Rep. Barry Moore votes for legislation that fully funds health care for veterans
On Friday, Congressman Barry Moore (R-AL02) voted in favor of the 2024 Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill. This legislation aims to fully fund veterans’ health care programs and supports a strong national defense by funding $17 billion in military construction projects. It also includes provisions prohibiting VA funding for abortion, critical race theory, and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. “This bill is a victory for the 377,000 veterans in my home state of Alabama who rely on care and benefits from the VA after serving our country,” said Moore. “House Republicans are focused on caring for these heroes and investing in the future of our servicemembers rather than spending taxpayer dollars on extinguishing innocent lives or propping up woke initiatives that prioritize pronouns over performance.” The 2024 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Bill: · Fully funds VA health care programs · Fully funds VA benefits · Invests in the pacific theater and new barracks · Prohibits the closure or realignment of Guantanamo Bay · Prohibits funding for abortion through the VA · Prohibits funding for critical race theory initiatives and DEI initiatives “This bill before us fully and responsibly funds veterans’ health care,” said Appropriations Committee Chair Kay Granger. “It will ensure our veterans get the medical treatment they deserve.” The Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act includes a total of $317 billion in funding for the Department of Defense (Military Construction and Family Housing), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and related agencies. Of the total, $155 billion is provided as discretionary funding and $161.740 billion is provided for mandatory programs. Of the discretionary total, $17.474 billion is for Department of Defense military construction projects, nearly $800 million above the President’s Budget Request. The bill also fully funds the Department of Veterans Affairs for Fiscal Year 2024 by appropriating $137.755 billion in discretionary funding in addition to the $20.268 billion included in the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 for the Cost of War Toxic Exposures Fund. It also includes a total of $471.7 million for the four related agencies. House Democrats opposed the bill. Their stated reasons for opposing the bill are that it: · Worsens readiness by cutting military construction by over $1.5 billion compared to the current level and does not include dedicated funding for PFAS remediation and cleanup or military installation climate change and resilience projects. · Further limits women’s access to abortion. · Damages the quality of life of veterans. Veterans rely on programs across the entire federal government. House Republicans’ proposals to slash critical domestic investment in other bills to levels not seen for years—and in some cases decades—strip away education, job opportunities, housing, and food assistance that veterans and their families depend on. · Cannot claim to support veterans while making it harder for them to feed their families, and keep roofs over their heads while denying them education and training opportunities at every stage of life. · Includes partisan changes to existing law, known as “riders,” that Democrats will never support, disenfranchising veterans rather than making VA a welcoming and inclusive place for all those who volunteer to serve our country. We did not make promises to certain servicemembers in exchange for their service and sacrifice; we made promises to everyone H.R. 4366 passed the House as amended 219 to 211 along a largely party-line vote. It now goes to the Senate, where a much different bill is likely to pass. The two versions will ultimately be settled in a conference committee. Barry Moore is in his second term representing Alabama’s Second Congressional District. He previously served the people of Enterprise in the Alabama House of Representatives from 2010 to 2018. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
UAH researcher receives a grant to study life expectancy inequities in Alabama
Men in Alabama die younger than women do. The average life span for a woman in Alabama is 78.2 years; the average man lives just 72.2 years. Alabama, at 75.2, has the 49th worst life expectancy in America, leading only West Virginia (74.5) and Mississippi (74.2). Whites live longer than Blacks in Alabama. The life expectancy for a Black man in Alabama is just 69.0 years. That puts Alabama ahead of Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and the District of Columbia (66.53). White life expectancy, however, is lower in Alabama at 75.95 years than in any other state except for West Virginia (75.35). While these are the averages, there are wide fluctuations between zip codes and even from one neighborhood to the next. Dr. Azita Amiri, an associate professor with the College of Nursing at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH), has been awarded a $25,000 Network of Practice Grant by the Bloomberg American Health Initiatives, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health to examine life expectancy inequities in Alabama including environmental factors. The researcher plans to use findings from the project to develop a community-centric blueprint designed to address social and environmental determinants of health in selected neighborhoods in the region. “Evidence is convincing that social and built-environmental conditions affect health, including life expectancy, as much as genetics and other personal characteristics,” Dr. Amiri says. “In the United States, life expectancy varies widely across geographical regions, neighborhoods, and even city blocks. Equitable societies and built environments, such as access to healthcare centers or healthy food groceries, are essential for equal life expectancies.” Fifty-five out of 67 Alabama counties are considered rural, comprising 44% of the state’s population, based on 2020 U.S. census data, and 58 of the counties are designated ‘medically underserved,’ the researcher notes. “Rural populations in Alabama suffer from an unequal distribution of resources, poverty, low literacy, environmental injustice and unequal disease burdens from cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and all-cause mortality.” The study will use life expectancy data from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) U.S. Small-area Life Expectancy Estimates Project to support the effort, as well as health data from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). “Based on the 2022 America’s Health Rankings composite measure, Alabama is ranked 45th out of 50 states in America’s Health Rankings, according to the most recent data, and among the states with the lowest life expectancy, Alabama is 49th after Mississippi,” explains Dr. Amiri. “Multiple factors, including the lack of access to care and high rates of physical inactivity, premature death, low birth weight, multiple chronic conditions, and obesity drive this poor standing.” Dr. Amiri will be supported in this effort by Dr. Shuang Zhao of the UAH Political Sciences Department. Dr. Zhao is certified in public health policy and is a UAH Nursing Ph.D. candidate. The research will focus in particular on environmental challenges in the areas selected for study, and the findings of the initiative will be presented to state officials to propose cost-effective interventions aimed at addressing these challenges. “Five neighborhoods with low life expectancies and high disparities will be selected, and focus group sessions for each will be arranged to discuss the problems and seek input and solutions from community members and leaders,” Dr. Amiri says. Dr. Shima Hamidi, a Bloomberg assistant professor in the Department of Environmental Health and Engineering, will act as faculty advisor for the project and will tour the selected areas, discuss data analysis and address community member feedback. “Dr. Hamidi and community representatives will meet with state officials, such as the Governor, state representatives, and the head of the Alabama Department of Public Health in Montgomery to discuss proposed next steps,” Dr. Amiri says. “We will also include socioeconomic and demographic variables in the analysis,” Dr. Amiri said. “This will include the proportion of black and other minorities, marital status, education, sex, employment status, race, income/poverty ratio, food stamp/supplemental nutrition assistance programs participants, household income, immigration status, self-care difficulty, and insurance/Medicaid coverage.” To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Alabama Republican Party to consider rule changes making it harder for GOP candidates to take AEA dollars
On Friday, the Alabama Republican Party will meet to hear remarks from former President Donald Trump. On Saturday, the Alabama Republican Executive Committee will meet for its annual 2023 Summer Meeting. The Executive Committee will consider a controversial rule change that would ban NEA and AEA campaign donations for GOP candidates running for school superintendents or to serve on a school board. The executive committee members will consider a ban on campaign contributions from state and national teacher’s unions for those candidates. Currently, the Alabama Republican Party’s bylaws only strongly admonish candidates who accept donations from the National Education Associates (NEA) and its state affiliates, such as the Alabama Education Association (AEA). The proposed standing rule change – introduced by ALGOP Chairman John Wahl – would significantly strengthen party rules by prohibiting Republican candidates for state school board, county school board, and county superintendent from accepting those contributions. “The Alabama Republican Party is strongly committed to protecting our children from indoctrination in the classroom by left-wing groups like the NEA and its affiliated organizations,” Wahl said in a statement. “Parents should decide what their children learn about divisive concepts, not education unions that have lost touch with the values of the American people. Transgender ideology and other woke policies have no place in our schools, period. So many of our parents and local teachers want to see change in our education system, but how can we expect our superintendents and school board members to stand up against teaching these woke concepts if they are afraid of the money and financial power coming from liberal unions responsible for pushing this type of curriculum? It’s a blatant conflict of interest, and something that needs to be addressed. Our elected school representatives must be responsible to Alabama parents, not special interest groups. My proposal would stop this conflict of interest, and is no different than the state’s prohibition on members of the Alabama Public Service Commission accepting donations from the utilities they regulate. The bottom line is it’s time to get woke agendas out of our curriculum and out of our classrooms.” AEA Executive Director Amy Marlowe responded to Wahl’s attack. “The ‘A’ in AEA stands for Alabama – and we take pride in Alabama’s values,” Marlowe said in a statement. “Our voluntary membership comprises almost 90,000 Alabamians, with 72% identifying as conservative Republican voters. AEA prioritizes all education employees working to teach children in Alabama’s local schools. Our focus is on education with no partisan perspective or fringe ideologies. “We do not feed into the narrative of the baseless culture wars expressed in Wahl’s press release – and we ask that he or other party leaders bring forth any person who has said they have been lobbied by AEA advocating for the concepts referenced in his release.” Those comments led to Wahl firing back on Tuesday. “It’s ironic that the AEA would take offense to my comments regarding woke policies, considering they are affiliates of the NEA, who make no secret of their promoting transgender and woke policies,” Wahl said. “If they are serious about supporting Alabama values, they are free to disassociate from the NEA at any time. It’s also important to remember that just a few weeks ago, they sent an update to their members promoting that a divisive concepts bill was defeated, and bragging about how they killed school choice and opposed the Republican-led effort by the state legislature to cut the state grocery tax.” While the proposed rule would apply to candidates for the State Board of Education, county school superintendents, and elected school boards, it does not apply to the state Legislature and statewide constitutional officers. It was the State Legislature that failed to pass comprehensive school choice legislation, the Legislature that failed for the second year in a row to pass the divisive concepts bill, and the Legislature which has repeatedly failed to pass legislation replacing the controversial Alabama course of study in place – including the controversial new math – even though the state has failed to show significant gains in reading and math scores since the new curriculum was adopted. The AEA spent over $440,000 in 2021 on 40 Republican legislators and legislative candidates. The Alabama Republican Executive Committee consists of approximately 475 members and is the largest Republican Executive Committee in the country. All 67 counties in the state are represented on the State Executive Committee, which is the governing body of the Alabama Republican Party. The meeting will gavel in at 10 a.m. at the Montgomery Renaissance Hotel on Saturday, August 5. Another item that the Alabama State Republican Executive Committee will consider at Saturday’s meeting includes the 2024 Presidential Primary Resolution, which will outline how Alabama’s presidential delegates will be apportioned in the Super Tuesday Primary on March 5, 2024. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Tommy Tuberville holds town hall events with farmers
On Tuesday, U.S. Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-Alabama) held a series of town halls with farmers to listen to their concerns. Tuberville serves on the Senate Agriculture Committee, which is in the process of writing the Farm Bill – a five-year bill that sets priorities for agriculture and supplemental nutrition benefits for the country. Alabama Today joined Tuberville, Alabama Department of Agriculture and Industries Commissioner Rick Pate, and Tuberville’s top agricultural aide Emma Johnson at Snead State Community College in Boaz. “We are going around talking to people about their problems, what they think should be in the Farm Bill,” Tuberville said. “We have got to take care of our farmers.” “We have big problems in this country,” Tuberville said. “They are trying to run the small farmers out,” Tuberville said of the Biden Administration. “They want corporations running things,” Tuberville continued. Tuberville said “just three or four companies” would run each agricultural sector. Tuberville said the Farm Bill would be about $1.5 trillion over the next five years, with $1.2 trillion for supplemental nutrition assistance programs (SNAP). Just $300 billion of that will be for actual farm programs. “We need to make sure that we get our share of the pie,” Tuberville said of farm programs that benefit Alabama farmers. “I know that you are having a hard time getting people to work,” Tuberville said. “It is incredible how much money we are paying people not to work.” The largest agriculture sector by receipt in Alabama is the poultry sector (primarily hatching eggs and feeding them out to market-weight chickens as broilers). With a $15 billion economic impact, the poultry industry is larger economically than all other agricultural commodities in Alabama combined. Powerful agricultural conglomerates own the chickens and provide the feed, medication, and technical expertise, and the poultry farmers provide the land, labor, and capital investment in the poultry houses. Much of the cattle raised in Alabama are raised on farms that also have chicken houses – the chicken litter waste products going to fertilize the pastures that the cattle are raised on. “The poultry industry is huge, but if you can’t make a living at it, you are going to get out,” Tuberville said. “We have to save our small farmer. Most people don’t want their kids going into it if they can’t make a profit.” Emma Johnson explained, “In poultry, it can cost $2 to 3 million (in construction costs) for four (poultry) houses.” Tuberville said that he is committed to rural broadband and that it is necessary in today’s world. One poultry farmer told Tuberville that the poultry farmers in past years had invested in refrigeration units to store their dead birds for renderers to pick up to be processed into dog food ingredients. “Renderers can’t make money,” the farmer explained. The EQUIP program, however, does not provide funds for the incinerators or composters that the poultry farmers need to dispose of those bird carcasses on the farm. “There just is not any money for the renderers,” the farmer explained. “They don’t want to take that product. There just isn’t any money in it.” Emma Johnson said, “4% (of the Farm Bill) is for conservation programs.” “We are for moving away from land retirement programs like the CRP (Conservation Reserve Program),” Johnson said. “There are 27 million acres in the CRP. We want to focus on highly erodible land, not taking grassland or working land out of production.” Rancher John Hannah complained that current farm programs “will pay for cross fences, but not (property perimeter) fences. They want me to build 3-acre paddocks. I have 100 head. I can’t spend all my time moving cows. I would like to see more common sense,” in those programs. Hannah said it used to be 66% of the consumer’s dollar for a pound of beef went to the rancher for raising that animal. “Today it has flipped just the opposite where just 33% of consumer dollars go to the farmer.” “We don’t want to rely on a government handout,” Hannah said. “I want to be an independent farmer.” Hannah complained that prices for cattle are not fair because too many cattle are locked up by the meatpackers rather than going through the auction barns. “You have got to open up the market to fair negotiated pricing,” Hannah said. “We have let it get down to four packers. That is a problem,” Tuberville said. Commissioner Pate said, “We saw the vulnerabilities during COVID where those four companies have over 80% of the market.” “We have got $12.5 million” for helping build a meatpacking plant in Alabama, Pate said. “We are going to try to double and triple the meatpacking in Alabama.” Alabama Today asked Pate about the packing plant the Poarch Creek Band of Indians are building in South Alabama. “I was there at the groundbreaking,” Pate said. “They have cleared a piece of ground, but they aren’t putting anything up yet.” Pate expressed concern that the Poarch Creeks’ facility will primarily process their cattle. “The Indians have a lot of cattle,” Pate said. “I don’t know how much that is going to help the average cattleman.” “Since Joe Biden has been in office, input costs (for farmers) are up 28%, fertilizer is up over 60%,” Johnson said. “We are trying to address input costs during this Farm Bill.” “None of us are going to make it if we don’t start drilling for oil again,” Tuberville said. “This country was built on cheap energy.” “In 2008, I built a poultry house for $108,000 – today, it costs over $600,000 to build the same house I built in 2008,” another poultry farmer said. “I get the same price today for a load out of chickens today as I did in 2008. They are killing the poultry industry.” A group of farmers and homestead owners from the Chandler Mountain area of St. Clair County were in attendance to express their opposition to a controversial Alabama Power project to build a series of hydroelectric dams on the northern branch of Little Canoe Creek on the St. Clair/Etowah County line. They claim that building the massive facility
Will Sellers: Remembering President Warren Harding and his visit to the Magic City
One Hundred years ago, President Warren Harding died unexpectedly. Occupying the White House for a little more than two-and-a-half years, he was a popular president, having been elected with the largest margin of victory of any presidential candidate before or since. Following his death, several scandals, both public and private, tarnished his reputation and obscured several significant accomplishments. Though he had been involved in Ohio state politics, the highest state office Harding ever held was lieutenant governor; he had been defeated in his lone attempt for governor. He later ran for U.S. Senate and was successfully elected. At the 1920 Republican convention, several regional factions deadlocked the balloting, and no consensus candidate materialized. When party leaders met in the proverbial smoke-filled room, Harding emerged as the compromise presidential nominee. In one of history’s coincidences, Democrats tapped Ohio Gov. James M. Cox as its nominee against Ohio Senator Harding, one of the few instances when two general election candidates from the same state opposed each other for the presidency. Unlike his opponent, Harding did not engage in a frenetic nationwide campaign. For the most part, he capitalized on the failures of the Woodrow Wilson administration and the dissension within the ranks of the Democratic Party. He would win the presidency with more than 400 electoral votes. The economy Harding inherited was in shambles. The country was just getting settled after the dislocations of World War I, income tax rates exceeded 70 percent, government regulations of industry were significant, and unemployment was on the rise. To address the challenges of a sluggish national economy, Harding appointed Andrew Mellon as Treasury Secretary. Mellon was a banker and technocrat who understood finance and economics better than anyone. With Harding’s approval, he proposed an economic policy that created the “Roaring ‘20s.” Given such high rates of confiscatory income taxation, capital was not properly employed as high-wage earners saw no incentive to work hard and pay more than 70% of their earnings in taxes. The wealthy kept their money in safe investments like low-yielding government bonds that shielded interest income from taxation. Fifty years ahead of the Laffer Curve, Harding advocated legislation that eventually reduced the highest tax rate to 25 percent and completely exempted many lower-income earners from taxes. On the expense side of the ledger, he significantly reduced government spending and established a separate budget office to apply business principles to government administration. The result was record growth and low unemployment. The Harding administration was not in favor of an engaging foreign policy and limited any U.S. involvement in world affairs. One critical exception was hosting a disarmament conference to force the major world powers to limit construction of large naval vessels. But, like most disarmament or other international treaties, unless there is an effort at monitoring compliance with an enforcement mechanism, the treaty is merely a cordial agreement that, over time, is observed in the breech. Given Harding’s overwhelming popularity, he was invited to visit the Deep South and help celebrate the 50th anniversary of the City of Birmingham. Presidential visits on such occasions are usually non-controversial and entirely celebratory in nature. No one would have faulted President Harding for the standard congratulatory remarks, but he had a different idea. To an assembled crowd that totaled more than 100,000, Harding addressed the issue of race relations head-on. This should not have been too much of a surprise, as Harding strongly supported anti-lynching legislation that levied a $10,000 fine in any county in which a lynching occurred and gave federal courts jurisdiction to prosecute local officials for failing to act and indict perpetrators for murder. When he mounted the rostrum in Capitol Park, Harding saw the clearly segregated audience. And while he used the occasion to congratulate Birmingham on its industrial growth and contributions to economic development, he pivoted and personalized his remarks to advocate for racial equality. In words that still resonate today, Harding said, “I believe in absolute equality in the paths of knowledge and culture, equality of opportunity for those who strive, equal admiration for those who achieve. I want to see the time come when black men will regard themselves as full participants in the benefits and duties of American citizenship.” Otherwise, he said, “Whether you like it or not, our democracy is a lie unless you stand for that equality.” As these remarks were spoken, loud applause came from the segregated black side of the park while stony silence emanated from the white side. This was the first time that any national Republican so directly challenged the reigning segregation orthodoxy in the South. While southern leaders dismissed these remarks, others saw this as the beginning of a national sea change in dealing with racial politics. In speaking truth to power, Harding’s courage would be attacked by the enemies of justice and fundamental fairness. Though his administration tried to move forward on some of his initiatives, he was unable to muster the votes in the Senate to pass civil rights legislation. Even President Franklin Roosevelt, who had significant majorities in both houses, later refused to champion Harding’s anti-lynching initiatives during his own administration for fear of losing Southern votes. Less than three years into his term, Harding died suddenly from what most historians attribute to a heart attack prompted by long-term cardiac issues. His untimely death resulted in a large outpouring of grief, especially among those who had heard his speech and witnessed his sincerity, but Harding’s courage in addressing the issue of race in Birmingham is largely forgotten today. When several scandals came to light after his death, Harding’s popularity waned. While he was never personally implicated nor accused of profiting from his position, many of the friends Harding had placed in positions of authority were. Even though several cabinet members suffered the consequences of their greed, Harding’s reputation has not recovered from the corruption of his vainglorious friends. Notwithstanding the scandals, Harding’s legacy for electoral success, economic achievements, and national wealth remain unsurpassed. Will Sellers is a graduate
Steve Flowers: Don Siegelman Meets Big Jim Folsom
We are continuing this week with our summer series on Big Jim Folsom – Alabama’s most colorful governor. Those of us who grew up in and around Alabama politics have coined a descriptive term for a person who is obsessed with seeking political office constantly and tirelessly without reservation or concern for their physical, mental, or financial welfare. They will run for high-elected office at all costs. The term we use to describe those people is named for the man who best exemplified that obsession, George Wallace. Therefore, someone who is driven by obsession to win high public office has the “George Wallace Syndrome.” The Alabama baby boomer who was eaten up with George Wallace Syndrome more than any other I know was Don Siegelman. Siegelman ran nonstop beginning from the time he was a student at the University of Alabama in the 1960s. He was successful. He was President of the Student Government at Alabama and went on to become Alabama’s Secretary of State, Attorney General, Lieutenant Governor, and finally, his life’s dream of Governor. There is an old political saying that you don’t ever want to get into a race with someone who wants it more than you and will outwork you. Siegelman was never outworked. He was relentless and focused on the ultimate prize that many a young politician in Alabama aspired to, and that’s the governor’s chair. He captured the brass ring. Siegelman reminded me so much of George Wallace; he truly deserves the award for having the Wallace Syndrome. He and Wallace were so consumed with politics and being governor that neither one of them could tell you what they were eating when you had lunch with them. Eating was a sideline to any political discussion they were having and calling lunch. They ate because they had to eat to survive. Siegelman was always a little more liberal than most Alabamians. Therefore, he grew up admiring the more progressive Alabama political icons. He admired our progressive New Deal Democrats, such as Lister Hill, John Sparkman, and Carl Elliott. However, the utmost idol for young liberal politicians of my era was James E. “Big Jim” Folsom. Big Jim was truly a progressive on fiscal and social issues. Siegelman had a remarkedly similar career and educational background as Bill Clinton. Both were almost the same age, both received undergraduate degrees from their state universities, both left college and went to prestigious law schools – Clinton to Yale and Siegelman to Georgetown. They both went on to do postgraduate work at Oxford in England. Then they both started running for office right away. Clinton ran for Congress, then Governor of Arkansas. Siegelman ran for Secretary of State and then on up the Alabama political ladder to Attorney General, Lieutenant Governor, and Governor. As Siegelman was beginning his first foray into Alabama politics, I will share with you a funny story that I call the “Don Siegelman meets Big Jim story.” Siegelman was campaigning hard all day for Secretary of State in early 1978 and wound up his day late in Cullman. Big Jim, in his later years, camped out at a truck stop along the interstate in Cullman. Big Jim was drinking coffee, and Siegelman spotted his lifelong hero and liberal idol, Big Jim, and went over to introduce himself. Siegelman gave Big Jim his spiel and what he was doing, and how his campaign for Secretary of State was going. He gave Big Jim the story of his pedigree concerning all of his educational degrees: University of Alabama Student Government President, Georgetown Law School, and Oxford in England. Big Jim listened intently to the young politician and sipped on his coffee. Now, you have to realize that even though Big Jim was a progressive on fiscal and race matters, he was pretty down home when it came to country politics, patronage, and home-spun talking to folks. Big Jim was also pretty pragmatic and plain-spoken. He said, “Boy are you asking my advice about your campaign?” Siegelman said, “Sure I am Governor.” Big Jim said, “Well, first of all, you need to change your name. Ain’t nobody in Opp going to vote for some boy named Siegelman. First of all, you can’t say it. Secondly, it don’t sound like a good regular Alabama Baptist or Methodist name, and you better tell folks you went to school at Oxford High School in Calhoun County and not someplace in England. Thirdly, don’t you know you can’t steal any money in that job?” See you next week. Steve Flowers is Alabama’s leading political Columnist. His weekly column appears in over 60 Alabama newspapers. He served 16 years in the state legislature. Steve may be reached at www.steveflowers.us.
Katie Britt votes for legislation to fight fentanyl epidemic
U.S. Senator Katie Britt (R-Ala.) recently joined her Senate colleagues in passing the bipartisan Fentanyl Eradication and Narcotics Deterrence (FEND) Off Fentanyl Act. This legislation seeks to stop the flow of deadly fentanyl into our country by choking off the income source of those who traffic synthetic opioids. Drug overdoses killed 107,000 Americans in 2021, and 65% of those deaths were attributed to fentanyl. “The devastation that this deadly poison has brought to our communities, schools, and families must end now,” said Sen. Britt. “Truly stopping this nationwide crisis means that we have to go after the well-financed, well-organized, and well-connected individuals profiting from fentanyl trafficking. This bipartisan legislation would ensure that the Treasury Department has the tools they need to protect Americans and hold bad actors accountable. I’m proud to have cosponsored this legislation and grateful to my colleagues for supporting it.” This legislation was introduced by Ranking Member Senator Tim Scott (R-South Carolina) and cosponsored by Senator Britt, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Senate Committee on Armed Services Chairman Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island), Ranking Member Roger Wicker (R-Mississippi), and 59 other senators. “Mexican traffickers and Chinese drug suppliers are fueling America’s fentanyl crisis. My FEND Off Fentanyl Act targets the financial assets of these criminal groups, cutting off their income right at the source,” said Sen. Scott. “By including this bill in the NDAA, we’re one step closer to ensuring our country can defend our communities from this deadly drug and protecting our national security.” The FEND Off Fentanyl Act is a bill designed to target the flow of the deadly narcotic into the United States by empowering the U.S. Department of the Treasury to target, sanction, and block the financial assets of transnational criminal organizations trafficking fentanyl. In addition, the proceeds from any seized assets would be used to further law enforcement efforts. “Truly stopping the influx of this deadly poison into our communities, schools, and families means that we have to go after the well-financed, well-organized, and well-connected individuals profiting from fentanyl trafficking,” said Senator Britt. “The fact that this legislation passed the committee unanimously shows that the Senate is working on a bipartisan basis to ensure that we empower the Treasury Department with the tools they need to protect Americans and hold bad actors accountable. I urge Senator Schumer to bring this legislation to the Senate floor with the urgency this crisis demands.” The FEND Off Fentanyl Act was passed as part of the Fiscal Year 2024 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Fentanyl is now the leading cause of death for Americans under 45, and more than 150 people die each day from overdoses related to fentanyl. Multiple national organizations have supported the bill, including Mothers Against Prescription Drug Abuse (MAPDA), the American Association for the Treatment of Opioid Dependence, the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Sheriffs’ Association, and FDD Action. Last year, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) seized over 379 million deadly doses of fentanyl. That is enough to supply a lethal dose to every American. Given the sharp increase in fentanyl-caused deaths, Scott claims that it is clear that a staggering amount of fentanyl is making its way into our country from the chemical suppliers in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and drug cartels in Mexico. Katie Britt is the Ranking Member of the Homeland Security Subcommittee for the Senate Committee on Appropriations. Sen. Britt has led hearings on fentanyl and spoken out against the Biden Administration’s proposed budget cuts to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Britt was elected to the Senate in 2022. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Indian American engineer says he was fired by defense contractor after speaking Hindi at work
An Indian-American engineer says he was fired last year from his long-time job with a missile defense contractor’s Alabama office after he was heard speaking Hindi on a video call, according to a federal lawsuit he filed against the company. Anil Varshney, 78, filed a civil rights lawsuit in the Northern District of Alabama against Parsons Corporation and U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin, whose department oversees the United States Missile Defense Agency, AL.com reported Monday. “This case arises out of Defendants’ intentional acts to end Mr. Varshney’s highly distinguished engineering career because he is a 78-year-old Indian American,” the lawsuit reads. “Defendants abruptly terminated Mr. Varshney after one of his white colleagues overheard him speaking Hindi to his dying brother-in-law in India and falsely reported him for a violation of ‘security regulations.’ ” Sharon L. Miller, an attorney representing the Virginia-based defense contractor, did not immediately respond to a phone message and email requesting comment. In a response filed with the court, Parsons denied wrongdoing and asked for the lawsuit’s dismissal. The lawsuit goes on to say that Varshney, who worked at Parsons’ Huntsville office from July 2011 to October 2022, accepted a video call from his brother-in-law in an empty cubicle and spoke to him for about two minutes. The company then said he committed a security violation by using the Facetime application at the classified worksite and fired him. He claims there was no policy prohibiting the call he accepted. The firing blackballed him from future work with the Missile Defense Agency, the lawsuit alleges. He first began working for the federal agency in 2002 and continued in tandem with his employment at Parsons until 2022. In doing so, he achieved the American Dream, the lawsuit says. Republished with the permission of The Associated Press.
