quarta-feira, 27 de fevereiro de 2019

Crews started tearing down the border wall prototypes today after spending $3mil to build them

Customs and Border Protection has started knocking down the administration's border wall prototypes in the San Diego area, clearing the way for another construction project.

"At this point, we have learned a lot from them, but we don't necessarily have a purpose or use for them anymore, and we will be bringing them down," a CBP official said Wednesday.

In April 2017, CBP awarded contracts totaling more than $3 million for eight prototypes to six companies. The agency completed its testing and evaluation in October.

But all eight prototypes remained standing at the site until Wednesday, when workers used large construction equipment to knock over towering concrete. Images from the scene showed massive piles of debris where the proposed designs once stood.

It's likely you won't see any of these structures popping up at the border again any time soon.

Congress has prohibited CBP from using the prototype designs in most new projects, requiring officials instead to stick with past designs for now as construction moves forward on barriers funded over the past two years. It is unclear whether these restrictions would apply to construction projects funded by the President's recent emergency declaration.

But even so, the CBP official said they used the testing and evaluation process to validate previous designs.

"What it did not preclude us from doing, first of all, was learning from those prototypes," said the CBP official.

Previous CBP construction methods such as internal hardening (inside the steel posts) and anti-climb features were validated by the testing, said the official.

"Those are not things that the [congressional] language necessarily precludes and they're items that we have been able to add to our tool kit," added the official.

Some reports have suggested the prototypes didn't do well in tests conducted by breaching experts, though the results haven't been made public.

The prototypes are in the same footprint as the San Diego secondary replacement barrier project, which began last week. CBP had the option to leave the prototypes up and build around them, but the agency decided that the steel-bollard wall is "the most effective design in that location."

The prototypes will be "taken down gradually" and the material will be recycled by being "ground down" and used in a San Diego secondary construction project.

None of the companies that built the prototypes are currently building portions of the wall on the southern border, according to the official.

Copyright 2019 Scripps Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Trump Bypassed Lawmakers to Build His Wall. Here’s How They Are Fighting Back.

Doug Mills/CNP/ZUMA Wire

Looking for news you can trust?Subscribe to our free newsletters.

By his own admission, President Donald Trump declared a national emergency at the southern border to turbocharge the construction of a border wall that Congress refused to fund. "I could do the wall over a longer period of time," he told reporters earlier this month. "I didn't need to do this, but I'd rather do it much faster." 

But in the rush to build his "big, beautiful" wall, Trump may have actually invited more backlash and oversight from Congress and the states. House Democrats have already introduced a bill to reverse his declaration, and a lawsuit filed by 16 states has challenged Trump's constitutional authority to fund the wall. Then there's the question of whether Trump can even successfully divert the funds he identified in the first place.

The White House is reportedly planning to steer $3.6 billion from unused military construction projects, $600 million from the Treasury Department's asset forfeiture unit, and $2.5 billion from a Pentagon counter-drug program toward the wall's construction. Those plans hit a roadblock last week when Roll Call reported that less than 1 percent of the money Trump intends to take from the counter-narcotics program is still available. (A House Democratic staffer confirmed to Mother Jones that roughly $80 million remains in this designated fund. A Defense Department spokesperson said "no decisions have been made yet" about replacing the missing cash.)

To make up the difference, the House Democratic source said the Pentagon is expected to draw upon its military construction budget. This pool of funds, which includes money for base repairs and the housing of military families, among other line items, is a convenient choice because most construction projects are funded through multiyear appropriations—as opposed to the drug prevention funding, which expires this fall at the end of the fiscal year. 

Delaying billions of construction projects could invite its own host of problems. For one thing, these projects include the textbook, job-creating pork-barrel spending that lawmakers use to reward the folks back home in their districts. "There is probably no part of the defense budget that is more directly and concretely linked to the interests of a member of Congress than the MILCON [military construction] budget," says Gordon Adams, who oversaw national security and foreign policy budgets in the Clinton White House and is now a fellow at the nonpartisan Stimson Center. "These are specific projects in specific districts." Lawmakers who championed these projects will almost certainly not be inclined to give them up easily. Once senior Pentagon officials sort out which projects will and will not be prioritized, the politically unwelcome task of defending those choices will fall to Pat Shanahan, the acting defense secretary.

Even though he's the likely favorite to replace retired general Jim Mattis in a permanent capacity, Shanahan is not exactly beloved by Trump's top Republican allies on Capitol Hill. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), who chairs the powerful Senate Armed Services panel, bluntly said earlier this month that Shanahan lacks humility, while Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a close Trump adviser, lashed out at him during a meeting last week in Munich. Josh Rogin of the Washington Post reported that Graham mocked Shanahan's plan to withdraw all US troops from Syria by the end of April, calling it the "dumbest f—ing idea I've ever heard." If Shanahan followed through on that order, Graham reportedly told him, "I am now your adversary, not your friend." (Trump recently agreed to keep about 20 percent of the original contingent there.) 

Shanahan will need all the Republican support he can get, because Democrats have already begun to turn on him. Even after dozens of Democratic senators voted for his confirmation as deputy secretary, Shanahan has clashed repeatedly in recent weeks with their counterparts in the House. Climate change has emerged as a particularly fraught point of division between the Pentagon and Capitol Hill. Weeks after taking over, Shanahan was scolded by House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith (D-Wash.) for submitting a climate report that was "half-baked" and "inadequate." Lawmakers will certainly be watching to see whether any military construction funds related to climate resilience will be affected by Trump's emergency declaration. These projects tend not to be explicitly about climate change but targeted in a way that addresses its impacts—for example, sprucing up a base that is vulnerable to flooding. Among the military's top priorities will be to protect project s connected to "health and safety and new missions," says Mark Cancian, a former Pentagon official with experience in the Office of Management and Budget.

Should they follow through on this, programs with an environmental focus will be vulnerable to delays or cuts. At the same time as Trump is planning to dip into the military construction budget, top military officials are calling on Congress to allocate even more money after a brutal hurricane season—and not for a border wall. Camp Lejeune, the largest Marine Corps base on the East Coast, requires more than $3 billion in repairs beyond what Congress appropriated after Hurricane Florence devastated the North Carolina installation. "We don't have money for that," Marine Corps commandant General Robert Neller said at a recent conference hosted by the US Naval Institute. "If we have to pay that ourselves, it'll take the MILCON budget of the Marine Corps for probably the next four years."

The ugly politics aside, Trump and Shanahan still have a practical problem. To reprogram funds from one division of DOD, like military construction, to another pot requires direct approval from senior lawmakers of both parties. Traditionally, the leadership of the four committees that oversee defense appropriations need to sign off on a reprogramming request, which will almost certainly be required if Trump hopes to make up for the counter-drug funds that have already been obligated. Given Democrats' opposition to Trump's emergency declaration, that request would almost certainly be refused. Trump could do an end run around Congress and scrounge up funds from other dusty corners of the Pentagon's budget, but he'll still need to reckon with the unsavory prospect of depriving some Republican allies of signature projects in their districts.

"The politics of this are much more lethal than one thinks," Adams says.

terça-feira, 26 de fevereiro de 2019

Conservatives head to Texas to try to build their own wall

The fundraising so far "is still a tiny sum compared to the cost of any significant fencing on the border," said Reece Jones, a University of Hawaii professor and author of the book "Violent Borders."

U.S. Customs and Border Protection is working to build 33 miles (53 kilometers) of new walls and fencing in the Rio Grande Valley. The construction was funded by Congress in March. So far, the government has awarded 14 miles (22.5 kilometers) of construction for a total of $313 million, or roughly $22 million a mile.

The average cost of 1 mile built by the government exceeds what the campaign has raised.

"Walls alone are a very ineffective way to secure a border because they are expensive and still need to be constantly guarded," Jones said. "Even then, people regularly go over, under, around, or through them."

Most land along the Rio Grande is privately owned, and many landowners oppose surrendering their land for a border wall.

The U.S. government has the authority to seize land under eminent domain and will likely have to sue many landowners to build more barriers. It can also waive environmental laws to speed construction. A private group doesn't have those powers.

The river also feeds wildlife — including many endangered species — as well as farmland on both sides. A bi-national commission governs flood control on the river, and building at the water's edge is particularly difficult due to concerns about terrain and flooding.

Kolfage originally promised to donate any proceeds from his campaign to the U.S. government. But the group announced in January that it would instead fund a private construction effort. Donors before the change had 90 days to opt into the new effort or receive a refund. A spokesman for GoFundMe, the online fundraising site Kolfage used, says 53 percent of donors have opted in, and 57 percent of donors had responded as of last Friday.

(Story continued below...)

sábado, 16 de fevereiro de 2019

Trump: 'Good chance' I will declare emergency to build wall

President TrumpDonald John TrumpTrump nominates ambassador to Turkey Trump heads to Mar-a-Lago after signing bill to avert shutdown CNN, MSNBC to air ad turned down by Fox over Nazi imagery MORE said Friday there is a "good chance" he will declare a national emergency to circumvent Congress and build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.

"I think there's a good chance we'll have to do that," Trump told reporters in the Cabinet Room of the White House.

ADVERTISEMENT

The president suggested he may reveal more details about his plan to build the wall in Tuesday's State of the Union address, saying people should "listen closely" to the speech.

Trump's comments provide one of the clearest signs yet he may act on his own to build the wall, as his frustration builds with congressional Democrats over their determination to block one of his core campaign promises.

He once again blasted a bipartisan conference committee debating wall funding as a "waste of time" and predicted Democrats would pay a price for opposing the wall.

"I don't think it's good politically," he said. "I think [Speaker] Nancy PelosiNancy Patricia D'Alesandro PelosiConstitutional conservatives need to oppose the national emergency House Judiciary Dems seek answers over Trump's national emergency declaration Why don't we build a wall with Canada? MORE [D-Calif.] should be ashamed of herself because she's hurting a lot of people."

The committee is negotiating a potential spending deal that must pass before Feb. 15 to avert another partial government shutdown.

An emergency declaration, which Trump has repeatedly threatened to invoke, could help the president access billions in federal funding for the wall while avoiding a second shutdown, for which Republicans in Congress have little appetite.

But it would face legal challenges that could stymie construction and curtail the president's powers.

Trump said he has "very, very strong legal standing" to build the wall on his own but acknowledged the possibility a federal judge could block the move.

The president said his administration is moving forward with building 115 miles of barriers along the southwest border "regardless," with "cash on hand." He did not provide further details.

Friday's remarks came a day after Trump said he will not accept a spending deal unless it includes money for his proposed border wall.

"If there's no wall, it doesn't work," the president told reporters Thursday when asked if he would be willing to accept other border security measures.

Pelosi on Thursday said Democrats remain opposed to wall funding but would consider providing money for new fencing along the border.

The impasse quickly cast doubt on talks between House and Senate lawmakers from both parties who met for the first time on Wednesday to start discussing a possible spending deal on border security ahead of the Feb. 15 deadline.

Trump said Thursday he would wait until mid-February to decide what course of action to pursue regarding the wall, but on Friday he said an emergency declaration could "certainly help the process" of jump-starting construction.

The president is eager to show he is making progress on the wall, in large part to assuage conservative supporters who have accused him of caving on a key campaign promise.

Trump signed a stopgap spending bill into law on Jan. 25 that did not include wall money but ended the 35-day shutdown, which dealt a serious political blow to both the president and congressional Republicans.

The shutdown was triggered on Dec. 22 after Trump backed away from his initial signs of support for a bipartisan spending deal, without wall money. Several high-profile conservatives criticized the president at the time for indicating he would sign the measure into law.

Updated at 1:58 p.m. 

sexta-feira, 15 de fevereiro de 2019

Trump plan to declare national emergency to build wall may survive challenges

President Trump's apparent decision to declare a national emergency to build a wall at the Mexican border could be challenged in Congress or in the courts. But the bipartisan vote that congressional opponents need seems like a long shot, and the Supreme Court, which may have the last word, has not been eager to place roadblocks in Trump's path.

The White House confirmed Thursday that Trump would use the declaration to circumvent Congress' refusal to provide money he wants for the long-sought wall. Such emergency powers have been used dozens of times by presidents of both parties, but rarely, if ever, in defiance of lawmakers' objections about the use of federal funds.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, said Trump was attempting "an end run around Congress." She said both parties should be equally concerned about expanding presidential powers, but did not seem optimistic about convincing Republicans who control the Senate.

"Republicans should have some dismay about the door they are opening," she said.

A 1976 federal law, the National Emergencies Act, recognized long-standing presidential authority to declare a national emergency, but said Congress could overrule the president with a joint resolution.

But even if such a resolution won majority votes in both houses of Congress, supporters of the move would need a two-thirds majority to override Trump's almost-certain veto. An override effort would likely be successful in the House, where Democrats are in control, but seems highly unlikely in the Senate, where Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Thursday he would support the emergency declaration.

Opponents' remaining recourse would be a lawsuit, possibly by owners of property near the border, or by members of Congress contending Trump was usurping their constitutional authority over federal spending.

One such confrontation occurred in 1952, when President Harry Truman issued an executive order to seize the nation's steel mills because he feared a strike by mill workers during the Korean War.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Truman had exceeded his authority by commandeering private property without legal justification. In a concurring opinion, Justice Robert Jackson — a former U.S. prosecutor at the Nuremberg war-crimes trials — said the president's spending power, even after a declaration of emergency, was "at its lowest ebb" when it conflicted with "the expressed or implied will of Congress."

The current Supreme Court, however, gave Trump broad leeway on border security in June when it deferred to his argument that travelers from a group of predominantly Muslim countries posed a threat to U.S. security. Since then, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who sided with the majority on the travel ban but voted at times with more liberal justices, has retired and been replaced by Brett Kavanaugh, a Trump appointee with a history of endorsing executive authority.

While Trump has argued that border crossings by unauthorized immigrants and illegal drugs have created a "humanitarian crisis," one opposing legal analyst noted that the president had been saying much the same thing since December, when a congressional impasse over funding for the wall shut down many federal agencies for 35 days. That was followed by weeks of negotiations that produced a spending bill including about $1.4 billion for various barriers and border-security measures, but not the $5.7 billion Trump sought for a wall.

"Presidents don't dawdle in the face of real emergencies," Elizabeth Goitein of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School said in a recent article in the Atlantic magazine. "Even if a real crisis existed, emergency powers are designed for situations in which Congress has no time to act."

Another Brennan Center attorney, Andrew Boyle, acknowledged Thursday that the Supreme Court historically has been "very deferential to the executive in times of national emergency." But, he added, "we never have really had an emergency declaration that has been so clearly telegraphed as a way to get around Congress."

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., sounded a similar theme, disputing the existence of any border emergency and adding, "The Constitution says Congress decides how to spend money, not the president."

If the case gets to the Supreme Court, another issue would be the proposed source of the wall funding. Trump has spoken of redirecting money that Congress has appropriated for military construction. Federal law allows such funds to be shifted to other projects "in support of the armed forces."

"Is building a wall military work? There's lots of room for debate," Rory Little, a law professor at UC Hastings in San Francisco and a former Justice Department attorney, said in a recent interview.

But John Eastman, a constitutional law professor at Chapman University in Orange County, said the connection shouldn't be hard to establish, since soldiers are helping to patrol the border.

"If the military is being assigned for border security, obviously a wall is in aid of that use," he said.

Bob Egelko is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: begelko@sfchronicle.com

Twitter: @BobEgelko

IT'S OFFICIAL: Trump declares national emergency to build his border wall

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump on Friday declared a national emergency to address issues with border security and unilaterally build barriers along significant portions of the United States' border with Mexico.

The action, which ventures into new territory to circumvent Congress and redirect military funding for other purposes, has drawn condemnation and confusion from lawmakers in both political parties.

Read more: Trump will sign the bipartisan border-security deal and declare a national emergency to get more wall money

Trump made the announcement in the White House's Rose Garden, saying: "I'm going to be signing a national emergency. It's been signed many times before."

"They say walls don't work," Trump said. "Walls work 100% of the time."

Trump also downplayed the accusation that he could not cut a deal with Congress, saying he was able to get $1.4 billion for barrier construction in the spending bill it passed Thursday but was still not satisfied.

Trump also acknowledged he is likely to face considerable legal challenges for taking executive action.

"I expect to be sued," he said. "I shouldn't be sued."

In a joint statement responding to the emergency declaration, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer described it as unlawful and said it "does great violence to our Constitution and makes America less safe, stealing from urgently needed defense funds for the security of our military and our nation."

"The President's actions clearly violate the Congress's exclusive power of the purse, which our Founders enshrined in the Constitution," they said. "The Congress will defend our constitutional authorities in the Congress, in the Courts, and in the public, using every remedy available.

They added: "The President is not above the law. The Congress cannot let the President shred the Constitution."

In a conference call with reporters before the announcement, senior administration officials detailed the plan, saying that in addition to the $1.4 billion for barrier construction appropriated by Congress, about $6 billion would be taken from Title 10 funding and $600 million would be tapped from the Treasury's forfeiture fund.

A senior administration official said the construction would follow the same design as the one appropriated by Congress, using a steel bollard wall instead of concrete or other prototype walls.

"There's not a fight over what's going to be built," an official said.

The acting White House chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, also downplayed the assertion that what Trump is doing is unprecedented.

"There's been some concern in the media about whether or not this creates a dangerous precedent," Mulvaney told reporters. "It actually creates zero precedent. This is authority given to the president in the law already. It's not as if he just didn't get what he wanted so he's waving a magic wand and taking a bunch of money.

"I saw Nancy Pelosi said yesterday this sets a precedent for the Democrats to declare a gun emergency the next time they're in the Oval Office. That's completely false," he added. "If Democrats could've figured out a way to do it, they would have done that already."

Trump's decision confounded Republicans worried about an overreaching executive

Rep. Mac Thornberry of Texas, the ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, in a Thursday statement urged Trump "not to divert significant Department of Defense funding for border security."

"Doing so would have detrimental consequences for our troops as military infrastructure was one of the accounts most deprived during the Obama-era defense cuts," Thornberry said. "And it would undercut one of the most significant accomplishments of the last two years — beginning to repair and rebuild our military. I hope that the President will pursue other options."

Read more: Trump's threat of a national-emergency declaration to fund the border wall is leaving Capitol Hill in shock

On the other hand, Republicans loyal to the president, like House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, praised Trump for taking swift action.

"We face a humanitarian and national security crisis at the border that must be addressed and the President's declaration is merely a statement of fact," he said in a statement. "With the declaration and other legal authorities, the President has access to important tools to take the steps necessary to secure the border."

Legal challenges are almost certain

Long before Trump made the decision, and as he was hanging it over Congress' head during the government shutdown, Republicans questioned the legality of an emergency declaration, including supporters of the move, like Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.

Democrats have vowed to fight it and said they are confident the White House will be rebuked by the courts.

"A declaration of national emergency would be absolutely repugnant and abhorrent to our constitutional principles," Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut told INSIDER in January. "It would lack any basis in fact or the law and would be struck down by the courts."

The Department of Justice has warned the White House that the courts are likely to block the emergency declaration at least temporarily, ABC News reported on Thursday.

quinta-feira, 14 de fevereiro de 2019

Presidential quiz, how Ted Cruz wants to pay for the border wall, fate of Dallas Confederate memorial

Good morning, and Happy Valentine's Day! If you love politics, this is the newsletter for you.

Here are the top political headlines from Austin, Washington and Dallas, as well as our new Presidents Day quiz.

Presidents Day quiz

1. With Presidents Day coming up Monday, we thought it would be fun to test our readers' knowledge of the four presidents with Texas connections.

All claim Texas as home in some fashion, though two were born here and two weren't. We can't tell you which ones, otherwise we'd be giving away one of the quiz answers!

If you can't see the portal below, click here to take the quiz.

Points from Austin

1. David Whitley is in damage control mode. Gov. Greg Abbott's choice for secretary of state, battered from the fallout over his office's controversial voter fraud inquiry, needs the support of Senate Democrats to be confirmed. But it's unclear whether they'll wield their power to deny him.

The Dallas Morning News reached out to the 12 Democrats in the Texas Senate to find out how they're going to vote. Here's what we found.

2. We asked @dallasnews Instagram followers what they'd like to see happen to the Confederate plaque that was removed from the Capitol. Here's what they said.

1. "Have it be repurposed and reclaimed as an art piece by a black artist." - Jackson Scoggins (@jacksonscoggins)2. "Put it in a museum. Even when it's ugly, the reality of our history should be documented." - Brittany (@bis4brit)3. "I don't think it should be melted down because if you don't remember history, you repeat it." - Brittney Dumas (@brittney.fgiiifineart)4. "Melt it and turn it into new history dedicated to acknowledging needed change." - Jasmine (@hasminnee)5. "Melt the sucker down, honestly. I'm a conservative Republican too. The plaque is wrong." - Andy Rittler (@ritty360)6. "Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. Can't erase everything that people don't like." - Jacob Wiley (@jakecwiley)7. "Send it to the Smithsonian Museum of African American History, include it in an exhibit." - Will Pendleton (@wkpendleton)8. "Place it in a museum of Texas history as a remembrance to confederate creed and ideology." - Andaleeb Iqbal (@andaleebsi)9. "Melt it and make a n MLK head bust." - Sal Rivas (@salrivas28)10. "Preserving or destroying are not options. We must reimagine -- correct the mistake." - Roselle Tenorio (@roselletenorio)

The most unique suggestion? "Melt it, make a kitten statue." - Joel and Carla Gunnels Murphy (@joelandcarlagunnels)

3. Have you visited our legislative coverage site yet? On the Texas Tracker: Your Guide to the State Legislature, you'll find stories, analysis and more from the Capitol. If you're a Dallas Morning News subscriber, you can customize your feed. Sign in, click the issues you want to follow, and you'll see only posts matching those topics.

Points from Washington Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, attends a rally with President Donald Trump in El Paso, Texas, Monday, Feb. 11, 2019. . (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)(Susan Walsh/AP)

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, attends a rally with Preside nt Donald Trump in El Paso, Texas, Monday, Feb. 11, 2019. . (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

(Susan Walsh/AP)

1. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz is on fire this week, making news on several fronts. Here's why:

  • He called the "Green New Deal" a sign of "just how nutty Democrats are getting," telling donors in a conference call Tuesday night that it's a "kooky" approach that would entail bans on cars, planes, trains and cattle. "I would say it was half-assed, but that probably gives it more credit than it deserves," Cruz said, before dropping a reference to "unicorns and daisies floating in the sky."

  • He also voted against the most sweeping conservation legislation in a decade, which sailed through the Senate 92-8. His office provided an explanation Wednesday.

  • After Tuesday's conviction of Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, Cruz once again sought support for a bill that would make the drug kingpin pay for a border wall.

  • And finally, the question has dogged Cruz for years: Is he the Zodiac killer? In case there were any doubt, he's not. But that hasn't stopped him and Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse from having fun with the conspiracy theory. What's the latest thread in this never-ending punchline?

  • 2. The National Butterfly Center filed for a restraining order in U.S. District Court in Washington to keep federal agents and contractors -- who plan to build a border wall through the popular nature preserve -- off its property.

    The center, located in the small Texas town of Mission in the Rio Grande Valley, has tried for more than a year to stop the border barrier, which Congress approved last March. But the current debate over the Trump administration's demands for billions more dollars in border wall funding has focused national attention on the butterfly preserve's plight.

    Todd's take

    Todd Gillman is the Washington bureau chief for The Dallas Morning News. He has covered government and politics for decades, from Dallas to D.C., and is a White House Correspondents' Association board member. Todd appeared on The 11th Hour with Brian Williams on MSNBC last night, and here are some of the points he made.

  • If Beto O'Rourke isn't going to run for president, it's hard to understand why he's showing so much ankle. Between the interview with Oprah and the rally in El Paso on Monday, he's living his life out in public a lot. I would bet that he will run.

  • On his weeklong solo road trip, he was introspective, poetic even, expressing the kind of self-description that you never hear, not just from Trump, but really from anyone running for president. In one of his first blog entries he wrote that he was in a funk after losing to Ted Cruz. That's not something politicians say out loud. And he goes into small-town America - not Iowa, not New Hampshire - with no apparent agenda or political calculus. This is not the usual way people run for president, but he was also writing about it and taking selfies with people he met along the way - drawing attention to himself.

  • Trump gave him an opportunity by coming to the border. The one issue Beto is really passionate about, his signature issue, is that the border is not as unsafe as Trump says it is, and the wall is a dumb idea. If he was wavering about running, Trump got him juiced up.

  • Points from Dallas Dallas City Council member Jennifer Staubach Gates listens during a Dallas City Council meeting at Park In the Woods Recreation Center in Dallas on Wednesday, Feb. 13, 2019   . (Shaban Athuman/Staff Photographer)

    Dallas City Council member Jennifer Staubach Gates listens during a Dallas City Council meeting at Park In the Woods Recreation Center in Dallas on Wednesday, Feb. 13, 2019. 

    (Shaban Athuman/Staff Photographer)

    1. The Confederate War Memorial near Dallas City Hall must come down, the City Council decided Wednesday.

    In an 11-4 vote, the council declared that the monument was "a non-contributing structure for the historic overlay district." Corbett Smith reports about the next step in the process, who voted against taking it down and how much it will cost to remove it.

    2. Dallas police are investigating allegations that a City Council member was involved in a car accident with someone riding a motorized scooter near Fair Park.

    3. While everyone in Dallas appears to be running for mayor, when the filing period closes Friday, the list won't include the candidate who could've been the person to beat, writes columnist Sharon Grigsby. It's too early to say whether she would have voted for Jennifer Staubach Gates in the crowded field of candidates, but Sharon is sorry her name won't be on the ballot. Here's why.

    4. Another Dallas-area school district has been sued in federal court over allegations that it's making it hard for residents of color to get elected, adversely affecting the education of minority and low-income children. Find out which district the lawsuit alleges has board members who are all from affluent, predominantly white neighborhoods.

    Tell us

    Curious Texas, an ongoing project from The Dallas Morning News, invites you to join our reporting process. We want to report stories that help you better understand how politics affects your money and your life. Tell us: What do you wonder about politics, the Texas Legislature or elections? No question is too big or too small.

    👋 That's all for this morning! For up-to-the-minute news and analysis, check out DallasNews.com.

    Share the love! If you like this newsletter, please forward this email to a friend and check out our other newsletters here.

    Do you have feedback? Send your thoughts, questions, praise and corrections to newsletters@dallasnews.com.

    How to make your home more friendly to the environment

    a wooden bridge in front of a house: Green roofs can reduce cooling costs and are easier to care for than green walls since the plants get nutrients from the rain and sun. © Provided by Toronto Star Newspapers Limited Green roofs can reduce cooling costs and are easier to care for than green walls since the plants get nutrients from the rain and sun. a chair sitting in front of a house: Green walls, or vertical gardens, filter the air in your home while producing oxygen. © Provided by Toronto Star Newspapers Limited Green walls, or vertical gardens, filter the air in your home while producing oxygen.

    Does the thought of sustainable living at home conjure images of clunky solar panels and backbreaking work? Don't let it.

    Recent innovations make it easier to live a green lifestyle without sacrificing style. Check out some of the new, beautiful and trendy ways you can create an environmentally friendly home.

    Green walls: Also known as "living walls," green walls are trending due to their numerous health benefits and interior functionality. Basically, these are walls covered with living greenery. Green walls filter harmful toxins from the air and produce oxygen. They help cool the air in the summer, keep it warm during the winter, aid with noise reduction and even help with fire-proofing.

    Though a green wall does require more maintenance than a regular one, it isn't much more trouble than looking after potted plants.

    Green roof: Green roofs are similar to green walls but offer even more benefits. Have a professional install a protective layer and some low-lying greenery on a flat portion of your roof and reap the rewards. Green roofs come with all of the perks that green walls offer, and they act as a great insulator for your home. They can reduce cooling costs by up to 75 per cent.

    Plus, a green roof is easier to care for than a green wall — since it's outside, the roof gets most of its nutrients from the rain and sun. You will need to inspect the roof annually to check for leaks.

    Urban beekeeping: Give our endangered pollinators a home with a piece of your property. This cheap hobby is a great conversation starter and an easy way to enhance your greenery. If you're interested in honey, you'll need the necessary equipment — a colony, a beekeeping suit, a beehive and harvesting materials — and the bees will do the rest. If you're worried about the visual appeal of a small wooden box on the edge of your property, try painting the hive a neutral colour so it blends in. Or, better yet, take the opportunity to decorate it with floral designs.

    More bees mean more pollination, so expect your yard to thank you for your efforts with larger vegetables and more plentiful flowers.

    Solar shingles: Many people love the idea of solar power but shy away from the idea of unattractive solar panels cluttering the roof. Thankfully, recent innovation has led to the creation of solar shingles.

    Solar shingles come in the form of tiles and can either fit over your existing roof, or act as the roof itself depending on the brand. Either way, they're a simple, attractive and seamless way to get solar energy into your home.

    Be warned: The upfront cost for these roof tiles is formidable. However, they are known to be as durable as or stronger than regular shingles, and they'll save you a ton of money on electric bills.

    Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

    a bench in front of a brick building: Provide sanctuary to pollinators with a bee house and see the benefits the endangered insects will bring to your garden. © Markus Wegmann Provide sanctuary to pollinators with a bee house and see the benefits the endangered insects will bring to your garden.

    quarta-feira, 13 de fevereiro de 2019

    Jimmy Kimmel: 'How do you finish a wall you haven’t started building yet?'

    Late-night hosts recapped real-world and chant-world developments, from a tentative budget deal to “finish that wall”.

    Jimmy Kimmel: ‘Refunds so tiny they fit in Trump’s hand’

    Jimmy Kimmel called BS on some of Donald Trump’s self-proclaimed victories on Tuesday, starting with the landmark tax bill from 2017, which is taking heat on social media as people file their taxes.

    “Most people thought the big Trump tax cut was going cut their taxes,” Kimmel said, but “it turns out that the reason it was called the Trump tax cuts is because it only cut taxes for Trump, specifically”.

    According to the IRS, Kimmel continued, the average refund check is down 8% this year, prompting many people to blast the law on Twitter under the hashtag #GOPtaxscam.

    “They’re saying some of these refunds are so tiny that they even fit in Donald Trump’s hand,” Kimmel joked.

    In other news, Congress announced a bipartisan agreement to keep the government functioning while allocating $1.375bn for “border security” â€" $200m less than the deal Trump refused in December, and far less than the $5.7bn he has demanded. Now, “it’s up to Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter to decide if the president will sign it”, Kimmel said. Trump seemed unmoved by the deal, instead leading a rally of his supporters in El Paso, Texas, in a modified chant of “finish the wall”.

    Hold up, Kimmel said. “How do you finish a wall you haven’t even started building yet?”

    Several weeks ago, Kimmel continued, he joked that the president should just lie and say he is building the wall because supporters would believe him; they’re not going to check its progress in person.

    As it turns out, “that’s exactly what he’s doing. He’s skipped from ‘build the wall’ to ‘finish the wall’. That’s how Orwellian this has become,” Kimmel said.

    “We are one delusional rally away from: ‘Now that we’ve finished the wall, let’s paint the wall!’”

    Trevor Noah: ‘He’d prefer to just get them riled up’

    On The Daily Show, Trevor Noah also contextualized the El Paso rally, in which Trump pandered to his Texas supporters and said he wasn’t interested in reading the budget agreement reached by a bipartisan committee.

    That the president spurned a proposal to the keep the government open for a rally is not surprising, Noah said, but still “a pretty insane admission. President Trump is saying instead of getting informed and then passing that information on to his audience, he’d prefer to just get them riled up.”

    Also on brand: remixing his chants based on fictional developments. At the El Paso rally, Trump modified his now-standard “build the wall” chant to “finish the wall”.

    “Now we’re doing ‘finish the wall’?” Noah mused. “I don’t know how much actual work they’re doing on the border, but I guess in Trump’s chant world, they’re making a lot of progress.”

    Noah offered some context: although no new miles of wall have been built under Trump, there has been upgrading of fencing into taller fencing.

    In other words: “He’s solved the problem of smugglers who are determined to sneak drugs into America but are too lazy to buy a somewhat taller ladder.”

    In sum, the El Paso Trump rally was a Trump rally, although we learned one new thing: “In addition to words, the president seems to struggle with numbers too,” Noah said in reference to the president’s claim that he’s 1-1 in elections and soon to be 2-0.

    “Uh, that’s not how math works,” Noah said, “but at least now we know how Trump successfully negotiated negative $200m for his wall.”

    Stephen Colbert: ‘Deal, arted’

    On The Late Show, Stephen Colbert was “feeling very TBD” about the bipartisan budget deal from Congress, which may or may not keep the government open at the end of the week.

    “I will be conditionally impressed at some later date,” he said.

    The new budget deal allocates $1.375bn for border security â€" less than the $1.6bn offered in a deal rejected by Trump in December, kicking off the longest government shutdown in American history â€" and represents some “A+ negotiating” by the president, Colbert observed. “Deal, arted.”

    Naturally, the agreement has been trashed by conservative talking heads â€" Laura Ingraham called it “pathetic” and Sean Hannity said it’s “a garbage compromise” â€" and on Tuesday, “Trump agreed with those people who tell him what he agrees with”, Colbert said. But though the president said he’s not happy with the deal, he didn’t rule out signing it. Instead, Trump proposed funding a physical wall by diverting funds from “far less important areas”: in practice, areas such as disaster relief for California and Puerto Rico.

    In translation: “Trump’s plan is to divert funds from actual disasters in order to prevent fictional ones,” Colbert said.

    "Fox & Friends" calls Ted Cruz's El Chapo plan "an indirect way to make Mexico pay for" Trump's wall

    Sen. Ted Cruz, R-TX, this week reintroduced the El Chapo Act, a bill which would allocate forfeitures from the successful prosecution of the notorious Mexican drug lord of the same name to the completion of a wall along the southern U.S. border.

    "America's justice system prevailed today in convicting Joaquín Guzmán Loera, aka El Chapo, on all 10 counts," Cruz tweeted after Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzmán's Tuesday conviction on ten federal drug charges. "U.S. prosecutors are seeking $14 billion in drug profits & other assets from El Chapo which should go towards funding our wall to ."

    The idea caught traction on President Donald Trump's favorite morning TV show, "Fox & Friends," where the co-hosts remarked in how it would provide the president with a way to fulfill the central promise of his campaign: a $5.7 billion wall along the U.S. border with Mexico.

    "When you think about it, the president has said all along – in the beginning, you know, 'We're going to get Mexico to pay for it,' co-host Steve Doocy said Wednesday morning. "This would be an indirect way to make Mexico pay for it."

    While Doocy and co-host Ainsley Earhardt thought the idea was not just "good" but "great," their colleague Brian Kilmeade was more hesitant in his praise. "It's not a practical idea, but it's an intriguing one," he chimed in.

    "Now, this is not going to go anywhere, because it's not going to get 60 votes in the Senate," Kilmeade said earlier in the segment. "Because nobody wants to give the president a victory, as we've seen witnessed over the last three months." (House Speaker Nancy Pelosi previously said Democrats rejected the idea because "a wall is an immorality.")

    http://twitter.com/SenTedCruz/status/1095759240554266631

    Earhardt, for her part, acknowledged that Cruz's idea was dead on arrival.

    "Everyone knows it's not going to happen, but it's such an excellent idea," she said. "It's taking drug money and building the wall to prevent more drugs from coming over the border. And he says all gangster money from here on out that's drug money should be used for national security."

    The Fox News host appeared to be loosely referencing a defining – and xenophobic – message from the day in 2015 when Trump descended an escalator in Trump Tower in Manhattan to throw his hat into the last presidential race.

    "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us," the president infamously said as he launched his campaign. "They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists and some, I assume, are good people."

    Upon announcing the re-introduction of the El Chapo Act on Tuesday, Cruz said the Congress had been given a clear mandate from their constituents: to "secure the border and build the wall."

    "Fourteen billion dollars will go a long way to secure our southern border and hinder the illegal flow of drugs, weapons and individuals," the senator claimed in a statement. "By leveraging any criminally forfeited assets of El Chapo and other murderous drug lords, we can offset the cost of securing our border and make meaningful progress toward delivering on the promises made to the American people."

    Trump 'extremely unhappy' with shutdown deal, keeping options open to build wall

    Get breaking news alerts and special reports. The news and stories that matter, delivered weekday mornings.

    SUBSCRIBE

    Feb. 12, 2019, 3:37 PM GMT / Updated Feb. 13, 2019, 4:31 AM GMT

    By Dartunorro Clark, Allan Smith and Hallie Jackson

    President Donald Trump said Tuesday that he is "extremely unhappy" with the bipartisan deal lawmakers reached to avert a government shutdown this week that provides money for a southern border fence, but he vowed to build a border wall anyway.

    "I am extremely unhappy with what the Democrats have given us," Trump told reporters at the White House. "It's sad. They're doing the country no favors. They're hurting our country very badly. But we certainly don't want to see a shutdown."

    Trump added that he is considering all options to fund his proposed border wall. A White House official told NBC News earlier Tuesday that even if Trump signs off on the agreement reached Monday night to keep the government open, other options were on the table to build a more substantial barrier.

    Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, tweeted Tuesday that Trump "should take executive action" to secure the border.

    Trump also said Tuesday that he didn't think there would be another government shutdown this Friday, which would come on the heels of the longest federal shutdown in U.S. history. But "if you did have it, it's the Democrats' fault," he said.

    "And I accepted the first one, and I'm proud of what we've accomplished because people learned during that shutdown all about the problems coming in from the southern border," Trump added. "I accept it — I've always accepted it. But this one, I would never accept it if it happens, but I don't think it's going to happen. But this would be totally on the Democrats."

    The deal that Democrats in Congress agreed to, however, includes billions for Department of Homeland Security priorities like new technology and more customs officers as well as the border barrier.

    Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., told reporters Tuesday afternoon that he thinks the compromise is "a good step in the right direction" and that the measure would get support from Republican lawmakers.

    "From a Republican point of view, there is money in there for new barrier fencing, and there is no cap on interior enforcement," McConnell said. "It's not everything the president hoped to get, but I think it's a good step in the right direction. I hope he'll decide to sign it. We're all quite interested in that, as you can imagine."

    On the possibility that Trump could redirect federal money through executive action, McConnell said, "I think he ought to feel free to use whatever tools he can legally use to enhance his effort to secure the border."

    Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Tuesday on the Senate floor that the government spending agreement was "a path forward for our country," adding, "I strongly urge President Trump to sign this agreement."

    Trump tweeted Tuesday evening that he had been presented with the deal and doubled down on his promise to build the wall anyway, praising Republicans for putting up with the "Radical Left" during border negotiations.

    "Looking over all aspects knowing that this will be hooked up with lots of money from other sources....," the president tweeted. "Will be getting almost $23 BILLION for Border Security. Regardless of Wall money, it is being built as we speak!"

    The government is set to run out of money again on Friday after having been partially shut down for 35 days. That shutdown occurred because lawmakers did not provide Trump with his demand for $5.7 billion in funding for a border wall. But Trump eventually relented and signed a short-term funding package that expires in days.

    Over the weekend, acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney said the administration would secure the border, one way or another.

    "We'll take as much money as you can give us," he said on "Fox News Sunday," referring to Congress, "and then we will go off and find the money someplace else legally in order to secure that southern barrier."

    Mulvaney added Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press" that regardless of what money lawmakers provide, Trump will "do whatever he legally can to secure that border."

    On Monday night, a bipartisan group of congressional negotiators announced they had reached an "agreement in principle" to avert another shutdown and further fund border security, though it would not include money for a concrete wall.

    The agreement would provide nearly $1.4 billion for new border fencing, which could include steel slats and other "existing technologies," and an additional $1.7 billion for other Homeland Security priorities like new technology and more customs personnel, multiple sources told NBC News. The deal funds about 55 miles of new border barrier, and Democrats dropped a demand to cap the number of beds for undocumented immigrants detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

    Rep. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., chairwoman of the House Appropriations Committee, told MSNBC's "Morning Joe" on Tuesday that the bipartisan group "put together a deal that we think is fair, that represents our values and will do the job."

    McConnell called the agreement "good news" on the Senate floor Tuesday morning.

    "I look forward to reviewing the full text as soon as possible, and hope the Senate can act on this legislation in short order," McConnell said.

    But some of Trump's allies were apoplectic about the agreement.

    "$1.3 billion? That's not ... even a wall, a barrier," Fox News host Sean Hannity said on his program Monday, asking how any Republican could support "this garbage compromise."

    Conservative pundit Ann Coulter criticized Trump on Twitter for what she claimed was his unwillingness to fight for a wall.

    "Trump talks a good game on the border wall, but it's increasingly clear he's afraid to fight for it," Coulter wrote Tuesday. "Call this his 'Yellow New Deal.'"

    Dartunorro Clark is a political reporter for NBC News.

    Allan Smith is a political reporter for NBC News.

    Hallie Jackson is the chief White House correspondent for NBC News.

    Marianna Sotomayor, Rebecca Shabad and Frank Thorp V contributed.

    Chuck Todd Says Trump Engaging in ‘Unprecedented Level’ of Deception: He’s ‘Pretending’ to Build the Wall

    Chuck Todd opened Tuesday's MTP Daily by asking, "Are we bordering on make-believe?"

    He ripped President Donald Trump for his "unprecedented level of presidential deception" on the wall, saying, "The president seems to be pretending to fulfill his campaign promise by pretending to build his wall."

    Todd noted how Trump has changed the slogan from "build the wall" to "finish the wall," as well as Trump's claim today that the wall is being built anyway.

    "The president seems to be conditioning his supporters to believe that the wall is an inevitability, even though there may be a more appropriate word for it if he end-runs Congress. That would be illegal," he concluded.

    You can watch above, via MSNBC.

    [image via screengrab]

    Have a tip we should know? tips@mediaite.com

    terça-feira, 12 de fevereiro de 2019

    Joy Villa Received 'Hatred' and 'Racism' After Wearing 'Build the Wall' Dress to 2019 Grammys, She Says

    Joy Villa opened up about being subjected to "hatred" and "racism" after hitting the 61st annual Grammy Awards red carpet sporting a bold gown inspired by President Donald Trump's campaign promises.

    Villa, 32, is a singer who makes music within a variety of genres. Her most recent EP, titled January 2018's Home Sweet Home, was categorized as pop on iTunes. However, she's primarily garnered headlines for her controversial and head-turning Grammys red carpet looks.

    On Sunday, Villa dressed as a barbed wire border wall. The white and silver gown read: "Build the wall." She accompanied her look with a silver crown and a red purse that boasted Trump's campaign slogan, "Make America Great Again." Villa's look attracted backlash on social media.

    "The amount of sheer hatred, racism & violent ignorance thrown at me for wearing my support would be heartbreaking if it weren't so over the top hilarious," Villa tweeted Monday. "I've only been called a 'nappy headed n*****' or 'monkey face' by POC."

    Joy Villa on MAGA Dress Hate

    Singer Joy Villa says she's received "hatred" and "racism" for wearing MAGA dress to the Grammys. Here, Villa is pictured attending the 61st Annual GRAMMY Awards at Staples Center on February 10, 2019, in Los Angeles, California. Matt Winkelmeyer/Getty Images for The Recording Academy

    Villa's tweet included the hashtags #lovingliberals and #thelovingleft. Her tweet also contained screenshots of aggressive Instagram DMs she received from opposers. One person referred to her as a " n***** ugly nappy headed h**." A second individual took their disdain a step further by saying: "I hope someone runs you over." 

    Before sharing the backlash she's received over her controversial Grammys look, she took to Twitter on Sunday to address how she's willing to stand by her conservative politics. 

    "I don't care what anyone thinks. I 100% support the wall & our President @realDonaldTrump," she tweeted. "Do you want more drugs brought in? (70% of heroin from Mexico) More illegal women getting sexually assaulted (1 in 3)? More children being trafficked? (Thousands a year) because I DO NOT." 

    Villa has appeared at the Grammys wearing Trump-inspired looks before. In 2017, Villa hit the prestigious music ceremony in a blue gown designed by Andre Soriano that featured "Make America Great Again" and "Trump" on it. For the 2018 event, she wore a classic white gown that boasted a baby painted in the bottom left corner and read "Choose Life," which promoted her stance against abortion.

    For Sunday's ceremony, Villa worked with Desi Designs Couture to create a look that represented the yet-to-be-built border wall Trump promised supporters in his 2016 presidential campaign. This campaign promise, in fact, led to Trump's record-breaking partial government shutdown.

    "Well to no surprise, I'm still a Trump supporter and supporting the president and what he's doing," she told Fox News. "This is my Make America Great Again purse and dress is by Desi Designs Couture, and it represents the wall."

    Villa added, "One in three women who are trying to come to this country illegally are sexually assaulted. Thousands of children are sexually exploited by coyotes bringing them across the border. Seventy percent of the heroin in our nation is brought in through Mexico. This is not personal against this country or the people. It's not about race. It's about protecting the people who are in this country. I'm Latina, I'm black. I support what the president says about building the wall, so that's what this dress represents."

    Villa wasn't the only star who hit the Grammys dressed in a Trump-inspired look. Ricky Rebel, a gay singer who backs LGBTQ rights and Trump, wore a blue jacket that read "Keep America Great Again" and "2020."

    Government Can Waive Environmental Laws To Build Border Wall Prototypes, Court Rules

    The Trump administration was within its rights to waive dozens of environmental laws to fast track some border construction projects in southern California, a federal appeals court has ruled.

    The Department of Homeland Security said in 2017 it would bypass various environmental regulations — including the National Environmental Policy Act, Clean Air Act, and Endangered Species Act — to quickly construct barriers and roads near the U.S.-Mexico border, NPR reported. By granting itself the waiver, the government avoided the requirement to complete environmental impact studies. Environmental advocacy groups and the state of California quickly challenged the waiver in court, arguing the agency overstepped its authority.

    The court ruled Monday that the agency has "a broad grant of authority" to waive environmental statutes if the director finds it necessary to quickly complete security projects. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 explicitly gave the government that power, the court said.

    A Justice Department spokesman told The Hill that the court's ruling was "a victory for the Trump administration, for the rule of law, and above all, for our border security."

    The waiver let the government replace 14 miles of fencing on land stretching east from the Pacific Ocean, and also build prototypes of Trump's border wall in San Diego. Another project replaces an existing 14-foot section of fencing with a taller barrier that is supposed to be more effective.

    The Sierra Club, one of the challengers in the case, said the advocacy group was contemplating next steps.

    "We're not saying necessarily the 9th Circuit or any judges got this wrong," they told The Hill. "I think that when Congress passed these statutes in the 90s, it was contemplating specific, real immigration issues. I think the problem is this legislation is so broad that it can fold in what is frankly a racist campaign slogan that turned into some presidential act to build a wall along our southern border without any justification."

    The California attorney general's office said it was "disappointed with the ruling, but pleased that the court recognized the Trump administration does not have unlimited power and that the administration's authority to build a barrier along our border is subject to judicial review," the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

    This is not the first time DHS has waived environmental laws in order to build barriers and roads at the border. DHS used that power five times during 2005-2008, NPR's Eric Westervelt reported. A court rejected a similar lawsuit that alleged DHS had overstepped its authority in Texas, and in 2009 the Supreme Court let that decision stand.

    If Trump Declares An Emergency To Build The Wall, Congress Can Block Him

    Under the National Emergencies Act of 1976, the president can declare an emergency for just about anything. As President Trump has considered using that authority to circumvent Congress and build a wall along the Southern border, that near-unlimited presidential power has gotten a lot of attention. But it isn't the whole story.

    Congress also gave itself the ability to terminate an emergency declaration. In the more than 40 years since the law was passed, only one member of Congress has ever tried it.

    "It was a lever that we had," said George Miller, the former Democratic congressman from California. "We decided to use it."

    It was 2005, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, when President George W. Bush issued a proclamation saying government contractors could pay workers less than usual for recovery-related projects. He justified it by saying the conditions caused by Katrina constituted a "national emergency" and waiving federal wage requirement would "result in greater assistance to these devastated communities" and "permit the employment of thousands of additional individuals."

    Miller and others in Congress saw it differently. There was a major natural disaster. Many of the people doing the recovery work would be victims of the disaster themselves, and "to suggest that they should work at lower wages was just an insult," Miller said.

    Miller introduced a resolution under the National Emergencies Act to terminate Bush's action.

    Under the law, the relevant committee had 15 days to consider the measure and vote. Fourteen days later, President Bush announced he would revoke his own proclamation. That was the closest Congress ever came to voting to rescind a presidential emergency under the 1976 law.

    After Watergate and Vietnam

    To understand the intent of the law, it helps to understand the time when it was passed, in the wake of Watergate and the Vietnam War.

    "Congress [was], really on a bipartisan basis, reaching to claw back power from what was then known as an imperial presidency," said John Lawrence, who was a young congressional staffer and has gone on to write a book about the congressional Class of 1974.

    In the mid-1970s, Congress passed the War Powers Act and the Budget Act, it expanded its oversight functions, and "the National Emergencies Act, which was enacted in 1976, was very much in that tradition, an attempt to put constraints around the use of presidential power."

    At the time, there were nearly 500 emergency-related statutes on the books, granting the president special powers when he declared a national emergency but with little ability for Congress to constrain the president. The National Emergencies Act cut those way back. It required the president to specify which emergency authorities he intended to invoke once the emergency was declared. It required those emergencies to be renewed on a regular basis. And it created a fast-track mechanism for Congress to terminate a presidential emergency.

    "The catch was that for them to actually rein in presidential power, Congress would have to take action," said Andrew Rudalevige, a professor of government at Bowdoin College. "They'd have to pay attention. They'd have to be willing to go against the will of a president, even of their own party. They haven't done that."

    But that could change if President Trump follows through on his threat. A Democratic leadership aide tells NPR the House will "vigorously challenge any declaration that seeks an end run around Congress's power of the purse." That would likely include a resolution like the one Miller introduced in 2005.

    If the Democrat-controlled House were to pass it, the Republican-controlled Senate would have no choice but to vote on it under the law. Several Republican senators have been cautioning the president not to put them in that position.

    "I have real concerns about it, but I'm not gonna start talking about the floor strategy and how I'm going to vote and how the House is going to vote until we get there, and I hope we don't get there," said Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo.

    But if they do get there and a resolution were to pass, President Trump could still veto it. It's unlikely either chamber would have the two-thirds majority needed to reverse a veto.

    That high bar may be one reason Congress hasn't been more active in pushing back on emergencies in the past. Another reason is presidents have typically used emergencies in line with congressional intent, said Russell Riley, a presidential scholar at the Miller Center at the University of Virginia. But what Trump is contemplating would be different, he says.

    "Having gone to Congress repeatedly having not gotten his way with them ... you can't simply throw your hands up and say, 'Ah, you know my commander in chief powers now will be invoked' to declare an emergency, said Riley.

    For a president whose time in office has been defined by busting norms, and who relishes being different from his predecessors, it would be fitting that Trump could become the first president to have Congress actually vote to terminate an emergency declaration.

    RACHEL MARTIN, HOST:

    There is an uncanny sense of we have been here before when it comes to the debate over border security. Today President Trump again travels to El Paso, Texas, to make his case for the wall. Negotiations are at a standstill again, and the stakes are the same. A partial government shutdown looms. President Trump has threatened that if he doesn't get what he wants from congressional Democrats, he could declare a national emergency to build the wall. Congress, though, could push back. NPR White House correspondent Tamara Keith reports.

    TAMARA KEITH, BYLINE: Under the National Emergencies Act of 1976, the president can declare an emergency for just about anything. As President Trump has considered using that authority to circumvent Congress and build a wall, that near unlimited presidential power has gotten a lot of attention. But it isn't the whole story. Congress also gave itself the ability to terminate an emergency declaration. But in the more than 40 years since the law was passed, only one member of Congress has ever tried it.

    GEORGE MILLER: It was a lever that we had, and we decided to use it.

    KEITH: George Miller is a retired Democratic congressman from California, and the year was 2005.

    (SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

    GEORGE W. BUSH: There is a recovery on the way. There's progress being made.

    KEITH: In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, President George W. Bush issued a proclamation saying government contractors could pay workers less than usual for recovery-related projects. He justified it saying the conditions caused by Katrina constituted a national emergency. But Miller and others in Congress objected.

    MILLER: To suggest that they should work at lower wages was just an insult.

    KEITH: Miller introduced a resolution under the National Emergencies Act to terminate Bush's action. Under the law, the relevant committee had 15 days to consider the measure and vote. On day 14, President Bush announced he would revoke his own proclamation. That was the closest Congress ever came to voting to rescind a presidential emergency under the 1976 law. John Lawrence was a young congressional staffer back when the Emergencies Act was passed.

    JOHN LAWRENCE: The context of the time was Congress really on a bipartisan basis reaching to claw back power from what was then known as an imperial presidency.

    KEITH: But over the decades, Congress hasn't asserted itself. Here's Andrew Rudalevige, a professor of government at Bowdoin College.

    ANDREW RUDALEVIGE: The catch was that for them to actually rein in presidential power, Congress would have to take action. They'd have to pay attention. They'd have to be willing to go against the will of a president even of their own party. They haven't done that.

    KEITH: But that could change if President Trump follows through on his threat. A Democratic leadership aide tells NPR the House will vigorously challenge Trump if he declares an emergency, and that would likely include a resolution like the one Miller introduced back in 2005. If the Democratically controlled House were to pass it under the law, the Republican Senate would have no choice but to vote on it. Several Republican senators, including Roy Blunt from Missouri, have been cautioning the president, please don't put us in that position.

    ROY BLUNT: I have real concerns about it. But I'm not going to start talking about the floor strategy and how I'm going to vote and how the House is going to vote until we get there. And I hope we don't get there.

    KEITH: But if they do get there and a resolution were to pass, President Trump could still veto it. Until now, presidents have typically used emergencies in line with congressional intent, says Russell Riley, a presidential scholar at the Miller Center. But what Trump is contemplating would be different, he says.

    RUSSELL RILEY: Having gone to Congress repeatedly, having not gotten his way with them, you can't simply throw your hands up and say, oh, you know, my commander in chief powers now will be invoked to declare an emergency.

    KEITH: For a president whose time in office has been defined by busting norms and who relishes being different from his predecessors, it would be fitting that Trump could become the first president to have Congress actually vote to terminate an emergency declaration. Tamara Keith, NPR News. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.

    Build The Wall: Are More Concrete Barriers Needed To Defend Wastewater Plants From Hurricanes?

    Often located on coastlines or near large water bodies, wastewater treatment plants are among the most susceptible institutions to storm surge and are increasingly threatened as sea levels rise. With the threat of these coastal hazards only set to increase, these facilities must add new provisions to protect themselves.

    For instance, the wastewater treatment plant in St. Augustine, Florida, has been found to be increasingly endangered.

    "The wastewater treatment plant is vulnerable to flooding and sea level rise, according to the city and a report from the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity's Community Resiliency Initiative," the St. Augustine Record reported. "The report urged the city to start hashing out a plan for the wastewater treatment plant because of the expense and because of the plant's 'indispensable role in the city.'"

    To address the issue, the city paid over $44,000 for a resilience planning analysis from an engineering firm. Among the potential solutions the firm analyzed was the option to build an old-school defense around the facility.

    "Building a sheet-pile wall around the plant with a pump station would cost between $3.7 million and $5.3 million depending on the height and level of hurricane protection," per the Record. "Costs vary with other materials. The pump station would address rain that falls within the wall and any water that leaks through the walls."

    Other "armoring" techniques investigated by the engineering firm include adding seawalls and revetments and softer options, like improving local beaches and shorelines. While the Community Resiliency Initiative raised some concerns around this armoring, as it could damage the nearby marshland, there's little reason to believe any alternative solutions are more favorable.

    Per the report, the firm also investigated moving the plant entirely, which would cost about $80 million. This year, the city's budget is $58 million.

    A recent op-ed in the Record suggests that public opinion might not be behind relocation nor armoring.

    "A $44,000 study has concluded that a Maginot Line-like protective wall could be built around the present wastewater treatment plant for about $5 million, or a new plant built for maybe $80 million — give or take a few million, depending on land acquisition, inflation and other currently unknown factors," the column reads. "I'm no engineer, but if the $5 million fixer-upper is a stop-gap measure without lasting benefits beyond the next couple decades, it may not be a very smart investment of public funds. As for that $80 million plant … yikes!"

    Whatever St. Augustine ultimately decides, wastewater treatment plants around the country are surely struggling with the same questions.

    Image credit: "St Augustine, Florida," pulaw © 2012, used under an Attribution 2.0 Generic license: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0

    segunda-feira, 11 de fevereiro de 2019

    Trump going to El Paso to lie to its residents' faces about what a border wall did for El Paso

    MURPHYSBORO, IL - OCTOBER 27: President Donald Trump arrives for a rally at the Southern Illinois Airport on October 27, in Murphysboro, Illinois. Trump is visiting the state to show support for U.S. Representative Mike Bost who is in a tight race with Brenden Kelly for Illinois 12th Congressional District. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

    Donald Trump is heading to El Paso for a "Make America Great Again" campaign rally on Monday night at 7 PM local time, 9 PM ET. Two things you can 100 percent expect Trump to do are push for his border wall—a push that may lead to another government shutdown at the end of the week—and repeat his State of the Union lies about El Paso. 

    El Paso, Trump claimed, "used to have extremely high rates of violent crime—one of the highest in the entire country, and considered one of our nation's most dangerous cities." But then, "immediately" after a wall was erected and because of it, "El Paso is one of the safest cities in our country." That's a lie, of course. Not the part about El Paso being safe now, but that it was so very dangerous before. The local sheriff and the House member representing El Paso have both pushed back, with Rep. Veronica Escobar writing to Trump that "El Paso has never been one of the most dangerous cities in the country, and our safety and security has long been a point of pride." 

    The statistics bear them out, too. Pre-barrier, El Paso already had lower crime than most cities its size. But Trump isn't interested in facts when his story about walls is so much more politically convenient. So you can count on him telling that story to his fans in El Paso Monday night, many of whom will decide that he's right, even where what he's saying is contrary to the reality they have lived.

    Trump won't visit El Paso without pushback, though. Former Rep. Beto O'Rourke, a possible Democratic presidential candidate, will participate in a mile-long march along the border and then speak at a rally not far from Trump's. In a Medium post, O'Rourke called out Trump's El Paso lies specifically, as well as his broader immigration lies, tying Trump's policies to the U.S. policies that led to today's levels of undocumented immigrants living in this country. Looking at those past policies, O'Rourke writes that Trump "seeks in one administration to repeat all the mistakes of the last half-century. And with past as prologue, we know exactly how that will end." 

    quarta-feira, 6 de fevereiro de 2019

    Republicans would back Trump on emergency to build wall, says GOP senator

    Sen. John KennedyJohn Neely KennedyMORE (R-La.) predicted on Tuesday that a number of GOP senators will back President TrumpDonald John TrumpSix takeaways from the State of the Union Ocasio-Cortez rejects criticism that she wasn't 'spirited and warm' during Trump speech Lawmakers say Trump's infrastructure vision lacks political momentum MORE's declaration of a national emergency to build a wall on the Mexican border, despite their opposition to it.

    Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnellAddison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellSenate GOP warns Trump against using national emergency for border wall Senate adds rebuke of Trump's Syria policy to Middle East bill Napolitano predicts courts would reject Trump emergency declaration for wall MORE (R-Ky.) met with Trump last week and warned that if he goes through with the declaration, as he has signaled, it could lead to passage in the House of a resolution blocking Trump's plan. 

    McConnell said he'd have no choice under Senate rules but to bring the resolution to the Senate floor for a vote, where he said it could get enough GOP votes to be approved.

    ADVERTISEMENT

    Kennedy, however, expressed doubt that Republicans would actually vote against Trump on the matter.

    "Some of my colleagues in the Senate on both sides of the aisle, particularly Republicans, are all a-titter about the fact that he might do it, but I've learned in this place talk's cheap," he said on CNN.

    "Let's see how they vote," Kennedy said. "If the president does it, I'm willing to bet you a lot of Republicans who are saying it's a bad idea and he shouldn't do it, they'll vote to support him."

    Republicans hold a 53-47 majority in the Senate, meaning that if all Democrats voted for a resolution blocking Trump, Republicans could afford no more than three defections if they wish to prevent the resolution disapproving the declaration from passing. 

    It's likely Trump would veto such a measure and it's unlikely Congress could then pass a resolution with a veto-proof majority to override Trump. 

    Still, McConnell and other Republicans would rather avoid the fight if they can.

    Kennedy dismissed concerns over Trump declaring an emergency to build a border wall, which other Republicans have said could be used as a precedent for a Democratic president to declare an emergency on climate change or health care. 

    "It's not my preferred choice, but I don't think the world's going to spin off its axis if the president does it," he said.

    "I don't think the world will spin off its axis if the President does it," @SenJohnKennedy says about President Trump possibly declaring national emergency over border wall.

    "I've learned in this place talk's cheap. Let's see how they vote." https://t.co/tTPwcTcANx pic.twitter.com/7bHWaPO389

    — New Day (@NewDay) February 5, 2019

    The comments come as a growing number of Republican senators voice trepidations about such a move, even suggesting it could be unconstitutional.

    "There's a lot of reservations in the conference about it and I hope they don't go down that path," Senate Majority Whip John ThuneJohn Randolph ThuneSenate GOP warns Trump against using national emergency for border wall Hillicon Valley: Dems pounce on Trump fight with intel leaders | FBI taps new counterintelligence chief | T-Mobile, Sprint tap former FCC Dem commish to sell merger | Dem bill would crack down on robocalls | Family sues over Uber self-driving fatality Dem chair offers bill to crack down on robocalls MORE (R-S.D.) told reporters Monday.

    "I don't think the intent was for it to be used in this kind of situation. And as a member of the Senate I'm very concerned if the president believes that he can reallocate or repurpose appropriations for which we have designated very specific purposes," Sen. Susan CollinsSusan Margaret CollinsSenate GOP warns Trump against using national emergency for border wall Collins boasts best fundraising quarter after Kavanaugh vote Five takeaways from the latest fundraising reports in the lead-up to 2020 MORE (R-Maine) said, adding that declaring an emergency would be "of dubious constitutionality." 

    A bipartisan conference committee has until Feb. 15 to come up with a deal on border security, after which the government could enter another partial shutdown. Trump has threatened to declare an emergency if the eventual agreement does not include money for a border wall.

    How Trump can tackle a genuine national emergency and look good to his base — without building a wall

    President Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened to declare a national emergency if Congress refuses to pony up $5.7 billion to build the "great, great wall" he promised his base during the 2016 election campaign. In an apocalyptic televised address early in January, he even warned — falsely, as fact checkers revealed during the speech — that a tsunami of hard-core criminals and drugs was sweeping across the U.S.-Mexican border.

    This story originally appeared at Tom Dispatch.

    Fabricating national emergencies is unconscionable, especially when there are real ones requiring urgent attention.

    Here's an example: since 1999, 400,000 Americans have died from overdoses of opioids, including pain medications obtained legally through prescriptions or illegally, as well as from heroin, an illicit opioid. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) notes that prescription medications were involved in 218,000 of those fatalities.

    Even the president labeled opioid addiction a "public health emergency" after a commission he appointed in March 2017 issued a report detailing its horrific consequences. Trump's efforts led Congress to allocate $6 billion to combat the crisis in 2018 and 2019, and the president sought another $7 billion for 2019. Since then, however, his attention has turned to the "emergency" along the border with Mexico, the equivalent, by comparison, of a gnat bite on an elephant.

    His initial urgency regarding the opioid epidemic seems to have dissipated, though not his propensity for making false claims. At a May 2018 rally, for instance, he declared that, thanks to the $6 billion, "the numbers are way down." If the president meant overdose deaths, however, his claim was blatantly false. Data from the CDC show that, between 2016 and 2017, prescription opioid overdose deaths decreased by a mere 58 from 17,087 to 17,029. As for overdose deaths from opioids of all sorts (whether legal and doctor-prescribed or illegal, as with heroin), they increased by 12%.

    Congressional critics charge that the commission's raft of recommendations hasn't been implemented energetically, noting in particular Trump's proposed $340-million cut to the budget of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, which coordinates the government's anti-opioid campaign. And given the scale of the epidemic, experts maintain that $6 billion over two years doesn't come close to what's needed to make a real difference.

    The Toll Taken on Trump's Base

    High-voltage opioid painkillers were once derisively labeled "hillbilly heroin," but that moniker has become archaic and misleading. While the misuse of such medications tends to be proportionately higher among the poor and in areas with high unemployment, it now spans classes and regions. In the late 1990s, the surge in overdose deaths did start in economically depressed rural communities and small towns — in Appalachia in particular. Since then, however, the crisis has spread to suburbs and cities across the country.

    Still, a strong correlation does exist between opioid addiction, overdose death rates, and economic distress, especially in small towns and rural regions, including Maine's logging communities, areas reliant on commercial fishing, and Appalachian coal towns. In rural New Hampshire, where I spend part of the year, it doesn't take long to start hearing about, or meeting, people whose lives have been upended by opioid addiction. Such communities were the first victims of the epidemic because their economic decline produced despair, hopelessness, and diminished self-worth. Moreover, plenty of people suffered chronic pain, whether from workplace accidents or physically demanding jobs.

    President Trump ought to be particularly attentive to the country's raging opioid addiction. Many of the hardest hit places are home to the very voters who helped elect him. During the 2016 presidential campaign, he presented himself as their champion, bemoaning the hardships of factory workers, miners, loggers, and others zapped by layoffs or wage cuts and living in communities in which the better-paying jobs on which they had depended, often for generations, were disappearing.

    Staggering Statistics

    Data from the National Institutes of Health reveal that overdose deaths from all categories of opioid drugs — legal and illegal — soared from 10,000 in 1999 to 49,068 in 2017, with the numbers consistently higher for men. But heroin fatalities (15,958 in 2017) must be included in the mix because the use of that drug and of prescription opioids has become intertwined.

    Although less than 5% of those who misuse opioid pain medications drift to heroin, nearly 80% of heroin users start by misusing opioids. In addition, both people hooked on such painkillers and recreational users often combine them with heroin to boost their highs.

    Addicts tend to rely on heroin only when they can no longer afford to buy opioids but are still desperate to feed their habit and so stave off "dope sickness." (Its wrenching withdrawal symptoms include nausea, chills, and diarrhea, as well as extreme anxiety and panic attacks.) Heroin dealers charge a fraction per fix of what illicit suppliers of the popular oxycodone- and hydrocodone-based analgesics demand per pill.

    Consider Oxycontin. An 80-milligram pill costs about $6.00 at a pharmacy, but as much as $80 on the street. Compare that to the $15-$20 that will get you a hit of heroin. The price difference matters. Many opioid addicts end up putting the bulk of their earnings into purchasing the pills illegally, depleting their savings accounts. As a result, some end up resorting to selling personal possessions or even stolen machinery parts, piping, and copper wiring (for which there's a large black market).

    Unfortunately, even the 49,068 deaths in 2017 don't provide the full picture. Additional fatalities result from combining painkillers with cocaine (4,184) or benzodiazepines (roughly 9,000). Add those into the mix and the total number of lives lost to the epidemic in this country reached 62,252 in 2017, the last year for which we have complete data. That figure soars higher yet if you include the nearly 16,000 deaths resulting from heroin.

    To put the total number of opioid-related fatalities in perspective consider this: vehicular accidents killed 40,100 people in 2017. The decade-long Vietnam War resulted in 58,220 American deaths. More than five times as many Americans died from opioid-powered painkillers in 2017 alone as in the 9/11 attacks and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

    As for the economic consequences, a 2017 report by the president's Council of Economic Advisors pegged the total costs of the crisis, including medical services, lost earnings and productivity, and law enforcement, at $504 billion in 2015.

    In other words, unlike what's happening on the southern border, this isn't a faux emergency.

    The Pathway to Crisis

    In nineteenth-century America, opiates were widely prescribed to treat many afflictions: pain from wounds or injuries sustained by Civil War veterans, menstrual cramps, asthma, anxiety, even babies' teething pains. But as doctors became more aware of a growing wave of addiction, the federal government imposed restrictive regulations on such medicines, culminating in the 1914 Harrison Narcotics Act.

    Though that legislation didn't fully stamp out opiate use, it did mark a turning point. Medical opinion would not revert to a favorable view of such drugs until the 1970s, after which numerous opioid painkillers hit the market. The Federal Drug Administration (FDA) approved Lortab in 1982, Vicodin in 1983, MS Contin in 1987, and Percocet in 1999. Fentanyl was first introduced in 1959 and its skin patch variant received official approval in 1990 for the treatment of acute pain.

    The current epidemic didn't start revving up until Purdue Pharma, owned by the Sackler family, developed Oxycontin, an oxycodone-based painkiller. Following FDA approval in December 1996, it became available, in varying strengths ranging from 10 to 160 milligrams. Compared to previous opioid treatments, Oxycontin was in a league of its own when it came to its potency. Doctors quickly started prescribing it, not a few with stunning abandon: in one instance 335,000 prescriptions over eight years. Within five years of its appearance, prescriptions had skyrocketed from 670,000 to 6.2 million.

    Purdue claimed that Oxy, as it came to be known, was special and better than its predecessors because it worked through an extended, 12-hour time release, which would effectively eliminate addiction: the drug would neither provide a quick high nor have to be taken as often. In fact, the drug's efficacy often petered out well short of the touted timespan. Purdue became aware of this but stuck to its claim.

    By 2001, Oxycontin sales surpassed $1 billion a year. The boom was not spontaneous, but owed much to Purdue's zealous product promotion. An army of sales representatives, deployed after being trained to convince doctors of the drug's safety and efficacy, often offered those same doctors free meals, holiday gifts, trinkets, junkets, and more. Those sales agents did not lack for incentive; they received hefty bonuses pegged to their success. Top performers raked in more than their annual salaries in extra cash.

    Purdue also trained thousands of doctors, nurses, and pharmacists at numerous conclaves in beautiful venues — all organized and paid for by the company — to spread the word that Oxy was effective and safe, not only against the extreme pain produced by surgery or terminal illness but also more mundane varieties of pain caused, for instance, by back injuries or arthritis.

    The strategy proved wildly successful.  Sales revenues climbed because the pill was widely prescribed not just by those treating terminally ill patients, but also by family doctors who were already responsible for nearly half of all Oxycontin prescriptions by 2003.

    The Devastation Becomes Undeniable

    Doctors increasingly prescribed Oxy to treat pain (often from work-related injuries) and their patients quickly became addicted.   Gripped by the drug, some feigned continuing pain in a frantic effort to get fresh supplies.  "Doctor shopping" became common as well.   Others stole pills from relatives or friends or bought them from illegal dealers, including those selling through the Internet at, among other places, social media sites like Facebook.  Addicts also snorted pulverized pills or liquefied them and injected them intravenously, risking Hepatitis B or C or HIV/AIDS from shared needles.  Still others turned to heroin.

    Obviously, not everyone who took Oxycontin for pain got hooked, let alone died from an overdose.  But when addiction did strike, it could ruin lives, as some addicts even fed their habit through petty crime or prostitution.  The children of addicts often suffered from neglect or mistreatment as well — an estimated 676,000 of them in 2016 —  or became the responsibility of grandparents or ended up in foster care.

    As the evidence of a disaster mounted, some intrepid doctors, along with the relatives of people who had died from overdoses, started sounding the alarm.  But Purdue had a formidable PR machine, the big bucks needed to hire top-flight attorneys, and the determination to fight back.  As for clout in Washington, the company's wealth and access to power far exceeded anything its adversaries could muster.

    Yet as the addiction wave began to sweep the country and the death toll rose, medical researchers began highlighting the risks posed by Oxy and questioning its efficacy compared to less potent opioids.  The FDA, the Justice Department, and the attorneys general of various states also began to pay attention.  In 2007, following charges that it had failed to provide adequate warnings about the risk of addiction, Purdue paid $634.5 million as part of a plea deal with the feds.  Three of its senior employees were fined a total of $34.5 million, which Purdue covered (though they avoided jail time).  The company itself did not cop to any wrongdoing.

    Numerous states also initiated lawsuits against the company, insisting that it was aware of the dangers of Oxycontin addiction but made misleading or false claims to deny or downplay the risks.  In 2007, Purdue negotiated a $19.5 million settlement with 25 states and the District of Columbia, again without admitting to any wrongdoing.  In 2015, it settled with Kentucky for $24 million.  In 2018, six more states initiated lawsuits against the company.

    In 2010, the FDA approved an addiction-resistant — that is, harder to snort or inject — version of Oxy and the original version was pulled from the market.  As part of its legal settlements, Purdue also agreed to stop pitching opioid medications to physicians and slashed its sales staff.

    Lest you feel any sympathy for the embattled pharmaceutical giant, know this: by 2001, addiction to oxycodone (the active agent in Oxycontin) had already increased five-fold.  Yet Purdue and its experts-for-hire downplayed the danger and kept promoting the drug vigorously.  According to a Justice Department report, the company also knew early on that the drug was being snorted or liquefied and injected, but did not think it useful to divulge news of the abuse.  It also sat on evidence its own investigators amassed on the criminal trafficking of Oxy and on cases of doctors or drugstores dispensing it recklessly.

    As for those fines, they amounted to chump change for the company, which by 2017 had amassed $35 billion in revenue, largely from Oxycontin sales in the United States and elsewhere.  And the Sackler family?  None of its members were ever charged, let alone convicted of anything; and, with a net worth of $14 billion, in 2015 they first made the Forbes list of the 20 wealthiest families in America.

    Someone nabbed for a non-violent drug offense or even shoplifting could face years of jail time, but the titans of a company responsible for a public health disaster have gotten a remarkable pass.

    What Next?

    The current opioid crisis transcends Purdue.  For one thing, there are numerous, widely prescribed opioid medications out there besides Oxy, even though the number of annual prescriptions for opioid painkillers has actually declined since 2012.  According to a report issued by the Surgeon General, they totaled 289 million in that year compared to 76 million in 1991.  The CDC reports that they had fallen to 191 million in 2017.  But as the agency notes, that still makes for a stunning 58.7 prescriptions for every 100 people in the United States, which remains peerless in the global consumption of opioid pain medications.

    Since perhaps 2013, another problem has amplified the opioid crisis: the abuse, illicit manufacture, and smuggling of Fentanyl, a synthetic opioid analgesic whose potency exceeds morphine's by 50 to 100 times and oxycodone's by a factor of 1.5.  A two-milligram dose can prove fatal.

    Deaths linked to synthetic opioids, mainly Fentanyl, reached 29,406 in 2017, a nearly six-fold increase since 2014.  The CDC found that Fentanyl was implicated in at least three-fifths of opioid overdose fatalities in 10 states during the last half of 2016 alone.  The drug's wallop and widespread availability from illicit Internet sites only heightens the risk of addiction and fatalities. Meanwhile, heroin overdose deaths, which started to increase sharply at about the same time as opioid-related fatalities, reached 15,958 in 2017 — a three-fold increase from 2014.

    To make matters worse, there are numerous Fentanyl analogs, including 3-Methylfentanyl, four times more powerful than Fentanyl itself.  Though its illegal manufacture dates to the 1970s, it has recently made a comeback on the street and via the Internet.  Then there's Carfentanil. Used to tranquilize elephants and other large animals, it's 100 times stronger than Fentanyl and it, too, has begun to make its deadly mark.  In the first half of 2017, Carfentanil-related deaths nearly doubled, reaching 815.  Just how deadly is it?  For sedating an adult elephant, the safe dose is 13 milligrams.  Just .05milligrams will kill a human being, scientists warn.

    Those two drugs and other Fentanyl analogs are manufactured and trafficked illegally to underground networks in the United States or directly to individual users.  China has become a key source of such illegal shipments.  Contrary to President Trump's claim — as part of his pitch for his "big, fat, beautiful wall" — only a small proportion of such illicit opioid drugs, including heroin, are ever carried across the border into the United States by undocumented immigrants.  The bulk of what enters through Mexico comes hidden in vehicles that cross at legal entry points.  There are many other modes of smuggling as well.  A Senate report found that the U.S. postal service has become an unwitting conduit, as have commercial carriers like FedEx and UPS.  Illicit sellers also operate through Internet sites and the Dark Web.  When it comes to such drugs, a wall will make no difference.

    The opioid crisis has now entered an even more dangerous phase.  Doctor-prescribed opioid pain killers are no longer its main driver, and even when they are, they're often combined with cocaine or benzodiazepines.   Moreover, in 2016, illicit Fentanyl and heroin accounted for two-thirds of opioid-related deaths.  Illicitly produced and trafficked Fentanyl and Carfentanil and their chemical kin may, in the end, dwarf the Oxycontin catastrophe.

    And newer forms of high-potency painkillers will undoubtedly emerge as well.  Take Dsuvia, which received FDA approval late in 2018 amid considerable controversy created by fears of addiction.  It's 500 times stronger than morphine and 10 times as potent as Fentanyl. How long before Dsuvia produces its own addiction and illegal trafficking problem?

    No Easy Fix

    The opioid emergency requires a multi-faceted and sustained solution.  Addiction treatment would have to become better in quality and more equitably available.  Because opioid misuse and addiction are particularly prevalent in parts of the country suffering from job cuts and low incomes, they would have to become a focal point for public investment and job retraining.  The shape-shifting inflow of opioids from abroad would have to be stanched through measures that went beyond punishment.  Corporations that endanger public health through their negligence and chicanery would have to face more than a rap on the knuckles.

    In addition, a political order rigged by money and lobbyists would have to be revamped.  From 2000 through 2018, companies making pharmaceuticals and health products spent a total of $3.8 billion lobbying in Washington, employing 1,407 lobbyists, not a few of whom had once worked in various capacities in the federal government, including as members of Congress.  In 2018 alone, the amount devoted to lobbying just by the pharmaceutical firms that were among the top ten spenders came to $58 million — and that doesn't count the $21.8 million mustered by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), which represents drug and biotech companies.

    Given the scale, multiple causes, and consequences of the opioid crisis, the $6 billion earmarked for it isn't remotely sufficient, while the moves the Trump administration and the Republican Party have made to cripple the Affordable Care Act will only hurt the effort. Meanwhile, every day, 130 people in the United States die from opioid overdoses and 70% of those battling addiction don't receive long-term treatment, even though the necessary medicines are available.

    So, Mr. President, if you want to tackle a genuine national emergency and are eager to spend another $5.7 billion or far more on a project that will, in the end, make you look better to everybody, including your base, take on the opioid epidemic — and forget that useless wall.