Tag Archives : Build House

Dallas Koreatown salon shooting was anti-Asian hate crime: indictments

A man charged in connection with a shooting in Dallas’s Koreatown earlier this year was indicted for alleged hate crimes against Asian Americans. 

Dallas County Criminal District Attorney John Creuzot announced Tuesday that a Dallas County grand jury had returned seven indictments against 37-year-old Jeremy Smith for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. 

Smith was arrested after a May shooting at Hair World Salon in Koreatown. The suspect fired 13 shots inside the salon, injuring three women, according to the DA. 

“The shootings were allegedly motivated by bias or prejudice against Asian Americans – thus classified under Texas law as a hate crime,” the DA’s office wrote in Tuesday’s announcement. 

Anti-Asian hate crimes have spiked in recent years, going up by more than 300 percent between 2020 and 2021, according to recent data.

Smith allegedly targeted the women at Hair World because of prejudice against Asian Americans, and the grand jury found probable cause to indict him in connection with the incident.

Smith’s girlfriend told authorities shortly after the shooting that Smith, who is Black, had delusional fears of Asian Americans.

Smith has reportedly been in custody since his arrest in May, and is held at the Lew Sterrett Justice Center in Dallas.

Source: TEST FEED1

NotedDC — Democrats take less is more approach to raid

Democrats spent a second day largely staying out of the fray surrounding the FBI’s search of former President Trump’s estate in Florida. 

Some strategists believe that on this issue, less is more from the White House and the Biden administration is taking heed, saying only that it didn’t know about the search ahead of time, via our colleague Alex Gangitano. 

“Biden should resist acting as Trump did in politicizing the Department of Justice and FBI and remain above the fray,” Republican strategist Doug Heye told Alex. “And he should make that clear every opportunity he gets.” 

Democrats in Congress are following suit. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) declined to answer any questions about the search at a Wednesday press conference. Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (N.Y.) declined to comment on Monday when pressed by MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow and has stayed quiet on the topic since. 

The search happened as Democrats celebrated a series of legislative wins — some of them bipartisan — and worked to continue that momentum, creating a long-awaited message they tout on the campaign trail with less than 100 days until midterm elections. 

The reaction on the Republican side, where lawmakers ranging from staunch allies of Trump to those with more chilly relationships — not to mention a number of potential 2024 presidential candidates — lined up to defend Trump, attack the FBI and demand answers from the Justice Department. Some have already threatened to investigate Attorney General Merrick Garland if they take back the House in November.  

But this isn’t the first time the GOP has sung this tune, as our colleague Emily Brooks notes. 

They criticized the FBI in 2016 when it surveilled former Trump campaign aide Carter Paige and still rail against the agency for not charging former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for having classified emails on a private server, all messages popular with Trump’s core base. 

But is the message popular with establishment and swing voters? It might be why other Republicans, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), have had more tempered reactions.

Welcome to NotedDC: Your guide to politics, policy and people of consequence in D.C. Have some news, juicy gossip, insight or other insider info? Send us tips: Elizabeth Crisp and Kelsey Carolan. 

Encourage your friends to sign up here: thehill.com/noted.

Trump still seems to maintain hold on GOP

THREE PRIMARY VICTORIES marked a second successful week electorally for Trump – Tim Michels in Wisconsin, Gerald Malloy in Vermont and Leora Levy in Connecticut – but the defeat of Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-Wash.), who conceded her Aug. 2 primary on Tuesday, was perhaps the most striking example of the former president’s sway. 

Herrera Butler is the third Republican who voted to impeach Trump to lose their seat. To catch you up to speed on the others: two advanced to a general election, four are retiring and Rep. Liz Cheney (Wyo.) is the last one to find out her fate next week. 

Read more about the 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach Trump from our colleague Zach Schonfield. 

But the bigger challenge for Trump will come in November when his endorsed candidates are tasked with winning over swing voters, our colleague Julia Manchester writes.

House Dems to stay unified around climate, tax bill

House Democrats are poised this week to pass their climate, tax and health care bill this week, marking a huge victory, and they expect just about every member of the caucus to get in line. 

The House Rules Committee met on the bill today, and the full House is returning to vote on it Friday. 

Progressive Democrats may not be thrilled with everything about the bill, but so far they’ve said they would vote “yes.” 

• “This would be a really significant victory for the country,” Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), head of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said last month. “I’m excited — I feel good about feeling excited today.” 
• “I wish it was bigger overall, but I like it — actually really like it,” Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) said after the Senate passed the measure, while Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) called its passage through the upper chamber “an overwhelmingly positive development.” 

Still… the Inflation Reduction Act is very different from the one (…remember Build Back Better?) House Democrats touted last year, which included universal preschool, an extended child tax credit and an expansion of Medicaid.  

While the bill still includes sweeping tax, healthcare and climate change legislation, some House Democrats could publicly criticize parts of the party’s scaled-back bill while still voting in favor. 

Progressive members like Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) already said that they are “disappointed that key elements” of the bill were removed because of opposition from Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) but still called it “a massive step forward.” 

Instead, members could use their discontent with the bill to make the case for why Democrats need to not only keep but grow their majority in the House and Senate this November. 

“We must keep fighting to do more about the climate crisis, healthcare, and tax fairness,” Bowman said.

BUT WILL POLICING DIVIDE THEM?

“DEFUND THE POLICE” has disappeared from progressive Democrats’ platform this election cycle but some House bills threaten to publicly divide the party again over the issue. 

Democrats opted to punt the bills beyond August, our colleague Mike Lillis reports, following an intraparty spat in July over the language of some of the bills, which suggests new federal funds are needed to ensure public safety and accountability in policing. 

What do some progressive Democrats want? “That wish list includes provisions like an end to no-knock warrants and a check on qualified immunity, the shield that protects police officers from certain lawsuits.” 

As our colleagues note, House Democrats in more competitive reelection races want to tout their party’s commitment to law enforcement as Republicans continue to attack them on public safety and rising crime in some major cities. 

Democrats don’t want a repeat of 2020. Some Democrats, especially those in swing districts credited their lackluster performance in the 2020 election to the “Defund the Police” slogan, including Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D-Va.), who called it a “failure.” 

The slogan’s absence is notable. In the battleground states of Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, progressives John Fetterman (Pa.) and Mandela Barnes (Wis.) clinched the party’s Senate nominations and look to flip the seats blue, largely backing away from the policing issue. 

In recent weeks, President Biden has also stayed on the same message of public safety, requesting over $37 billion in funding for law enforcement and crime prevention to be included in the next fiscal budget. 

What we’ll continue watching in the House: “Another delay, if it materializes, is sure to infuriate the front-liners, who want to tout their support for law enforcement heading into tough reelection contests in November — and distance themselves from the liberal ‘defund the police’ campaign that had hurt moderates at the polls in 2020.”

Pelosi, Dems debrief after Taiwan trip

Speaker Nancy Pelosi‘s (D-Calif.) recent historic trip to Taiwan prompted an aggressive response from China and sparked renewed military activity, but the California Democrat says she has no regrets. 

“We didn’t go there to talk about China,” Pelosi told reporters Wednesday during a debriefing on the trip. “We went there to praise Taiwan.” 

Takeaways: 

Pelosi said she doesn’t “remember [the military] ever telling us not to go.” 

“We’re very proud of our military, their preparations,” she said. “They took very good care of us.” 

She added that she believes the U.S. military helped “minimize” the impact China had on the trip. 

President Biden had previously said top military brass believed it was “not a good idea” to make the Asia trek. 

Pelosi said she firmly believes China cannot be allowed to “isolate” Taiwan.  

“That was our purpose–to salute this thriving democracy,” she said.

About those sanctions… China has announced sanctions against Pelosi and her family over the Taiwan trip. To that, the speaker says: “Who cares?” 

“That is incidental to me, of no relevance whatsoever,” she said. 

Speaking of family… Pelosi’s son, businessman Paul Pelosi Jr., 53, was an unannounced guest on the Asia trip. Asked about his attendance, Pelosi said he joined as her escort in the way that spouses frequently join CODELs.  

“I was very proud that he was there,” she said. “It was very nice for me.” 

She denied that her son had any business dealings while overseas with her. “Of course he did not.” 

Read more from our colleague Ellen Mitchell on how the U.S. is downplaying tensions with China.

SUMMER VACATION

After recovering from COVID-19, President Biden is on the leader’s traditional August vacation. 

Noteworthy: Biden, 79, signed legislation before heading out of town but he didn’t hold a formal news conference, as presidents often have to mark the days-long break from the White House. 

Destination: The first family is spending the week on Kiawah Island, S.C. — an oceanfront resort near Charleston. The luxury digs were a favored destination for the Bidens when he was vice president but this marks their first known return since he became president.

IT’S DINNER TIME!

If you want to dine at some of the District’s most expensive restaurants on a budget, next week is your time to shine:

The Metropolitan Washington Restaurant Week offers $25 brunch menus and $40 and $55 dinner menus at select restaurants. Here’s some of the best deals:

• For an upscale date: 1789 in Georgetown is considered one of the fanciest dining experiences in the city, with some plates ranging upward to $50, but if you’re lucky enough to get a reservation next week, you can get a three-course meal for $55.
• For a classic experience: Filomena’s is another Georgetown spot that tourists and Washingtonians alike go to, where they’re offering some Italian dishes on both a $40 and $55 menu.
• For a theme: If you love “The Great Gatsby” movie or book, head over to the Gatsby restaurant just across from Nationals Park.

Check out the whole list on their website.

WASHINGTON MOVES

The Hill’s Karl Evers-Hillstrom has a weekly roundup of where people are moving in the lobbying world (and you can send us your professional updates, too!). Here are some highlights:   

• Drew O’Brien joined Seven Letter as a partner, most recently serving as an executive vice president and managing director at Burnson Cohn & Wolfe. 
• Illy Jaffer joined the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association as managing director of federal government relations, most recently leading the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network’s federal lobbying team. 
• Jaymi Light joined software firm SAS as a federal government relations strategist, most recently serving as a government relations principal at Cigna. 
• Mary Kate Munro joined Growth Energy as a government affairs director, most recently serving as a legislative assistant to Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa).

Stay with TheHill.com for the latest and recommend NotedDC to others: thehill.com/noted. See you tomorrow.

VIEW THE FULL VERSION HERE

Source: TEST FEED1

How Republicans came to distrust the FBI

Republican outrage over the FBI’s search of former President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home follows years of growing skepticism and distrust of the agency shaped by Trump’s own bitter attacks against probes into his 2016 campaign. 

It is now culminating in a GOP, the traditional party of law and order, at times looking like it is in a political war with the FBI.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) in response to the FBI seizing Rep. Scott Perry’s (R-Pa.) cell phone on Tuesday,  described the current situation as a “hot war between the embedded elements of big government and conservatives who threaten their existence.”

The fire has also come from Trump himself, who is flirting with conspiracy theories about the FBI planting evidence at Mar-a-Lago.  

The FBI conducted a search of Trump’s winter home on Monday, reportedly as part of an investigation related to classified documents.  

It’s an unprecedented search. But the GOP outrage itself has been particularly sharp, referencing deeper distrust.  

GOP firebrands who opposed defunding police, such as Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), want to “defund the FBI.” 

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (Calif.) said that the DOJ “has reached an intolerable state of weaponized politicization.”  

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, like Trump a possible presidential contender in 2024, called the search “another escalation in the weaponization of federal agencies against the regime’s political opponents.” 

The animosity raises all kinds of questions for the FBI.  

It may pose risks for the agency’s near-term future, since if the GOP takes back the House or the Senate majorities it will have the power of the purse.  

Much more important could be the long-lasting effects. The FBI’s status as a source of policing authority may be at risk when most leaders of one of the nation’s two major parties are casting doubt on its credibility.  

It’s yet another firestorm of the Trump era testing national institutions.  

“There’s a dangerous possibility that we are moving in a direction where we have one party that sort of across the board doesn’t trust institutions, doesn’t trust the media, doesn’t trust the courts, doesn’t trust, doesn’t trust federal government employees writ large, doesn’t trust federal law enforcement,” said Noah Bookbinder, president of the ethics watchdog CREW and a former federal prosecutor. 

“You start to dismantle those institutions and then, you know, a lot of the things that keep us safe and healthy and doing as a society the things that we should do, stop working,” Bookbinder said. 

The bad blood between the FBI and GOP has been stoked for years by Trump and his allies, and goes back to the investigation surrounding Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server.  

That probe actually culminated in then-FBI Director James Comey issuing a letter just more than a week before the 2016 election reopening a probe into Clinton — who blames the move for costing her the election to Trump.  

Yet it is the right that also takes its grievances back to that probe.  

Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, noted the findings in a report from Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz on the FBI’s actions in advance of the 2016 election.  

“That report is so shocking and so filled with wrongdoing by the FBI agents that it’s hard to have any reaction other than a lack of confidence in the FBI,” von Spakovsky said. 

Among the report’s findings were that text messages between special counsel Lisa Page and FBI Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok critical of Trump “cast a cloud” over its investigation into Clinton’s handling of classified information as Secretary of State. 

It also raised issues about warrants that allowed the FBI to surveil former Trump campaign aide Carter Page. The Justice Department has declared two of the four warrants invalid. 

Horwitz’s report, however, found no “documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the decisions” by the FBI. 

Van Spakovsky also said that Comey “damaged the reputation of the FBI enormously when he basically decided to let Hillary Clinton off” – not charge her with a crime – “even though it was clear that she had mishandled classified material.” 

Through a number of those probes, including Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and Trump’s campaign, Trump went further and declared a political “witch hunt” intended to keep him from power. 

“There has always been skepticism of law enforcement, you know, within the government, the FBI, the CIA … All of those doubts that had already been there. [Trump] stoked them and used them, ultimately, to his advantage,” said Kelly Dittmar, associate professor of political science at Rutgers University–Camden. “I don’t think you can discount the significant role that he played” in sowing distrust, she added. 

Trust in the FBI among the Republican-leaning public has sharply dropped as Trump came to power and Republicans circulated details about FBI activities, Gallup public opinion surveys show. 

Republicans who said that the department was doing an excellent or good job was 59 percent in 2014, 48 percent in 2019, and 26 percent in 2021. Democrats’ approval of the agency has remained relatively steady, from 61 percent in 2014, 64 percent in 2019, and 66 percent in 2021. Among independents, approval fell from 58 percent in 2019 to 41 percent in 2021. 

Democrats’ opinion of the FBI is now higher than it was nearly two decades ago in 2003, when 45 percent said the FBI was doing an excellent or good job. It was 62 percent for Republicans at that time. 

Suspicion of a politically motivated federal law enforcement has stretched to other areas of investigation, such as Republicans alleging that the FBI tracked parents criticizing school boards and other alleged political bias at the department. 

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, has said that “multiple Justice Department whistleblowers” approached his office about alleged political bias in the department revolving around election and campaign finance investigations and matters revolving around Hunter Biden, President Joe Biden’s son. 

The search warrant execution at Trump’s home has further ignited suspicions. GOP congressional leaders have called on the DOJ to explain its reasoning for the warrant, expressing concerns about an actual or appearance of a politicized department. 

Distrust is so rampant among the GOP, most think it will be a long time for a relationship to heal.  

“There’s got to be a sweeping out of staff and personnel in the Washington headquarters and the Washington Field Office,” Van Spakovsky said.  

The FBI no doubt knew it would be picking at these wounds and grievances with the Mar-a-Lago search warrant.  

Bookbinder of CREW argued that the warrant suggests the FBI had strong legal reasoning for its decision — even if it cannot publicly defend its actions given an active investigation.   

“It’s not really appropriate for [the FBI] to be defending themselves politically or responding to a political allegation,” Bookbinder said. “In some ways, the proof is in the pudding, right? That if they bring charges, they’d better have the goods behind them, and you know, and be able to show that there were serious criminal violations and there’s evidence behind them.” 

Source: TEST FEED1

Health Care — Biden signs bill expanding veterans' health benefits

The kids are going to be alright. A Little League batter who was hit in the head with a pitch walked to the mound to comfort the opposing pitcher, who was clearly struggling after the scary moment.  

President Biden on Wednesday signed legislation expanding health care eligibility for veterans exposed to toxins, with the bill having a significance that hits close to home for the president. 

Welcome to Overnight Health Care, where we’re following the latest moves on policy and news affecting your health. For The Hill, we’re Peter Sullivan, Nathaniel Weixel and Joseph Choi. Someone forward you this newsletter? Subscribe here.

Biden signs veterans toxic exposure bill into law

President Biden on Wednesday signed into law a bill to expand benefits for millions of veterans who were exposed to toxins during service and are suffering illnesses as a result. 

The Sgt. 1st Class Heath Robinson Honoring our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act also expands presumptions of service connections for a variety of conditions related to toxic exposure — meaning veterans don’t have to prove their illness was service-connected. 

• “This is the most significant law our nation has ever passed to help millions of veterans who are exposed to toxic substances during the military services,” Biden said in remarks from the East Room. 
• “You know, Secretary McDonough can tell you I was going to get this done come hell or high water,” the president continued, referring to Veterans Affairs Secretary Denis McDonough. 

Biden’s signature comes after a monthslong legislative journey that culminated in the bill earning bipartisan support. 

A personal connection: Biden has previously said he believes his late son Beau Biden’s brain cancer was linked to exposure to the toxic burn pits. 

The PACT Act expands Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care eligibility to veterans who served in the post-9/11 era and create a framework for establishing presumptions of service connections related to toxic exposures. 

The upper chamber initially passed the bill in June by a vote of 84-14, and the House later passed the bill by a vote of 342-88 in July, sending it back to the Senate due to technical changes. 

But in late July, the upper chamber came five votes short of the 60 votes needed to advance the bill, with 25 Republicans who voted to pass the bill earlier changing their vote. The Senate later passed the measure 86-11 on Aug. 2, with all “no” votes coming from Republicans who cited concerns about the cost of the bill. 

Read more here.

Walgreens found responsible in opioid trial

Walgreens helped fuel the opioid epidemic in San Francisco by dispensing hundreds of thousands of prescriptions without performing adequate due diligence, a federal judge ruled Wednesday. 

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer found that over the course of a 15-year period, Walgreens pharmacists did not stop or flag suspicious orders, including tens of thousands from doctors with suspect prescribing patterns. 

“It is more likely than not that Walgreens pharmacies dispensed large volumes of medically illegitimate opioid prescriptions that were diverted for illicit use and that substantially contributed to the opioid epidemic in San Francisco,” causing a public nuisance, Breyer wrote. 

The city sued dozens of defendants related to the opioid epidemic in San Francisco, including pharmacies, drug companies and distributors. Walgreens was the only one that did not settle by the time the trial closed in July.  

Walgreens response: “The facts and the law do not support the court’s decision. As we have said throughout this process, we never manufactured or marketed opioids, nor did we distribute them to the ‘pill mills’ and internet pharmacies that fueled this crisis. We stand behind the professionalism and integrity of our pharmacists, dedicated healthcare professionals who live in the communities they serve.” 

Read more here.

FEWER AMERICANS SAY COVID-19 SITUATION IS IMPROVING: GALLUP

Fewer Americans believe that the COVID-19 situation in the country is improving, according to a new Gallup poll.  

The poll, published on Wednesday, found that 41 percent of respondents said that the COVID-19 situation is getting better in the U.S., down 22 points from a similar poll published in April and May. 

Thirty percent of respondents said that the nation’s COVID-19 situation is getting worse, while 29 percent of those surveyed said it is staying the same, according to the poll.  

Partisan divide: The shift was particularly notable among Democratic respondents. 

In Gallup’s polling in April and May, 56 percent of Democrats said they thought the situation was improving, compared to just 29 percent in the new poll. While just about one-quarter thought the situation was getting worse in the spring poll, now 44 percent think it is getting worse. 

Fifty-eight percent of Republican respondents believe that the country’s COVID-19 situation has gotten better, while 41 percent of independent respondents believe the same sentiment, the poll said. 

Read more here.

MONTANA SUPREME COURT BLOCKS ABORTION RESTRICTIONS

Montana’s Supreme Court has upheld a lower court’s ruling that temporarily blocks further restrictions on abortion.  

Planned Parenthood in a statement Tuesday announced that the Montana Supreme Court blocked three separate laws that were enacted during the state’s legislative session last year from taking effect. 

One of the laws would have banned abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy, while another would have created numerous barriers to medication abortion, and a third would have implemented a mandatory ultrasound offer and documentation requirement for those seeking an abortion.  

A district court in September blocked those three laws from taking effect. Planned Parenthood’s Montana chapter filed the initial lawsuit challenging them.  

“We are pleased that the Montana Supreme Court ruled today to uphold the preliminary injunction put in place by the District Court in the fall. This means that three anti-abortion laws remain unenforceable, including a 20-week ban,” Planned Parenthood of Montana’s chapter president and CEO, Martha Stahl, said in a statement. 

Read more here.

Warren launches investigation into state abortion bans

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has launched an investigation into how state abortion bans have affected women’s access to health care for pregnancies, reproductive and non-reproductive care. 

In her announcement, Warren said her investigation was spurred by reports of “shocking stories from women in states that have enacted radical abortion bans and criminalized health care.” 

Warren, who sits on the Senate Subcommittee on Health Care, said she has contacted medical organizations to gather more information including the American Medical Association, Physicians for Reproductive Health, National Nurses United, the American Pharmacists Association and the American Hospital Association. 

• “These initial reports are a harbinger of the threats faced by millions of women under state-imposed abortion bans and by their providers who took an oath to ‘do no harm.’ And as more states restrict abortion access, they will only multiply,” said the Massachusetts senator. 

She highlighted specific cases from states like Wisconsin and Texas, where women were denied reproductive or related health care due to health care providers fearing legal repercussions from the state government. 

Read more here.

WHAT WE’RE READING

• As monkeypox spreads, university campuses prepare for another outbreak (Stat News) 
• WHO: COVID-19 deaths fall overall by 9%, infections stable (Associated Press) 
• New Langya virus that may have spilled over from animals infects dozens (Washington Post)

STATE BY STATE

• Nebraska woman charged with helping daughter have abortion (Associated Press) 
• NY physician groups merge, feds wary of potential cost increases for patients (The Journal News) 
• Louisiana health officials told to remove LGBTQ Pride content from web (Louisiana Illuminator) 

That’s it for today, thanks for reading. Check out The Hill’s Health Care page for the latest news and coverage. See you tomorrow.

VIEW THE FULL VERSION HERE

Source: TEST FEED1

A climate-ish bill passed — now what?

The Inflation Reduction Act, which recently passed in the Senate, was years in the making. Not just the last two years, or since the Waxman-Markey bill failed to pass the Senate in 2009. This bill has been waiting for its day in the sun since 1965 when President Lyndon Johnson’s science advisers first informed our government about the catastrophic risks of climate change.

Finally, Democratic holdouts Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) agreed to a whittled-down package — from what was originally a $6-trillion budget reconciliation package to $2 trillion and ultimately $369 billion — which the Senate passed on Sunday.

This bill, if it passes the House this week, will be the largest clean energy and climate investment our government has ever made. And that is a huge win and an important milestone — not just in America, but for the signal that it sends around the world.

This bill was by no means assured. Just days before a deal was struck between Manchin and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), it seemed like Manchin had killed the possibility of climate action completely. If a deal was not struck, and Democrats lost congressional seats in the midterms, it would have meant that we missed the last best chance we had to stave off the climate crisis.

However, it’s also a moment for reflection with many unanswered and frustrating questions: Why did it take over 50 years for our federal government to direct a tiny smidgen of our tax dollars to ameliorate the worst crisis humanity has ever faced? (At only $37 billion a year for climate compared to $800 billion a year for the Pentagon.) How did one or two Democratic senators hold up action for so long? Why is Exxon Mobil CEO Darren Woods reportedly “happy that oil and gas feature prominently in the bill” as drafted by the Senate? Why did this historic deal fail to deliver on environmental justice and protect frontline communities?

Most importantly: Where do we go from here?

The wins

It is estimated that the bill will reduce carbon emissions by 42 percent by 2030, just shy of the 50 percent goal set by President Biden. It will also create 9 million new jobs while cutting costs. Win, win, win.

The biggest win? Momentum. This bill is a shot in the arm for the clean energy industry whose declining costs are exponential, not linear. The sooner we invest in the sector, the faster the costs come down, the faster adoption rates increase, accelerating the death knell of the fossil fuel industry. The bill does just that in three critical areas, among others: clean energy, building electrification and electric transport.

Here are a few particularly neat provisions of the bill:

• The solar investment tax credit was increased to 30 percent and extended through 2032 (The bill also includes the ability to sell tax credits if you can’t use them yourself and allows direct payments in lieu of tax credits for non-tax paying entities including nonprofits and municipalities.)
• Additional tax credit benefits for low-income communities, tribal lands, brownfields and places with high fossil fuel employment
• Incentivizes for solar developers to use domestic materials and pay prevailing wages
• Rebates and tax credits for electric heat pumps, efficiency retrofits and electric vehicles
• Investments to increase domestic clean energy manufacturing
• Increased funding explicitly to support the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in regulating greenhouse gas emissions

The losses

Manchin is notably the largest recipient of fossil fuel money in the Senate and personally vested in the coal industry. So, while it’s infuriating and depressing, it’s not surprising that the fossil fuel lobby’s man on the inside apparently got them what they wanted.

Among the more egregious concessions, the bill requires the Department of the Interior to offer 60 million acres for oil and gas leasing in federal waters in the year prior to any offshore wind developments and 2 million acres on federal lands in order to permit wind or solar projects.

Yes, you read that right. The fossil fuel industry is holding our government hostage. In order to invest in the energy technology of today, we have to continue to pay off the energy barons of the past. It’s unconscionable. Not to mention the side deal Manchin secured to expedite approval of dirty energy projects like the Mountain Valley pipeline in West Virginia.

These fossil fuel concessions, which The New Republic’s Kate Aronoff described as “a deal with the devil,”  are fundamentally a stab in the back of the climate justice movement that helped elect Biden and a Democratic majority in Congress.

In an eloquent, heartbreaking essay, New York Lawyers for the Public Interest’s Anthony Rogers-Wright describes the failures of this legislation to deliver on climate justice noting, “too many historically white-led ‘environmental’ organizations acted prematurely rhapsodic and released statements … of ‘victory’ before speaking to environmental justice communities … who will be most and directly impacted by the fossil fuel, false solutions, increased mining, and other extractive provisions.”

So, where do we go from here?

Despite the deeply flawed process and outcome, the bill has sent an important signal to the nations and financial markets of the world. The United States is done sitting on the sidelines. We’re not going to let this defining chapter in the climate fight be waged without us.

The climate movement should celebrate its successes, but also learn from its mistakes. We must build more inclusive coalitions that raise up the voices of the most vulnerable among us — while continuing to fight every oil and gas permit, pipeline and investment. We must push Biden to use executive authority to get us the rest of the way to our emissions goals. And we must use the investment dollars from this bill to build equitable clean energy solutions in our communities. If we’re successful, history will look back at this moment as a pivotal first step toward creating a more sustainable and just future.

Andreas Karelas is the author of “Climate Courage: How Tackling Climate Change Can Build Community, Transform the Economy, and Bridge the Political Divide in America.” He is also the founder and executive director of RE-volv, a nonprofit climate justice organization that helps fellow nonprofits across the country go solar. Follow him on Twitter: @AndreasKarelas

Source: TEST FEED1

Energy & Environment — California OKs nation's loftiest offshore wind goal

While California once again spearheads climate targets, the Department of Health and Human Services has launched an environmental justice calculator. Also, President Biden signed the military burn pit bill into law. 

This is Overnight Energy & Environment, your source for the latest news focused on energy, the environment and beyond. For The Hill, we’re Rachel Frazin and Zack Budryk. Someone forward you this newsletter? Subscribe here.

California adopts most ambitious offshore wind goal

The California Energy Commission voted on Wednesday to adopt the country’s most ambitious offshore wind development targets — the latest move in a statewide drive to accelerate the clean electricity transition. 

The targets involve the deployment of 3 gigawatts to 5 gigawatts of offshore wind by 2030 and 25 gigawatts by 2045, as recommended by the commission’s initial report, which was issued in May.  

What does that mean? These quantities of wind production could power the equivalent of 3.75 million homes initially and 25 million by midcentury, according to the commission.  

• “These ambitious yet achievable goals are an important signal of how committed California is to bringing the offshore wind industry to our state,” commission Chair David Hochschild said in a statement.  
• “This remarkable resource will generate clean electricity around the clock and help us transition away from fossil fuel-based energy as quickly as possible while ensuring grid reliability,” Hochschild added.  

Touting California as “home to some of the best offshore wind resources in the country,” a commission announcement described wind as a critical nighttime energy source that complements daytime solar production.  

The commission developed the targets in coordination with federal, state and local stakeholders, including tribal nations, fisheries and other ocean users, the announcement said.  

What’s next: The next steps for commission staff members will involve studying the economic benefits of offshore wind and creating a roadmap to develop a permitting process for offshore facilities. According to California Assembly Bill 525, the commission must submit the entire plan to the legislature by June 2023. 

Read more from The Hill’s Sharon Udasin.

HHS starts environmental justice hazard calculator

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on Wednesday formally launched its Environmental Justice Index (EJI), which will assign communities numerical scores based on the health burdens of environmental conditions.  

How does it work? The EJI is based on data from the individual census tract and assigns an overall environmental score based on 36 factors. The tool also includes data for individual possible hazardous sites within a community, such as coal mines or lead mines, and planned and built environmental features that can alleviate environmental burden, such as walkability or houses built after 1980.   

For example, the EJI analysis for Flint, Mich., the site of an ongoing water crisis as a result of lead contamination in drinking water, shows that its individual neighborhoods have more severe cumulative environmental impacts than 85 percent of American communities. 

Zooming in further, the county’s 26th census tract, which has a population of
2,616, has an 0.93 percent total rank out of a possible 1, with a score of 0.98 for the presence of treatment, storage and disposal sites, and a score of 0.83 for water pollution.   

In St. James Parish, La., part of an area that has become known as Cancer Alley, census tract 403 has a 1.00 for cancer risk from air toxicity, the maximum possible score, and an 0.90 for walkability—in other words, residents have few options but to increase pollutants by driving.   

Read more about the tool here.

Biden signs veterans toxic exposure bill into law

President Biden on Wednesday signed into law a bill to expand benefits for millions of veterans who were exposed to toxins during service and are suffering illnesses as a result. 

The Sgt. 1st Class Heath Robinson Honoring our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act also expands presumptions of service connections for a variety of conditions related to toxic exposure, meaning veterans don’t have to prove their illness was service-connected. 

• “This is the most significant law our nation has ever passed to help millions of veterans who are exposed to toxic substances during the military services,” Biden said in remarks from the East Room. 
•  
• “You know, Secretary McDonough can tell you I was going to get this done come hell or high water,” the president continued, referring to Veterans Affairs Secretary Denis McDonough. 

Biden’s signature comes after a months-long legislative journey that culminated in the bill earning bipartisan support. 

The upper chamber initially passed the bill in June by a vote of 84-14, and the House later passed the bill by a vote of 342-88 in July, sending it back to the Senate due to technical changes. 

But in late July, the upper chamber came five votes short of the 60 votes needed to advance the bill, with 25 Republicans who voted to pass the bill earlier changing their vote. The Senate later passed the measure 86-11 on Aug. 2, with all “no” votes coming from Republicans who cited concerns about the cost of the bill. 

Biden was joined by McDonough, members of Congress, veterans who had been exposed to toxins and representatives of Veterans Service Organizations. He was introduced by Danielle Robinson and Brielle Robinson, the surviving wife and daughter of Sgt. 1st Class Heath Robinson, after whom the PACT Act is named. 

Read more from The Hill’s Jordan Williams.

WHAT WE’RE READING

• Methane ‘Loophole’ Shows Risk of Gaming New US Climate Bill (Bloomberg) 
• Hotter nights could cause a spike in deaths, study says (Grist) 
• Ford, DTE ink renewable energy deal to power carmaker’s Michigan plants (The Detroit News) 
• Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia: UN chief condemns ‘suicidal’ shelling around nuclear plant (CNN)

ICYMI

• Fate of world’s biggest ice sheet is in human hands, scientists say 
• Four cities’ landfills emit as much methane as 2 million cars: study

Lighter click: News you can use.

That’s it for today, thanks for reading. Check out The Hill’s Energy & Environment page for the latest news and coverage. We’ll see you tomorrow.

VIEW THE FULL VERSION HERE

Source: TEST FEED1

China says military drills finished, but war prep continues

China officially announced an end to its war games around Taiwan on Wednesday, but said its military would continue with further “training and war preparation.” 

Beijing’s military exercises were successfully finished and “effectively tested the integrated joint combat capabilities of the troops,” a People Liberation Army’s Eastern Theater Command spokesperson said, according to The Guardian. 

China also vowed to continue to monitor and regularly patrol the Taiwan Strait and remain prepared for a fight. 

Beijing began live fire drills last week in retaliation to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) high-profile trip showing solidarity with Taiwan. 

The exercises, which began Thursday, were meant to end on Sunday but were extended unexpectedly. They marked Beijing’s largest ever war games in the Taiwan Strait and included a dozen missile exercises in the waters surrounding Taiwan as well as increased naval and air activities in the waterway. 

China views Taiwan as its own territory under its “One China” principle and has refused to rule out attempting to bring Taipei under its control using force. 

Taiwan, meanwhile, accused China of using the drills as a rehearsal for an invasion. 

Shortly before Wednesday’s announcement that the exercises had ended, China reaffirmed that it would use forceagainst Taiwan should the mainland not take control of the independently governed island “by peaceful means,” according to a major policy paper on China-Taiwan relations. 

“We will work with the greatest sincerity and exert our utmost efforts to achieve peaceful reunification,” according to the English-language version of the document. “But we will not renounce the use of force, and we reserve the option of taking all necessary measures.” 

It adds that such force would be a “last resort taken under compelling circumstances.” 

The document also pulls back on a promise given in 1993 and again in 2000 to not to send troops or administrative personnel to the island if Beijing took control. 

Though the United States does not have formal diplomatic ties with Taiwan, such a move from China would be significant for Washington as it is legally bound to come to the island’s aid in defending itself under the Taiwan Relations Act.  

Source: TEST FEED1

Dems punt policing bills beyond August

House Democrats have scrapped a hopeful plan to vote this month on a package of public safety bills amid lingering disagreements between liberals and centrists over law enforcement funding and police accountability.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced the move in a letter to fellow Democrats Wednesday afternoon, saying the focus of this week — when the House will return briefly to Washington — should be the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), a massive climate, health and tax bill passed by the Senate on Sunday. 

The Speaker also acknowledged that the disagreements stalling the policing package have simply not yet been ironed out. 

“This week, our focus must remain on passing the IRA, as conversations continue on finding consensus for a robust public safety package,” Pelosi wrote. 

The move marks the second time Democrats have abandoned nascent plans to vote on a policing package, which had initially been expected to move late last month alongside a bill banning assault weapons. Instead, party leaders decoupled the proposals, passing the gun bill quickly with hopes of working out the kinks of the policing legislation and bringing it to the floor this week. 

The second delay is sure to infuriate a number of “frontline” Democrats — those facing tough reelections in November’s midterm elections — who have been fighting for the opportunity to vote on legislation boosting funding for local law enforcement agencies around the country. 

Such a vote would not only allow those vulnerable lawmakers to tout their support for law enforcers on the campaign trail, but would also defuse the Republican attacks that Democrats are hellbent on defunding the police at the expense of public safety.

“The voters are gonna vote the frontliners out,” said one vulnerable Democrat, warning of the political repercussions of heading into the polls without a strong demonstration of support for the nation’s law enforcers. 

Standing in their way have been a number of liberals — many of them in the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Progressive Caucus, or both — who are wary of showering new funding on police agencies without strong accountability measures designed to curb police abuse, which affects minority communities disproportionately. 

“Progressives understand that frontliners feel the need to legislate on this and have some votes on it; they understand our communities are concerned about it,” a senior aide with a progressive office said this week. 

“Let’s do it in a way that brings everyone together and everyone can get behind and doesn’t unnecessarily create division — not only inside the Democratic Caucus, but between Democrats and the Civil Rights groups.”

Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio), head of the Congressional Black Caucus, is leading the delicate negotiations with the sponsors of some of the police funding bills, including Reps. Abigail Spanberger (D-Va.), Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.) and Tom O’Halleran (D-Ariz.). 

“My folks are very clear on voting how they need to vote for their constituency, and for their districts and their beliefs,” Beatty told reporters late last month as Congress was leaving Washington for the long August recess.

Pelosi has deferred to Beatty and the Black Caucus when it comes to the talks and the timing of the vote. And in her letter she praised all the negotiators working towards a deal that will promote both “justice and safety.” 

A day earlier, she had delivered a similar message to reporters in the Capitol, while also seeming to urge the holdouts to get on board.

“There is grave reason for people to be concerned about needing justice in policing, I grant that,” she said. “But this would have accountability for the first time.”

Mychael Schnell contributed.

Source: TEST FEED1

Walgreens helped fuel San Francisco's opioid crisis, judge finds

Walgreens helped fuel the opioid epidemic in San Francisco by dispensing hundreds of thousands of prescriptions without performing adequate due diligence, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer found that over the course of a 15-year period, Walgreens pharmacists did not stop or flag suspicious orders, including tens of thousands from doctors with suspect prescribing patterns.

“It is more likely than not that Walgreens pharmacies dispensed large volumes of medically illegitimate opioid prescriptions that were diverted for illicit use and that substantially contributed to the opioid epidemic in San Francisco,” contributing to a public nuisance, Breyer wrote in a 112-page opinion.

The city sued dozens of defendants related to the opioid epidemic in San Francisco, including pharmacies, drug companies and distributors. Walgreens was the only one that did not settle by the time the trial closed in July. 

Breyer found that Walgreens did not provide its pharmacists with sufficient time, staffing, or resources to perform due diligence on opioid prescriptions. Pharmacists experienced constant pressure to fill prescriptions as quickly as possible, and a shortage of resources to review them before dispensing.

Walgreens is the largest retail pharmacy chain in San Francisco. During the period from 2006 to 2020, Walgreens pharmacies distributed and dispensed more than 100 million prescription opioid pills in the city.

“In exchange for the privilege of distributing and dispensing prescription opioids, Walgreens has regulatory obligations to take reasonable steps to prevent the drugs from being diverted and harming the public. The evidence at trial established that Walgreens breached these obligations,” Breyer wrote.

A subsequent trial will determine how much Walgreens must pay. The decision comes after the company reached a $683 million settlement with the state of Florida in May.

Walgreens spokesman Fraser Engerman said the company was “disappointed” and would appeal what he said was a “misguided and unsustainable” expansion of public nuisance law.

“The facts and the law do not support the court’s decision. As we have said throughout this process, we never manufactured or marketed opioids, nor did we distribute them to the ‘pill mills’ and internet pharmacies that fueled this crisis,” Engerman said in a statement to The Hill.

“We stand behind the professionalism and integrity of our pharmacists, dedicated healthcare professionals who live in the communities they serve.”

In 2012, the Drug Enforcement Administration shut down one of Walgreens’ three controlled substance distribution centers because its failure to monitor for suspicious opioid orders posed an imminent threat of harm to public health and safety.

Walgreens stopped distributing controlled substances to its pharmacies entirely in 2014.

During a press conference Wednesday, city attorney David Chiu said the verdict gives a voice to the overdose victims of the opioid epidemic. 

“This crisis did not manifest out of thin air,” Chiu said. “Walgreens significantly contributed. Walgreens did not red flag suspicious orders and pharmacists were pressured to fill, fill, fill. Walgreens flooded our city with opioids.”

Source: TEST FEED1

End the student loan-acy

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and other left-leaning pols have often decried the federal government using student loans to profit off of college kids. A new Government Accountability Office report explains why we don’t hear that much anymore: the government has hardly been profiting.

Indeed, taxpayers have been getting clobbered.

The GAO examined actual and projected revenue and costs of federal Direct Loans — since 2010, the only type of federal student loan — over the last 25 years. It found that projections of a nearly $114 billion profit were off by $311 billion. Federal taxpayers are now predicted to lose nearly $200 billion.

Why the yawning difference?

About $102 billion is attributable to the student loan repayment freeze that started with the CARES Act in March 2020, which has been extended by executive action five times since the CARES freeze expired at the end of September 2020. Crucially, the freeze does not just hold the loans in stasis, to pick up right where they were when they were  frozen. No, interest has been set to zero and considered paid, while the two-years-plus freeze counts toward various time-based forgiveness plans.

Borrowers have been gaining and taxpayers losing.

That is not the end of the freeze story. The GAO does not have a loss estimate for the current extension, which started May 2 and is supposed to end Aug. 31. Also, the Department of Education recently told loan servicers not to send billing statements letting borrowers know they will have to restart payment, so another extension seems imminent. $102 billion will not be the final loss.

The other major changes stem primarily from faulty projections about what borrowers will repay, especially through Income-Driven Repayment plans that peg repayment amounts to a borrower’s income and forgive remaining balances after 20 to 25 years, depending on the plan. In part, borrowers have not done as well financially as the government predicted, while repayment programs have been repeatedly revised to make conditions more borrower friendly.

Alas, these losses are not a surprise. In 2016, the GAO reported that the Department of Education expected to lose $74 billion on Income-Driven Repayment. The Biden administration recently estimated $68 billion in long-term losses. And a report done for the Trump administration projected a $435 billion beating.

The massive taxpayer cost is hardly the only problem with federal student loans. On the side of disgruntled borrowers, one of the worst effects is higher education’s notorious price inflation. Aid, including loans, is baked into college prices, requiring many people to borrow. A study from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York estimated that for every $1 increase in federal subsidized loan caps, colleges raised their prices 60 cents.

Given their immense cost to taxpayers and inflationary effects — not to mention the Constitution giving the feds no authority to run them — federal student loans should be phased out. But that conclusion does not support the nuclear option that Sen. Warren and other progressives want employed: executive cancelation of up to $50,000 for nearly everyone with student loans.

President Biden is reportedly looking at something smaller, but still big: $10,000 per borrower, possibly with an income cap.

This would be a giveaway of up to a trillion taxpayer dollars, depending on the plan, to people who are typically already economic winners.

While college costs more than it should, the payoff from a degree is still big. Data from the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce show that the average person ending their formal education with a bachelor’s degree will earn $1.2 million more over their lifetime than someone with only a high school diploma. Someone with a professional degree — and student loans are disproportionately used for graduate studies — such as in law or medicine, will earn $3.1 million more.

Meanwhile, average student debt owed is $37,014, with numerous forgiveness options. Many borrowers are, quite simply, doing well, and should make taxpayers whole by repaying the loans they chose to take on.

It is well past time to end the repayment freeze, the drive for mass cancelation, and the student loan programs themselves. Taxpayers need relief.

Neal McCluskey directs the Cato Institute’s Center for Educational Freedom.

Source: TEST FEED1