Senate passes bill to boost computer chip production in U.S.
A bill designed to encourage more semiconductor companies to build chip plants in the United States passed the Senate on Wednesday as lawmakers raced to finish work on a key priority of the Biden administration. The $280 billion measure, which awaits a House vote, includes federal grants and tax breaks for companies that construct their chip facilities in the U.S. The legislation also directs Congress to significantly increase spending on high-tech research programs that lawmakers say will help the country stay economically competitive in the decades ahead. Senate passage came by a 64-33 vote. The House vote is expected later this week as lawmakers try to wrap up business before returning to their home states and districts in August. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has said she is confident there is enough GOP support to overcome potential defections from Democrats who view the subsidy effort to boost semiconductor companies as a misplaced priority. Seventeen Republicans voted for the measure. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., broke ranks with Democrats in voting against the bill. Proponents of the legislation say other countries are spending billions of dollars to lure chipmakers. Backers say the U.S. must do the same or risk losing a secure supply of the semiconductors that power automobiles, computers, appliances, and some of the military’s most advanced weapons systems. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said the bill represented one of the nation’s largest investments in science and manufacturing in decades and that with the Senate’s approval, “we say that America’s best years are yet to come.” Opponents have been critical of the bill’s price tag. It is projected to increase federal deficits by about $79 billion over ten years. President Joe Biden said the bill would create jobs and lower costs on a wide range of products from cars to dishwashers. “For decades, some ‘experts’ said we needed to give up on manufacturing in America. I never believed that. Manufacturing jobs are back,” Biden said. “Thanks to this bill, we are going to have even more of them. The House should promptly pass it and send this bill to my desk.” The bill has been in the works for years, starting with efforts by Schumer and Sen. Todd Young, R-Ind., to increase the government’s investment in high-tech research and development. While the bill has taken several twists and turns, one constant theme that lawmakers repeatedly emphasized during Wednesday’s debate was the need to keep up with China’s massive investments in cutting-edge technology. China’s government is planning on “winning the (artificial intelligence) race, winning future wars and winning the future,” Young said. “And the truth is, if we’re being honest with ourselves, Beijing is well on its way to accomplishing these goals.” Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., said: “Regrettably, we are not in the driver’s seat on a range of important technologies. China is.” Congress, he said, now has “a chance to move us back in the right direction and put America back into a place to win the game.” The bill provides more than $52 billion in grants and other incentives for the semiconductor industry, as well as a 25% tax credit for those companies that invest in chip plants in the U.S. It calls for increased spending on various research programs that would total about $200 billion over ten years, though Congress will have to follow through by approving that money in future spending bills. Despite years of work, the bill’s future did not look so promising about a month ago. That’s when Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell tweeted that there would be no chips legislation as long as Democrats pursued a party-line package of energy and economic initiatives. GOP support is critical in the Senate to get the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster. But when Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia quashed the idea of imposing higher taxes on the rich and corporations, key Republicans said that was an opening to go forward on semiconductors. Meanwhile, the Biden administration pushed to get a bill passed before the August recess, even if meant considerably narrowing the focus to just the $52 billion in semiconductor incentives. Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo told lawmakers behind the scenes and publicly that semiconductor companies were making plans on how to meet the increased demand for chips. She said the growth in the industry would move forward with or without the United States and if lawmakers didn’t act quite soon, those companies would simply choose to build in other countries offering significant financial incentives. Schumer said that after McConnell’s statement, he called the CEOs of chipmakers and companies such as General Motors and Ford and reached out to “unlikely allies” like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable. He urged them to reach out to Republican senators about the importance of the bill. “And they changed things,” Schumer told The Associated Press. “They really, for the first time, industry really helped a good government program.” The House could take up the bill as soon as Thursday. While most Republicans are expected to oppose it, some of the ranking Republicans on committees dealing with national security — Reps. Michael McCaul of Texas, Michael Turner of Ohio, and John Katko of New York — support the measure. So do many of the Republicans on a bipartisan group called the Problem Solvers Caucus, which is made up of moderates from both parties. Republished with the permission of The Associated Press.
Joe Biden tests positive for COVID-19, has ‘very mild symptoms’
President Joe Biden tested positive for COVID-19 on Thursday and is experiencing “very mild symptoms,” the White House said, as new variants of the highly contagious virus are challenging the nation’s efforts to resume normalcy after two and a half years of pandemic disruptions. White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said Biden has begun taking Paxlovid, an antiviral drug designed to reduce the severity of the disease. She said Biden has “very mild symptoms” and “will isolate at the White House while continuing to carry out all of his duties fully.” She said Biden has been in contact with members of the White House staff by phone and will participate in his planned meetings at the White House “via phone and Zoom from the residence.” The White House released a letter from Biden’s physician, Dr. Kevin O’Connor, that said the president has a runny nose and “fatigue, with an occasional dry cough, which started yesterday evening.” Biden, 79, is fully vaccinated, after getting two doses of the Pfizer coronavirus vaccine shortly before taking office, a first booster shot in September and an additional dose March 30. O’Connor wrote in his letter about the president’s treatment plan: “I anticipate that he will respond favorably” to Paxlovid “as most maximally protected patients do.” Jean-Pierre said Biden had last tested negative on Tuesday, and he will stay isolated until he tests negative again. Biden had planned to visit Pennsylvania on Thursday to talk about his crime prevention plans and attend a Democratic fundraiser, and then spend a long weekend in Delaware. His appearances and travel are canceled. First lady Jill Biden spoke to reporters as she arrived at a school in Detroit on Thursday, telling them she had just gotten off the phone with her husband. “He’s doing fine,” she said. “He’s feeling good.” The first lady, who was wearing a mask, said she tested negative earlier in the day. She will keep her full schedule in Michigan and Georgia on Thursday, though she will be following guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on masking and distancing, said Michael LaRosa, her spokesperson. The president spent much of last week in Israel and Saudi Arabia. White House officials told reporters that Biden planned to minimize contact during the trip, yet as soon as he exited Air Force One on Wednesday, July 13, the president was fist-bumping, handshaking, and even seen in the occasional hug. Biden had a minimal public schedule after returning from Saudi Arabia late on Saturday night, attending church the next day, and appearing at a White House visit by Ukraine’s first lady Olena Zelenska on Tuesday. The president traveled to Massachusetts on Wednesday to promote efforts to combat climate change. Up to this point, Biden’s ability to avoid the virus seemed to defy the odds, even with the testing procedures in place for those expected to be in close contact with him. Prior waves of the virus swept through Washington’s political class, infecting Vice President Kamala Harris, Cabinet members, White House staffers, and lawmakers. Biden has increasingly stepped up his travel schedule and resumed holding large indoor events where not everyone is tested. A White House official said Harris tested negative for COVID-19. She was last with the president on Tuesday and spoke with him on the phone Thursday morning. Harris plans to remain masked on the guidance of the White House medical team. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she hoped that Biden’s positive test for the virus would cause more Americans to get vaccinated and boosted because “none of us is immune from it, including the president of the United States, and we really have to be careful.” Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell on Twitter wished the president “a speedy recovery.” Top White House officials in recent months have been matter-of-fact about the likelihood of the president getting COVID, a measure of how engrained the virus has become in society — and of its diminished threat for those who are up to date on their vaccinations and with access to treatments. When administered within five days of symptoms appearing, Paxlovid, produced by drugmaker Pfizer, has been proven to bring about a 90% reduction in hospitalizations and deaths among patients most likely to get severe disease. In an April 30 speech to more than 2,600 attendees at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner, Biden acknowledged the risks of attending large events, but said it was worthwhile to attend. “I know there are questions about whether we should gather here tonight because of COVID,” he said. “Well, we’re here to show the country that we’re getting through this pandemic.” Biden is far from the first world leader — and not the first U.S. president — to get the coronavirus, which has infected British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, French President Emmanuel Macron, and more than a dozen other leaders and high-ranking officials globally. When Biden’s predecessor, President Donald Trump, contracted the disease in October 2020, it was a far different time. Vaccines were not available, and treatment options were limited and less advanced. After being diagnosed with COVID-19 at the White House, Trump was given an experimental antibody treatment and steroids after his blood oxygen levels fell dangerously low. He was hospitalized at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center for three days. After more than two years and over a million deaths in the U.S., the virus is still killing an average of 353 people a day in the U.S., according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The unvaccinated are at far greater risk, more than two times more likely to test positive and nine times more likely to die from the virus than those who have received at least a primary dose of the vaccines, according to the public health agency. The highly transmissible omicron variant is the dominant strain in the U.S., but scientists say it poses a lower risk for severe illness to those who are up to date on their vaccinations. Omicron’s BA.5 sub-strain, believed to be even more contagious, now
Adeline Von Drehle: SCOTUS decision may limit more than just the EPA
The Supreme Court wrapped up its history-making term last week with a shot across the bow at government regulatory agencies. One of its two final rulings, West Virginia v. EPA, saw the court rule 6-3 along ideological lines that the Clean Air Act does not give the Environmental Protection Agency broad authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. Ruling for the state of West Virginia, the conservative justices struck down EPA standards designed to fight climate change by reshaping electricity grids. Such standards qualify as “major questions,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts in his majority opinion, requiring explicit authorization by Congress. Much of the interest in the case comes from those who fear the United States will no longer be able to meet its climate change commitments. In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the court was stripping the EPA of the power Congress gave it to respond to “the most pressing environmental challenge of our time.” President Joe Biden, in a statement issued at the White House Thursday, described the ruling as “another devastating decision that aims to take our country backwards.” The opinion completed a term in which an already conservative court lurched further to the right, striking down Roe v. Wade, expanding gun rights, embracing religious expression – and now cracking down on the so-called “administrative state.” Careful vetting of three justices appointed by former president Donald J. Trump by the conservative Federalist Society produced results long dreamed of by self-styled “originalist” theorists. Laurence Tribe, University Professor Emeritus of Constitutional Law at Harvard, told RealClearPolitics that the current court “is going rogue and seems almost drunk with the power acquired with its stacking by Trump and his three new Justices.” West Virginia’s victory may be only an opening salvo in a conservative war against the active federal government called into existence during the Great Depression. If every significant new challenge requires new Congressional authorization to act – as the Roberts opinion suggests – critics fear the executive branch could become just as gridlocked as the legislative branch. Roberts pointed in this direction by describing the dispute at hand as a “major questions case.” The major questions doctrine requires that agencies have explicit statutory authorization from Congress to make “decisions of vast economic and political significance.” The court “typically greet[s] assertions of extravagant statutory power over the national economy with skepticism,” Roberts wrote. To overcome that skepticism, “the Government must – under the major questions doctrine – point to clear congressional authorization to regulate in that manner.” The major questions doctrine plays an important role in administrative law because it allows Congress to find, in theory, a workable space between an unconstitutional delegation of power – a violation of Article I Section I of the Constitution, which states that “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States” – and a complete ban on delegation that would leave an already inactive Congress swamped with day-to-day responsibility for government agencies. One traditional view holds that Congress sets up a target, but agencies decide how to hit the target. In the West Virginia case, the EPA’s target was the reduction of carbon emissions. The EPA aimed to hit that target by requiring a gradual transition to green energy. New York University Law Professor Roderick M. Hills explained to RCP that the Roberts ruling suggests that Congressional legislation “doesn’t only contain the target,” it also regulates the means that the agency can use. So, if the agency chooses a novel or controversial method of achieving the congressionally specified goal, it might be going outside the statute. The issue with a doctrine that says an agency cannot do anything outside its statutory authorization, Hills said, “is that when a new problem arises, agencies are helpless. And the whole point of creating an agency is to respond to unforeseen circumstances.” The modern administrative state was born during the New Deal Era, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt sought a way to respond to the economic crisis quickly, bypassing bureaucratic red tape – or even congressional intent. There is always a trade-off, Hills said, between “lots and lots of democratic deliberation, and fast action. It’s like Elvis Presley said, a little less conversation, a little more action.” If the court requires agencies to go to Congress each time they seek new ways to address issues of major economic and political significance, Hills asserts, “We’re never going to do anything to respond to new problems because Congress is mired in gridlock.” He has a point, given that Congress currently has a 4% success rate of turning bills into laws. Some would argue that the slow pace of the congressional process is not only desirable, but constitutionally obligatory. Others think it’s unrealistic and, in some ways, undemocratic. Since the 1819 landmark decision McCulloch v. Maryland, the court has held that “the modern administrative state is constitutional,” Tribe told RCP. That case affirmed that Congress can turn over responsibility for detail-oriented action to freestanding government agencies. But it is unclear what is a detail and what is a significant, or “major,” issue. “The Constitution doesn’t say anything about major questions,” Hills told RCP. “If you think the most valuable thing is to have every issue passed upon by elected representatives, [the court] is right. If you think the most valuable thing, or at least an equally valuable thing, is to actually have policy that’s responsive to problems, then [the court] is wrong.” That said, for those who disagree with the EPA ruling, there’s a straightforward remedy that isn’t necessarily available when it comes to the court’s recent gun control decisions or the religious freedom cases. That’s because EPA’s regulatory overreach on climate change – at least according to the Supreme Court – did not run afoul of the pesky First Amendment or Second Amendment. In that sense, West Virginia v. EPA has something in common with the Dobbs decision: namely, the obvious possibility of a legislative fix. In
GOP, Dem Senate bargainers divided over gun deal details
Democratic and Republican senators were at odds Thursday over how to keep firearms from dangerous people as bargainers struggled to finalize details of a gun violence compromise in time for their self-imposed deadline of holding votes in Congress next week. Lawmakers said they remained divided over how to define abusive dating partners who would be legally barred from purchasing firearms. Disagreements were also unresolved over proposals to send money to states that have “red flag” laws that let authorities temporarily confiscate guns from people deemed dangerous by courts, and to other states for their own violence prevention programs. The election-year talks have seemed headed toward agreement, with both parties fearing punishment by voters if Congress doesn’t react to the carnage of last month’s mass shootings. A total of 31 people were slain at a grocery store in Buffalo, New York, and an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas. An outline of a deal has been endorsed by President Joe Biden, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, a lead GOP bargainer, seemed visibly unhappy as he left Thursday’s closed-door session after nearly two hours, saying he was flying home. “This is the hardest part because at some point, you just got to make a decision. And when people don’t want to make a decision, you can’t accomplish the result. And that’s kind of where we are right now,” Cornyn said. “I’m not frustrated, I’m done,” he added, though he said he was open to continued discussions. Lawmakers have said a deal must be completed and written into legislative language by week’s end if Congress is to vote by next week. It begins a July 4 recess after that. Leaders want votes by then because Washington has a long record of talking about reacting to mass shootings, only to see lawmakers’ and voters’ interest fade quickly over time. Other bargainers seemed more optimistic, saying much of the overall package has been agreed to and aides were drafting bill language. “A deal like this is difficult,” Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., said when the meeting ended. “It comes with a lot of emotions, it comes with political risk to both sides. But we’re close enough that we should be able to get there.” The measure would impose just small-scale curbs on firearms. It lacks proposals by Biden and Democrats to prohibit assault-style weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines like the ones used in Buffalo and Uvalde, or to raise the legal age for purchasing assault rifles from 18 to 21. Even so, it would be Congress’ most robust move against gun violence since 1993. A ban lawmakers enacted that year on assault weapons took effect in 1994 and expired after a decade. Scores of high-profile mass shootings since have yielded little from Washington but partisan deadlock, chiefly due to Republicans blocking virtually any new restrictions. Federal law bars people convicted of domestic violence against a spouse from acquiring guns, but leaves a loophole for other romantic relationships. Everytown for Gun Safety, which advocates firearms curbs, says 31 states bar convicted domestic abusers from buying firearms, including 19 that cover violent dating partners. Senators have disagreed over how to define such relationships, with Republicans working against a broad provision. Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, the other lead GOP negotiator, said bargainers would use some state statutes as their guide, though their laws vary. “You need to make sure that you’re capturing everyone that actually beat” up their girlfriends, said Murphy, a Democrat. In addition, 19 states and the District of Columbia have “red flag” laws. Cornyn and the other lead bargainer, Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., represent states that do not, and it is unclear how money in the bill would be divided among them. Senators have not said what the measure’s overall price tag will be, though people following the talks have said they expect it to range around $15 billion or $20 billion. Lawmakers are looking for budget cuts to pay for those costs. Twenty senators, 10 from each party, agreed to the outlines of a compromise measure last weekend. Top bargainers have labored ever since to translate it into details. The framework includes access to the juvenile records of gun buyers age 18 to 20. Both shooters in Buffalo and Uvalde were 18, and both used AR-15 style automatic rifles, which can load high-capacity magazines. The plan also includes added spending for mental health and school safety programs, tougher penalties for gun trafficking, and requirements that slightly more gun dealers obtain federal firearms licenses. Republished with the permission of The Associated Press.
In a boost, Mitch McConnell backs Senate bipartisan gun deal
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell announced his support Tuesday for his chamber’s emerging bipartisan gun agreement, boosting momentum for modest but notable election-year action by Congress on an issue that’s deadlocked lawmakers for three decades. The Kentucky Republican said he hoped an outline of the accord, released Sunday by 10 Democrats and 10 Republicans, would be translated into legislation and enacted. McConnell’s backing was the latest indication that last month’s gun massacres in Buffalo, New York, and Uvalde, Texas, had reconfigured the political calculations for some in the GOP after years of steadfastly opposing even incremental tightening of firearms curbs. “If this framework becomes the actual piece of legislation, it’s a step forward, a step forward on a bipartisan basis,” McConnell told reporters. He said the proposal “further demonstrates to the American people” that lawmakers can work together on significant issues “to make progress for the country.” McConnell’s comments were striking, coming five months before midterm elections in which Republicans hope to win control of the Senate and seem likely to win a majority in the House. For years, GOP candidates could risk their careers by defying the views of the party’s loyal gun-owning and rural voters, who oppose moves seen as threatening their ownership and use of firearms. McConnell seemed to suggest that backing this gun measure might even help some Republicans’ prospects in November. While he said senators should take a position “based upon the views of their states,” he said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, a chief architect of the deal, presented GOP polling data at a closed-door senators’ lunch saying support among gun owners for the agreement’s provisions is “off the charts, overwhelming.” The plan would, for the first time, make the juvenile records of gun buyers under age 21 part of required background checks. Money would be sent to states for mental health and school security programs and for incentives to enforce or enact local “red flag” laws that let authorities win court approval to temporarily remove guns from people considered dangerous. Senators and aides hope to translate their broad agreement into legislation in days in hopes that Congress could approve it before leaving for its July 4 recess. Both sides acknowledge that is a difficult process that could encounter disputes and delays. Some Republicans expressed unhappiness with the plan Tuesday, with much criticism aimed at its encouragement of “red flag” laws. Nineteen states mostly dominated by Democrats and the District of Columbia have them, but Republicans have blocked efforts in Congress to pass federal legislation on the subject. “If we’re not going to pass a federal red flag law, and we shouldn’t, why would we incentivize states to do something that we think is a bad idea?” said Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D. “I don’t know what we can do in view of the Constitution,” Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., said of the overall agreement, citing the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Cornyn defended the plan’s “red flag” proposal, saying it would create no national requirements for such laws. He said it gives “every state regardless of whether it has a ‘red flag’ law or not” money for programs aimed at improving public safety and helping troubled people get assistance. Texas does not have a “red flag” law. McConnell made clear he would only go so far in restricting firearms. Asked by a reporter why the federal minimum age is 21 for tobacco sales but 18 to buy rifles, he answered, “Good try.” He added that including state and local juvenile records in background checks for the youngest guy buyers was “a step in the right direction.” The alleged shooters in Buffalo, where 10 people were killed, and Uvalde, where 19 school children and two teachers were slain, were both 18 years old, a common profile for many mass shooters. A final agreement on overall legislation would be expected to receive solid support from Democrats. But it would need at least 10 GOP votes to reach the Senate’s usual 60-vote threshold, and McConnell’s plaudits raised hopes that Republican backing would grow beyond that. The framework also broadens the type of domestic abusers who’d be prohibited from buying guns, require more firearms sellers to conduct background checks, and impose tougher penalties on gun traffickers. The National Rifle Association said Sunday it wouldn’t take a position on the proposal until full legislation is produced. It warned it would oppose “gun control policies” or infringements on people’s “fundamental right to protect themselves.” The pro-gun lobby still has political muscle from its millions of dedicated members, who vote heavily on firearms issues. But GOP support for the new package is the latest threat to its power following recent financial scandals and lawsuits. Approval seems likely by the Democratic-run House, where Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has praised the measure as a first step toward strong restrictions in the future. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said he would schedule votes on the legislation as soon as it is ready. He contrasted recent days’ progress with Congress’ failure to act after a parade of mass shootings in recent decades. “After Uvalde and Buffalo, perhaps this time could be different. To many senators on both sides, this debate certainly feels different,” Schumer said. Congress’ last major gun measure was an assault weapons ban that took effect in 1994 but expired 10 years later. Republished with the permission of The Associated Press.
Capitol riot panel blames Donald Trump for 1/6 ‘attempted coup’
The House panel investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol laid the blame firmly on Donald Trump Thursday night, saying the assault was hardly spontaneous but an “attempted coup” and a direct result of the defeated president’s effort to overturn the 2020 election. With a never-before-seen 12-minute video of extremist groups leading the deadly siege and startling testimony from Trump’s most inner circle, the 1/6 committee provided gripping detail in contending that Trump’s repeated lies about election fraud and his public effort to stop Joe Biden’s victory led to the attack and imperiled American democracy. “Democracy remains in danger,” said Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., chairman of the panel, during the hearing, timed for prime time to reach as many Americans as possible. “Jan. 6 was the culmination of an attempted coup, a brazen attempt, as one rioter put it shortly after Jan. 6, to overthrow the government,” Thompson said. “The violence was no accident.” The hearings may not change Americans’ views on the Capitol attack, but the panel’s investigation is intended to stand as its public record. Ahead of this fall’s midterm elections, and with Trump considering another White House run, the committee’s final report aims to account for the most violent attack on the Capitol since 1814 and to ensure such an attack never happens again. Testimony showed Thursday how Trump desperately clung to his own false claims of election fraud, beckoning supporters to the Capitol on Jan. 6 when Congress would certify the results, despite those around him insisting Biden had won the election. In a previously unseen video clip, the panel played a quip from former Attorney General Bill Barr, who testified that he told Trump the claims of a rigged election were “bull——.” In another, the former president’s daughter, Ivanka Trump, testified to the committee that she respected Barr’s view that there was no election fraud. “I accepted what he said.” Others showed leaders of the extremist Oath Keepers and Proud Boys preparing to storm the Capitol to stand up for Trump. One rioter after another told the committee they came to the Capitol because Trump asked them to. “President Trump summoned a violent mob,” said Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., the panel’s vice chair who took the lead for much of the hearing. “When a president fails to take the steps necessary to preserve our union — or worse, causes a constitutional crisis — we’re in a moment of maximum danger for our republic.” There was an audible gasp in the hearing room when Cheney read an account that said when Trump was told the Capitol mob was chanting for Vice President Mike Pence to be hanged for refusing to block the election results. Trump responded that maybe they were right, that he “deserves it.” At another point, it was disclosed that Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., a leader of efforts to object to the election results, had sought a pardon from Trump, which would protect him from prosecution. When asked about the White House lawyers threatening to resign over what was happening in the administration, Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner scoffed they were “whining.” Police officers who had fought off the mob consoled one another as they sat in the committee room, reliving the violence they faced on Jan. 6. Officer Harry Dunn teared up as bodycam footage showed rioters bludgeoning his colleagues with flagpoles and baseball bats. In wrenching testimony, U.S. Capitol Police officer Caroline Edwards told the panel that she slipped in other people’s blood as rioters pushed past her into the Capitol. She suffered brain injuries in the melee. “It was carnage. It was chaos,” she said. The riot left more than 100 police officers injured, many beaten and bloodied, as the crowd of pro-Trump rioters, some armed with pipes, bats, and bear spray, charged into the Capitol. At least nine people who were there died during and after the rioting, including a woman who was shot and killed by police. Biden, in Los Angeles for the Summit of the Americas, said many viewers were “going to be seeing for the first time a lot of the detail that occurred.” Trump, unapologetic, dismissed the investigation anew — and even declared on social media that Jan. 6 “represented the greatest movement in the history of our country.” Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee tweeted: “All. Old. News.” Emotions are still raw at the Capitol, and security was tight. Law enforcement officials are reporting a spike in violent threats against members of Congress. Against this backdrop, the committee was speaking to a divided America. Most TV networks carried the hearing live, but Fox News Channel did not. The committee chairman, civil rights leader Thompson, opened the hearing with the sweep of American history. saying he heard in those denying the stark reality of Jan. 6 his own experience growing up in a time and place “where people justified the action of slavery, the Ku Klux Klan and lynching.” Republican Rep. Cheney, the daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, outlined what the committee has learned about the events leading up to that brisk January day when Trump sent his supporters to Congress to “fight like hell” for his presidency. Among those testifying was documentary maker Nick Quested, who filmed the Proud Boys storming the Capitol — along with a pivotal meeting between the group’s then-chairman Henry “Enrique” Tarrio and another extremist group, the Oath Keepers, the night before in a nearby parking garage. Quested said the Proud Boys later went to get tacos. Court documents show that members of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers were discussing as early as November a need to fight to keep Trump in office. Leaders of both groups and some members have since been indicted on rare sedition charges over the military-style attack. In the weeks ahead, the panel is expected to detail Trump’s public campaign to “Stop the Steal” and the private pressure he put on the Justice Department to reverse his election loss — despite dozens of failed court cases attesting there was no fraud on a scale that could have tipped the results in his favor. The panel faced obstacles from its start. Republicans blocked
House approves ‘red flag’ gun bill unlikely to pass Senate
The House approved a “red flag” bill Thursday that would allow families, police, and others to ask federal courts to order the removal of firearms from people at extreme risk of harming themselves or others. It’s the Democratic-controlled chamber’s latest response to U.S. mass shootings and likely stands little chance in the Senate. Nineteen states and the District of Columbia currently have such “red flag” laws. Under the House bill, a judge could issue an order to temporarily remove and store the firearms until a hearing can be held, up to two weeks later, to determine whether the firearms should be returned or kept for a specific period. The bill passed on a mostly party-line vote of 224-202. “We are painfully aware that we cannot do enough to save every life, and there is no one answer that will solve this problem,” said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, the Democratic chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. “But we do know that taking guns out of the hands of people who pose a danger to themselves, or others, would save countless lives.” The vote came after an emotional week that saw congressional testimony from victims of recent mass shootings in Uvalde, Texas, and Buffalo, New York, and came ahead of a planned march Saturday in Washington by groups advocating stronger gun controls. On Wednesday, the House passed a wide-ranging gun control bill that would raise the age limit for purchasing a semi-automatic rifle and prohibit the sale of ammunition magazines with a capacity of more than 15 rounds. It, too has virtually no chance in the Senate. House Republicans criticized the “red flag” bill as giving the federal government the ability to take a law-abiding person’s guns without them having the ability to contest it beforehand. “It would allow the courts to take guns away from people without notice and without even the right to appear in the hearing to defend themselves in court,” said Rep. Mike Johnson, R-La. The Congressional Budget Office projects that the bill would lead to roughly 10,000 emergency petitions being filed annually with the courts. The bill would also create a grant program at the U.S. Department of Justice to encourage states to adopt “red flag” laws and support the 19 states that have already implemented them. Five Republican lawmakers voted for the bill: Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Anthony Gonzalez of Ohio, Chris Jacobs of New York, Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, and Fred Upton of Michigan. Only Fitzpatrick is seeking reelection. Rep. Jared Golden of Maine was the only Democratic member to vote no. The lead sponsors of the bill were Democratic Reps. Salud Carbajal of California and Lucy McBath of Georgia, whose son, Jordan Davis, was slain at a Jacksonville, Florida gas station in 2012 by a white man angry over the loud music the Black teenager and his friends had been playing in their car. President Joe Biden strongly supports the bill. The White House said it would “make significant progress toward keeping guns out of dangerous hands.” However, the legislation is unlikely to advance in the Senate, where at least 10 Republican senators would be needed. Instead, senators are focusing on incremental policy changes through a system that would send funds and other incentives to states to bolster security at school campuses, provide more mental health services to young people, and possibly encourage states to pursue red-flag laws of their own. Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, who is leading negotiations on the Republican side, said one focus is on enhancing the background check system known as NICS to include young buyers’ criminal records before they turn 18. “Adding juvenile records to the NICS system is a common-sense way to ensure we have a complete picture of the buyer’s history,” Cornyn said. He voiced optimism that senators will be able to reach an agreement. “Around here, if there’s a will, there is a way, and I believe we do have the will, and we will find the way,” Cornyn said. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said the House stands ready to consider a gun bill from the Senate “if it’s life-saving and can make a difference.” But she cautioned: “We cannot have subterfuge. We can’t have them say well, it’s about this, and it’s about that. No, it’s about guns.” Republished with the permission of The Associated Press.
Pressure grows for ALGOP response to Katie Britt’s alleged Democratic Party support
In a state like Alabama, the Republican Party rules supreme. Winning a primary is tantamount to winning an election because Republicans hold a supermajority in the state. “Crossover voting” during primaries allows Democratic voters to have a say in who will be the winner, given that the general election is often nothing more than a formality. Since 2010, crossover voting has not been allowed in primary runoff elections in Alabama. However, voters in Alabama are not required to register with a party prior to voting, so there is no mechanism to prevent crossover voting from happening in Republican primary elections because Alabama has open primaries. 1819 News reported that Mo Brooks has accused opponent Katie Britt of soliciting Democrat votes in last month’s primary. During a radio interview on WVNN’s “The Dale Jackson Show,” Brooks stated, “No question. Katie Britt had an activist effort, kind of behind the scenes, to encourage Democrats to crossover and to pollute our Republican primary.” Brooks also argued that she would do the same in the June 21 runoff. “It will probably happen to some degree on June 21 when we have to runoff. That’s not right,” Brooks continued. “The Democrats should never be participating in Republican primaries and vice-versa. But we’ll see how Republicans across the state react to Katie Britt’s outreach program that is coming to greater and greater light. By outreach program, I’m talking about getting Democrats to tamper in our elections.” Brooks’s accusations seem valid to some Republican leaders after Democratic Party executive director Wade Perry posted on Twitter, describing Britt as “pretty awesome” and “super helpful” during the Doug Jones 2017 win over Roy Moore. Additionally, Democrat U.S. Rep. Parker Griffith stated he supported Britt. “She’s running a great campaign,” Griffith commented last year on WVNN’s “The Dale Jackson Show.” “She’s got a lot of assets. I’ve got a Katie Britt sign in my front yard … because the Democrats cannot win in Alabama. We need good government. We’re going to have to vote for good people and start being Americans instead of Republican or Democrat, particularly in Alabama.” Michael Hoyt, the chairman of the Republican Party in Baldwin County, has called for closed primaries. During an interview on FM Talk 106.5’s “The Jeff Poor Show,” Hoyt stated, “Principally, I would be in favor of having a closed primary. I think the party and members of the party should choose who their nominees are. And that shouldn’t be people for Democrats, for Libertarians, or whatever coming over.” Hoyt also said he expected the ALGOP to look into the issue in the near future. “[I] support having a closed primary system, and I suspect that that’s something that will be addressed by the state party, perhaps even at the summer meeting this year, and certainly be taken up by the legislature,” Hoyt commented. “When you’re in an essentially one-party state, and they know the election is determined by the primary, you have to be careful of who is even running in those races, and we certainly don’t want Democrats coming in and voting in them. So, I agree with [that] 100%.” Jennifer Montrose, president of the West Alabama Republican Assembly, issued a resolution requesting the Republican Party Steering Committee conduct “a fully public hearing or meeting with notice to the public to consider the facts and potential sanctions against candidate Katie Britt.” Essentially, the resolution accuses Britt of supporting “a nominee of another political party,” an infraction that can “deny ballot access to a candidate for public office.” In February, the Alabama Republican Party’s candidate committee voted to remove three candidates from its primary ballot in state legislative races because of alleged affiliations with other parties. “[W]e take it extremely serious that we keep the Republican primary ballots pure,” ALGOP chair John Wahl stated. “And what I mean by that is we’re not going to let a Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton come in and run on the Republican ticket. It’s not going to happen. Sometimes it gets hard. It’s very hard to know who is a Republican and who is not a Republican. The candidate committee makes those decisions, and I chair that committee. I choose not to take a vote because I feel like it is important for the chairman dispense all the information to provide the body information they need to make the best decision.” During the Republican primaries, Britt led opponent Brooks by a 45%-to-29% margin in votes.
House passes gun control bill after Buffalo, Uvalde attacks
The House passed a wide-ranging gun control bill Wednesday in response to recent mass shootings in Buffalo, New York, and Uvalde, Texas, that would raise the age limit for purchasing a semi-automatic rifle and prohibit the sale of ammunition magazines with a capacity of more than 15 rounds. The legislation passed by a mostly party-line vote of 223-204. It has almost no chance of becoming law as the Senate pursues negotiations focused on improving mental health programs, bolstering school security, and enhancing background checks. But the House bill does allow Democratic lawmakers a chance to frame for voters in November where they stand on policies that polls show are widely supported. “We can’t save every life, but my God, shouldn’t we try? America, we hear you, and today in the House, we are taking the action you are demanding,” said Rep. Veronica Escobar, D-Texas. “Take note of who is with you and who is not.” The push comes after a House committee heard wrenching testimony from recent shooting victims and family members, including from 11-year-old girl Miah Cerrillo, who covered herself with a dead classmate’s blood to avoid being shot at the Uvalde elementary school. The seemingly never-ending cycle of mass shootings in the United States has rarely stirred Congress to act. But the shooting of 19 children and two teachers in Uvalde has revived efforts in a way that has lawmakers from both parties talking about the need to respond. “It’s sickening, it’s sickening that our children are forced to live in this constant fear,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. Pelosi said the House vote would “make history by making progress.” But it’s unclear where the House measure will go after Wednesday’s vote, given that Republicans were adamant in their opposition. “The answer is not to destroy the Second Amendment, but that is exactly where the Democrats want to go,” said Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio. The work to find common ground is mostly taking place in the Senate, where support from 10 Republicans will be needed to get a bill signed into law. Nearly a dozen Democratic and Republican senators met privately for an hour Wednesday in hopes of reaching a framework for compromise legislation by week’s end. Participants said more conversations were needed about a plan that is expected to propose modest steps. In a measure of the political peril that efforts to curb guns pose for Republicans, five of the six lead Senate GOP negotiators do not face reelection until 2026. They are Sens. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, John Cornyn of Texas, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and Thom Tillis of North Carolina. The sixth, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, is retiring in January. It’s also notable that none of the six is seeking the Republican presidential nomination. While Cornyn has said the talks are serious, he has not joined the chorus of Democrats saying the outlines of a deal could be reached by the end of this week. He told reporters Wednesday that he considers having an agreement before Congress begins a recess in late June to be “an aspirational goal.” The House bill stitches together a variety of proposals Democrats had introduced before the recent shootings in Buffalo and Uvalde. The suspects in the shootings at the Uvalde elementary school and Buffalo supermarket were both just 18, authorities say, when they bought the semi-automatic weapons used in the attacks. The bill would increase the minimum age to buy such weapons to 21. “A person under 21 cannot buy a Budweiser. We should not let a person under 21 buy an AR-15 weapon of war,” said Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif. Republicans have noted that a U.S. appeals court ruling last month found California’s ban on the sale of semi-automatic weapons to adults under 21 was unconstitutional. “This is unconstitutional, and it’s immoral. Why is it immoral? Because we’re telling 18, 19, and 20-year-olds to register for the draft. You can go die for your country. We expect you to defend us, but we’re not going to give you the tools to defend yourself and your family,” said Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky. The House bill also includes incentives designed to increase the use of safe gun storage devices and creates penalties for violating safe storage requirements, providing for a fine and imprisonment of up to five years if a gun is not properly stored and is subsequently used by a minor to injure or kill themselves or another individual. It also builds on the Biden administration’s executive action banning fast-action “bump-stock” devices and “ghost guns” that are assembled without serial numbers. The House is also expected to approve a bill Thursday that would allow families, police, and others to ask federal courts to order the removal of firearms from people who are believed to be at extreme risk of harming themselves or others. Nineteen states and the District of Columbia currently have such “red flag laws.” Under the House bill, a judge could issue an order to temporarily remove and store the firearms until a hearing can be held no longer than two weeks later to determine whether the firearms should be returned or kept for a specific period. Republished with the permission of The Associated Press.
Will Ainsworth announces Public Service Commissioners endorsements for Chip Beeker and Jeremy Oden
Lt. Gov. Will Ainsworth announced his endorsement of Chip Beeker and Jeremy Oden for their reelection bids to the Alabama Public Service Commission (PSC). Ainsworth believes that conservative leaders should hold these seats because the two incumbents have already successfully shielded Alabama from the far left climate agenda. According to Alabama Secretary of State campaign finance records, radical “environmental justice” activists are once again pushing their agenda in Alabama. They have selected their preferred “Republican” primary candidates Robin Litaker and Brent Woodall for the Public Service Commission, Alabama Today reported in May. As first reported by Dylan Smith of Yellowhammer News, both candidates have taken large sums of money from Nelson Brooke, of Black Warrior Riverkeeper. Brooke has made a total of $73,000 in contributions to Alabama candidates all of the money going to democrats except three contributions: $20,000 to Litaker this cycle, $10,000 to her in her last race, and $10,000 to Woodall. Ainsworth asserted that the left’s “Green New Deal” would have consequences for Alabama. “Chip Beeker and Jeremy Oden have shown they have the grit, tenacity, and leadership to fight Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Bernie Sanders, AOC, and the rest of the Washington liberals who are pushing radical energy policies and the snake oil promises of the Green New Deal,” Ainsworth stated. “If the liberal Democrat extremists are allowed to win, energy prices will skyrocket, jobs will disappear, and Alabama’s economy, which is currently the best in our history, will go into freefall.” “Commissioners Beeker and Oden will preserve our jobs and protect our Alabama way of life from the left-wing radicals and their dangerous agenda. They have my full confidence and strong endorsement for a new term on the Public Service Commission,” concluded Ainsworth. The runoff election will take place on June 21.
Joe Biden invokes Defense Production Act for formula shortage
President Joe Biden on Wednesday invoked the Defense Production Act to speed production of infant formula and authorized flights to import supply from overseas as he faces mounting political pressure over a domestic shortage caused by the safety-related closure of the country’s largest formula manufacturing plant. The Defense Production Act order requires suppliers of formula manufacturers to fulfill orders from those companies before other customers, in an effort to eliminate production bottlenecks. Biden is also authorizing the Defense Department to use commercial aircraft to fly formula supplies that meet federal standards from overseas to the U.S., in what the White House is calling “Operation Fly Formula.” Supplies of baby formula across the country have been severely curtailed in recent weeks after a February recall by Abbott Nutrition exacerbated ongoing supply chain disruptions among formula makers, leaving fewer options on store shelves and increasingly anxious parents struggling to find nutrition for their children. “I know parents across the country are worried about finding enough formula to feed their babies,” Biden said in a video statement released by the White House. ”As a parent and as a grandparent, I know just how stressful that is.” The announcement comes two days after the Food and Drug Administration said it was streamlining its review process to make it easier for foreign manufacturers to begin shipping more formula into the U.S. In a letter Wednesday to the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture, Biden directed the agencies to work with the Pentagon to identify overseas supply of formula that meets U.S. standards over the next week so that chartered Defense Department flights can swiftly fly it to the U.S. “Imports of baby formula will serve as a bridge to this ramped-up production,” Biden wrote. Regulators said Monday that they’d reached a deal to allow Abbott Nutrition to restart its Sturgis, Michigan, plant, the nation’s largest formula plant, which has been closed since February due to contamination issues. The company must overhaul its safety protocols and procedures before resuming production. After getting the FDA’s OK, Abbott said it will take eight to ten weeks before new products begin arriving in stores. The company didn’t set a timeline to restart manufacturing. “I’ve directed my team to do everything possible to ensure there’s enough safe baby formula and that it is quickly reaching families that need it the most,” Biden said in the statement, calling it “one of my top priorities.” The White House actions come as the Democratic-led House approved two bills Wednesday addressing the baby formula shortage as lawmakers look to show progress on what has become a frightening development for many families. One bill with wide bipartisan support passed by a vote of 414-9. It would give the secretary of the Agriculture Department the ability to issue a narrow set of waivers in the event of a supply disruption. The goal is to give participants in an assistance program commonly known as WIC the ability to use vouchers to purchase formula from any producer rather than be limited to one brand that may be unavailable. The WIC program accounts for about half of infant formula sales in the U.S. “I want to say to the mom struggling that we hear you in Congress, and you do not need to handle this on your own. We are working to find you a solution,” said the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Jahana Hayes, D-Conn. The other measure, a $28 million emergency spending bill to boost resources at the Food and Drug Administration, passed by a mostly party-line vote of 231-192, and it’s unclear whether the Senate will go along. “This bill just continues the Democrats’ strategy of throwing money at the same bureaucrats who caused the crisis and who have not made its solution a priority,” said Rep. Andy Harris, R-Md. Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the Democratic chair of the House Appropriations Committee, said the money would increase FDA staffing to boost inspections of domestic and international suppliers, prevent fraudulent products from getting onto store shelves and acquire better data on the marketplace. “It is essential that we ensure the federal government has the resources it needs to get baby formula back on the shelves,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. Abbott’s voluntary recall was triggered by four illnesses reported in babies who had consumed powdered formula from its plant. All four infants were hospitalized with a rare type of bacterial infection, and two died. After a six-week inspection, FDA investigators published a list of problems in March, including lax safety and sanitary standards and a history of bacterial contamination in several parts of the plant. Under Monday’s agreement, Abbott must regularly consult with an outside safety expert to restart and maintain production. Chicago-based Abbott has emphasized that its products have not been directly linked to bacterial infections in children. Samples of the bacteria found at its plant did not match the strains collected from two babies by federal investigators. But FDA officials pushed back on that reasoning Monday on a call with reporters — their first time publicly addressing the company’s argument. FDA staffers noted they were unable to collect bacterial strains from two of the four patients, limiting their chances of finding a match. “Right from the get-go, we were limited in our ability to determine with a causal link whether the product was linked to these four cases because we only had sequences on two,” FDA’s food director Susan Mayne said. Fixing the violations uncovered at Abbott’s plant will take time, according to former FDA officials. Companies need to exhaustively clean the facility and equipment, retrain staff, repeatedly test and document that there is no contamination. As part of the FDA’s new import policy, regulators said companies would need to provide documentation of their factory’s inspections. Republished with the permission of the Associated Press.
Mo Brooks responds to January 6 subpoena
On Thursday, a House panel issued subpoenas to Mo Brooks and four other GOP lawmakers in its probe into January 6 Capitol attack. Brooks spoke alongside the former president at the massive rally in front of the White House on January 6, telling supporters to “start taking down names and kicking ass” before hundreds of them broke into the Capitol. Other lawmakers who were issued subpoenas were Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., and Reps. Jim Jordan of Ohio, Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, and Andy Biggs of Arizona. Brooks issued a press release on the subpoena, calling the group the “partisan Witch Hunt Committee” and indicating he hadn’t been served with a subpoena yet. “Eighteen months have passed since the 2020 election without the partisan Witch Hunt Committee bothering to seek testimony from me,” Brooks stated in the press release. “It’s no coincidence Nancy Pelosi and Liz Cheney seek to interfere with Alabama’s electing a conservative Senator by coming after me at the most campaign intense time of the GOP Primary and Runoff elections. Pelosi and Cheney hate America First candidates. With the release of the ‘2000 Mules’ documentary, the American people are learning what I’ve said since the 2020 election: the 2020 election was stolen, and Donald Trump is the rightful winner,” Brooks commented. Brooks went on to say that he was proud to stand with President Donald Trump on January 6. “I have already given at least two sworn statements in federal court during Eric Swalwell’s losing effort to sue me, plus numerous other oral and written statements about events relating to January 6. I have given numerous House Floor speeches about voter fraud and election theft in the 2020 elections. To my knowledge, no other potential Witch Hunt Committee witness has been so publicly open about the 2020 elections and January 6 events. If the partisan Witch Hunt Committee wants my observations of events, all it has to do is read or listen to my numerous prior statements,” Brooks continued. Brooks then listed questions he had if he was issued with a subpoena. Brooks asked the following questions: 1. Will my testimony be public, where the American people can see first hand my testimony (without the prejudicial leaks the partisan Pelosi Witch Hunt Committee is renowned for)? 3. Will I be questioned by Members of Congress rather than their underlings? If I, as a Congressman, must be at a hearing, the least the partisan Witch Hunt Committee can do is put forth Congressmen (not underlings) to do the questioning. If Witch Hunt Committee Congressmen don’t think it worth their time to question me, why is it worth my time to answer them? 4. The media reports the Witch Hunt Committee seeks to depose five Congressmen. All are Republicans. I believe it wise to wait and consult with Congressmen Jim Jordan, Scott Perry, Andy Biggs, and Kevin McCarthy to determine whether it is best to present a united response to the partisan Witch Hunt Committee before giving a formal statement about how I intend to conduct myself in the face of a hyper-partisan effort to corruptly influence the 2022 general elections just as Democrats did in 2018 via the Russian Collusion Hoax.”
