Rep. Chu Testifies Before House Armed Services Committee About Need to Eliminate Hazing in the Military
On April 27, during markup of the Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the House Armed Services Committee adopted an amendment requiring the Department of Defense (DOD) to create a national database of hazing incidents in the military and to submit an annual report on the DOD’s actions to stop hazing through training and response. The amendment, introduced by Rep. Jackie Speier (CA-14), is identical to the text of H.R. 5060, the Harry Lew Military Hazing Accountability and Prevention Act that was introduced by Rep. Judy Chu (CA-27) on April 26.
Today, Rep. Judy Chu (CA-27) introduced a bill to require the Pentagon to track and make annual reports on the problem on hazing in the military. The Harry Lew Military Hazing Accountability and Prevention Act is named in honor of Rep. Chu’s nephew, a marine who died after being hazed by his platoon while deployed in Afghanistan in 2011. It is cosponsored by Reps. Jackie Speier (CA-14), Debbie Dingell (MI-12) and Ted Lieu (CA-33). This bill would require the Pentagon to create a database of hazing incidents in the military and to submit an annual report on what is being done to stop hazing through training and response.
Today, the Department of Transportation (DOT) released a tentative decision allowing Norwegian Air International (NAI) to increase flights in the United States.
Today, Rep. Judy Chu (CA-27) joined Reps. Henry C. “Hank” Johnson, Jr. and John Conyers, Jr. (MI-13) to introduce the Restoring Statutory Rights Act. This bill would ensure the rights of consumers and employees to sue for legally established rights and protections, including protection against wage discrimination. The bill amends the Federal Arbitration Act to prohibit mandatory pre-dispute (“forced”) arbitration agreements for claims rising under federal or state statute, the U.S. Constitution, or a state constitution. The bill would further require that a court determines whether an agreement is unconscionable, invalid because there was no meeting of the minds, or otherwise unenforceable as a matter of contract law or public policy. Under current law, parties may resolve statutory claims, including claims rising under anti-discrimination statutes, through forced arbitration.