Source: House Representative Diana DeGette (D-CO, 1st)
Denver, CO - September 1, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- In response to House Speaker Paul Ryan’s statement that the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program is something Congress has to engage in rather than the President simply ending it, Congresswoman Diana DeGette (D-CO), Chief Deputy Whip said, “What are we waiting for?”
“Speaker Ryan has been sitting on legislation that would help DACA recipients remain productive members of our community and seek a pathway to citizenship,” DeGette said. “Now that it looks likely that President Trump will soon end the program, Mr. Ryan is finally moved to act. Well, Mr. Speaker, what are we waiting for? Let’s put legislation on the House floor next week.”
DeGette is a co-sponsor of the BRIDGE Act (H.R. 496), which would ensure that DACA recipients’ status in this country will be extended for at least another three years, as well as the bipartisan American Hope Act (H.R. 3591), which would prevent those qualified for DACA from being deported.
“There are 800,000 DREAMers nationwide, including more than 17,000 in Colorado,” DeGette said. “When President Obama established the program in 2012, he made a promise to these young men and women that America would help them remain productive members of our communities and provide a pathway to citizenship. President Trump may be ready to break this promise, but those of us who still believe in DACA’s goals will continue our efforts to fulfill them.”
The Unpopular Truth
Friday, September 1, 2017
SAPD changes policy on sanctuary cities
Source: House Representative Lloyd Doggett (D-TX, 35th)
Originally written by Jason Buch at MySanAntonio.com
Questions about immigration status are “still off the table” for San Antonio police after a federal judge blocked most of the new Texas “sanctuary cities” law set to take effect Friday, Police Chief William McManus said Thursday.
The San Antonio Police Department will have to change its policies after U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia on Wednesday upheld a portion of Senate Bill 4, which creates penalties for local governments that prohibit police from asking about immigration status.
But city officials and lawyers who had challenged the law said Thursday that other portions of the ban that Garcia struck down severely limited its impact.
The law allows the attorney general to fine or remove from office local officials who “prohibit or materially limit” a police officer from “inquiring into the immigration status of a person under a lawful detention or under arrest” and sharing information with federal immigration authorities.
Garcia blocked the phrase “materially limit,” writing that it was too vague, but left in place the word “prohibit.” As a result, the police department removed from its policy a line that states: “Officers will not ask any person for proof of citizenship or legal residency.”
Still, Garcia sufficiently diluted the SB 4 provisions, said lawyers representing San Antonio and other city and county governments who sued the state to halt the law. They said police departments can tell officers questions about immigration status are a low priority and should be avoided as long as they don’t outright block them from asking.
To that end, McManus read to reporters at a news conference the city’s revised policy: “Officers will not detain and/or arrest an individual based on the fact or suspicion that they are in the United States illegally. The enforcement priorities of this department are to protect the public safety, and the priorities do not include asking any person for proof of citizenship or legal residency.”
Officers are also instructed not to ask victims or witnesses of a crime about their immigration status “unless an officer must ask to further investigate the offense” or the officer is providing information about visas for immigrants who cooperate with police, the new policy states.
“Otherwise, we do not ask and our priorities remain the same, and that is to answer calls for service and work with the public to help prevent and deter crime,” McManus said.
The chief said that officers will receive a copy of the new policy and will be shown a video about it at roll call.
While Garcia ruled that police are allowed to ask about immigration status during an arrest or detention, which could include a traffic stop, and are allowed to share information with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, he warned that the law does not allow police to stop someone to determine their immigration status or to draw out detentions for immigration enforcement, even if someone admits to being in the country illegally.
“SB 4 merely requires that the officer be permitted (but not required) to share with ICE whatever information (however incomplete) he discovers during his immigration inquiry, either after releasing the individual or during the seizure, provided that this communication does not prolong the seizure,” Garcia wrote.
His ruling, a response to a lawsuit filed by local governments, including San Antonio and the border town of El Cenizo, temporarily blocks most of SB 4 from taking effect until he can decide its constitutionality. Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a notice Thursday stating he’ll appeal Garcia’s decision.
A section the judge blocked that allows the attorney general to fine and remove from office for local officials who “adopt, enforce, or endorse a policy under which the entity or department prohibits or materially limits the enforcement of immigration laws” had made opponents particularly nervous.
They’d argued the word “endorse” in that context allowed the state to punish any official who voiced opposition to SB 4 and that the phrase “materially limits” was so vague it would require local police to act as immigration officers or risk penalties.
Garcia agreed, saying that both were likely unconstitutional and barred the state from enforcing them.
In a brief filed Thursday asking Garcia to stay his injunction, attorneys for the state wrote that Garcia misunderstood the segment of the law, which “is designed to stop local law enforcement agencies from having policies that obstruct cooperation with federal immigration officials.”
Garcia denied the state’s request to stay his decision until the appeal is decided.
Although he said some portions of the law were constitutional, Garcia expressed concern about the bill.
“There is overwhelming evidence by local officials, including local law enforcement, that SB 4 will erode public trust and make many communities and neighborhoods less safe,” the judge wrote.
“There is also ample evidence that localities will suffer adverse economic consequences which, in turn, harm the State of Texas. Indeed, at the end of the day, the Legislature is free to ignore the pleas of city and county officials, along with local police departments, who are in the trenches and neighborhoods enforcing the law on a daily and continuing basis. The depth and reservoir of knowledge and experience possessed by local officials can be ignored. The Court cannot and does not second guess the Legislature. However, the State may not exercise its authority in a manner that violates the United States Constitution.”
Opponents of SB 4 cast the debate over the law as a contest between the will of officials in Austin and local governments.
“This is the most vivid example of the state playing Big Brother in a year that has been overloaded with state and federal attempts to dictate municipal policy to local elected officials,” Mayor Ron Nirenberg said Thursday. “The bottom line is that SB 4 is an excessive and cruel reaction to the federal government’s failure to deal with immigration.”
The fight over SB 4 is part of a larger shift in the national immigration debate. During the administration of former President Barack Obama, the federal government and the state of Texas were often at odds on immigration policy. Under President Donald Trump, the Justice Department has come out in favor of SB 4, telling Garcia the law is constitutional.
Joining immigration activists in front of the federal courthouse Thursday morning, U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-San Antonio, said the SB 4 decision “gives us encouragement that we will ultimately prevail, that we will never accept being drug backwards by those state officials who are kind of the Junior Trumps up there in Austin.”
Doggett noted that despite the victory over SB 4, recipients of the Obama administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program face a looming threat, again driven by the state of Texas.
Paxton has told the Trump administration that if it does not end the program that provides renewable two-year reprieves from deportation to some young immigrants who are in the country without permission, he will challenge it in court on Tuesday. According to national media reports, Trump is considering halting or changing the program, possibly as early as Friday.
“It’s very unlike President Trump to yield to a threat,” Doggett said. “So I hope he’s not going to back down in the face of Ken Paxton.”
Selene Gomez, the San Antonio area coordinator for Mi Familia Vota, said at the rally that activists will be holding another event Friday in Milam Park asking the City Council for a resolution in favor of immigrants’ rights and preparing for a decision on deferred action, known as DACA. Her organization will continue to combat SB 4 and encourage Texans to vote against the legislators who supported it, Gomez said, but “everybody now is shifting 100 percent to DACA.”
Originally written by Jason Buch at MySanAntonio.com
Questions about immigration status are “still off the table” for San Antonio police after a federal judge blocked most of the new Texas “sanctuary cities” law set to take effect Friday, Police Chief William McManus said Thursday.
The San Antonio Police Department will have to change its policies after U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia on Wednesday upheld a portion of Senate Bill 4, which creates penalties for local governments that prohibit police from asking about immigration status.
But city officials and lawyers who had challenged the law said Thursday that other portions of the ban that Garcia struck down severely limited its impact.
The law allows the attorney general to fine or remove from office local officials who “prohibit or materially limit” a police officer from “inquiring into the immigration status of a person under a lawful detention or under arrest” and sharing information with federal immigration authorities.
Garcia blocked the phrase “materially limit,” writing that it was too vague, but left in place the word “prohibit.” As a result, the police department removed from its policy a line that states: “Officers will not ask any person for proof of citizenship or legal residency.”
Still, Garcia sufficiently diluted the SB 4 provisions, said lawyers representing San Antonio and other city and county governments who sued the state to halt the law. They said police departments can tell officers questions about immigration status are a low priority and should be avoided as long as they don’t outright block them from asking.
To that end, McManus read to reporters at a news conference the city’s revised policy: “Officers will not detain and/or arrest an individual based on the fact or suspicion that they are in the United States illegally. The enforcement priorities of this department are to protect the public safety, and the priorities do not include asking any person for proof of citizenship or legal residency.”
Officers are also instructed not to ask victims or witnesses of a crime about their immigration status “unless an officer must ask to further investigate the offense” or the officer is providing information about visas for immigrants who cooperate with police, the new policy states.
“Otherwise, we do not ask and our priorities remain the same, and that is to answer calls for service and work with the public to help prevent and deter crime,” McManus said.
The chief said that officers will receive a copy of the new policy and will be shown a video about it at roll call.
While Garcia ruled that police are allowed to ask about immigration status during an arrest or detention, which could include a traffic stop, and are allowed to share information with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, he warned that the law does not allow police to stop someone to determine their immigration status or to draw out detentions for immigration enforcement, even if someone admits to being in the country illegally.
“SB 4 merely requires that the officer be permitted (but not required) to share with ICE whatever information (however incomplete) he discovers during his immigration inquiry, either after releasing the individual or during the seizure, provided that this communication does not prolong the seizure,” Garcia wrote.
His ruling, a response to a lawsuit filed by local governments, including San Antonio and the border town of El Cenizo, temporarily blocks most of SB 4 from taking effect until he can decide its constitutionality. Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a notice Thursday stating he’ll appeal Garcia’s decision.
A section the judge blocked that allows the attorney general to fine and remove from office for local officials who “adopt, enforce, or endorse a policy under which the entity or department prohibits or materially limits the enforcement of immigration laws” had made opponents particularly nervous.
They’d argued the word “endorse” in that context allowed the state to punish any official who voiced opposition to SB 4 and that the phrase “materially limits” was so vague it would require local police to act as immigration officers or risk penalties.
Garcia agreed, saying that both were likely unconstitutional and barred the state from enforcing them.
In a brief filed Thursday asking Garcia to stay his injunction, attorneys for the state wrote that Garcia misunderstood the segment of the law, which “is designed to stop local law enforcement agencies from having policies that obstruct cooperation with federal immigration officials.”
Garcia denied the state’s request to stay his decision until the appeal is decided.
Although he said some portions of the law were constitutional, Garcia expressed concern about the bill.
“There is overwhelming evidence by local officials, including local law enforcement, that SB 4 will erode public trust and make many communities and neighborhoods less safe,” the judge wrote.
“There is also ample evidence that localities will suffer adverse economic consequences which, in turn, harm the State of Texas. Indeed, at the end of the day, the Legislature is free to ignore the pleas of city and county officials, along with local police departments, who are in the trenches and neighborhoods enforcing the law on a daily and continuing basis. The depth and reservoir of knowledge and experience possessed by local officials can be ignored. The Court cannot and does not second guess the Legislature. However, the State may not exercise its authority in a manner that violates the United States Constitution.”
Opponents of SB 4 cast the debate over the law as a contest between the will of officials in Austin and local governments.
“This is the most vivid example of the state playing Big Brother in a year that has been overloaded with state and federal attempts to dictate municipal policy to local elected officials,” Mayor Ron Nirenberg said Thursday. “The bottom line is that SB 4 is an excessive and cruel reaction to the federal government’s failure to deal with immigration.”
The fight over SB 4 is part of a larger shift in the national immigration debate. During the administration of former President Barack Obama, the federal government and the state of Texas were often at odds on immigration policy. Under President Donald Trump, the Justice Department has come out in favor of SB 4, telling Garcia the law is constitutional.
Joining immigration activists in front of the federal courthouse Thursday morning, U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-San Antonio, said the SB 4 decision “gives us encouragement that we will ultimately prevail, that we will never accept being drug backwards by those state officials who are kind of the Junior Trumps up there in Austin.”
Doggett noted that despite the victory over SB 4, recipients of the Obama administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program face a looming threat, again driven by the state of Texas.
Paxton has told the Trump administration that if it does not end the program that provides renewable two-year reprieves from deportation to some young immigrants who are in the country without permission, he will challenge it in court on Tuesday. According to national media reports, Trump is considering halting or changing the program, possibly as early as Friday.
“It’s very unlike President Trump to yield to a threat,” Doggett said. “So I hope he’s not going to back down in the face of Ken Paxton.”
Selene Gomez, the San Antonio area coordinator for Mi Familia Vota, said at the rally that activists will be holding another event Friday in Milam Park asking the City Council for a resolution in favor of immigrants’ rights and preparing for a decision on deferred action, known as DACA. Her organization will continue to combat SB 4 and encourage Texans to vote against the legislators who supported it, Gomez said, but “everybody now is shifting 100 percent to DACA.”
Congress shouldn't fund a Trump-Russia fishing expedition
Source: House Representative Ron DeSantis (R-FL, 6th)
Originally published at FoxNews.com.
Washington, D.C. - September 1, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein defended against criticism of his handling of the amorphous “Russia investigation” by saying that the Department of Justice “doesn’t engage in fishing expeditions.” Yet, his clumsy management of this matter is the reason why many Americans are concerned that the investigation lacks focus and will veer into unrelated matters, thereby extending the probe far into the future and hampering the ability of the Trump administration to attend to the people’s business.
Rosenstein’s order appointing Robert Mueller to serve as special counsel failed to enumerate a crime to be investigated; instead, the order cited then-FBI Director James Comey’s March testimony identifying the existence of a counterintelligence investigation focusing on Russia, not a criminal investigation targeting members of the Trump administration. The order was defective because DOJ regulations make the existence of a criminal investigation a condition precedent to the appointment of a special counsel. Moreover, the order was so vague that it places little in the way of substantive limits on the scope or duration of the investigation.
The Rosenstein order is effectively an invitation to conduct a fishing expedition. And news reports have suggested that the investigation is veering into territory that has little, if any, relationship to the question of whether anyone committed crimes while in cahoots with the Russians.
Now, in recent appearance on Fox News Sunday, Rosenstein assures us that “Bob Mueller understands and [he] understands the specific scope of the investigation and so, it’s not a fishing expedition.”
Given the failure to issue a clear appointing order, Congress should not simply take Rosenstein’s word for this. Instead, Congress should use the upcoming appropriations bills to establish clear limits to the scope and duration of the special counsel investigation.
Specifically, Congress should deny funding for the investigation of any matters that precede the commencement of the 2016 presidential campaign. This will prevent the investigation from going off the rails and from becoming a roving commission to simply “find something” on members of the Trump administration, including the president himself.
In addition, Congress should terminate funding for the investigation at a date certain – say, 180 days from the date of enactment – so that the Trump administration and the Congress can move on to dealing with the key issues facing the American people.
The notion that the Trump campaign illegally “colluded” with Russian government agents has always seemed to be more a matter of wishful thinking by the media than something based on hard evidence. Imposing a deadline will force the special counsel to put up or shut up: if evidence of criminal activity has not surfaced after what will be nearly two years of investigation (including the pre-special counsel investigation conducted by the FBI), then this investigatory cloud hovering over the Trump administration should be removed.
There was never a clear basis from which to establish a special counsel in the first place, but we are where we are and it is in the public’s interest that this investigation be focused in scope and limited in duration.
The drag that such an investigation places on an administration means that the business of governing is necessarily hindered. For his part, President Trump is reviled by the Washington ruling class and the appointment of a special counsel is a way for the “Swamp” to seek his presidency’s destruction -- through investigative paralysis at least, with no evidence of wrongdoing uncovered. The inexplicable decision of Special Counsel Mueller to stock his office with Democratic partisans has underscored concerns along these lines.
Congress can and should use its power of the purse to impose guardrails on the investigation. The congressional corollary to the Rosenstein admonition that the DOJ doesn’t conduct fishing expeditions should be that the Congress will not fund fishing expeditions.
Originally published at FoxNews.com.
Washington, D.C. - September 1, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein defended against criticism of his handling of the amorphous “Russia investigation” by saying that the Department of Justice “doesn’t engage in fishing expeditions.” Yet, his clumsy management of this matter is the reason why many Americans are concerned that the investigation lacks focus and will veer into unrelated matters, thereby extending the probe far into the future and hampering the ability of the Trump administration to attend to the people’s business.
Rosenstein’s order appointing Robert Mueller to serve as special counsel failed to enumerate a crime to be investigated; instead, the order cited then-FBI Director James Comey’s March testimony identifying the existence of a counterintelligence investigation focusing on Russia, not a criminal investigation targeting members of the Trump administration. The order was defective because DOJ regulations make the existence of a criminal investigation a condition precedent to the appointment of a special counsel. Moreover, the order was so vague that it places little in the way of substantive limits on the scope or duration of the investigation.
The Rosenstein order is effectively an invitation to conduct a fishing expedition. And news reports have suggested that the investigation is veering into territory that has little, if any, relationship to the question of whether anyone committed crimes while in cahoots with the Russians.
Now, in recent appearance on Fox News Sunday, Rosenstein assures us that “Bob Mueller understands and [he] understands the specific scope of the investigation and so, it’s not a fishing expedition.”
Given the failure to issue a clear appointing order, Congress should not simply take Rosenstein’s word for this. Instead, Congress should use the upcoming appropriations bills to establish clear limits to the scope and duration of the special counsel investigation.
Specifically, Congress should deny funding for the investigation of any matters that precede the commencement of the 2016 presidential campaign. This will prevent the investigation from going off the rails and from becoming a roving commission to simply “find something” on members of the Trump administration, including the president himself.
In addition, Congress should terminate funding for the investigation at a date certain – say, 180 days from the date of enactment – so that the Trump administration and the Congress can move on to dealing with the key issues facing the American people.
The notion that the Trump campaign illegally “colluded” with Russian government agents has always seemed to be more a matter of wishful thinking by the media than something based on hard evidence. Imposing a deadline will force the special counsel to put up or shut up: if evidence of criminal activity has not surfaced after what will be nearly two years of investigation (including the pre-special counsel investigation conducted by the FBI), then this investigatory cloud hovering over the Trump administration should be removed.
There was never a clear basis from which to establish a special counsel in the first place, but we are where we are and it is in the public’s interest that this investigation be focused in scope and limited in duration.
The drag that such an investigation places on an administration means that the business of governing is necessarily hindered. For his part, President Trump is reviled by the Washington ruling class and the appointment of a special counsel is a way for the “Swamp” to seek his presidency’s destruction -- through investigative paralysis at least, with no evidence of wrongdoing uncovered. The inexplicable decision of Special Counsel Mueller to stock his office with Democratic partisans has underscored concerns along these lines.
Congress can and should use its power of the purse to impose guardrails on the investigation. The congressional corollary to the Rosenstein admonition that the DOJ doesn’t conduct fishing expeditions should be that the Congress will not fund fishing expeditions.
Chairman Crowley Statement on August Jobs Report
Source: House Representative Joseph Crowley (D-NY, 14th)
Washington, D.C. - September 1, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- House Democratic Caucus Chairman Joe Crowley (D-NY) issued the following statement on the August jobs report:
“Hard-working families are struggling to find financial security. President Trump and Republicans in Congress are giving Americans a raw deal with their relentless focus on destroying the Affordable Care Act and advancing tax cuts that would only benefit the wealthy and corporate special interests instead of the middle class. This is not how we put Americans back to work or grow their paychecks. I urge my Republican colleagues to stop the partisan games and join Democrats in moving forward an agenda that creates more jobs with better wages.”
Washington, D.C. - September 1, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- House Democratic Caucus Chairman Joe Crowley (D-NY) issued the following statement on the August jobs report:
“Hard-working families are struggling to find financial security. President Trump and Republicans in Congress are giving Americans a raw deal with their relentless focus on destroying the Affordable Care Act and advancing tax cuts that would only benefit the wealthy and corporate special interests instead of the middle class. This is not how we put Americans back to work or grow their paychecks. I urge my Republican colleagues to stop the partisan games and join Democrats in moving forward an agenda that creates more jobs with better wages.”
Dickinson Based Company to Develop Prototype for Southern Border Wall
Source: House Representative Kevin Cramer (R-North Dakota)
Washington, D.C. - September 1, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- Congressman Kevin Cramer announced today the U.S. Customs and Border Protection awarded Dickinson-based Fisher Sand & Gravel Co. a contract to develop a prototype for construction of a wall along the southern border.
“I am not surprised by today’s announcement knowing Fisher Industries as well as I do. When I saw the presentation they prepared for the Department of Homeland Security, I was impressed with their design and quite confident they would make it to the top of the list. Fisher’s strong work ethic and reputation for a quality product has made them a leader within the aggregate and construction industry,” said Cramer. “Today is a win not only for national security, but for the taxpayer as well.”
Fisher Industries, the parent company to Fisher Sand and Gravel Co., was started in south western North Dakota by Gene Fisher in 1952. Today, Gene’s eldest son, Tommy Fisher, is president of the company and has expanded operations beyond North Dakota. Fisher Sand and Gravel is one of the top 25 sand and gravel companies in the United States.
Washington, D.C. - September 1, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- Congressman Kevin Cramer announced today the U.S. Customs and Border Protection awarded Dickinson-based Fisher Sand & Gravel Co. a contract to develop a prototype for construction of a wall along the southern border.
“I am not surprised by today’s announcement knowing Fisher Industries as well as I do. When I saw the presentation they prepared for the Department of Homeland Security, I was impressed with their design and quite confident they would make it to the top of the list. Fisher’s strong work ethic and reputation for a quality product has made them a leader within the aggregate and construction industry,” said Cramer. “Today is a win not only for national security, but for the taxpayer as well.”
Fisher Industries, the parent company to Fisher Sand and Gravel Co., was started in south western North Dakota by Gene Fisher in 1952. Today, Gene’s eldest son, Tommy Fisher, is president of the company and has expanded operations beyond North Dakota. Fisher Sand and Gravel is one of the top 25 sand and gravel companies in the United States.
60 MEMBERS OF CONGRESS CALL ON EPA TO PROTECT AMERICANS FROM DEADLY PESTICIDES
Source: House Representative John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI, 13th)
Washington, D.C. - September 1, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- 60 Members of Congress, led by Congressman John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) and Congressman Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), today sent a letter to Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Scott Pruitt, requesting information on the steps the EPA is taking to protect Americans, bees and other pollinators from harmful pesticides.
The letter notes that last year, “EPA scientists concluded that the agency should ban chlorpyrifos, a commonly used pesticide, on farms across the country due to significant evidence of the harmful effects it has on farmworkers and young children.” Research shows that prenatal exposures to chlorpyrifos are associated with reduced IQ, loss of working memory, attention disorders and delayed motor development. In March, the Trump Administration reversed this decision and instead chose to keep this pesticide on the market. Chlorpyrifos was previously banned for household use in 2000.
According to news reports, EPA Administrator Pruitt met with Dow CEO Andrew Liveris on March 9th, just 20 days before reversing the Administration’s decision on pesticides. The Members wrote,
“Given the precedent this action has created at EPA, we are deeply concerned that your agency has adopted a new standard of pesticide review and will start making pesticide registration determinations based on recommendations from pesticide manufacturers instead of basing agency decisions on sound, independent science.”
Congressman Conyers said,
“The science is clear. These pesticides are a severe risk to Americans’ health and pose an equally concerning risk to our food supply. It appears that the EPA, an agency long tasked with protecting Americans’ food, air and water, has spent more time listening to chemical companies and industry interests rather than its own scientists and the American people. I call on Mr. Pruitt to carefully evaluate the mission of the EPA and return to keeping Americans, and our food supply, safe.” “The Trump administration has ignored basic science time and time again, and the decision to reverse the ban on this dangerous pesticide is yet another glaring example,” said Blumenauer. “Our constituents demand answers, and the EPA has a responsibility to protect the health of the American people. The administration should reverse course on its decision and demonstrate that it is capable of making objective, science-based decisions.”
Washington, D.C. - September 1, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- 60 Members of Congress, led by Congressman John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) and Congressman Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), today sent a letter to Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Scott Pruitt, requesting information on the steps the EPA is taking to protect Americans, bees and other pollinators from harmful pesticides.
The letter notes that last year, “EPA scientists concluded that the agency should ban chlorpyrifos, a commonly used pesticide, on farms across the country due to significant evidence of the harmful effects it has on farmworkers and young children.” Research shows that prenatal exposures to chlorpyrifos are associated with reduced IQ, loss of working memory, attention disorders and delayed motor development. In March, the Trump Administration reversed this decision and instead chose to keep this pesticide on the market. Chlorpyrifos was previously banned for household use in 2000.
According to news reports, EPA Administrator Pruitt met with Dow CEO Andrew Liveris on March 9th, just 20 days before reversing the Administration’s decision on pesticides. The Members wrote,
“Given the precedent this action has created at EPA, we are deeply concerned that your agency has adopted a new standard of pesticide review and will start making pesticide registration determinations based on recommendations from pesticide manufacturers instead of basing agency decisions on sound, independent science.”
Congressman Conyers said,
“The science is clear. These pesticides are a severe risk to Americans’ health and pose an equally concerning risk to our food supply. It appears that the EPA, an agency long tasked with protecting Americans’ food, air and water, has spent more time listening to chemical companies and industry interests rather than its own scientists and the American people. I call on Mr. Pruitt to carefully evaluate the mission of the EPA and return to keeping Americans, and our food supply, safe.” “The Trump administration has ignored basic science time and time again, and the decision to reverse the ban on this dangerous pesticide is yet another glaring example,” said Blumenauer. “Our constituents demand answers, and the EPA has a responsibility to protect the health of the American people. The administration should reverse course on its decision and demonstrate that it is capable of making objective, science-based decisions.”
Congressman Connolly’s Statement on DACA and DREAMers
Source: House Representative Gerald E. “Gerry” Connolly (D-VA, 11th)
Washington, D.C. - September 1, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- Congressman Gerry Connolly issued the following statement on DACA and the contributions of DREAMers to Virginia in response to troubling reports that President Trump may end the DACA program:
“Since its creation in 2012, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program has given nearly 800,000 DREAMers the opportunity to work and attend school. In Virginia, we have more than 12,000 DREAMers and they have contributed more than $711.4 million to our annual GDP. These young, hardworking DREAMers are contributing to our communities, creating jobs, serving our military, teaching our children, and caring for our family members. Ending DACA is a moral outrage and we must protect this program. That is why I am offering an amendment to protect these DREAMers from deportation by prohibiting DHS from using information submitted through the DACA program to initiate removal proceedings.”
Washington, D.C. - September 1, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- Congressman Gerry Connolly issued the following statement on DACA and the contributions of DREAMers to Virginia in response to troubling reports that President Trump may end the DACA program:
“Since its creation in 2012, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program has given nearly 800,000 DREAMers the opportunity to work and attend school. In Virginia, we have more than 12,000 DREAMers and they have contributed more than $711.4 million to our annual GDP. These young, hardworking DREAMers are contributing to our communities, creating jobs, serving our military, teaching our children, and caring for our family members. Ending DACA is a moral outrage and we must protect this program. That is why I am offering an amendment to protect these DREAMers from deportation by prohibiting DHS from using information submitted through the DACA program to initiate removal proceedings.”
Ban on Venezuelan Oil Imports
Source: House Representative Mike Coffman (R-CO, 6th):
Aurora, CO - September 1, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- At the Colorado State Capitol, U.S. Representative Mike Coffman (R-CO) announced that he will introduce the ‘Protecting Against Tyranny and Responsible Imports Act (PATRIA) of 2017’ which would impose a ban on the importation of petroleum and refined petroleum products from the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. In light of the recent actions taken by the Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro to solidify his authoritarian regime, Coffman plans to introduce the ‘PATRIA Act’ on September 5th.
Earlier this year, the Venezuelan Supreme Court, who is led by Maduro loyalists, stripped the country’s National Assembly, their democratically elected legislative body, of its authority. Recently, Maduro ordered the formation of a ‘Constituent Assembly’ which has the authority to rewrite the country’s constitution, dismiss officials, and eliminate existing institutions. This will allow Maduro to consolidate his dictatorship, perpetuate the humanitarian crisis, and imprison democratically-elected officials in Venezuela.
Coffman’s legislation would require that President Maduro reinstate the freely and fairly elected National Assembly of 2015 before the oil ban is lifted. Restoring the National Assembly would provide Venezuela with a democratically-elected legislative body that their people have been protesting and dying for in recent months.
“Although I am pleased that President Trump authorized additional sanctions against Venezuela, I believe that we must take stronger action to get Maduro to reinstate the National Assembly”.
If enacted, the ‘PATRIA ACT’ will have an estimated $10 billion impact in lost income to the Venezuelan government and will deny the authoritarian Maduro government the ability to use these funds to pay the regime’s security forces who have been oppressing the growing opposition and prolonging an ongoing humanitarian crisis.
“Venezuela, once the richest country of Latin America, is now a poor country without a respect for the rule of law or human rights,” said Coffman. “No doubt, this could make economic conditions even tougher for the Venezuelan people but it will also deliver a devastating blow to Maduro’s ability to stay in power without restoring the democratically-elected National Assembly,” Coffman continued.
President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence have recently floated the possibility of U.S. military intervention to stop Venezuela from sliding into an authoritarian Cuban-style dictatorship while not discussing a ban on imported oil that supports the Maduro government.
“The price of the blood that could be shed by our own military has a greater value to me than any increase in the price at the pump caused by a ban on the sale of Venezuelan oil in the United States,” said Coffman, a Marine Corps combat veteran.
On June 17, 2017, Congressman Coffman authored a letter to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson that called on the State Department to impose more severe sanctions on “individuals and corporations within Venezuela that actively contribute to the ongoing crisis in that country...” Coffman continued, “I believe that, without a robust and wide ranging sanctions regime, the Maduro government will never consider democratic reforms…or stop its heinous pattern of human rights abuse.”
A preliminary CBO score reflects this legislation would result in a revenue loss of about $8 million dollars per year to the United States.
Aurora, CO - September 1, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- At the Colorado State Capitol, U.S. Representative Mike Coffman (R-CO) announced that he will introduce the ‘Protecting Against Tyranny and Responsible Imports Act (PATRIA) of 2017’ which would impose a ban on the importation of petroleum and refined petroleum products from the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. In light of the recent actions taken by the Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro to solidify his authoritarian regime, Coffman plans to introduce the ‘PATRIA Act’ on September 5th.
Earlier this year, the Venezuelan Supreme Court, who is led by Maduro loyalists, stripped the country’s National Assembly, their democratically elected legislative body, of its authority. Recently, Maduro ordered the formation of a ‘Constituent Assembly’ which has the authority to rewrite the country’s constitution, dismiss officials, and eliminate existing institutions. This will allow Maduro to consolidate his dictatorship, perpetuate the humanitarian crisis, and imprison democratically-elected officials in Venezuela.
Coffman’s legislation would require that President Maduro reinstate the freely and fairly elected National Assembly of 2015 before the oil ban is lifted. Restoring the National Assembly would provide Venezuela with a democratically-elected legislative body that their people have been protesting and dying for in recent months.
“Although I am pleased that President Trump authorized additional sanctions against Venezuela, I believe that we must take stronger action to get Maduro to reinstate the National Assembly”.
If enacted, the ‘PATRIA ACT’ will have an estimated $10 billion impact in lost income to the Venezuelan government and will deny the authoritarian Maduro government the ability to use these funds to pay the regime’s security forces who have been oppressing the growing opposition and prolonging an ongoing humanitarian crisis.
“Venezuela, once the richest country of Latin America, is now a poor country without a respect for the rule of law or human rights,” said Coffman. “No doubt, this could make economic conditions even tougher for the Venezuelan people but it will also deliver a devastating blow to Maduro’s ability to stay in power without restoring the democratically-elected National Assembly,” Coffman continued.
President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence have recently floated the possibility of U.S. military intervention to stop Venezuela from sliding into an authoritarian Cuban-style dictatorship while not discussing a ban on imported oil that supports the Maduro government.
“The price of the blood that could be shed by our own military has a greater value to me than any increase in the price at the pump caused by a ban on the sale of Venezuelan oil in the United States,” said Coffman, a Marine Corps combat veteran.
On June 17, 2017, Congressman Coffman authored a letter to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson that called on the State Department to impose more severe sanctions on “individuals and corporations within Venezuela that actively contribute to the ongoing crisis in that country...” Coffman continued, “I believe that, without a robust and wide ranging sanctions regime, the Maduro government will never consider democratic reforms…or stop its heinous pattern of human rights abuse.”
A preliminary CBO score reflects this legislation would result in a revenue loss of about $8 million dollars per year to the United States.
Congressman Cleaver’s Statement Regarding DACA
Source: House Representative Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO, 5th)
Congressman Emanuel Cleaver, II released the following statement in regards to President Trump’s plans to effectively end the DACA, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, program.
“Because I am an ordained United Methodist clergy, I cannot resist saying that Ezekiel 18 is clear, each individual is responsible for his/her own sins. Listen to the text:
Who are we to punish young Americans for their parents’ decision? Come on, opponents of that which is right, get with it or get out of the way!”
Congressman Emanuel Cleaver, II released the following statement in regards to President Trump’s plans to effectively end the DACA, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, program.
“Because I am an ordained United Methodist clergy, I cannot resist saying that Ezekiel 18 is clear, each individual is responsible for his/her own sins. Listen to the text:
Ezekiel 18:19
“The child will not be punished for the parent’s sins, and the parent will not be punished for the child’s sins. Righteous people will be rewarded for their own righteous behavior, and wicked people will be punished for their own wickedness.”
Who are we to punish young Americans for their parents’ decision? Come on, opponents of that which is right, get with it or get out of the way!”
Castro Statement on Texas Voter ID Ruling
Source: House Representative Joaquin Castro (D-TX, 20th)
Washington, D.C. - September 1, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- Congressman Joaquin Castro (TX-20), first vice chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, issued the following statement after a federal court granted a preliminary injunction halting Senate Bill 4 from taking effect:
“This preliminary injunction is a relief, but not a surprise – SB 4 is discriminatory and unconstitutional. No one living in or visiting Texas should fear that they will be asked to prove their citizenship just because of their skin color or accent.
“SB 4 would make our communities less safe and drive away businesses. Even local law enforcement chiefs from across the state oppose the law and say it will make it harder for them to protect Texans. Yet, Republican state leaders will continue to challenge today’s ruling. I’m confident that ultimately, this unjust measure will be deemed unlawful.”
Washington, D.C. - September 1, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- Congressman Joaquin Castro (TX-20), first vice chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, issued the following statement after a federal court granted a preliminary injunction halting Senate Bill 4 from taking effect:
“This preliminary injunction is a relief, but not a surprise – SB 4 is discriminatory and unconstitutional. No one living in or visiting Texas should fear that they will be asked to prove their citizenship just because of their skin color or accent.
“SB 4 would make our communities less safe and drive away businesses. Even local law enforcement chiefs from across the state oppose the law and say it will make it harder for them to protect Texans. Yet, Republican state leaders will continue to challenge today’s ruling. I’m confident that ultimately, this unjust measure will be deemed unlawful.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)