Our mutation, of which the assembly line, the collective farm, the mechanized army, and the mass production of food are evidences or even symptoms, might well correspond to the thickening armor of the great reptiles—a tendency that can end only in extinction... . Conscious thought seems to have little effect on the action or direction of our species.” ― John Steinbeck
 |
| DAILY SPECIALS |
 |
| MICHAEL COHEN |
 |
| VETERANS |
VETERAN DEPORTATIONS: HASC turned back a proposal to require the Pentagon to assess
whether it can track the number of veterans and dependents who have been
deported. In a 29 to 32 vote, the panel rejected an amendment from Veasey,
which would have required a feasibility study by the Pentagon on tracking
deportations. [POLITICO's Morning Defense, May 10, 2018]
SDS WORRIES TRICKLE DOWN TO THE STATES: Concern
over the future of dispute settlement mechanisms in NAFTA is trickling down,
with a dozen state-level representatives from across the country urging the
administration to push for stronger investment protections.
"A vital element for a modernized NAFTA is the assurance
that American business interests are protected outside U.S. borders," the
lawmakers wrote in an open letter to President Donald Trump on Wednesday, organized
by the American Legislative Exchange Council. "NAFTA without ISDS could
result in biased foreign courts treating American businesses unjustly and
making U.S. investments vulnerable to potential seizure or other unlawful
mistreatment. Bottom line: Abandoning ISDS is not in America's best interest
and is a bad deal for the nation."
Lighthizer has expressed concern about ISDS, arguing that the
decision-making panels pose a threat to U.S. sovereignty and that they make it
easier for American companies to decide to move production to foreign
countries. It remains one of the outstanding issues on the table as negotiators
work to reach a deal in coming weeks. [POLITICO's
Morning Trade, May 10, 2018]
May 10, 2018
Press Release
WASHINGTON- Congressman
Ted W. Lieu (D-Los Angeles County) issued the following statement after Politico
reported that White House National Security Advisor
John Bolton is pushing to eliminate the White House’s top cybersecurity job.
“This is yet another example of the Trump Administration talking
a big game on national security but taking steps that directly undermine our
ability to combat emerging threats. As a computer science major and Air Force
veteran, I can tell you that eliminating the White House cybersecurity
coordinator will endanger our economy, critical infrastructure, and possibly
American lives.
At a time when terror groups and nation states are beefing up
their cyber capabilities, the Administration has signaled that it’s apparently
time to weaken our defenses and – according to reports – put John Bolton in
charge of one of the most technically complex jobs in the nation. Of course,
this isn’t what the President told us when he issued an executive order to
strengthen federal cybersecurity when he first took office – but like so many
other promises, this too is turning out to be another lie.”
 |
| JUDICIAL MATTERS |
RETAILERS LOSE ON SNAP SALES FIGHT: Retailers
are none too pleased about a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th
Circuit, which held this week that public release of SNAP sales data wouldn't
cause competitive harm to businesses participating in the $70 billion program.
The ruling comes as a result of a legal battle that Argus
Leader, a South Dakota newspaper, waged to make the spending figures public.
The National Grocers Association, which represents independent grocers,
criticized the decision late Tuesday.
"A SNAP transaction is simply another form of payment at
stores that accept SNAP," said NGA President and CEO Peter Larkin.
"Sales data, including store-level sales data from SNAP or any other
transaction, is proprietary information. NGA has long maintained that a
retailer's SNAP store data should remain private as the data contains
proprietary store sales information that could be used by competitors to cause
harm in the food retail marketplace."
Farm bill to the rescue?: Larkin
said that a provision in the House farm bill, H.R. 2 (115), could protect retailers from being required to make
such information public.
"This adverse court ruling underscores the importance of
advancing a legislative solution to this problem, such as the House farm bill,
which protects store-level SNAP data from public disclosure," he said in a
statement. [POLITICO's Morning Agriculture, May
10, 2018]
COURT SAYS CRA IS A-OK: A
federal judge in Alaska Wednesday dismissed an environmental group's lawsuit
that called the Congressional Review Act unconstitutional. The Center for
Biological Diversity specifically challenged the CRA resolutionsuccessfully passed by Congress last
spring that nullified an Interior Department rule regarding hunting in Alaska
wildlife refuges. [POLITICO's Morning Energy, May 10, 2018]
 |
| INFRASTRUCTURE |
FINDING NEVERLAND: There might be meetings aplenty, but a legislative proposal
for infrastructure remains elusive. Spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders pretty
much quashed any lingering hopes of it emerging this year. "I don't know
that there will be one by the end of this year," she told reporters during
a briefing Wednesday. Though she added, "we're going to continue to look
at ways to improve the nation's infrastructure." That drew a quick retort
from Senate Minority Leader Chuck
Schumer (D-N.Y.),
who said Trump wasn't serious about repairing the nation's infrastructure and
called the White House's Infrastructure Week events "a toothless PR
stunt." [POLITICO's Morning Transportation, May 10, 2018]
HAIL TO THE (SOUTHWEST) CHIEF: A
passenger rail advocates' group is pushing back against Amtrak's signal that it
won't provide a $3 million match to a recently awarded TIGER grant to fix up a
portion of its long-distance Southwest Chief route, Lauren reports . According to an email message the Rail Passengers
Association made public this week, Amtrak notified lawmaker offices that its
match to the $16 million award was contingent upon states and BNSF, which owns
the tracks, commit dollars "for the remainder of the infrastructure
investments and associated additional maintenance costs for this route in New
Mexico." The association argued Amtrak is essentially reneging on its
previous support for preservation efforts along the route.
BNSF responds: "BNSF has made its
commitment to the current TIGER grant and will fulfill that commitment if the
project moves forward," spokesman Zak Andersen said. "Moving forward
on the project is Amtrak's decision." [POLITICO's
Morning Transportation, May 11, 2018]
 |
| INDIGENOUS PEOPLES |
 |
| IMMIGRATION |
THE LATEST ON THE HOUSE GOP IMMIGRATION
PUSH ...
REPUBLICAN LEADERS ARE BECOMING VERY
CONCERNED about the new immigration discharge petition, which would force a
vote on a package of five bills in the coming weeks. The GOP has put off the
immigration issue for some time, because of divisions in their ranks. Now they
need just eight more Republicans to sign on -- and every Democrat -- to force
the issue immediately.
-- WHAT TO WATCH FOR: Can House
Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy and/or Speaker Paul Ryan cut a deal to convince
people to not sign on? Can they convince Democrats they'll get a better deal if
they don't join in? Unlikely. There's not been an immigration deal in the last
two years. Lawmakers see Ryan and McCarthy's promises as hollow.
AN OPEN IMMIGRATION PROCESS in the
House could be politically treacherous -- that's not our assessment, that's the
assessment of top Republican lawmakers and aides. The petition would set up a
vote on five proposals: one by Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), one by Paul Ryan
(R-Wis.), one by Lucille Roybal Allard (D-Calif.) and a fourth by Jeff Denham
(R-Calif.). The process, however, is rigged to favor Denham's bill.
IT'S TOTALLY POSSIBLE -- in
fact likely -- that the House trudges through and passes something -- most
likely the Denham bill -- and the Senate ignores it. That would force House
lawmakers to take yet another position on a bill that is going nowhere before
the election. It could also give political cover to vulnerable Republicans, who
would be able to say they pushed for and supported immigration legislation
ahead of the election. [POLITICO Playbook, May 10, 2018]
ZINKE HEADS TO THE HILL: Interior Secretary Ryan
Zinke faces his Senate appropriators today to discuss his department's budget request
for fiscal 2019. Expect Democrats to bring up familiar topics, such as his
plans to reorganize the department and last year's decision to shrink national
monuments in Utah. Subcommittee ranking member Tom Udall plans to tell Zinke that until courts weigh in on
whether his move was legal, "I believe that moving forward with land
management plans that will open these iconic areas to development is
reckless."
Subcommittee Chair Lisa Murkowski may be interested in hearing more about Zinke's plans for oil and gas
development in Alaska, after Interior kicked off its environmental review of
potential drilling in part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge thanks to
language she got included in last year's tax bill. And Sen. Lamar Alexander, another member of the subcommittee, can follow up on
the maintenance backlog for the national parks, an issue the two discussed when
Zinke visited Tennessee last week.
Ahead of the hearing, the Coalition to
Protect America's National Parks is sending a letter to Zinke, with signatures from current and former
employees of the National Park Service, calling on him to support permanent
reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, an issue with support
in both parties. [POLITICO's Morning Energy, May
10, 2018]
DACA'S LEGAL LABYRINTH: The 9th Circuit will
hear oral arguments Tuesday over President Donald Trump's decision to end the
DACA program, which offers work permits and deportation relief to undocumented
immigrants brought to the United States as children. In January, a San
Francisco-based district court judge forced the administration to resume
accepting DACA renewal applications, which it had stopped doing in early
October. The Justice Department then appealed that decision to the 9th Circuit.
A pair of district court judges in
Brooklyn and D.C. similarly blocked the Trump administration's planned phaseout
of DACA, with the latter judge threatening to force the administration not only to renew old
DACA applications but also to accept new ones if the Justice Department can't
present by late July a better rationale for ending the program. But earlier this
month attorneys general in Texas and six other states filed suit to end DACA on the grounds that it oversteps the
authority of the executive branch — the same argument that many of the same
states used successfully in 2016 to sink DAPA, a broader Obama-era deportation
relief program for parents of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents.
How will it all play out? Here are a few
possibilities, based on conversations with court watchers:
1. The liberal 9th Circuit — urged by the Supreme Court to act
"expeditiously" in the California cases — rules by the end of the
summer to keep DACA alive, prompting the administration to petition the Supreme
Court. Oral arguments are heard in early spring 2019, and a high court decision
is handed down in June. That's a scenario described Stephen Yale-Loehr, a Cornell
Law School professor and immigration lawyer. (This timetable, he concedes,
"is very speculative.")
2. There's also the Texas case, which is now before
Brownsville-based U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen, who blockedDAPA in February 2015. In that case, he issued swiftly a
nationwide preliminary injunction. Were Hanen to act as speedily this time out,
he could block DACA as early as July. The administration (or an intervener ) would then appeal to the conservative 5th Circuit. In
the DAPA case, the Obama administration sought to stay the injunction, but
Hanen and the appeals court both denied it. The 5th Circuit then took nine
months to affirm the ruling against the program.
3. But wait, observes Josh Blackman, an associate professor at
the South Texas College of Law. A 5th Circuit preliminary injunction halting DACA
would conflict with the district court injunctions in San Francisco, Brooklyn
and New York to re-startDACA. An injunction to halt DACA might even
conflict with a 9th-Circuit decision to re-start DACA. What then? Well, Hanen
could issue an injunction halting DACA but stay it until the other cases were
resolved. Or Hanen could press ahead with his injunction and leave it to the Supreme
Court to untangle what the Homeland Security Department should do while the
high court prepares to hear all these cases and rule on the merits.
4. Or, Congress could step in to codify DACA and President
Donald Trump could sign that bill into law, mooting all these lawsuits. This
was the plan last fall, and it makes a certain amount of sense, because
congressional Democrats, congressional Republicans, and Trump all say they
don't want DACA to end. But Trump subsequently attached various conditions to preserving
DACA, including imposing new limitations on legal immigration, that the
Democrats wouldn't accept. Today the odds are heavily against a congressional
deal on DACA because the midterms are less than six months away. [POLITICO's Morning Shift, May 14, 2018]
 |
| READ |
NOTE: The news sources here vary. Not all sources have the same credibility, but in an effort to share some different perspectives, they are included here. This compendium itself cannot claim to be unbiased. Please take into consideration where these different perspectives originate in assessing their value. Thank you
NOTE: I have no official connection to any organization from which information is shared.. Occasionally, I post informational material and/or an opportunity to donate or join as a "community service" announcement. These again are shared for their varying perspectives.
Any commercial or business interest information shared is purely informational, not an endorsement. I have no connection with any such commercial or business interest.
Any books listed are random or topic-related to something else in the post. Think of these as a "library bookshelf" to browse. They are shared for informational or entertainment value only, not as being recommended.
Comments
Post a Comment