Mediaboss Marketing

WASHINGTON Heres a look at how Lawrence Countys representatives in Congress voted over the previous week.

HOUSE VOTES:

House Vote 1:

CHINA SURVEILLANCE BALLOONS: The House has passed the Upholding Sovereignty of Airspace Act (H.R. 1151), sponsored by Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., to condemn Chinas surveillance balloon flights over the U.S. since 2017 and have the State Department work with other countries to oppose such flights as invasions of sovereign territory. Meeks said of the flights: Such a violation of international law and U.S. sovereignty will not be tolerated and must not happen again. The vote, on April 17, was 405 yeas to 6 nays.

NOT VOTING: Rep. Mike Kelly, R-16

House Vote 2:

RUSSIA DRONE ATTACK: The House has passed a resolution (H. Res. 240), sponsored by Rep. Brandon Williams, R-N.Y., to condemn Russias recent destruction of a U.S. military drone said to have been flying in international airspace over the Black Sea. Williams said the resolution would reassure our allies that we are committed to defend ourselves and our friends, and together, we will ensure the peace through deterrence in unity. The vote, on April 17, was unanimous with 410 yeas.

NOT VOTING: Kelly

House Vote 3:

REGULATING WATERWAYS VETO OVERRIDE: The House has failed to override President Bidens veto of a resolution (H.J. Res. 27), sponsored by Rep. Sam Graves, R-Mo., that would have voided an Army Corps of Engineers and Environmental Protection Agency rule issued this January that defines Waters of the United States (WOTUS). Such waters would be subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act. Graves said the rule favored radical environmental activists over Americas families, small businesses, farmers, builders, and property owners. A resolution opponent, Rep. Rick Larsen, D-Wash., said: This resolution represents a step backward for clean water, increases uncertainty for businesses, and doubles down on fighting and on chaos. The vote, on April 18, was 227 yeas to 196 nays, with a two-thirds majority required.

YEAS: Kelly

House Vote 4:

D.C. CRIME POLICIES: The House has passed a bill (H.J. Res. 42), sponsored by Rep. Andrew Clyde, R-Ga., to disapprove of and void the Washington, D.C., Councils adoption of a law changing policing policies for D.C. police officers. Clyde said the action was necessary because the D.C. Councils misguided legislation has driven out men and women in blue who protect us, while disincentivizing individuals to join the force. An opponent, Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., said the Council was only trying to promote accountability for police officers who use excessive force or abuse their power, a goal that the vast majority of Americans share. The vote, on April 19, was 229 yeas to 189 nays.

NOT VOTING: Kelly

House Vote 5:

TELECOMMUNICATIONS SECURITY: The House has passed the Countering Untrusted Telecommunications Abroad Act (H.R. 1149), sponsored by Rep. Susan Wild, D-Pa., to require the State Department to assist telecommunications infrastructure installments that promote U.S. national security, and require other measures to address security risks from telecommunications. Wild said: Securing these networks is imperative when it comes to national security and human rights, as well as for our economic security. The vote, on April 19, was 410 yeas to 8 nays.

NOT VOTING: Kelly

House Vote 6:

Story continues below video

GENDER AND SCHOOL SPORTS: The House has passed the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act (H.R. 734), sponsored by Rep. Gregory W. Steube, R-Fla., to condition federal funding of school athletic programs on those schools not allowing people whose biological sex at birth is male to take part in female athletic programs. Steube said the bill preserves womens sports and ensures fair competition for generations of women to come. An opponent, Rep. Mark Takano, D-Calif., said: Congress has no business targeting transgender women and girls and imposing a nationwide ban on their participation in school sports. The vote, on April 20, was 219 yeas to 203 nays.

NOT VOTING: Kelly

SENATE VOTES:

Senate Vote 1:

MILITARY OFFICIAL: The Senate has confirmed the nomination of Radha Iyengar Plumb to be Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment. Plumb, currently chief of staff to Defenses deputy secretary, was formerly an executive at Google and at Facebook, and a national security staffer at several federal agencies. The vote, on April 18, was 68 yeas to 30 nays.

YEAS: U.S. Sen. Bob Casey D-PA, U.S. Sen. John Fetterman, D-PA

Senate Vote 2:

JUSTICE PROGRAMS: The Senate has confirmed the nomination of Amy Lefkowitz Solomon to be the Justice Departments Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs (OJP). A senior official at OJP since the start of the Biden administration, Solomon was in similar roles at OJP during the Obama administration as well. A supporter, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., called Solomon a devoted public servant whose policy expertise and commitment to the rule of law will serve the Justice Department and communities across America. The vote, on April 18, was 59 yeas to 40 nays.

YEAS: Casey, Fetterman

Senate Vote 3:

COVID VACCINES: The Senate has rejected an amendment sponsored by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., to the Fire Grants and Safety Act (S. 870), that would have made grants to local fire departments contingent on those departments not having imposed Covid vaccination requirements on their employees. Paul said: Firemen and EMTs who chose not to be vaccinated were never a threat to anyone, never a threat to their communities. On the contrary, these firefighters served their communities bravely and made their neighbors safe. An opponent, Sen. Gary C. Peters, D-Mich., said: This amendment would interfere with state and local governments ability to determine health policies for their own employees and how to best keep their communities safe. The vote, on April 18, was 45 yeas to 54 nays.

NAYS: Casey, Fetterman

Senate Vote 4:

FUNDING FIREFIGHTER GRANTS: The Senate has rejected an amendment sponsored by Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., to the Fire Grants and Safety Act (S. 870) that would have used unspent Covid relief funds to help cover the cost of the bills firefighting grants program. Scott said that given the more than $31 trillion of government indebtedness, it would be financially prudent to redirect unobligated funds to support firefighters, rather than add to deficit spending. An amendment opponent, Sen. Gary C. Peters, D-Mich.., said: Redistributing this funding could weaken our nations ability to continue responding to and recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic and would pull funds from a program that is supporting our communities, families, and small businesses in important ways. The vote, on April 18, was 47 yeas to 49 nays.

NAYS: Casey, Fetterman

Senate Vote 5:

FIGHTING FIRES: The Senate has passed the Fire Grants and Safety Act (S. 870), sponsored by Sen. Gary C. Peters, D-Mich., to reauthorize through fiscal 2030 several federal firefighting and fire management programs. Peters said: Fire departments depend on these programs to address staffing needs, replace outdated equipment, fund fire training and education programs, and invest in health screenings for firefighters in the line of duty. The vote, on April 20, was 95 yeas to 2 nays.

YEAS: Casey, Fetterman

Continued here:
Eye on the Capitol: How Casey, Fetterman, Kelly voted last week - New Castle News

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., slammed Dr. Anthony Fauci, accusing him of being culpable of "one of the worst judgment errors" in his handling of COVID by pushing for the funding "gain of function" research in China. Paul joined "Fox & Friends" on Wednesday to discuss the investigation into the origins of COVID as a new report suggests two lab leaks in Wuhan could have led to the pandemic.

THESE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION AGENCIES HAVE ADMITTED COVID LAB LEAK IS PLAUSIBLE

RAND PAUL: I think Fauci deserves culpability and history is going to judge him very poorly because he made the judgment to fund this research. It's dangerous research. He doesn't want to call it gain of function, but most other scientists do call it gain of function in Wuhan in an opaque totalitarian country. And in the end, there was a leak from the lab and millions of people died worldwide. And this didn't happen sort of accidentally. The leak may have been accident, but the funding wasn't accidental. Tony Fauci actually went around the system. We had set up a system where there's a committee, they're supposed to go before a committee to judge whether this was dangerous and whether it should be funded. Tony Fauci exempted Wuhan from the committee. They never went before the committee. And this is extraordinary. The committee that was supposed to provide safety and review this, never looked at the research in Wuhan because Tony Fauci gave them exception. So the thing is, yes, he does bear responsibility for maybe one of the worst judgment errors in the history of modern medicine or modern public health to fund this dangerous research.

Dr. Anthony Fauci accusing the GOP of "character assassination" masquerading as oversight. (Getty Images)

FOX NEWS POLL: MAJORITY SAYS BIDEN TRYING TO COVER UP ORIGINS OF COVID-19

Former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe says the "only explanation"and "plausible assessment" for the COVID-19 global pandemic is a leak from a Chinese Communist Party-controlled lab, citing U.S. intelligence and "numerous, diverse and unassailable" sources for the information.

Fox News testified Tuesday before the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic.

"My informed assessment as a person with as much access as anyone to our governments intelligence has been and continues to be that a lab leak is the only explanation credibly supported by our intelligence, by science and by common sense," Ratcliffe told the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic.

Continued here:
Rand Paul torches Dr. Fauci: 'One of the worst judgment errors' in history of public health - Fox News

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:April 19, 2023Contact:Press_Paul@paul.senate.gov,202-224-4343

WASHINGTON, D.C. Today, the Senate voted on U.S. Senator Rand Pauls (R-KY)Support the Reinstatement of Trained and Effective Firefightersamendment which makes funding available to fire departments that terminated firefighters for refusing vaccination or voicing opposition to COVID-19 mandates only if they offer full reinstatement and backpay to those who lost their jobs. The amendment was considered as part of S.870, the Fire Grants and Safety Act.

Ahead of the vote, Dr. Paul delivered remarks on the Senate Floor. Below are excerpts from his remarks. You can also watch his full remarksHERE, and find full text of Dr. Pauls amendmentHERE.

It seems bizarre and contradictory to provide financial support to increase fire department staffing when decisions were made to terminate trained and effective firefighters for no good reason. Firefighters tend to be young and fit, the very people who had the least to worry about COVID-19. They also tend to be male, and young males are the group most likely to suffer the severe side effect of myocarditis.

These people were never a threat to their communities. On the contrary, they served their communities bravely and made their neighbors safer. What was done to them, what was done to police, what was done to first responders was shameful and we should stand together to make sure it never happens again.

To that end, I offer an amendment that will restore sanity and compassion to government.

My amendment would make any agency that punished firefighters for refusing a COVID vaccine or for exercising First Amendment rights to oppose the mandates ineligible for these grants.

But my amendment also includes an important exception a department can receive these grants again if the department offers full reinstatement and back pay to any firefighter or medic who was punished.

If you want to support firefighters, if you want to support your communities, if you want to support safety, you should support my amendment.

Background:

One of the purposes of the Fire Grants and Safety Act is to fund the hiring of more firefighters. But over the last few years, even as these grants were awarded, firefighters around the country found themselves with a choice: submit to COVID vaccine mandates and forgo your First Amendment rights to voice opposition to them or lose your livelihood.

InNew York,Los Angeles, andSeattle, among other places, firefighters lost their jobs simply because they insisted upon living according to their conscience. Firing trained and effective firefighters for no good reason is dangerous, particularly when serious shortages of firefighters are reported throughout the country.

Dr. Pauls amendment would make the grants provided by this bill available to fire departments that dismissed or discharged firefighters for refusing COVID vaccination or voicing opposition to COVID mandates only if they offer full reinstatement and back pay to firefighters who lost their jobs.

###

Read this article:
Senate Votes on Dr. Rand Paul's Amendment to Protect Firefighters - Senator Rand Paul - Senator Rand Paul

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:April 19, 2023Contact:Press_Paul@paul.senate.gov,202-224-4343

WASHINGTON, D.C. Today, the Senate will vote on U.S. Senator Rand Pauls (R-KY)Support the Reinstatement of Trained and Effective Firefightersamendment which makes funding available to fire departments that terminated firefighters for refusing vaccination or voicing opposition to COVID-19 mandates only if they offer full reinstatement and backpay to those who lost their jobs. The amendment is being considered as part of S.870, the Fire Grants and Safety Act.

Ahead of the vote at 11:30 a.m. ET, Dr. Paul will deliver remarks on the Senate Floor. You can watch itHERE, and find full text of Dr. Pauls amendmentHERE.

Background:

One of the purposes of the Fire Grants and Safety Act is to fund the hiring of more firefighters. But over the last few years, even as these grants were awarded, firefighters around the country found themselves with a choice: submit to COVID vaccine mandates and forgo your First Amendment rights to voice opposition to them or lose your livelihood.

InNew York,Los Angeles, andSeattle, among other places, firefighters lost their jobs simply because they insisted upon living according to their conscience. Firing trained and effectivefirefighters for no good reason is dangerous, particularly when serious shortages of firefighters are reported throughout the country.

Dr. Pauls amendment would make the grants provided by this bill available to fire departments that dismissed or discharged firefighters for refusing COVID vaccination or voicing opposition to COVID mandates only if they offer full reinstatement and back pay to firefighters who lost their jobs.

###

Follow this link:
Senate to Vote on Dr. Rand Paul's Amendment to Protect ... - Senator Rand Paul

As TikTok has mushroomed to more than 150 million monthly U.S. users, so have warnings among both state legislators and members of Congress about its potential danger as a tool of the Chinese government.

Dozens of states and the federal government this year banned public employees from downloading the popular app on their government devices. But the Montana Legislature went further and on Friday passed the nationsfirst statewide ban, though GOP Gov. Greg Gianforte has not yet signed the measure and its not clear how it would be enforced. If it becomes law, it would go into effect on Jan. 1.

Members of both parties ina U.S. House hearingin March told TikTok CEO Shou Chew they were considering a total, nationwide ban. That idea has raised a slew of objections, not the least of which is how banning an app that provides a platform for speech could be consistent with the First Amendment.

Below are answers to five common questions about the debate in the nations capital.

Why does Congress want to ban TikTok?

Members of both parties have expressed concerns about TikToks data collection practices and its ties to the Chinese Communist Party.

Chew said the data TikTok collects from users is no different from those of other platforms, including domestic products like Instagram. TikTok is based in Singapore and Los Angeles, Chew said. The product is not even available in China, whose ruling Communist Party does not offer the same guarantees of free speech as the U.S. Constitution.

But lawmakers say TikTok is unique because the Chinese government could compel the company to provide its user data.

TikToks parent company, ByteDance, is Chinese, and is beholden to laws that require private companies to provide information to Chinese authorities, lawmakers have said.

The CCPs laws require Chinese companies like ByteDance to spy on their behalf, Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington, the chairwoman of the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee, told Chew during the March 23 hearing. That means any Chinese company must grant the CCP access and manipulation capabilities as a design feature.

Attempts to ban TikTok are also part of a trend of lawmakers seeking to appear tough on China. U.S. House Republicans created a select committee this year to respond to Chinas rising power. And members of both parties have voiced support for restrictions on foreign ownership of farmland, mainly targeting China.

What proposals have the most support?

There are leading contenders from a host of options in each chamber of Congress.

In the Senate, 13 Democrats and 13 Republicans have signed on to support theRESTRICT Act, written by Virginia Democrat Mark Warner and South Dakota Republican John Thune. Jake Sullivan, a high-ranking national security official in President Joe Bidens White House, applauded the measure.

The bill would authorize the secretary of Commerce to ban applications from six adversarial countries, including China.

But key senators, including the chair and ranking member of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee and floor leaders of each party, have not signed on.

Civil libertarians on both the far left of the Democratic Party and the far right of the Republican Party have voiced their disapproval, Jenna Leventoff, senior policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, said in an interview.

The bill also lacks support from some senators who favor TikTok bans.

Missouri Republican Josh Hawley, the sponsor ofanother billto explicitly ban TikTok, said in a March 29tweetthat the Warner-Thune measure does not go far enough

The problem with the RESTRICT Act is it doesnt ban TikTok, he wrote. It gives the President a whole bunch of new authority and does nothing to stop the CCP. Just ban TikTok.

In the House, the Foreign Affairs Committee approveda billby its chairman, Texas Republican Michael McCaul. But no Democrats voted for the measure in committee. A party-line vote could send the measure through the House, but it would need bipartisan support to pass the Senate.

How would the bans work?

Its not entirely clear, but a ban would likely involve blocking companies like Apple and Google from offering TikTok in their app sto

The two leading bills would take different regulatory approaches the Senate version would go through the Commerce Department, while the House bill provides authorities to the Treasury Department, for example but users would likely see similar effects under either.

Mobile device makers can approve or reject applications from appearing in app stores. Removing TikTok from those sources would keep users from downloading the app. Those who already have the app on their devices would see its usability decrease over time as updates could not be installed.

But the technical uncertainty about how exactly a ban would play out was among the Democratic criticisms of the House bill.

Were being asked to rush this bill through committee with no input from sanction experts, technologists, the business community or even the regulatory agencies who would be in charge of enforcing a ban, Arizona Democrat Greg Stanton said at a March 1 markup of the bill.

Rhode Island Democrat David Cicilline said he was sympathetic to the national security concerns, but said the measure was not well-written and lacked definitions about critical components.

There is broad and maybe universal support on this committee to do exactly what this bill intends to do, but this is incredibly important that it be done right, Cicilline said. We all want very much to give the administration the tools that it needs, but in its current form without a lot of amplification and a lot of definitions its difficult for me to support this.

Didnt Trump already try this?

Former President Donald Trump did issue an executive order in 2020 under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to ban TikTok, citing many of the same concerns members have recently brought.

A federal court struck down that order because under the law he cited, the president did not have authority to ban the app. Amendments to that law, enacted in 1988 and 1994, prevented presidents from regulating information and informational materials, such as books, movies or digital media.

The judge did not rule on the First Amendment concerns.

The Thune-Warner bill was written specifically to make such an order compliant with the IEEPA.

The RESTRICT Act responds to foreign-adversary technology threats of today by giving the force of law to former President Trumps nearly identical effort, and it prepares for the threats of the future so the United States isnt forced to play Whac-A-Mole every time a platform like TikTok rears its ugly head, Thune said in a statement.

Is any of this constitutional?

That will be the subject of debate.

In a March 29 response to Hawleys Senate floor speech, Kentucky Republican Rand Paul said proposals to ban an app that fostered free expression mirrored Chinas own TikTok ban.

The First Amendment protects even unpopular speech. Hawleys bill to ban the app would violate the free speech rights of both the owners of TikTok, some of whom are American, and the apps users, he said.

Do we really want to emulate Chinese speech bans? Paul said. We dont ban things that are unpopular in this country.

Hawley responded that the First Amendment did not protect espionage, which he said TikTok enabled the Chinese government to conduct.

A complete ban can only be consistent with the First Amendment if it is a response to immediate and significant harm and there is no less restrictive way to respond, Leventoff said.

That test is not going to be met, she said. We dont have any evidence of an immediate and significant harm. And even if we did have that evidence, its hard to argue that banning TikTok is the least restrictive solution.

While TikTok is sometimes described as a platform where young users share dance videos and other unserious content, political speech is also plentiful on the app, Leventoff said, making a nationwide ban even more dangerous from a free speech perspective.

We view this as an extremely important component of speech, she said.

Read the original post:
One state already has voted to ban TikTok. For Congress, its going ... - Missouri Independent