Congress’ analyst: Millions to lose coverage under GOP bill
Fourteen million Americans would lose coverage next year under House Republican legislation remaking the nation’s health care system, and the number would balloon to 24 million by 2026, Congress’ budget analysts projected Monday. Their report deals a stiff blow to a GOP drive already under fire from both parties and large segments of the medical industry. The Congressional Budget Office report undercuts a central argument President Donald Trump and Republicans have cited for swiftly rolling back the 2010 health care overhaul: that the insurance markets created under that statute are “a disaster” and about to implode. The congressional experts said that largely would not be the case, that the market for individual policies “would probably be stable in most areas under either current law or the (GOP) legislation.” The report also flies in the face of Trump’s talk of “insurance for everybody,” which he stated in January. He has since embraced a less expansive goal — to “increase access” — advanced by House Speaker Paul Ryan and other Republicans. Health secretary Tom Price told reporters at the White House the report was “simply wrong” and that he disagreed “strenuously,” saying it omitted the impact of additional GOP legislation and regulatory changes that the Trump administration plans for the future. Still, the budget office’s estimates provide a detailed, credible appraisal of the Republican effort to unravel former President Barack Obama‘s 2010 overhaul. The office has a four-decade history of even-handedness and is currently headed by an appointee recommended by Price when he was a congressman. Trump has repeatedly attacked the agency’s credibility, citing its significant underestimate of the number of people who would buy insurance on state and federal exchanges under “Obamacare.” On the plus side for Republicans, the budget office said the GOP measure would reduce federal deficits by $337 billion over the coming decade. That’s largely because it would cut the federal-state Medicaid program for low-income Americans and eliminate subsidies that Obama’s law provides to millions of people who buy coverage. It also said that while the legislation would push premiums upward before 2020 by an average of 15 to 20 percent compared to current law, premiums would move lower after that. By 2026, average premiums for individuals would be 10 percent lower than under Obama’s statute, it said. The GOP bill would obliterate the tax penalties Obama’s law imposes on people who don’t buy coverage, and it would eliminate the federal subsidies reflecting peoples’ income and premium costs for millions. It instead would provide tax credits based largely on recipients’ ages, let insurers charge more for older people and boost premiums for those who let coverage lapse. It would phase out Obama’s expansion of Medicaid to 11 million additional low earners, cap federal spending for the entire program, repeal taxes the statute imposes and halt federal payments to Planned Parenthood for a year. Administration officials took strong issue with the budget office’s projections of lost coverage. “We believe that our plan will cover more individuals and at a lower cost and give them the choices that they want,” Price said. And House Speaker Ryan said in a statement the GOP legislation “is not about forcing people to buy expensive, one-size-fits-all coverage. It is about giving people more choices and better access to a plan they want and can afford.” In fact, on the Fox News Channel, he said the CBO report “exceeded my expectations.” Not in a good way, Democrats said. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said the projections show “just how empty the president’s promises, that everyone will be covered and costs will go down, have been..” “I hope they would pull the bill. It’s really the only decent thing to do,” said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California. The American Medical Association, which has opposed the Republican bill because it would reduce coverage, said the report shows the legislation would cause “unacceptable” consequences. “ Two House committees approved the legislation last week, and Ryan wants to bring it to the full House next week. Though many Republicans back the bill, conservatives say it doesn’t go far enough in repealing Obama’s law while moderates whose states used the statute to expand Medicaid don’t want people losing coverage. GOP leaders hope the Senate will consider the measure before breaking for an early April recess. Opposition from both ends of the Republican spectrum in that chamber suggests senators might demand significant changes. The budget office attributed projected increases in uninsured Americans to the GOP bill’s elimination of tax penalties for people who don’t buy insurance, to reduced federal subsidies for many people who buy policies and to the reductions in Medicaid. By 2026, the office estimated, a total of 52 million people would lack insurance, including 28 million expected to lack coverage under Obama’s statute. Even though Republican tax credits would be less generous than those under Obama’s law, the combination of those credits and other changes to lower premiums would attract enough healthy people to stabilize markets under the new plan, the report said. The budget office sees federal spending on Medicaid declining by $880 billion over the coming decade — about 25 percent lower than current projections. That would push about 14 million low-income people off the federal-state program. Though average premiums are ultimately expected to fall, that would vary for people of different ages because compared to Obama’s law Republicans would let older people be charged more. The report estimates that individuals’ out-of-pocket costs under the GOP bill “would tend to be higher than those anticipated under current law.” That runs counter to another claim from the president, that his health care plan would offer “much lower deductibles.” CBO had predicted that 23 million people would be enrolled under Obama’s law, but the number proved to be about 12 million — largely because CBO overestimated the extent to which the individual mandate would prompt them to buy coverage. Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Alabama’s 2 remaining Obama-era U.S. attorneys resign
The two remaining Obama-era federal prosecutors in Alabama are stepping down. U.S. Attorneys George Beck Jr. of Wetumpka and Kenyen Brown of Mobile both made announcements following Attorney General Jeff Sessions‘ Friday request that all remaining federal prosecutors appointed by former President Barack Obama step down. There are 93 U.S. attorneys in the United States. 46 of them, including Beck and Brown, were asked to resign immediately “in order to ensure a uniform transition,” said Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores. Such requests aren’t unusual for a new presidential administration, especially when of a differing political party as U.S. attorneys are political appointees. “Until the new U.S. attorneys are confirmed, the dedicated career prosecutors in our U.S. attorney’s offices will continue the great work of the department in investigating, prosecuting and deterring the most violent offenders,” Flores said in a statement. According to a press release, Beck plans on joining the private law firm Morris, Haynes, Wheeles, Knowles, and Nelson, and will continue to represent clients in the Montgomery River Region area. Brown, the first African American U.S. Attorney in Alabama, has yet to comment publicly on leaving his post and what he will do next. Brown is being replaced on interim basis by his top assistant, Steve Butler. The Trump Administration will likely nominate new prosecutors for both of those positions. U.S. attorney offices handle federal crimes, including public corruption, firearms, terrorism, child exploitation and terrorism cases, in their respective districts. They also defend the United States in civil cases.
Ala. State Audtior Jim Zeigler releases book on 2018 governor’s race
Former news reporter and journalism minor from the University of Alabama, Alabama State Auditor Jim Zeigler on Monday announced the release of his fourth book over the weekend on Internet-based publishing house Lulu.com The 284-page book, titled The Making of the People’s Governor 2018, tells the story of of the 2018 election for Governor of Alabama following the second term of Gov. Robert Bentley. Zeigler says he got the idea for the book from potential presidential candidates who release a book about a year before they make a decision on running for president. “Potential candidates for governor have not written their pre-campaign books, but that has now changed. Just watch,” Zeigler predicted. “Watch what an impact this book will have on the upcoming race for governor.” A strong critic of the Bentley administration since he was elected state auditor in 2014, Zeigler said Sunday he will be a candidate for office in 2018 when his term will be up as state auditor, but has yet to decide which office to seek — governor or re-election as auditor. “Whether I will run for governor or re-election as state auditor depends partly on the people’s response to the new book,” Zeigler said. He has until February 9, 2018 to make his decision — the date of the filing deadline with the state Republican Party. A synopsis of the book: The book tells the story of the 2018 election for Governor of Alabama following the disastrous second term of Gov. Robert Bentley. The people of Alabama strongly wanted a change from the self-serving, money-wasting Montgomery Insiders to a voice for Alabama taxpayers. Several of the usual suspects ran for governor with no track records of having stood up against the abuses of the Bentley administration. But one candidate had stood up in the Bentley years and, in 2018, stood out from the rest. Just as American voters voted to “Drain the Swamp” in the 2016 election of President Donald Trump, Alabama voters stood up and voted to “Drain the Marsh in Montgomery” in 2018. Drain the Marsh. Has a certain ring to it.
Even as state adds jobs, Alabama unemployment rate rises to 6.4 percent
The unemployment rate in Alabama has ticked up slightly, even as the state added 6,500 jobs in January. The Alabama Department of Labor said Monday the January rate increased by one percentage point, to 6.4 percent. The department noted that despite the increase, the state still has more people working than it has in eight years. “Our unemployment rate rose because nearly 10,000 more people entered the labor force last month, and about 6,500 of them found work,” said Alabama Labor Secretary Fitzgerald Washington. “The others remain unemployed. When you have an increase in the labor force, and all of those people aren’t able to find work, you will see up an uptick in the rate.” Washington continued, “However, there is good news in this month’s economic report. We continue to surpass our employment numbers each month, and once again, I can say that we currently have more people working in Alabama than there have been in more than eight years. Our labor force is larger than it has been in more than five years.” Major cities with the lowest unemployment rates are: Vestavia Hills: 3.7% Homewood: 3.9% Hoover: 4.0% Major cities with the highest unemployment rates are: Selma: 10.2% Prichard: 9.5%, Bessemer: 8.9%.
Fueled by Donald Trump opponents, Rachel Maddow’s popularity rises
Rachel Maddow can trace the mood of her audience by looking at the ratings. Her MSNBC show’s viewership sank like a stone in the weeks following Donald Trump‘s election, as depressed liberals avoided politics, and bottomed out over the holidays. Slowly, they re-emerged, becoming active and interested again. Maddow’s audience has grown to the point where February was her show’s most-watched month since its 2008 launch. Maddow has emerged as the favorite cable news host for presidential resistors in the opening days of the Trump administration, just as Fox News Channel’s Sean Hannity is one for supporters or Keith Olbermann was the go-to television host for liberals in George W. Bush‘s second term. Trump fascination has helped cable news programs across the political spectrum defy the traditional post-presidential election slump, few as dramatically as Maddow’s. Her show’s average audience of 2.3 million in February doubled its viewership over February 2016, in the midst of the presidential primaries, the Nielsen company said. “I’m grateful for it,” Maddow said one recent afternoon. “It is nice for me that it is happening at a time when I feel we are doing some of our best work.” Those two things — ratings success and Maddow’s pride in the work — don’t always intersect. “We’re making aggressive editorial decisions in terms of how far we’re willing to get off of everyone else’s news cycle,” she said, “but it’s paying off because the news cycle more often than not is catching up with us after we do something.” Maddow has decided to cover the Trump administration like a silent movie, so the show could pay more attention to what is being done rather than what is being said. The central focus is on connect-the-dots reporting about Trump’s business interests and dealings with Russia. Her show is a news cousin to HBO host John Oliver‘s “Last Week Tonight” in its willingness to dive into complex subjects that don’t seem television-friendly, and follow the stories down different alleys. Maddow sounds long-winded when it doesn’t work. When it does, it’s like an absorbing novel stuffed with characters. “It’s not like I am a teacher who is trying to extend the attention span of the American news viewer,” said Maddow, a Rhodes scholar. “I have no goal of trying to privilege complexity. It just so happens that I tend to think in 17-minute bursts.” Maddow said she and her staff try to break news, like reporting on a Department of Homeland Security report on Trump’s immigration policy, and she was aggressive in bringing the Flint, Michigan, water crisis to a national audience. More often than not, she sees her role as explaining how things work. The program spent considerable time last week on a New Yorker magazine piece about foreign investments by Trump’s real estate company. She’s determined not to get lost in the noise, particularly since she believes Trump is skillful at distracting the media with a new story — even an unflattering one — when he doesn’t like the attention being paid to another. “I pray for the day when the most important thing about the Trump administration is that the president said something inappropriate on Twitter,” she said. “There are bigger and more valuable stories to be chasing than that.” When some news organizations were upset at being barred from an informal press briefing held by White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer two weeks ago, Maddow understood why. But the story didn’t really interest her. Since she doesn’t trust much of what the administration says, Maddow wondered what these reporters were really missing by not being there. “Her approach to reality and the president’s couldn’t be further apart,” said Jeff Cohen, an Ithaca University professor and liberal activist. During busy news periods, “certain voices cut through,” said NBC News Chairman Andrew Lack. “And her work is so consistently strong. She doesn’t disappoint, and she’s got a work ethic that is consistently off the charts. … She is a very original and unique voice.” While Maddow delivers opinion pieces instead of straight news, they are well-informed, he said. Lack doesn’t see Maddow as a voice of the resistance. Neither does she. “People want to draft me as an activist all the time, ascribe that role to me,” she said. “I’m not. The reason I know I’m not is that I stopped doing that in order to be the person who explained the news and delivered the news instead. It’s a very clear line to me.” Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
In 1st budget, Donald Trump to push conservative view of government
President Donald Trump sends Congress a proposed budget this week that will sharply test Republicans’ ability to keep long-standing promises to bolster the military, making politically painful cuts to a lengthy list of popular domestic programs. The Republican president will ask his adopted political party, which runs Capitol Hill, to cut domestic agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the departments of Education and Housing and Urban Development, along with grants to state and local governments and community development projects. The spending plan, set for release Thursday, would make the Pentagon the big winner with a $54 billion boost to defense spending. Trump has promised to “do a lot more with less,” but his blueprint faces a reality test with Republicans, many of whom are already protesting. Republicans have groused about some of the preliminary plans, including elimination of the $3 billion community development block grant program that’s popular among local GOP officials, a 25 percent cut to the EPA and elimination of 3,000 jobs, and essentially scuttling a $300 million per-year program to clean up the Great Lakes. Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, is joining with Democrats to push back on that last proposed reduction. Cuts to the Coast Guard are meeting Republican resistance. Trump’s plan to eliminate community development block grants was dismissed on Capitol Hill by those who remember how a modest cut to the program sank a spending bill not long ago. “Unfortunately, we have no alternative but to reinvest in our military and make ourselves a military power once again,” White House economic adviser Gary Cohn said on “Fox News Sunday.” The United States, however, already spends more than half trillion dollars on defense, more than the next seven countries combined. Cohn defended the spending cuts elsewhere as necessary to balance the budget. “These are tough decisions, but the president has shown he is ready, willing and able to make these tough decisions,” he said Sunday. Democrats are unlikely to support the cuts, and Republican defections raise the possibility of a congressional train wreck and a potential government shutdown when the 2018 budget year begins Oct. 1. Preliminary reports on the budget show some domestic Cabinet agencies, such as the departments of Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs, would see increases, including $3 billion for Trump’s promised wall on the U.S.-Mexico border. Trump said repeatedly during the campaign that Mexico would pay for that project, but Mexico has said no. Those intended spending increases, however, would mean deeper cuts elsewhere. People familiar with the budget who spoke on condition of anonymity in advance of the public release say the White House is seeking a 30 percent cut from an Energy Department office that promotes energy efficiency and renewable energy. The office has funded research on projects such as LED light bulbs, electric trucks, advanced batteries and biofuels. The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy is targeted for at least $700 million in cuts from its current $2.1 billion budget, said Scott Sklar, chairman of the steering committee of the Sustainable Energy Coalition. The Energy Department could see steep cuts for its 17 national laboratories, which conduct cutting-edge research on topics from nuclear power to advanced materials for energy generation, storage and use. Trump’s preliminary budget, delivered in secret to agencies last month, proposes a 37 percent cut to the State Department and foreign aid budgets. Those cuts and others were subject to revision in the back and forth that the White House had with agencies leading up to the coming release this week. Trump’s submission won’t tell the complete story. It will be limited to the discretionary, $1 trillion-plus portion of the $4 trillion annual federal budget that pays for Cabinet agencies and departments. These annually appropriated programs have been squeezed in recent years while the costs of mandatory programs such as Medicare and Social Security have risen each year, mostly unchecked. The remainder of Trump’s budget — proposals on taxes, mandatory spending and deficits and projections on the economy — won’t come out until May. That document is sure to upset members of the GOP’s once-proud and large band of deficit hawks, because Trump’s full plans are sure to show large, permanent budget deficits, even with all of the tricks and tools available to the White House Budget office. The government ran a $587 billion deficit last year that required it to borrow 15 cents of every dollar it spent. Looking ahead, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says the government is on track for accumulated deficits of more than $9 trillion over the coming decade. CBO Director Keith Hall warns that such huge deficits are putting the government on a long-term path that “would have serious negative consequences for the budget and the nation, including an increased risk of fiscal crisis.” But Trump is promising to leave the government’s two largest programs, Medicare and Social Security, virtually untouched. He’s also promising $1 trillion in infrastructure spending, even as pressure is building to finance tax cuts with borrowed money. Trump’s budget options are already being hemmed in by decisions on health care. The Trump-endorsed House bill cuts taxes by $1 trillion over the coming decade while devoting hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicaid cuts toward a new GOP subsidy. “They’re going to have a hell of a hard time passing a budget that balances — even fabricating a budget that balances,” said Kentucky Rep. John Yarmuth, the top Democrat on the House Budget committee. “This health care bill is going to make their budget very tricky.” Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Donald Trump adviser says gov’t has many ways to surveil people
Senior White House adviser Kellyanne Conway says she doesn’t have any evidence to support President Donald Trump‘s claim that Barack Obama wiretapped Trump Tower phone lines during the election. Instead, Conway is pointing to recent revelations about other government surveillance to suggest it was possible Obama used a different technique. Her response was unlikely to tamp down criticism of Trump’s tweets earlier this month. The House intelligence committee has asked the administration to provide evidence of the allegation by Monday. “The answer is I don’t have any evidence and I’m very happy that the House intelligence committee (is) investigating,” Conway told ABC’s “Good Morning America.” She later tweeted that the administration is “pleased” with the ongoing congressional investigation and “will comment after.” Trump’s critics have slammed the president for making the explosive wiretapping claim on his Twitter account without evidence. Wiretapping a U.S. citizen would require special permission from a court, and Trump as president would have the ability to declassify that information. James Clapper, who was Obama’s director of national intelligence, has said that nothing matching Trump’s claims had taken place. Also this month, WikiLeaks released nearly 8,000 documents that purportedly reveal secrets about the CIA’s tools for breaking into targeted computers, cellphones and even smart TVs. Conway noted that development to justify Trump’s claims. “What I can say is there are many ways to surveil each other now, unfortunately,” including “microwaves that turn into cameras, et cetera,” Conway told New Jersey’s The Record newspaper in an interview Sunday. “So we know that that is just a fact of modern life.” Conway told “Good Morning America” that “I wasn’t making a suggestion about Trump Tower.” She said she was answering a question about surveillance “generally,” and without specific reference to the current controversy. FBI director James Comey has privately urged the Justice Department to dispute Trump’s claim but has not come forward to do so himself. Sen. John McCain, an influential Republican, said Sunday: “I think the president has one of two choices: either retract or to provide the information that the American people deserve, because, if his predecessor violated the law, President Obama violated the law, we have got a serious issue here, to say the least,” the Arizona senator said. The House Intelligence Committee’s request for evidence by Monday was made in a letter sent to the Justice Department by the panel’s chairman, Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., and its ranking Democrat, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., according to a congressional official. The aide wasn’t authorized to discuss the request by name and requested anonymity. Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Postelection dominoes create 5 open House seats
The postelection dominoes of President Donald Trump‘s administration picks and a California Democratic appointment have created five openings in the House, and that means five special elections in the coming months. It will take some Democratic upsets for this trial heat for 2018 to dent GOP control of the House, where Republicans have a 237-193 edge. Republicans are defending four GOP-leaning seats. Democrats are protecting territory in a liberal California district. Republicans say that puts pressure on Democrats to prove they can capitalize on widespread opposition to Trump. Democrats counter that it’s merely a free opportunity to pick up a seat, maybe two, ahead of next year’s midterm elections. A look at the five congressional contests: GEORGIA’S 6th CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT This wealthy district spanning many of Atlanta’s northern suburbs has elected former Speaker Newt Gingrich, Sen. Johnny Isakson and current Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price, all Republicans. But Democrats believe they have a shot, based on Trump’s underperformance and the early fundraising success of a 30-year-old former congressional staffer, Jon Ossoff. Price won 68 percent of the vote in November, while Trump only edged Democrat Hillary Clinton, 48-47 percent. Ossoff is trying to thread the needle, condemning Trump and highlighting the oversight role of Congress, yet styling himself as a business-friendly centrist. “I believe voters are tired of the partisanship and ready for something fresh,” he says, convinced he can win GOP-leaning moderates. Television airwaves in this expensive market already are filled with Ossoff ads criticizing Trump and also a Republican super PAC ad criticizing the upstart Democrat, a clear sign Republicans aren’t taking any chances. Ossoff’s path depends on advancing to a June 20 runoff from an April 18 “jungle primary” that will have more than a dozen candidates from both parties on the same ballot. In the likely event that no one captures a majority in April, the top two vote-getters, regardless of party, move on. Republicans say Ossoff, even if he advances, won’t stand up against one of several Republican candidates who are well-regarded in the district. ___ MONTANA’S AT-LARGE CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT Republican multimillionaire Greg Gionforte will try again to win over Montana voters after losing the 2016 governor’s race. This time, he’s talking up Trump. “This election will be a referendum on Donald Trump and this administration,” Gianforte said after last week’s GOP nominating convention. Gianforte won 46 percent of the vote in November against Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock, double digits behind Trump’s 57 percent. Gionforte will face musician and political newcomer Rob Quist, also chosen by a state party convention. Quist, a Democrat, already is the target of attack ads from the Congressional Leadership Fund, the same Republican super PAC that has been going after Ossoff in Georgia. The winner of a May 25 special election will succeed Ryan Zinke, who now leads Trump’s Interior Department. Zinke won re-election with 56 percent of the vote before being tapped for the Cabinet post. Montanans lean conservative, but they are willing to elect Democrats. Bullock, now in his second term, succeeded two-term Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer, and Jon Tester is in his second Senate term. Still, Montana’s single House seat has been in GOP hands since 1997. Gionforte can self-finance his campaign, having made a fortune when Oracle paid $1.8 billion to acquire the technology firm he started. Quist has backing from Schweitzer, who remains popular in the state. ____ KANSAS’ 4th CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT This reliably Republican district anchored by Wichita has an April 11 special election to pick a successor to Mike Pompeo, now Trump’s CIA director. In a party nominating convention, Republicans tapped state Treasurer Ron Estes, who twice won huge margins statewide and held local office in Wichita for years before that. Democrats, also in a convention, chose Wichita attorney Jim Thompson. Democrats took Thompson’s long odds over the former state treasurer whom Estes defeated in 2010. Republicans have held the seat since their 1994 sweep. ___ SOUTH CAROLINA’s 5th CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT The seat opened up when Trump tapped tea party lawmaker Mick Mulvaney to head the Office of Management and Budget. Candidates for May 2 party primaries can officially qualify only after March 13, but several Republicans are in. Among them: state legislative leader Tommy Pope and former state Republican Party Chairman Chad Connelly, who spent the last several years coordinating the national GOP’s outreach to evangelicals. So far, two Democrats are in the race: Archie Parnell, a Goldman Sachs senior adviser, and Alexis Frank, an Army veteran who is now a student. The rapidly growing district includes the suburbs on the southern edge of Charlotte, North Carolina, and the college town Rock Hill, a profile that had South Carolina Democrats quietly hopeful they could threaten Mulvaney in November. But he won easy re-election. ___ CALIFORNIA’s 34th CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT This Los Angeles County district is the most lopsided of the special-election contests. Clinton swamped Trump here. The opening came when Gov. Jerry Brown elevated Rep. Xavier Beccera to state attorney general, replacing Kamala Harris, who ascended to the U.S. Senate. The district’s liberal leanings likely mean two Democrats — out of 19 who qualified — will advance from an April 4 jungle primary to a June 6 general election. Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Abrupt dismissals spark turmoil among federal prosecutors
Two days before Attorney General Jeff Sessions ordered dozens of the country’s top federal prosecutors to clean out their desks, he gave those political appointees a pep talk during a conference call. The seemingly abrupt about-face Friday left the affected U.S. attorneys scrambling to brief the people left behind and say goodbye to colleagues. It also could have an impact on morale for the career prosecutors who now must pick up the slack, according to some close to the process. The quick exits aren’t expected to have a major impact on ongoing prosecutions, but they gave U.S. attorneys little time to prepare deputies who will take over until successors are named. “It’s very, very gut-level reaction,” said Steven Schleicher, a former prosecutor who left Minnesota U.S. Attorney Andrew Luger’s office in January and was still in contact with people there. The request for resignations from the 46 prosecutors who were holdovers from the Obama administration wasn’t shocking. It’s fairly customary for the 93 U.S. attorneys to leave their posts once a new president is in office, and many had already left or were making plans for their departures. Sessions himself was asked to resign as a U.S. attorney in a similar purge by Attorney General Janet Reno in 1993. But the abrupt nature of the dismissals — done with little explanation and not always with the customary thanks for years of service — stunned and angered some of those left behind in offices around the country. Former prosecutors, friends and colleagues immediately started reaching out to each other on a growing email chain to express condolences and support, commiserating about how unfair they felt the situation was. One U.S. attorney was out of state on Friday and was forced to say goodbye to his office by a blast email, said Tim Purdon, a former U.S. attorney from North Dakota who was included on the email chain. Some of those ousted were longtime prosecutors who had spent their careers coming up through the ranks of the Justice Department. John W. Vaudreuil, U.S. attorney for the Western District of Wisconsin, became an assistant U.S. attorney in that office in 1980. Another, Richard S. Hartunian of the Northern District of New York, joined the Justice Department in the 1990s. “All of these U.S. attorneys know they serve at the pleasure of the president. No one complains about that,” said John Walsh, an Obama-era appointee as U.S. attorney in Colorado who resigned in July. “But it was handled in a way that was disrespectful to the U.S. attorneys because they were almost treated as though they had done something wrong, when in fact they had not.” Peter Neronha, who had served since 2009 as U.S. attorney for Rhode Island, said even before Friday he had been preparing for his eventual departure and had written a resignation statement to be released upon his exit. He said he knew his time was limited but had been eager to stay on to see through a major public corruption prosecution and to speak with students about the perils of opioid addiction. “When that was done, I was going to go anyway — whether I got 24 hours’ notice, or two weeks’ notice, or two months’ notice. It doesn’t really matter,” Neronha said. Whenever there’s a change in presidential administration, he said, “I think it would be unwise not to be ready.” It’s not clear why the Justice Department asked the prosecutors to exit so quickly. Sessions gave no warning during the Wednesday conference call in which he articulated his agenda for fighting violent crime. “The attorney general did not mention on that call, ‘Stay tuned for changes,’” Neronha said. Much of the public attention since Friday has focused on Preet Bharara, the high-profile Manhattan federal prosecutor who said he was fired despite meeting with then-President-elect Donald Trump and saying he was asked to remain. Trump himself did apparently make an attempt to speak with Bharara in advance of the Friday demand for resignations. The president reached out through a secretary on his staff to Bharara a day earlier but the two men never spoke, according to a person told about the conversation but who requested anonymity. The White House on Sunday said the president reached out to thank Bharara for his service and to wish him good luck. The Justice Department on Friday did say it would not accept the resignations of Dana Boente, now the acting deputy attorney general, and Rod Rosenstein, the Maryland prosecutor who’s been nominated for the deputy role. On Sunday, some Democrats condemned the demand for resignations in highly partisan comments. Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, suggested Trump might have fired Bharara to thwart a potential corruption investigation, and believed the move added to a lack of trust of the administration. Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Bradley Byrne: Funding our nation’s military
Over the last five years, our nation’s military has seen funding cuts while being asked to do more and more around the globe. This has resulted in a severe readiness crisis. For example, some of our Marines have been forced to get parts for their F-18s off of planes in a museum. That is simply absurd and deeply troubling. Just as bad, less than one-third of Army forces are at acceptable readiness levels for ground combat. And our pilots are getting less training than many of our adversaries. It is clear that budget cuts have really thinned out our military and hurt our ability to train and prepare for conflict. This is putting our military men and women at even greater risk. Given these serious readiness issues, I am pleased to report that last week the House of Representatives passed the defense funding bill for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2017. By passing this bill in a strong 371 to 48 vote, the House further reaffirmed our strong, bipartisan commitment to supporting the U.S. military. The bill includes $577.9 billion in funding for our military, which is an increase of $5.2 billion over last year’s funding levels. The bill fully funds a pay raise for our military and provides for 1,305,900 active-duty troops and 813,200 Guard and Reserve troops. Just as important, the bill funds ongoing military operations against ISIS, al-Qaeda, and other terrorist organizations. The bill also includes some good news for Alabama’s shipbuilding industry. The bill funds the construction of three more Littoral Combat Ships (LCS), which are the Navy ships built by Austal USA in Mobile. Austal directly employs over 4,000 people at their shipyard in Mobile, and countless other jobs are tied to the shipyard. Working with my House and Senate colleagues, I am proud we were able to secure funding for the construction of three more Littoral Combat Ships. These ships are a key component of the Navy’s fleet, and the additional funding is vital to the future of the Austal shipyard in Mobile. I am proud to have fought for this funding to be included in the bill, but the fight for a larger Navy and more Littoral Combat Ships never stops. Last week, I also testified before the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, where I asked for three more Littoral Combat Ships to be funded in next year’s defense bill. The Navy has made clear they have a high demand for the full complement of 52 Littoral Combat Ships. The defense funding bill also falls in line with President Donald Trump’s proposed increases to defense spending and makes much needed progress toward helping our military regain its footing. From the fight against ISIS to Russian aggression to China’s actions in the Pacific to North Korea’s continued weapons testing, it is more important than ever that our military be able to operate at full strength. Given the global threat environment, I sincerely hope Senate Democrats will not play politics with the funding for our military. In the past, we have seen them attempt to hold military funding hostage until Republicans agreed to across-the-board funding increases for other, non-defense programs. This is reckless and irresponsible. We must ensure our military men and women have the funding needed to do their job and keep the American people safe. I call on the Senate to quickly pass this defense funding bill and send it to President Trump’s desk for his signature. Reversing the readiness crisis and ensuring our military men and women have the funding and resources to do their job is a fundamental responsibility of Congress. • • • Bradley Byrne is a member of U.S. Congress representing Alabama’s 1st Congressional District.
