rural private property owners throughout the United States.

    In an apparent “SHELL GAME” likely intended to disguise a hidden agenda and to confuse the American public, Congress is considering BEHIND CLOSED DOORS two versions of S.2012.

    —————————————————————————————-

    A shell game is a shell game….. by hook,  by crooks or by the U.S. Congress

    Behind My Back | The “RESTORATION” Shell Game

    www.behindmyback.org/2014/06/09/the-restorationshellgame/

    Jun 9, 2014 – The “RESTORATIONShell Game. A highly convoluted “GAME OF RESTORATION” that is involving the sleight of many, many hands, in which …

    ——————————————————————————

    Read more on Pie N Politics

    News from Klamath Basin Crisis.org

    by Liz Bowen

     

    http://klamathbasincrisis.org/billslaws/2016/Energybillshiddenprovisions091516.pdf

    —————————————————————————-

    Western States Constitutional Rights, LLC is a Montana-based nonprofit entity the mission of which is to promote the protection of private property rights held by western United States property owners against reckless federal, state and local government laws, regulations and policies. Its members are irrigators, landowners and business owners located on or near the Flathead Irrigation Project situated within the Flathead Indian Reservation, and from other areas in northwestern Montana, but their concerns are widely shared by many citizens throughout the western and rural United States.

    All media inquiries should be directed to The Kogan Law Group, P.C., NY, NY, Western States Constitutional Rights, LLC’s legal counsel, at: 212-644-9240.

    —————————————————————–

    Energy,  forest management  and TRIBES are not generally assumed to be interrelated policies.

    Connecting the dots on  Senator Murkowski….

    Senator  Murkowski  (R) is an active member of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and served as Vice Chairman of the Committee during the 110th Congress. She is the Chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and a member of the Committee on Appropriations, She was honored with a Congressional Leadership Award by the National Congress of American Indians


  • Fetal Tissue Transplantation Research?

    Indeed it was LEGALIZED  by an Act of Congress in 1993

    Federal law since 1993 “The National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act” of 1993 103rd Congress (1993-1994) has allowed fetal tissue research. In addition, fetal tissue can be sold at a price that allows an organization to recoup the costs associated with it.

    GIVE CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE

    IF THIS CONGRESS HADN’T PASSED THE LAW

    Sponsor: Sen. Kennedy, Edward M. [D-MA] (Introduced 01/21/1993)

    Committees: Senate – Labor and HUMAN RESOURCES
    With (17) Democratic and (4) Republican Cosponsors (named below)

    … PLANNED PARENTHOOD WOULD NOT HAVE DONE IT

    ———————————————————————–

    I research, read the legalese mumbo jumbo, connect the dots, document, copy, paste and disseminate the good, the bad and the truth…
    ———————————————————————————–
    THE FEDERAL STATUTE AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY ON TRANSPLANTATION RESEARCH USING FETAL TISSUE

    Legitimization of Fetal Tissue Transplantation Research …

    A 32 page document (the good the bad and the truth)

    https://dspace.creighton.edu/…/28_34CreightonLRev895(2000-2001).pd…
    by JL Gonzalez – ‎2001 – ‎Cited by 11 – ‎Related articles

    Jul 12, 1974 – A. The Federal Statute and Legislative History ….. 899. B. State … CREIGHTON LAW REVIEW … Transplantation research using fetal tissue has the po- … See James F. Childress, Ethics, Public Pol- ….. 103-43,. Title 1, §§ 111-12, pt. 2, 107 Stat. 129, 129-33 (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 289g-1 to 2 (1994). 28.

    ———————————————————————–
    snippet…
    Through appropriate government regulations a woman’s decision to abort can be effectively separated from the subsequent process of consensual FETAL DONATION and TRANSPLANTATION. Consequently, acknowledging that the Supreme Court has adjudged the woman’s decision to abort to be constitutionally protected,

    the lingering ethical queries encircling FETAL TISSUE TRANSPLANTATION should not be whether abortion itself is morally acceptable, but rather,

    WHETHER SUCH RESEARCH IS JUSTIFIABLE BECAUSE OF ITS OVERWHELMING CURATIVE POTENTIAL.

    THE ONLY REMAINING QUESTION WILL THEN BE NOT “WHETHER” FETAL TRANSPLANTATION RESEARCH SHOULD BE DONE AND REGULATED, BUT HOW.
    ———————————————————————————
    IN JUNE 2001, NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH (NIH) adopted the definition of “CLINICAL RESEARCH” as: (1) Patient-oriented research. RESEARCH CONDUCTED WITH HUMAN SUBJECTS (OR ON MATERIAL OF HUMAN ORIGIN SUCH AS TISSUES (FETAL TISSUE), SPECIMENS AND COGNITIVE PHENOMENA) for which an investigator (or colleague) directly interacts with human subjects.

    ———————————————————————
    WHO REGULATED, CONGRESS LEGISLATED AND HOW……..
    S.1 – National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act of 1993 103rd Congress (1993-1994)
    Law
    —————————————————————————

    DOCUMENTATION OF VOTING RECORD

    Sponsor: Sen. Kennedy, Edward M. [D-MA] (Introduced 01/21/1993)

    Committees: Senate – Labor and Human Resources

    This bill  Became Law
    Cosponsor Date Cosponsored
    Sen. Boxer, Barbara [D-CA]* 01/21/1993
    Sen. Wellstone, Paul D. [D-MN]* 01/21/1993
    Sen. Dodd, Christopher J. [D-CT]* 01/21/1993
    Sen. Lautenberg, Frank R. [D-NJ]* 01/21/1993
    Sen. Mikulski, Barbara A. [D-MD]* 01/21/1993
    Sen. Pell, Claiborne [D-RI]* 01/21/1993
    Sen. Simon, Paul [D-IL]* 01/21/1993
    Sen. Wofford, Harris [D-PA]* 01/21/1993
    Sen. Inouye, Daniel K. [D-HI]* 01/21/1993
    Sen. Sarbanes, Paul S. [D-MD]* 01/21/1993
    Sen. Moseley-Braun, Carol [D-IL]* 01/21/1993
    Sen. Leahy, Patrick J. [D-VT]* 01/21/1993
    Sen. Riegle, Donald W., Jr. [D-MI]* 01/21/1993
    Sen. Durenberger, Dave [R-MN]* 01/21/1993
    Sen. Metzenbaum, Howard M. [D-OH]* 01/21/1993
    Sen. Levin, Carl [D-MI] 01/26/1993
    Sen. Rockefeller, John D., IV [D-WV] 02/02/1993
    Sen. Harkin, Tom [D-IA] 02/02/1993
    Sen. Hatch, Orrin G. [R-UT] 02/02/1993
    Sen. Kassebaum, Nancy Landon [R-KS] 02/02/1993
    Sen. Kerry, John F. [D-MA] 05/20/1993
    —————————————————————————-
    CONGRESS PASSED THE LAW ALLOWING FETAL TISSUE RESEARCH
    ————————————————————————
    REMEMBERING THAT, In June 2001, National Institutes of Health (NIH)
    adopted the definition of “CLINICAL RESEARCH” as:
    (1) Patient-oriented research. Research conducted with human subjects (OR ON MATERIAL OF HUMAN ORIGIN SUCH AS TISSUES (FETAL TISSUE), SPECIMENS AND COGNITIVE PHENOMENA) for which an investigator (or colleague) directly interacts with human subjects.

    AND, THE STATUTE DEFINES “CLINICAL RESEARCH” TO INCLUDE “CLINICAL TRIALS”
    —————————————————————
    NIH Policy and Guidelines on The Inclusion of Women and Minorities
    as Subjects in CLINICAL RESEARCH – Amended, October, 2001

    NOTE: Additional information concerning the NIH Policy on Inclusion of Women and Minorities as Subjects in CLINICAL RESEARCH is available at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/women_min/women_min.htm.

    ————————————————
    SUMMARY: This notice updates the NIH policy on the inclusion of women and minorities as subjects in CLINICAL RESEARCH. It supercedes the 1994 Federal Register notice (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not94-100.html) and the August 2000 notice in the NIH Guide to Grants and Contracts (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-00-048.html).

    It incorporates the definition of CLINICAL RESEARCH as reported in the 1997 Report of the NIH Director’s Panel on CLINICAL RESEARCH.

    Also, this notice provides additional guidance on REPORTING analyses of sex/gender and racial/ethnic differences in intervention effects for NIH-defined Phase III “CLINICAL TRIALS”. The guidelines ensure that all NIH-funded CLINICAL RESEARCH will be carried out in a manner sufficient to elicit information about individuals of both sexes/genders and diverse racial and ethnic groups and, particularly in NIH-defined Phase III “CLINICAL TRIALS” to examine differential effects on such groups. Since a primary aim of research is to provide scientific evidence leading to a change in health policy or standard of care, it is imperative to determine whether the intervention or therapy being studied affects women or men or members of minority groups and their subpopulations differently.

    —————————————————————————-
    In June 2001, NIH adopted the definition of CLINICAL RESEARCH as: (1) Patient-oriented research. Research conducted with human subjects (or on material of HUMAN ORGANS SUCH AS TISSUES specimens and cognitive phenomena) for which an investigator (or colleague) directly interacts with human subjects. Excluded from this definition are in vitro studies that utilize human tissues that cannot be linked to a living individual. Patient-oriented research includes: (a) mechanisms of human disease, (b) therapeutic interventions, (c) clinical trials, and (d) development of new technologies; (2) Epidemiologic and behavioral studies; and (3) Outcomes research and health services research http://www.nih.gov/news/crp/97report/execsum.htm.

    EFFECTIVE DATE: This amended policy is effective immediately and applies to all grants and cooperative agreements currently active and to be awarded. Contract solicitations issued as of October 2001 must adhere to the amended policy.

    —————————————————————–
    I. LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND

    —————————————————–

    REMEMBERING THAT, In June 2001, National Institutes of Health (NIH)
    adopted the definition of “CLINICAL RESEARCH” as:
    (1) Patient-oriented research. Research conducted with human subjects (OR ON MATERIAL OF HUMAN ORIGIN SUCH AS TISSUES (FETAL TISSUE), SPECIMENS AND COGNITIVE PHENOMENA) for which an investigator (or colleague) directly interacts with human subjects.
    AND, THE STATUTE DEFINES “CLINICAL RESEARCH” TO INCLUDE “CLINICAL TRIALS”
    ———————————————————————————–
    THE NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH REVITALIZATION ACT OF 1993, PL 103-43, WAS SIGNED INTO LAW ON JUNE 10, 1993, directed the NIH to establish guidelines for inclusion of women and minorities in “CLINICAL RESEARCH”.
    The statute states that:
    In conducting or supporting CLINICAL RESEARCH. for the purposes of this title, the Director of NIH “SHALL”… ensure that (a) women are included as subjects in each project of such research; and (b) members of minority groups are included in such research. 492B(a)(1)
    The statute further directed the NIH to establish guidelines to specify:
    (a) the circumstances under which the inclusion of women and minorities as subjects in projects of CLINICAL RESEARCH. is inappropriate …;
    (b) the manner in which clinical trials are required to be designed and carried out; and
    (c) the operation of outreach programs, 492B(d)(1)
    THE STATUTE DEFINES “CLINICAL RESEARCH” TO INCLUDE “CLINICAL TRIALS” AND STATES THAT:
    In the case of any “CLINICAL TRIALS” in which women or members of minority groups will be included as subjects, the Director of NIH “SHALL”. ensure that the trial is designed and carried out in a manner sufficient to provide for valid analysis of whether the variables being studied in the trial affect women or members of minority groups, as the case may be, differently than other subjects in the trial. 492B(c)
    Specifically addressing the issue of minority groups, the statute states that:
    The term “minority group” includes subpopulations of minority groups. The Director of NIH“SHALL”. through the guidelines established…define the terms “minority group” and “subpopulation” for the purposes of the preceding sentence. 492B(g)(2)
    The statute speaks specifically to outreach and states that:
    The Director of NIH, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Research on Women’s Health and the Director of the Office of Research on Minority Health,
    “SHALL”. conduct or support outreach programs for the recruitment of women and members of minority groups as subjects in the projects of CLINICAL RESEARCH. 492B(a)(2)
    The statute includes a specific provision pertaining to the COST of CLINICAL RESEARCH and, in particular “CLINICAL TRIALS”.
    (A)(i) In the case of a clinical trial, the guidelines shall provide that the costs of such inclusion in the trial is (sic) not a permissible consideration in determining whether such inclusion is inappropriate. 492B(d)(2)
    (ii) In the case of other projects of CLINICAL RESEARCH, the guidelines shall provide that the costs of such inclusion in the project is (sic) not a permissible consideration in determining whether such inclusion is inappropriate unless the data regarding women or members of minority groups, respectively, that would be obtained in such project (in the event that such inclusion were required) have been or are being obtained through other means that provide data of comparable quality. 492B(d)(2)
    Exceptions to the requirement for inclusion of women and minorities are stated in the statute, as follows:
    The requirements established regarding women and members of minority groups shall not apply to the project of CLINICAL RESEARCH if the inclusion, as subjects in the project, of women and members of minority groups, respectively-
    (1) is inappropriate with respect to the health of the subjects;
    (2) is inappropriate with respect to the purpose of the research; or
    (3) is inappropriate under such other circumstances as the Director of NIH may designate. 492B(b)
    (B) In the case of a CLINICAL TRIAL, the guidelines may provide that such inclusion in the trial is not required if there is substantial scientific data demonstrating that there is no significant difference between-
    (i) the effects that the variables to be studied in the trial have on women or members of minority groups, respectively; and
    (ii) the effects that the variables have on the individuals who would serve as subjects in the trial in the event that such inclusion were not required. 492B(d)(2)
    II. POLICY
    A. Inclusion of Women and Minorities as Subjects in CLINICAL RESEARCH
    IT IS THE POLICY OF NIH THAT WOMEN AND MEMBERS OF MINORITY GROUPS AND THEIR SUBPOPULATIONS “MUST” BE INCLUDED IN ALL NIH-FUNDED “CLINICAL RESEARCH”,
    unless a clear and compelling rationale and justification establishes to the satisfaction of the relevant Institute/Center Director that inclusion is inappropriate with respect to the health of the subjects or the purpose of the research. Exclusion under other circumstances may be made by the Director, NIH, upon the recommendation of an Institute/Center Director based on a compelling rationale and justification. COST IS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE REASON FOR EXCLUSION except when the study would duplicate data from other sources. Women of childbearing potential should not be routinely excluded from participation in CLINICAL RESEARCH. This policy applies to research subjects of all ages in all NIH-supported CLINICAL RESEARCH studies.
    The inclusion of women and members of minority groups and their subpopulations must be addressed in developing a research design or contract proposal appropriate to the scientific objectives of the study/contract. The research plan/proposal should describe the composition of the proposed study population in terms of sex/gender and racial/ethnic group, and provide a rationale for selection of such subjects. Such a plan/proposal should contain a description of the proposed outreach programs for recruiting women and minorities as participants.
    B. NIH-defined Phase III Clinical Trials: Planning, Conducting, and Reporting of Analyses for Sex/Gender and Race/Ethnicity Differences.
    When an NIH-defined Phase III clinical trial is proposed, evidence must be reviewed to show whether or not clinically important sex/gender and race/ethnicity differences in the intervention effect are to be expected. This evidence may include, but is not limited to, data derived from prior animal studies, clinical observations, metabolic studies, genetic studies, pharmacology studies, and observational, natural history, epidemiology and other relevant studies.
    Investigators must consider the following when planning, conducting, analyzing, and reporting an NIH-Defined Phase III clinical trial. Based on prior studies, one of the three situations below will apply:
    1. Prior Studies Support the Existence of Significant Differences
    If the data from prior studies strongly support the existence of significant differences of clinical or public health importance in intervention effect based on sex/gender, racial/ethnic, and relevant subpopulation comparisons, the primary question(s) to be addressed by the proposed NIH-defined Phase III clinical trial and the design of that trial must specifically accommodate this. For example, if men and women are thought to respond differently to an intervention, then the Phase III clinical trial must be designed to answer two separate primary questions, one for men and the other for women, with adequate sample size for each.
    The Research Plan (for grant applications) or Proposal (for contract solicitations) must include a description of plans to conduct analyses to detect significant differences in intervention effect (see DEFINITIONS – Significant Difference) by sex/gender, racial/ethnic groups, and relevant subpopulations, if applicable. The final protocol(s) approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) must include these plans for analysis. The award will require that for each funded protocol, investigators must report in their annual Progress Report cumulative subject accrual and progress in conducting analyses for sex/gender and race/ethnicity differences. If final analyses of sex/gender and race/ethnicity are not available at the time of the Final Progress Report or Competing Continuation for the grant, a justification and plan ensuring completion and reporting of the analyses are required. If final analyses are required as part of the contract, these analyses must be included as part of the deliverables. These requirements will be cited in the terms and conditions of all awards for grants, cooperative agreements and contracts supporting NIH-defined Phase III clinical trials.
    Inclusion of the results of sex/gender, race/ethnicity and relevant subpopulations analyses is strongly encouraged in all publication submissions. If these analyses reveal no differences, a brief statement to that effect, indicating the groups and/or subgroups analyzed, will suffice.
    2. Prior Studies Support No Significant Differences
    If the data from prior studies strongly support no significant differences of clinical or public health importance in intervention effect based on sex/gender, racial/ethnic and/or relevant subpopulation comparisons, then sex/gender and race/ethnicity will not be required as subject selection criteria. However, the inclusion and analysis of sex/gender and/or racial/ethnic subgroups is still strongly encouraged.
    3. Prior Studies Neither Support nor Negate Significant Differences
    If the data from prior studies neither strongly support nor strongly negate the existence of significant differences of clinical or public health importance in intervention effect based on sex/gender, racial/ethnic, and relevant subpopulation comparisons, then the NIH-defined Phase III clinical trial will be required to include sufficient and appropriate entry of sex/gender and racial/ethnic participants, so that valid analysis of the intervention effects can be performed. However, the trial will not be required to provide high statistical power for these comparisons.
    The Research Plan (for grant applications) or Proposal (for contract solicitations) must include a description of plans to conduct valid analysis (see DEFINITIONS – Valid Analysis) by sex/gender, racial/ethnic groups, and relevant subpopulations, if applicable. The final protocol(s) approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) must include these plans for analysis. The award will require that for each funded protocol, investigators must report in their annual Progress Report cumulative subject accrual and progress in conducting analyses for sex/gender and race/ethnicity differences. If final analyses of sex/gender and race/ethnicity are not available at the time of the Final Progress Report or Competing Continuation for the grant, a justification and plan ensuring completion and reporting of the analyses are required. If final analyses are required as part of the contract, these analyses must be included as part of the deliverables. These requirements will be cited in the terms and conditions of all awards for grants, cooperative agreements and contracts supporting NIH-defined Phase III clinical trials.
    Inclusion of the results of sex/gender, race/ethnicity and relevant subpopulations analyses is strongly encouraged in all publication submissions. If these analyses reveal no differences, a brief statement to that effect, indicating the groups and/or subgroups analyzed, will suffice.
    For all three situations, cost is not an acceptable reason for exclusion of women and minorities from clinical trials.
    III. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
    While this policy applies to all applicants/offerors for NIH-SUPPORTED CLINICAL RESEARCH, certain individuals and groups have special roles and responsibilities with regard to its implementation.
    1. NIH Staff
    The NIH staff provide educational opportunities for the extramural and intramural communities concerning this policy; monitor its implementation during the development, review, award and conduct of research; and manage the NIH research portfolio to comply with the policy.
    2. Principal Investigators
    Principal investigators should assess the theoretical and/or scientific linkages between sex/gender, race/ethnicity, and their topic of study. Following this assessment, the principal investigator and the applicant/offer or institution will address the policy in each application and proposal, providing the required information on inclusion of women and minorities and their subpopulations in clinical research projects, and any required justifications for exceptions to the policy.
    For foreign awards and domestic awards with a foreign component, the NIH policy on inclusion of women and minority groups in research is the same as that for research conducted in the U.S. If there is scientific rationale for examining subpopulation group differences within the foreign population, investigators should consider designing their studies to accommodate these differences.
    Investigators and their staff(s) are urged to develop appropriate and culturally sensitive outreach programs and activities commensurate with the goals of the study or objectives of the contract. The objective should be to actively recruit and retain the most diverse study population consistent with the purposes of the research project. Indeed, the purpose should be to establish a relationship between the investigator(s) and staff(s) and populations and community(ies) of interest such that mutual benefit is derived for participants in the study.
    Investigator(s) should take precautionary measures to ensure that ethical issues are considered, such that there is minimal possibility of coercion or undue influence in the INCENTIVES OR REWARDS offered in recruiting into or retaining participants in studies.
    To assist investigators and potential study participants, NIH staff have prepared educational materials, including a notebook titled the, “NIH Outreach Notebook On the Inclusion of Women and Minorities in Biomedical and Behavioral Research.” The notebook as well as the Frequently Asked Questions document, are located at the following URL: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/women_min/women_min.htm
    3. Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)
    It is the responsibility of the IRBs to address the ethical issues as outlined in Section IV(2) for Principal Investigators. As the IRBs implement the regulation for the protection of human subjects as described in Title 45 CFR Part 46, “PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECTS”, http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.html they must also attend to the guidelines for the inclusion of women and minorities and their subpopulations in CLINICAL RESEARCH. They should take into account the Food and Drug Administration’s “Guidelines for the Study and Evaluation of Gender Differences in the Clinical Evaluation of Drugs,” Vol. 58 Federal Register 39406 http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/old036fn.pdf.
    —————————————————————————
    REMEMBERING THAT, In June 2001, National Institutes of Health (NIH)
    adopted the definition of “CLINICAL RESEARCH” as:
    (1) Patient-oriented research. Research conducted with human subjects (OR ON MATERIAL OF HUMAN ORIGIN SUCH AS TISSUES (FETAL TISSUE), SPECIMENS AND COGNITIVE PHENOMENA) for which an investigator (or colleague) directly interacts with human subjects.
    AND, THE STATUTE DEFINES “CLINICAL RESEARCH” TO INCLUDE “CLINICAL TRIALS”
    ————————————————————————–
    4. Peer Review Groups
    In conducting peer review for scientific and technical merit, appropriately constituted initial review groups (including study sections), technical evaluation groups, and intramural review panels are instructed, as follows:
    • to evaluate the proposed plan for the inclusion of minorities and both genders for appropriate representation or to evaluate the proposed justification when representation is limited or absent,
    • to evaluate the proposed exclusion of minorities and women on the basis that a requirement for inclusion is inappropriate with respect to the health of the subjects,
    • to evaluate the proposed exclusion of minorities and women on the basis that a requirement for inclusion is inappropriate with respect to the purpose of the research,
    • to determine whether the design of “CLINICAL TRIALS” is adequate to measure differences when warranted,
    • to evaluate the plans for valid analysis for NIH-defined Phase III “CLINICAL TRIALS”,
    • to evaluate the plans for recruitment/outreach for study participants, and
    • to include these criteria as part of the scientific assessment and evaluation.
    THE REVIEW INSTRUCTIONS FOR GRANTS ARE AVAILABLE ON LINE AT THE FOLLOWING URL: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer/hs_review_inst.pdf
    For contracts, the contracting officer will provide instructions for contract reviewers. Further information on instructions for contracts may be obtained at the following URL: http://oa.od.nih.gov/oamp/index.html.
    Or contact:
    National Institutes of Health
    Division of Acquisition Policy and Evaluation
    Office of Acquisition Management and Policy
    6100 Executive Boulevard, Room 6C01
    Phone: 301-496-6014
    Fax: 301- 402-1199
    5. NIH Advisory Councils
    In addition to other responsibilities for review of projects where the peer review groups have raised questions about the appropriate inclusion of women and minorities, the Advisory Council/Board of each Institute/Center shall prepare biennial reports, for inclusion in the overall NIH Director’s biennial report, describing the manner in which the Institute/Center has complied with the provisions of the statute.
    6. Institute/Center Directors
    Institute/Center Directors and their staff shall ensure compliance with the policy.
    7. NIH Director
    The NIH Director may approve, on a case-by-case basis, the exclusion of projects, as recommended by the Institute/Center Director, that may be inappropriate to include within the requirements of these guidelines on the basis of circumstances other than the health of the subjects, the purpose of the research, or costs.
    IV. DEFINITIONS
    Throughout the section of the statute pertaining to the inclusion of women and minorities, terms are used which require definition for the purpose of implementing these guidelines. These terms, drawn directly from the statute, are defined below.
    A. Clinical Research
    Clinical research is defined as:
    (1) Patient-oriented research. Research conducted with human subjects (or on material of human origin such as tissues, specimens and cognitive phenomena) for which an investigator (or colleague) directly interacts with human subjects. Excluded from this definition are in vitro studies that utilize human tissues that cannot be linked to a living individual. Patient-oriented research includes: (a) mechanisms of human disease, (b) therapeutic interventions, (c) clinical trials, and (d) development of new technologies, (2) Epidemiologic and behavioral studies, (3) Outcomes research and health services research. http://www.nih.gov/news/crp/97report/execsum.htm
    B. NIH-defined Clinical Trial
    For the purpose of these guidelines, an NIH-defined “clinical trial” is a broadly based prospective Phase III clinical investigation, usually involving several hundred or more human subjects, for the purpose of evaluating an experimental intervention in comparison with a standard or control intervention or comparing two or more existing treatments. Often the aim of such investigation is to provide evidence leading to a scientific basis for consideration of a change in health policy or standard of care. The definition includes pharmacologic, non-pharmacologic, and behavioral interventions given for disease prevention, prophylaxis, diagnosis, or therapy. Community trials and other population-based intervention trials are also included.
    C. Valid Analysis
    The term “valid analysis” means an unbiased assessment. Such an assessment will, on average, yield the correct estimate of the difference in outcomes between two groups of subjects. Valid analysis can and should be conducted for both small and large studies. A valid analysis does not need to have a high statistical power for detecting a stated effect. The principal requirements for ensuring a valid analysis of the question of interest are:
    • allocation of study participants of both sexes/genders (males and females) and different racial/ethnic groups to the intervention and control groups by an unbiased process such as randomization,
    • unbiased evaluation of the outcome(s) of study participants, and
    • use of unbiased statistical analyses and proper methods of inference to estimate and compare the intervention effects among the sex/gender and racial/ethnic groups.
    D. Significant Difference
    For purposes of this policy, a “significant difference” is a difference that is of clinical or public health importance, based on substantial scientific data. This definition differs from the commonly used “statistically significant difference,” which refers to the event that, for a given set of data, the statistical test for a difference between the effects in two groups achieves statistical significance. Statistical significance depends upon the amount of information in the data set. With a very large amount of information, one could find a statistically significant, but clinically small difference that is of very little clinical importance. Conversely, with less information one could find a large difference of potential importance that is not statistically significant.
    E. Racial and Ethnic Categories
    1. Minority Groups
    A minority group is a readily identifiable subset of the U.S. population that is distinguished by racial, ethnic, and/or cultural heritage.
    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Directive No. 15 http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/ombdir15.html defines minimum standards for maintaining, collecting and presenting data on race and ethnicity for all Federal reporting. NIH is required to use these definitions to allow comparisons to other federal databases, especially the census and national health databases. The categories in this classification are social-political constructs and should not be interpreted as anthropological in nature.
    When an investigator is planning data collection on race and ethnicity, these categories shall be used. The collection of greater detail is encouraged. However, more detailed items should be designed in a way that they can be aggregated into these required categories. Using respondent self-report or self-identification to collect an individual’s data on ethnicity and race, investigators should use two separate questions with ethnicity information collected first followed by the option to select more than one racial designation. Respondents shall be offered the opportunity to select more than one racial designation. When data are collected separately, provision shall be made to report the number of respondents in each racial category who are Hispanic or Latino.
    The following definitions apply for ethnic categories.
    Hispanic or Latino – a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race. The term “Spanish origin” can also be used in addition to “Hispanic or Latino.”
    Not Hispanic or Latino
    The following definitions apply for racial categories.
    American Indian or Alaska Native – a person having origins in any of the original peoples of North, Central, or South America, and who maintains tribal affiliations or community attachment.
    Asian – a person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam. (Note: Individuals from the Philippine Islands have been recorded as Pacific Islanders in previous data collection strategies.)
    Black or African American – a person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa. Terms such as “Haitian” or “Negro” can be used in addition to “Black or African American.”
    Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander – a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands.
    2. Majority Group
    White – a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.
    NIH recognizes the diversity of the U.S. population and that changing demographics are reflected in the changing racial and ethnic composition of the population. The terms “minority groups” and “minority subpopulations” are meant to be inclusive, rather than exclusive, of differing racial and ethnic categories.
    3. Subpopulations
    Each racial and ethnic group contains subpopulations that are delimited by geographic origins, national origins and/or cultural differences. It is recognized that there are different ways of defining and reporting racial and ethnic subpopulation data. The subpopulation to which an individual is assigned depends on self-reporting of specific origins and/or cultural heritage. Attention to subpopulations also applies to individuals who self identify with more than one race or ethnicity. Researchers should be cognizant of the possibility that these racial/ethnic combinations may have biomedical, behavioral, and/or social-cultural implications related to the scientific question under study.
    F. Outreach Strategies
    These are outreach efforts by investigators and their staff(s) to appropriately recruit and retain populations of interest into research studies. Such efforts should represent a thoughtful and culturally sensitive plan of outreach and generally include involvement of other individuals and organizations relevant to the populations and communities of interest, e.g., family, religious organizations, community leaders and informal gatekeepers, and public and private institutions and organizations. The objective is to establish appropriate lines of communication and cooperation to build mutual trust and cooperation such that both the study and the participants benefit from such collaboration.
    —————————————————————————-
    WHETHER SUCH RESEARCH IS JUSTIFIABLE BECAUSE OF ITS OVERWHELMING CURATIVE POTENTIAL.
    ——————————————————————————————–
    V. NIH CONTACTS FOR MORE INFORMATION
    The following senior extramural staff from the NIH Institutes and Centers may be contacted for further information about the policy and relevant Institute/Center programs:

    ——————————————-
    Dr. Paulette Gray
    National Cancer Institute
    6116 Executive Boulevard, Suite 8001
    Bethesda, MD 20892-8327
    Telephone: (301) 496-5147
    Email: grayp@dea.nci.nih.gov

    —————————————-
    Dr. Lore Anne McNicol
    National Eye Institute
    Executive Plaza South
    6120 Executive Boulevard, Room 350
    Rockville, MD 20892
    Telephone: (301) 496-5301
    Email: loreanne.mcnicol@nei.nih.gov

    ——————————————–
    Ms. Sharry Palagi
    National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute
    Building 31
    31 Center Drive, Room 5A-07
    Bethesda, MD 20892
    Telephone: (301) 402-3424
    Email: palagis@nih.gov

    ——————————————–
    Dr. Miriam Kelty
    National Institute on Aging
    Gateway Building
    7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Room 2C218
    Bethesda, MD 20892
    Telephone: (301) 496-9322
    Email: keltyM@nia.nih.gov

    ————————————————-
    Dr. Eleanor Hanna
    National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism
    Willco Building
    6000 Executive Boulevard, Suite 514
    Rockville, MD 20892
    Telephone: (301) 594-6231
    Email: ehanna1@mail.nih.gov

    ————————————————-
    Dr. John McGowan
    National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
    6700 B Rockledge
    6700 Rockledge Drive
    Bethesda, MD 20817
    Telephone: (301) 496-7291
    Email: jm80c@nih.gov

    ———————————————-
    Dr. Julia Freeman
    National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases
    Natcher Building
    Building 45, Room 5AS19F
    Bethesda, MD 20892
    Telephone: (301) 594-4543
    Email: freemanj@ep.niams.nih.gov

    ——————————————————–
    Dr. Susan Streufert
    National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
    6100 Executive Boulevard
    Building 61EB, Room 4A05
    Bethesda, MD 20892
    Telephone: (301) 435-6856
    Email: streufes@mail.nih.gov

    ————————————————
    Dr. Julie Gulya
    National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders
    Executive Plaza South
    6120 Executive Boulevard, Room 400D-7
    Rockville, MD 20892
    Telephone: (301) 435-4085
    Email: gulyaj@ms.nidcd.nih.gov

    ———————————————-
    Dr. Norman S. Braveman
    National Institute on Dental and Craniofacial Research
    Natcher Building
    Building 45, Room 4AN24C
    Bethesda, MD 20892
    Telephone: (301) 594-2089
    Email: BravemanN@de45.nidr.nih.gov

    —————————————————
    Dr. Robert Hammond
    National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases
    2 Democracy Boulevard, Room 715
    Bethesda, MD 20892
    Telephone: (301) 594-8834
    Email: hammondr@extra.niddk.nih.gov

    —————————————
    Dr. Teresa Levitin
    National Institute on Drug Abuse
    Neuroscience Building
    6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 3158
    Bethesda, MD 20852
    Telephone: (301) 443-2755
    Email: tlevitin@nida.nih.gov

    ———————————————————
    Dr. Anne P. Sassaman
    National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
    P.O. Box 12233, MD EC-30
    Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
    Telephone: (919) 541-7723
    Email: sassaman@niehs.nih.gov

    ——————————————–
    Dr. Alison Cole
    National Institute of General Medical Sciences
    Natcher Building
    Building 45, Room 2AS49K
    Bethesda, MD 20892
    Telephone: (301) 594-1826
    Email colea@nigms.nih.gov

    ————————————————
    Dr. Richard Nakamura
    National Institute of Mental Health
    Neuroscience Building
    6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 8235
    Bethesda, MD 20852
    Telephone: (301) 443-3675
    Email: rnakamur@mail.nih.gov

    —————————————
    Ms. Lynn Morin
    National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
    Neuroscience Building
    6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 2152
    Bethesda, MD 20892
    Telephone: (301) 496-3102
    Email: morinl1@ninds.nih.gov

    —————————————————–
    Dr. Mark Guyer
    National Human Genome Research Institute
    Building 31
    31 Center Drive, Room B2B07
    Bethesda, MD 20892
    Telephone: (301) 496-7531
    Email: guyerm@exchange.nih.gov

    ——————————————-
    Dr. Carole Hudgings
    National Institute of Nursing Research
    Natcher Building
    45 Center Drive, Room 3AN-12
    Bethesda, MD 20892
    Telephone: (301) 594-5976
    Email: carole_hudgings@nih.gov

    —————————————————
    Dr. Christine Goertz
    National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine
    Building 31
    31 Center Drive, Room 5B-58
    Telephone: (301) 402-1030
    Email: GoertzC@od.nih.gov

    ———————————————-
    Dr. Geoffrey Cheung
    National Center for Research Resources
    Rockledge Centre I
    6705 Rockledge Dr, Rm 6118
    Bethesda, MD 20817
    Telephone: (301) 435-0768
    Email: cheungg@ncrr.ncrr.nih.gov

    ——————————————
    Dr. Kenneth Bridbord
    Fogarty International Center
    Building 31
    31 Center Drive, Room B2C39
    Bethesda, MD 20892
    Telephone: (301) 496-2516
    Email: bridbordk@ficod.fic.nih.gov

    —————————————————
    Dr. Joan T. Harmon
    National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering
    Room 697
    6707 Democracy Boulevard
    Bethesda, MD 20892
    Telephone: (301) 594-8813
    Email: joan_harmon@nih.gov

    ———————————-
    Dr. Eric Bailey
    National Center for Minority Health and Health Disparities
    2 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 800
    Bethesda, MD 20817
    Telephone: (301) 402-1366
    Email: baileye@od.nih.gov

    ——————————————————————
    It is important to distinguish fetal research activities performed on the living
    fetus in-utero, which is medically and legally defined as potentially therapeutic,
    from the use of tissue from dead fetuses in research.


  • California’s Fire Protection Fee Laws?

    California’s Fire Protection Fee Laws?
    Are Cal Fire Protection Fee Laws like WA State Fire Protection Fees Laws?

    This posting and comment from Liz Bowen “Pie N Politics”
    Megafires Don’t Melt Opposition To California Fire Fee
    By Chris Nichols, Capital Public Radio, 9/17/15 prompted me to research, document and post a comment on WA State Fire Fees Protection laws.

    ——————————————————

    Behind My Back | What do WA State Fire Fees Pay For?

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/09/22/what-dowastatefirefeespay-for/

    1 day ago – I checked my Clallam County, WA State tax statement. … A LEGISLATED ACT OF FEE FI FOE FUM, AN ACT OF “OR ELSE” AND AN ACT OF PAY THE FEES “OR ELSE” … www.behindmyback.org/2013/10/26/fee-fie-foe–fum/.
    —————————————————————————————
     Californians and Washingtonians have a  lot in common when it comes to THE HORRENDOUS DEADLY, OUT OF CONTROL,  WILDFIRES BURNING IN OUR STATES. WE THE PEOPLE ARE REELING FROM THE LOSS OF AMERICAN LIVES …. THE LOSS OF FAMILY HOMES AND BUSINESS’S …

    AND, AMERICAN FAMILIES BEING FORCED TO EVACUATE AND ENDING UP LIKE DISPLACED FOREIGN REFUGEES.

    —————————————————————————–

    WILDFIRE FIGHTERS LAY THEIR LIVES ON THE LINE TO PROTECT WE THE PEOPLE.

    ——————————————————————-
    AT THE VERY LEAST…

    WE THE PEOPLE MUST DEMAND ANSWERS FROM OUR FEDERAL AND STATE ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES, REGARDING NOT ONLY THE FIRE FEES WE PAY FOR FIRE PROTECTION.

    BUT, WHY THE GOVERNMENT KEEPS FIDDLING WHILE THE WEST BURNS?

    ———————————————————————–

    Added for emphasis and clarity…

    Fiddle while Rome burns definition. To do something trivial and irresponsible in the midst of an emergency; legend has it that while a fire destroyed the city of Rome, the emperor Nero played his violin, thus revealing his total lack of concern for his people and his empire.
    ——————————————————————————–
    This is the full text of the New post on Pie N Politics
    Megafires Don’t Melt Opposition To California Fire Fee

    Comment from Stephen Frank
    Cal Fire Continues to Steal $$ From Rural Property Owners
    September 18, 2015
    For years the people in rural California has been paying hundreds of dollars a year to Cal Fire, for fire protection. It is as if their regular taxes had nothing to do with the fire fighters hired by the State to protect them. These folks sued and it will take years before a court will hear the case and a dozen more years before all the appeals are done. Then Sacramento bureaucrats will have close to twenty years of using your money—think they will ever give it back? Maybe by increasing taxes on everybody to pay for their theft.
    “Like many rural Californians, the Millers grudgingly pay the state an annual fire prevention fee of one hundred seventeen dollars. It was passed four years ago to help the state close a budget deficit. And even as the Butte and other mega-fires threaten their homes, rural residents say the mistrust over the fee lives on. Les Miller calls it a state cash grab.
    Les Miller: “They want more money, so they find a way to get it. Everybody is concerned about fire. So, they call it a fire fee.”

    Megafires Don’t Melt Opposition To California Fire Fee
    By Chris Nichols, Capital Public Radio, 9/17/15
    Rural Californians are reeling from yet another destructive fire season.
    But that doesn’t mean they now support a controversial fire fee imposed several years ago by legislative Democrats and Governor Jerry Brown. Chris Nichols reports from Sacramento.
    Bags stuffed with Betsy Miller’s family photos and quilting fabric sit ready to go in her Sierra foothills home. Miller and her husband, Les, are retirees who live in Amador County. The Butte Fire forced them to evacuate last week. Now, they’re back home. But they’re not unpacking.
    Betsy Miller: “Fires have a way of coming back.”
    Betsy Miller says she loves quilting too much to have her fabric go up in flames.
    Betsy Miller: “I want to pick and choose what I’m going to finish, not have a fire pick and choose what I’m going to finish.”
    Like many rural Californians, the Millers grudgingly pay the state an annual fire prevention fee of one hundred seventeen dollars. It was passed four years ago to help the state close a budget deficit. And even as the Butte and other mega-fires threaten their homes, rural residents say the mistrust over the fee lives on. Les Miller calls it a state cash grab.
    Les Miller: “They want more money, so they find a way to get it. Everybody is concerned about fire. So, they call it a fire fee.”
    A dozen homeowners here interviewed this week say they remain opposed because the money doesn’t help fight fires. It only helps prevent them.
    The Brown Administration declined comment. But a recent state report says the fee raises about $75 million dollars a year for efforts like identifying evacuation routes and clearing brush.
    Signs thanking firefighters dot highways across the foothills. But that gratitude doesn’t extend to the state leaders who imposed the fee. Vincent Campa also fled his home during the Butte Fire.
    Campa: “I’ve also had people frustrated with the fee, not being able to afford it, living on fixed incomes.”
    A taxpayers group has sued the state, alleging the fee is an unconstitutional tax. But a final ruling could take years.
    http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/cal-fire-continues-to-steal-from-rural-property-owners/
    ———————————————————————————

    WILDFIRE FIGHTERS LIVES MATTER.