H.R. 3126 Bill Report

[wdtony]

The text of the bill isn't out yet but feel free to write your member of congress and leave comments here:

https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/112/hr3 ... ort#nation

H.R. 3126: To require certain standards and enforcement provisions to prevent child abuse and neglect in residential programs, and for other purposes.

[Troublemaker]

This bill is a sugar coated Satan sandwich. Why would you support a bill if you haven't seen the text? There are serious questions about this bill that have been avoided. Don't believe what you hear. Believe what you see.

[wdtony]

This bill is a sugar coated Satan sandwich. Why would you support a bill if you haven't seen the text? There are serious questions about this bill that have been avoided. Don't believe what you hear. Believe what you see.

How can you call it sugar coated if you haven't seen it? I do understand what you mean though, this is premature.

I support it now because it is an idea..... legislation aimed at regulating programs and stopping child abuse. Supporting it online now will not effect the bill's future I wouldn't think.

[Troublemaker]

It weakens the ability of survivors to sue. Thats the question I want to hear answered. They don't. What good are unenforced regulations? That's what they'll be because most of the places are corporations, and you can't arrest a corporation. That leaves suing them as the hammer, but if you give the hammer away to get the bill through it does nothing.

[wdtony]

It weakens the ability of survivors to sue. Thats the question I want to hear answered. They don't. What good are unenforced regulations? That's what they'll be because most of the places are corporations, and you can't arrest a corporation. That leaves suing them as the hammer, but if you give the hammer away to get the bill through it does nothing.

I agree that the bill "could" weaken the ability to sue. But few are able to sue now, an example being the WWASP suit being thrown out of federal court. And statute of limitations vary by state making it even more confusing. Largely attorneys don't want these cases because of their unfamiliarity.

The bill, may or may not weaken the ability for survivors to sue. This billmay make it easier to sue and more appealing to attorneys.

[N.O.S.O.B.]

[wdtony]

I think we could further the cause by unifying our voices and standing as one in solidarity.

I agree but doubt it will happen.

I think we as Survivors of Intitutional abuse and torture, should oppose this bill, and join with the Republicans.

AND do this very loudly.

I disagree, we don't have the text of the bill.

Insist that this proposal to protect kids from abuse is crazy....

I don't follow your thinking, it isn't crazy to protect kids.

Insist that the GOV prove that these places are effective before they regulate them.

How might the government do this?

[Inculcated]

Yeah, I don’t know that we can stand with solidarity against this because clearly not everyone is against it. I am personally feeling deadlocked with the information and speculation at hand

My read of Maia’s article, related Youth Right’s statements, Reddit TT threads and Fornits threads, still has me on the fence.
I’m not sure how I feel about this bill. My head spins as I read from one cogent argument to the next on the sides of for and against (mostly on the topic of HR911). There are good points on both sides. Foremost IMHO is that this issue is being finally brought to the fore where it had been largely ignored, by even having discussion about legislation. Then again, legislation without teeth to it bites in the bad way.
 
I would like to know if this piece of legislation addresses the *spiritual healing* that has left bruises and mental anguish on the children who have received mistreatment in Faith Based programs.
If this bill does have an impact on those programs that even CPS, has troubles paying calls upon, well that would be very compelling to be all yea about it.

Another issue was raised by Che Gookin and others re: who exactly will be charged with being the enforcer of this?

“I want to know what role SAMHSA will play in this

and any funding attached to the bill.
viewtopic.php?p=406177#p406177
Discussion on that thread then gives the impression this (if passed) will fall under the domain of HHS. A post by N.O.S.O.B. shows

When I called Health and Human Services a couple weeks ago, they said they do not even take "quality of care complaints" meaning the whole of HHS, that is not even in the reality of HHS, it's totally up the states. My point is, there is nothing in place.That was the Human Rights Department, office of the Director..

Ursus raised a good point that the possibility of loopholes such as TBS being considered schools or probably more accurately in their terminology “specialty schools” or “alternative schools” and therefore not treated as treatment centers.  This is no joke. I have both laughed and balked at even Daytop’s attempts to toe the waters of this angle for marketing purposes. If it works for strong arming school districts into picking up the tab on the supposedly ODD kids’ bill, the inverse of it could work for side stepping regulation, unless language is included which prevents that.

Then we get to what would regulation achieve and ugh! There’s some back and forth. The new Program Lite as Che Gookin put it, only while well put, it's really not so new and it's not so lite. On the one hand I look at this TTI like triage. It’s hard enough to reconcile the reality of the mindset of people who have the same voting rights as the next, with the realities of the fates suffered by kids in programs, JCCs or other – when you see calloused comments about those kids who died or were abused in custody posted by those citizen dumbasses. These usually are along the lines of “Those kids are a menace, sombody’s gotta learn em up right” “Break a few eggs to make an omelet”  So, explaining programs which don’t have violence as a mainstay of their curriculum, but who do use humiliation tactics and coercion is a little difficult.  Hence, Phoenix House getting government funding is a little thornier of an issue, when even places like JRC, are so difficult to affect change upon. Oregon may care that kids were being subjected to humiliations at MBA, but it’s been the standard of care at Daytop since its inception. Neither place (Aspen nor Daytop) consider these practices to be “emotionally abusive”, in fact not participating in LEs or Haircuts etc. is expressly conveyed as being withholding and neglect of yourself or your peer according to Daytop. So, will this legislation define what is emotionally abusive treatment? Will this legislation of regulation normalize the mistreatment or eradicate it?

I can’t find the answers within what is supposed, but not certain to be in the bill and without being able to reach Miller’s office I’d like to see this Bill. Where/when will that be available?

Sorry this is rambling and confused, but that’s where I’m at tonight.

[Che Gookin]

I've gone far in the world.

I'm now raising good points.


 :cheers:

Also, the one thing that makes me wonder.. Weakening the right to sue is an infringement of civil liberties. Wouldn't this be something that ends up in front of the supreme court if someone pushed hard enough?

I've come to the conclusion that if Sparky McFucknuts Miller and his boy Levine want to have some sort of taxpayer orgy to some insane amount of money that currently just isn't present due to spending cuts then by all means go right ahead.

Suing this new organization will raise just as much attention for this cause as the passing of the bill will.

Dragging the entire mess into the supreme court will be a further win.

Long term thinking tells me that this might not be such a bad thing after all as it promises to keep things on the front burner for a good long while.

Epic.

 :notworthy:

[Froderik]

I think we could further the cause by unifying our voices and standing as one in solidarity.

I think we as Survivors of Intitutional abuse and torture, should oppose this bill, and join with the Republicans.

AND do this very loudly.

Insist that this proposal to protect kids from abuse is crazy....

Insist that the GOV prove that these places are effective before they regulate them.

 :tup:  :tup:  :tup:  :tup:

[N.O.S.O.B.]

[wdtony]

I hear ya...

In my own mind I have several ideas about his legislation. I am asassuming it will be similar to H.R 911 but i could be wrong.

What I try to do is take the 5 views I have about the possible bill and pick the best direction to go in. This isn't a solid decision and I am not completely comfortable with it but i do have reasons for my decisions.

It's all aguessing game anyway, so many questions...will the bill be good...be bad...be amended...what will we have to give up....will it be more good than bad...will brainwashing or thought reform be addressed as torture or at least experimental practice....what programs will be covered....if passed into law, will it even be enforceable....will it legitimize programs makling it harder to prove abuse...is it a piece of garbage or is it the silver bullet we need....if it is weak, will it lead to stronger legislation.....ETC.

So I try to rise above all of the unknowns and look from different perspectives.

I know I like the fact that legislation legitimizes the issue of child abuse and death in programs.

I know that for years we had no acknowledgment that this was even real....we were all liars, not anymore.

The Bill attracts attention and the programs/trade orgs/Ed cons hate it...that's a plus

This is a national level issue like it should be and we have a lot of congressional support.

When protesting, it is really nice to say, "check out the bill in congress trying to regulate this awful place"


When the text is produced and I have real concerns and I may decide I don't like where the bill is going, I will alter my speech about it.  I have to understand that a 75% win is a victory and not a 25% defeat. The fact that George Miller is still paying attention and sticking to his principles is refreshing.

I guess, I am just trying to say I am being optimistic. Ask Aaron, I haven't always been this jolly. 4 years of watching this has knocked off a few rough edges.

[N.O.S.O.B.]

[Inculcated]

I reccomend ya'll call the office...they really do care....I mean we butted heads a little about "how can you regulate an unproven modality" basically the answer to that is, the FEDS can't require the industry to prove that it's safe, all they can do establish guidelines....Course I got all frickin' emotional and don't remember some of the details....

I also recommend anyone inclined to, to do so, but to also  remember that the persons on the other end are well well meaning, but not necessarily prepared to answer questions about H.R. 3126 or have even heard of it. I talked the gentleman on the other end of the line through the call and it seemed he was satisfied to announce to me that H.R. 911 had been located…perhaps on his desktop IDK…I explained sotto voce that yes, but the bill I was inquiring about was not H.R. 911, but only likely to be similar to it and I had only mentioned it in an effort to provide him context to what it was that I was calling about (as H.R. 3126  rang no bells with him and came up with nothing despite audible tapping on his end during the long pauses as he seemed to be searching).  So I gave him the url to the popvox WDTony had provided and suddenly we were quite literally on the same page. Whew, my call timer tells me that took fourteen minutes of navigation. The gentleman had not heard of this and was not prepared to field any questions, so I left the simplest of them and a callback number.

But dude....don't be calling Miller names....they do care....it's just they are in the looney bin tryin to work it out with crazy people and this is what the system looks like...but really, that office does care...they just have a crazy bunch to deal with...Call the policy department if you want....

Yeah thank you, I don’t get that either. There are plenty of politicians who are profiting off of kids in programs or less directly profiting off of their promotion and protenction from oversight. Between Mitt Romney and Boehner alone there are plenty of creative and alliterative monikers to be conjured. But at least Miller has demonstrated in word, deed, and tenacity a unique stripe among those in politics of actually giving a damn about the unconscionable abuses, neglect and exploitation of kids so rampantly endemic to this industry. In fact here is a link (provided by Pixel8 on Reddit) of how WWASPS spreads the blood money around Utah State Capital

Oh and I was not able to view this there before, but it is there now http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtex ... =h112-3126
Concerns about TBS have been explicitly written w/out wiggle room—in fact it seems they took great care there to address the whole lot of the range in various incarnations by including:

“(ii) operates with a focus on serving children with--
‘(I) emotional, behavioral, or mental health problems or disorders; or
‘(II) problems with alcohol or substance abuse.”

Concerns about the Faith Based programs maintaining their f*ed up reign over kids with impunity via exemptions are not assuaged by this, but the gentleman I spoke with did not seem to be the fellow to explore the topic with in depth.
Still a lot of questions, but much work to do and lunch should be incorporated into my day before 3 or 4 this time. Baby steps...
I am also quite interested in the following:

SEC. 8. STUDY AND REPORT ON OUTCOMES IN COVERED PROGRAMS.
(a) Study- The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall conduct a study, in consultation with relevant agencies and experts, to examine the outcomes for children in both private and public covered programs under this Act encompassing a broad representation of treatment facilities and geographic regions.
(b) Report- The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall submit to the Committee on Education and the Workforce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate a report that contains the results of the study conducted under subsection (a).

[N.O.S.O.B.]