H.R. 3611 and its sister in the senate, S 1698 will close the loopholes in NDAA and put at risk, the citizenship of every single American. The following summary was written by the Congressional Research Service: 10/12/2011--Introduced. Enemy Expatriation Act - Amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to include engaging in or purposefully and materially supporting hostilities against the United States to the list of acts for which U.S. nationals would lose their nationality. Defines "hostilities" as any conflict subject to the laws of war. This article, from the conservative magazine American Thinker, sums it up: “Introduced as S. 1698 in the Senate and as H.R. 3166 in the House of Representatives, the Enemy Expatriation Act is expressly designed to ‘add engaging or supporting hostilities against the United States to the list of acts for which United States nationals would lose their nationality.’ “These bills are inconsistent with current law and Supreme Court precedent. They appear to be tailored to cow the American people, without regard for the 14th-Amendment guarantee prohibiting Congress from divesting an American citizen of his citizenship. “On their face, S. 1698 and H.R. 3166 make it appear that any citizen ‘engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States’ would lose his citizenship. This is unlike current law, which also requires proof that the citizen does so ‘with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality.’ Thus, the new bills would make it much easier for the government to strip a dissenting citizen of his citizenship. “Six of the seven expatriating acts in the current law require proof of formal actions — either a direct renunciation of citizenship, or a similar act unmistakably demonstrating a change of allegiance to another country. These bills would require neither. Rather, they describe a newly minted offense, the commission of which may give rise to the inference of an intent to renounce citizenship, but without requiring any direct evidence of such an intent. “To be sure, current law provides that the commission of treason or other serious acts may justify an inference of renunciation of citizenship. However, before such an inference can be made, the person previously must have been convicted beyond a reasonable doubt of one or more specified criminal acts. Under the proposed bills, the government could take away a person’s citizenship in a civil action without that person having been previously convicted of a crime in a court governed by traditional procedural safeguards of trial by jury, confrontation of witnesses, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”

By signing this petition you agree that this amendment should be rescinded. Let's send a clear message in the amount of several hundred thousand voices that we disagree with their recent decision to pass SENATE BILL No.1006.

Contact Torrie Nohara (head of Na Ala Hele on Maui) [email protected], Lance Desilva ([email protected]), Scott Fretz ([email protected]) and tell them NO EBIKES ON NONMOTORIZED VEHICLE DESIGNATED TRAILS!

Say no to the proposal to lower teacher standards in Wisconsin by eliminating degree requirements for people teaching non-core subjects. Keep Wisconsin Schools strong by promoting high standards for all of our educators.

Say no to the proposal to lower teacher standards in Wisconsin by eliminating degree requirements for people teaching non-core subjects. Keep Wisconsin schools strong by promoting high standards for all of our educators.

1. New York must invest an additional $30 million for people with developmental disabilities who are currently living at home with aging family members who are struggling to meet their adult children’s needs. 2. New York must invest $37 million to save essential preschool services for 3 to 5-year-old children with developmental disabilities. $20 million is needed for school age services for 5 to 21-year-olds with developmental disabilities who can’t be served appropriately by their local school districts.

Every vote in every state should matter equally in determining who wins the Presidency. It's time to amend the Constitution and create a direct national vote for President.

I am a concerned constituent writing to ask that the Committee investigate the actions and public statements of certain House Members regarding the “Tr*mpstein” Files Transparency Act and the Department of Justice’s handling of Jeffrey *pstein–related documents. When Congress passed this bipartisan law and President Donald Trump signed it in November 2025, the goal was simple and moral: to ensure transparency, accountability, and justice for *pstein’s many victims. The Act requires the release of all unclassified federal records related to *pstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, with only narrow exceptions for things like victim privacy, national security, or active investigations. Unfortunately, the Department of Justice’s implementation of this law has fallen far short of that promise. Reports show that review of millions of pages of records has been restricted to just a few congressional computers, making real oversight nearly impossible. Meanwhile, public messaging from some Members of Congress has shifted from demanding transparency to defending secrecy and downplaying the ongoing harm to survivors. Even more troubling, new reporting on February 24, 2026 revealed that DOJ appears to have withheld and even removed dozens of pages of FBI interviews and notes from the public database — specifically in a case involving a survivor who accused Donald Trump of s*xually assaulting her when she was a minor. An index from the Ghislaine Maxwell prosecution shows at least four interviews with this survivor, totaling more than fifty pages, but only one is in the public database. Lawmakers who reviewed the full, unredacted files say the DOJ illegally withheld those documents and removed references to Trump entirely. If that’s true, it means critical evidence was erased from the public record in direct violation of the law’s intent and spirit (see, for example, NPR, “DOJ removed, withheld Epstein files related to accusations against Trump,” Feb. 24, 2026; ABC News, “DOJ appears to have withheld some Epstein documents containing allegations against Trump,” Feb. 24, 2026).  Given these facts, I find it deeply misleading for anyone to claim that DOJ has “fully complied” or that there is “nothing more to see.” Yet some House Republicans continue to publicly repeat those lines, ignoring the incomplete releases, the thousands of victims whose stories are still buried, and the millions of pages that remain out of reach. I am also concerned that: • Some Members talk about “transparency” while suppressing evidence or defending DOJ decisions that limit access to the files. • Others point to cherry‑picked documents as proof that the story is over, even though bipartisan sources say much more remains concealed. • And when legitimate oversight questions are raised, they are dismissed as “witch hunts” or partisan attacks, rather than treated as the bipartisan accountability effort they were meant to be. When Members misrepresent their own statute or minimize survivors’ experiences, they undermine both the Committee’s mission and the public’s trust. I respectfully ask the Committee to: • Hold a public hearing focused on DOJ’s handling of victim cases that were shut down or blocked in the *pstein matter, including the case reported this week. • Require DOJ to provide a public explanation of why that survivor’s case was closed, and how that decision aligns with the law. • Request internal DOJ memos, guidance, and decision documents related to the law’s exemptions and their application in this case. • Review public statements by Members regarding DOJ compliance, compare them to the facts, and, if necessary, issue corrective findings or refer serious misrepresentations to the Ethics Committee. Finally, I urge Members to center survivors in this process. Victims have asked for honesty and accountability,  not more political posturing. They deserve to be heard safely, fully, and with dignity. I submit this petition in good faith and under my constitutional right to seek redress from my government. I respectfully request a written response outlining what steps, if any, the Committee plans to take.

Please support Massachusetts House Bill 2908 to amend the Open Meeting Law to allow public bodies to hold “Public Internet Discussions” so that they can operate more efficiently while enhancing the openness and transparency of their activities.

Los Angeles is at a tipping point. We must move off of coal by 2025, but to do so we cannot increase our reliance on fracked natural gas. Gas is a bridge fuel to nowhere. We need to move away from fracked gas in Los Angeles, and to transition to real clean energy solutions. Moving toward 100% clean energy will create jobs, clean up the air and eliminate our dependence on dirty fossil fuels. By continuing our reliance on fossil fuels, we promote climate destruction and the depletion of our water and natural resources, and we displace clean energy solutions on the grid. I urge you to transition Los Angeles away from fossil fuels to 100% clean energy as quickly as possible.