Murkowski got to yes on $3.3T megabill thanks to spending for Alaska
Negotiations over the bill stretched on to the eleventh hour before the bill was passed on Tuesday, with Murkowski opposing the legislation until she secured clean energy tax credits, assurances of oil drilling leases and other priorities for her state. She was seen walking around the Senate floor wearing a blanket and holding a notepad in the later hours of the Senate's "vote-a-rama."
"I held my head up and made sure that the people of Alaska are not forgotten in this, but I think that there is more that needs to be done, and I'm not done," Murkowski told reporters after the vote. "I am going to take a nap, though."
"What I tried to do was to ensure that my colleagues understood what that means when you live in an area where there are no jobs, it is not a cash economy," she added. "And so I needed help, and I worked to get that every single day."
Senate Majority Leader John Thune may have secured Murkowski's vote earlier if not for the Senate parliamentarian, who struck down several deal sweeteners aimed at Alaska. The Senate passed Trump's bill under the reconciliation process, which requires only a simple majority. The parliamentarian holds the authority to determine whether certain line items fall outside the scope of budget reconciliation, therefore requiring a 60-vote majority.
Some of the sweeteners did make it through, however, including allowing a temporary delay on cost hikes for food assistance programs in both Hawaii and Alaska. Murkowski also secured the removal of a planned tax on solar and wind energy projects.
"[Murkowski] is somebody who studies the issues really, really hard and well," Thune told Politico. "I'm just grateful that at the end of the day she concluded what the rest of us did ... which is that it was the right direction for the future of our country."
While Trump's bill has cleared the Senate, it now faces an uncertain future in the House of Representatives, where many conservative lawmakers have criticized the lack of spending cuts.
House Speaker Mike Johnson led Republicans in passing a procedural "rule" vote to tee up the legislation overnight on Wednesday. The speaker can only afford to lose three Republican votes and still pass the bill. Two have already confirmed their opposition to passing the Senate version of the bill: Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, and Rep. Ralh Norman, R-S.C.
House members will begin the debate process at roughly 9:00 a.m.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
South Korea trade minister to leave for U.S. on Friday as tariff deadline looms
SEOUL (Reuters) -South Korea's Trade Minister Yeo Han-koo will leave for the United States on Friday for tariff talks, just days ahead of the July 9 deadline when U.S. tariffs could rise sharply. Yeo said he would consider requesting an extension of the reciprocal tariff pause, depending on the progress of negotiations with U.S. officials. South Korea has sought exemptions from U.S. President Donald Trump's punishing tariffs on imports of automobiles and steel products, as well as a 25% "reciprocal" levy on the Asian ally currently paused for negotiations. Washington is demanding better access to the agriculture and car sectors, and improved market access and non-discriminatory treatment in the digital sector, Yeo told a parliamentary hearing on Friday. "The government will respond flexibly by taking into account the level of the U.S. demands and domestic political security sensitivities," he said. Asked about whether South Korea could meet the July 9 deadline, Yeo said the substance of negotiations mattered more than the deadline. Yeo said he would ask the U.S. to take time and accelerate talks to reach a "win-win" deal.
Hamilton Spectator
13 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
US expands militarized zones to 1/3 of southern border, stirring controversy
COLUMBUS, N.M. (AP) — Orange no-entry signs posted by the U.S. military in English and Spanish dot the New Mexico desert, where a border wall cuts past onion fields and parched ranches with tufts of tall grass growing amidst wiry brush and yucca trees. The Army has posted thousands of the warnings in New Mexico and western Texas, declaring a 'restricted area by authority of the commander.' It's part of a major shift that has thrust the military into border enforcement with Mexico like never before. The move places long stretches of the border under the supervision of nearby military bases, empowering U.S. troops to detain people who enter the country illegally and sidestep a law prohibiting military involvement in civilian law enforcement. It is done under the authority of the national emergency on the border declared by President Donald Trump on his first day in office. U.S. authorities say the zones are needed to close gaps in border enforcement and help in the wider fight against human smuggling networks and brutal drug cartels. The militarization is being challenged in court, and has been criticized by civil rights advocates, humanitarian aid groups and outdoor enthusiasts who object to being blocked from public lands while troops have free rein. Abbey Carpenter, a leader of a search-and-rescue group for missing migrants, said public access is being denied across sweltering stretches of desert where migrant deaths have surged. 'Maybe there are more deaths, but we don't know,' she said. Military expansion Two militarized zones form a buffer along 230 miles (370 kilometers) of border, from Fort Hancock, Texas, through El Paso and westward across vast New Mexico ranchlands. The Defense Department added an additional 250-mile (400-kilometer) zone last week in Texas' Rio Grande Valley and plans another near Yuma, Arizona. Combined, the zones will cover nearly one-third of the U.S. border with Mexico. They are patrolled by at least 7,600 members of the armed forces, vastly expanding the U.S. government presence on the border. Reaction to the military buffer has been mixed among residents of New Mexico's rural Luna County, where a strong culture of individual liberty is tempered by the desire to squelch networks bringing migrants and contraband across the border. 'We as a family have always been very supportive of the mission, and very supportive of border security,' said James Johnson, a fourth-generation farmer overseeing seasonal laborers as they filled giant plastic crates with onions, earning $22 per container. Military deployments under prior presidents put 'eyes and ears' on the border, Johnson said. This version is 'trying to give some teeth.' But some hunters and hikers fear they're being locked out of a rugged and cherished landscape. 'I don't want to go down there with my hunting rifle and all of a sudden somebody rolls up on me and says that I'm in a military zone,' said Ray Trejo, a coordinator for the New Mexico Wildlife Federation and a Luna County commissioner. 'I don't know if these folks have been taught to deescalate situations.' A former public school teacher of English as a second language, Trejo said military trespassing charges seem inhumane in an economy built on immigrant farm labor. 'If the Army, Border Patrol, law enforcement in general are detaining people for reasons of transporting, of human smuggling, I don't have a problem,' he said. 'But people are coming into our country to work, stepping now all of a sudden into a military zone, and they have no idea.' Nicole Wieman, an Army command spokesperson, said the Army is negotiating possible public access for recreation and hunting, and will honor private rights to grazing and mining. Increased punishment More than 1,400 migrants have been charged with trespassing on military territory, facing a possible 18-month prison sentence for a first offense. That's on top of an illegal entry charge that brings up to six months in custody. After that, most are turned over to U.S. Customs and Border Protection for likely deportation. There have been no apparent arrests of U.S. citizens. At a federal courthouse in Las Cruces, New Mexico, on the banks of the Upper Rio Grande, migrants in drab county jail jumpsuits and chains filed before a magistrate judge on a recent weekday. A 29-year-old Guatemalan woman struggled to understand instructions through a Spanish interpreter as she pleaded guilty to illegal entry. A judge set aside military trespassing charges for lack of evidence, but sentenced her to two weeks in jail before being transferred for likely deportation. 'She sells pottery, she's a very simple woman with a sixth-grade education,' a public defense attorney told the judge. 'She told me she's going back and she's going to stay there.' Border crossings Border Patrol arrests along the southern border this year have dropped to the lowest level in six decades, including a 30% decrease in June from the prior month as attempted crossings dwindle. On June 28, the Border Patrol made only 137 arrests, a stark contrast with late 2023, when arrests topped 10,000 on the busiest days. The first militarized zones, introduced in April and May, extend west of El Paso past factories and cattle yards to partially encircle the New Mexico border village of Columbus, and its 1,450 residents. It was here that Mexican revolutionary forces led by Pancho Villa crossed into the U.S. in a deadly 1916 raid. These days, a port of entry at Columbus is where hundreds of children with U.S. citizenship cross daily from a bedroom community in Mexico to board public school buses and attend classes nearby. Columbus Mayor Philip Skinner, a Republican, says he's seen the occasional military vehicle but no evidence of disruption in an area where illegal crossings have been rare. 'We're kind of not tuned in to this national politics,' Skinner said. Oversight is divided between U.S. Army commands in Fort Bliss, Texas, and Fort Huachuca, Arizona. The militarized zones sidestep the Posse Comitatus Act, an 1878 law that prohibits the military from conducting civilian law enforcement on U.S. soil. Russell Johnson, a rancher and former Border Patrol agent, said he welcomes the new militarized zone where his ranch borders Mexico on land leased from the Bureau of Land Management. 'We have seen absolutely almost everything imaginable that can happen on the border, and most of it's bad,' he said, recalling off-road vehicle chases on his ranch and lifeless bodies recovered by Border Patrol. In late April, he said, five armored military vehicles spent several days at a gap in the border wall, where construction was suspended at the outset of the Biden presidency. But, he said, he hasn't seen much of the military in recent weeks. 'The only thing that's really changed is the little extra signage,' he said. 'We're not seeing the military presence out here like we kind of anticipated.' Court challenges Federal public defenders have challenged the military's new oversight of public land in New Mexico, seizing on the arrest of a Mexican man for trespassing through remote terrain to test the legal waters. They decried the designation of a new military zone without congressional authorization 'for the sole purpose of enabling military action on American soil' as 'a matter of staggering and unpreceded political significance.' A judge has not ruled on the issue. In the meantime, court challenges to trespassing charges in the militarized zone have met with a mixture of convictions and acquittals at trial. Ryan Ellison, the top federal prosecutor in New Mexico, won trespassing convictions in June against two immigrants who entered a militarized zone again after an initial warning. 'There's not going to be an issue as to whether or not they were on notice,' he told a recent news conference. American Civil Liberties Union attorney Rebecca Sheff says the federal government is testing a more punitive approach to border enforcement with the new military zones and worries it will be expanded border-wide. 'To the extent the federal government has aspirations to establish a much more hostile military presence along the border, this is a vehicle that they're pushing on to potentially do so. … And that's very concerning,' she said. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Associated Press
17 minutes ago
- Associated Press
A year before declaring independence, colonists offered 'Olive Branch' petition to King George III
NEW YORK (AP) — Alarmed by the policies of President Donald Trump, millions turned out last month for protests around the United States and overseas. Mindful of next year's 250th anniversary of American independence, organizers called the movement 'No Kings.' Had the same kind of rallies been called for in the summer of 1775, the response likely would have been more cautious. 'It ('No Kings') was probably a minority opinion in July 1775,' says H.W. Brands, a prize-winning scholar and chair of the history department at the University of Texas at Austin. 'There was a lot of passion for revolution in New England, but that was different from the rest of the country,' says Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Joseph Ellis. 'There were still people who don't want to drawn into what they feared was an unnecessary war.' This month marks the 250th anniversary — the semiquincentennial — of a document enacted almost exactly a year before the Declaration of Independence: 'The Olive Branch Petition,' ratified July 5, 1775 by the Continental Congress. Its primary author was John Dickinson, a Pennsylvanian whose writing skills led some to call him the 'Penman of the Revolution,' and would stand as a final, desperate plea to reconcile with Britain. They put forth a pre-revolutionary argument The notion of 'No Kings' is a foundation of democracy. But over the first half of 1775 Dickinson and others still hoped that King George III could be reasoned with and would undo the tax hikes and other alleged abuses they blamed on the British Parliament and other officials. Ellis calls it the 'Awkward Interval,' when Americans had fought the British in Lexington and Concord and around Bunker Hill, while holding off from a full separation. 'Public opinion is changing during this time, but it still would have been premature to issue a declaration of independence,' says Ellis, whose books include 'Founding Brothers,' 'The Cause' and the upcoming 'The Great Contradiction.' The Continental Congress projected unity in its official statements. But privately, like the colonies overall, members differed. Jack Rakove, a professor of history at Stanford University and author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning 'Original Meanings,' noted that delegates to Congress ranged from 'radicals' such as Samuel Adams who were avid for independence to such 'moderates' as Dickinson and New York's John Jay. The Olive Branch resolution balanced references to 'the delusive pretences, fruitless terrors, and unavailing severities' administered by British officials with dutiful tributes to shared ties and to the king's 'royal magnanimity and benevolence.' '(N)otwithstanding the sufferings of your loyal Colonists during the course of this present controversy, our Breasts retain too tender a regard for the Kingdom from which we derive our Origin to request such a Reconciliation as might in any manner be inconsistent with her Dignity or her welfare,' the sometimes obsequious petition reads in part. The American Revolution didn't arise at a single moment but through years of anguished steps away from the 'mother' country — a kind of weaning that at times suggested a coming of age, a young person's final departure from home. In letters and diaries written in the months before July 1775, American leaders often referred to themselves as children, the British as parents and the conflict a family argument. Edmund Pendleton, a Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, urged 'a reconciliation with Our mother Country.' Jay, who would later help negotiate the treaty formally ending the Revolutionary War, proposed informing King George that 'your majesty's American subjects' are 'bound to your majesty by the strongest ties of allegiance and affection and attached to their parent country by every bond that can unite societies.' In the Olive Branch paper, Dickinson would offer tribute to 'the union between our Mother country and these colonies.' An early example of 'peace through strength' The Congress, which had been formed the year before, relied in the first half of 1775 on a dual strategy that now might be called 'peace through strength,' a blend of resolve and compromise. John Adams defined it as 'to hold the sword in one hand, the olive branch in the other.' Dickinson's petition was a gesture of peace. A companion document, 'The Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms,' was a statement of resolve. The 1775 declaration was drafted by Thomas Jefferson, who a year later would be the principal writer of the Declaration of Independence, revised by Dickinson and approved by the Congress on July 6. The language anticipated the Declaration of Independence with its condemnation of the British for 'their intemperate Rage for unlimited Domination' and its vows to 'make known the Justice of our Cause.' But while the Declaration of Independence ends with the 13 colonies 'absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown,' the authors in 1775 assured a nervous public 'that we mean not to dissolve that Union which has so long and so happily subsisted between us, and which we sincerely wish to see restored.' 'Necessity has not yet driven us into that desperate Measure, or induced us to excite any other Nation to war against them,' they wrote. John Adams and Benjamin Franklin were among the peers of Dickinson who thought him naive about the British, and were unfazed when the king refused even to look at the Olive Branch petition and ruled that the colonies were in a state of rebellion. Around the same time Dickinson was working on his draft, the Continental Congress readied for further conflict. It appointed a commander of the newly-formed Continental Army, a renowned Virginian whom Adams praised as 'modest and virtuous ... amiable, generous and brave.' His name: George Washington. His ascension, Adams wrote, 'will have a great effect, in cementing and securing the Union of these Colonies.'
