President Donald Trump has issued an executive order aimed at making America’s roadways safer and more secure.

The order, released on Monday, will now require the nation’s truck drivers to pass English literacy tests prior to earning their commercial driver’s license. The White House believes the order is necessary to mitigate the rise in traffic-related fatalities and injuries caused by non-English speaking truckers.

“Proficiency in English should be a non-negotiable safety requirement for professional drivers,” the EO from Trump reads. “They should be able to read and understand traffic signs, communicate with traffic safety, border patrol, agricultural checkpoints, and cargo weight-limit station officers. Drivers need to provide feedback to their employers and customers and receive related directions in English. This is common sense.”

“That is why Federal law requires that, to operate a commercial vehicle, a driver must ‘read and speak the English language sufficiently to converse with the general public, to understand highway traffic signs and signals in the English language, to respond to official inquiries, and to make entries on reports and records.’” Yet this requirement has not been enforced in years, and America’s roadways have become less safe.”

The order has the firm support of U.S. Senator Tommy Tuberville, who recently visited with the Alabama Trucking Association at their annual conference.

https://x.com/SenTuberville/status/1915827937552830588

“If you drive a truck in the United States, you should be able to speak English fluently,” Tuberville said. “This protects our law enforcement officers and the general public. This is not only about safety and efficiency – it’s just commonsense. Whether taking their kids to school, driving to work, or going to the grocery store, Americans shouldn’t feel in danger every time they get on the road.”

“I applaud President Trump’s efforts to remove commercial truck drivers who cannot read or speak English, strengthen inspection procedures, enforce our nation’s laws, and ultimately, make our roads a safer place for Americans going about their daily commutes.”

RELATED: Alabama celebrates truckers during National Truck Driver Appreciation Week

It’s not just elected officials who are now expressing support for the President’s decision. Mark Colson, President and CEO of the Alabama Trucking Association, says that the English Proficiency Standard for commercial drivers has existed since 1936 — but the Biden Administration did not enforce it.

Colson called the order from the Trump Administration a welcome action.

“Going forward, there are additional issues that need to be addressed to prevent bad actors from operating,” he said. “One major issue involves B-1 Visa drivers overstaying their cross-border allowances and hauling domestic freight, which is already an illegal activity known as cabotage. Another pressing concern is the need to address fraudulent or non-compliant CDL training providers who are non-compliant with existing training standards. These providers must be removed from the training provider registry. Additionally, stricter measures are required to combat the fraudulent use of USDOT numbers and the manipulation of motor carrier (MC) numbers. These tactics enable cargo thieves to thrive by acquiring legitimate MC numbers to carry out their schemes.”

The ATA, in a combined effort with other pertinent entities, will remain a staunch supporter of making America and Alabama’s roadways safer, Colson pledged.

“In Alabama, the Alabama Trucking Association has been working diligently on all these issues with our federal delegation, the Governor’s office, and law enforcement, and we will continue to advocate for the highest standards for safety and security in transportation that will create a level playing field for Alabama’s hard-working professional drivers.”

Following Trump’s decree, truckers who cannot prove proficiency in English will be placed ‘out of service.'”

Austen Shipley is the News Director for Yellowhammer News. You can follow him on X @ShipleyAusten

Eric Holder, former U.S. Attorney General under the Obama administration and current Chairman of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, spoke in support of Shomari Figures at Mobile’s Big Zion AME Church on Monday evening.

Holder’s visit comes just a few short days before residents of Alabama’s newly-redrawn 2nd Congressional District head to the voting booth to decide who will represent them in Congress. Figures, a former top aide to Attorney General Merrick Garland, is running against Republican Caroleene Dobson for the office.

“That’s not that hard,” said Holder. “They’re not going to be people out there with billy clubs and fire hoses and dogs, you know, trying to prevent you from voting or registering, go through all that stuff.”

He emphasized that he was against mandating photo IDs for elections and also disputed claims of voter fraud.

RELATED: Shomari Figures touts Obama ties in new ads

“Now, let me make it clear. They all make it difficult, but they’re just making it difficult in a different way. You don’t have to deal with the physical stuff, but they’re still trying to make it difficult. But if you put Shomari in Congress, even that kind of stuff can change.”

“You know, all these unnecessary photo ID laws, all these claims of vote fraud, which they really just use to come up with ways in which they suppress the vote of people who look like us.”

A Dobson campaign spokesperson released a statement following Holder’s visit to Mobile.

“The Second Congressional District race will not be decided because a bunch of liberal Washington insiders, has-beens, and wannabes come to Alabama and endorse a candidate,” the spokesperson said. “It will be decided by the endorsements that are made neighbor-to-neighbor, friend-to-friend, and church member-to-church member.”

On Thursday, U.S. House Minority Leader and Democrat Hakeem Jefferies (D-NY) will also visit Montgomery to campaign for Figures heading into the final days of the race.

Austen Shipley is a staff writer for Yellowhammer News. You can follow him on X @ShipleyAusten

An Alabama-led effort to uphold Trump-era Endangered Species Act regulations has prevailed in federal court, Attorney General Steve Marshall announced Tuesday.

Marshall, who was recently elected chairman of the Republican Attorneys General Association, notched a victory against environmental groups that sought to revive Obama-era enforcement of the act.

The federal court’s decision will serve to preserve nationwide enforcement of the Trump administration’s reform to the law, according to the attorney general’s office.

“In 2016, Alabama led a coalition of states to challenge unlawful environmental regulations by the Obama administration that went far beyond what the text of the Endangered Species Act allowed and imposed unfair burdens on private property rights,” said Marshall in a release. “That case settled in 2018 when the federal government promised to reconsider the rules.”

According to Marshall, the court’s ruling is a victory for property owners as well as Alabama wildlife.

“As promised, in 2019 the Trump administration enacted new regulations that made the Endangered Species Act work better to protect both wildlife and property rights,” he said. “The regulations eased burdens on landowners while providing them incentives to care for the wildlife on their property — a win-win for Alabama’s landowners and the great diversity of wildlife in our State.”

Alabama’s chief law enforcement officer detailed the state’s efforts to push back against challenges brought forth by “radical environmental groups.”

“Predictably, the Trump regulations were challenged in federal court in California by a set of radical environmental groups and blue states who opposed the regulations’ cooperative approach to environmental protection,” said Marshall. “In response, Alabama once again led another coalition of states to intervene to defend the rules. That turned out to be necessary because the Biden administration abandoned defense of the rules, and the federal court vacated them, despite never having identified any legal infirmity with them. We sought relief from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which agreed that the district court had erred.

“Yesterday, the district court again remanded the rules to the federal agencies to consider as they work on proposing a new set of regulations. But this time the court rejected the environmental groups’ request to vacate the challenged regulations, meaning the Trump regulations will remain in place until new regulations are finalized—a process that is expected to take two years as the agencies provide time for stakeholders, including states and landowners, to provide comments on any proposed changes.”

Thanks to the legal efforts of Republican attorneys general, Marshall said “the rule of law was vindicated.”

“Without our intervention, the rules we fought so hard for likely would have been unlawfully vacated as the Biden administration rolled over to appease the environmental groups,” he said. “And stakeholders likely would have been deprived of their right to participate in the process of shaping any changes to current rules. But because we were there, the rule of law was vindicated.”

Marshall’s was joined by attorneys general from Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming, as well as the Arizona Game and Fish Commission, in defending the Trump-era Endangered Species Act reforms.

Dylan Smith is the editor of Yellowhammer News. You can follow him on Twitter @DylanSmithAL

State Rep. Wes Allen (R-Troy), a candidate for Alabama Secretary of State, on Monday vowed to pull the state’s membership from a George Soros-connected voter registration organization.

Soros, a billionaire currency trader, has a longstanding history of financing progressive organizations and initiatives across the globe. Allen warns that one such organization Soros is financially connected to routinely obtains sensitive information on Alabama voters.

The Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC) requires its member states to provide a wide-ranging set of data to its centralized database roughly every two months. Information provided to the organization consists of active and inactive voters, and names of individuals in Alabama’s motor vehicle database. A release advised that the data in many cases includes individuals’ dates of birth, phone numbers, email addresses, driver’s license numbers and partial social security numbers.

According to Allen, most of ERIC’s membership consists of Democratic-majority states. Should Allen prevail in his bid for secretary of state, he vowed to pull Alabama’s membership on day one.

“On day one, I will withdraw us from membership and participation in ERIC,” declared Allen. “Alabama taxpayers do not want their information provided to a Soros-funded, leftist group like ERIC. I do not believe that most Alabamians know that their information is being provided to this outfit and I don’t think they would approve of the annual $25,000 taxpayer-funded membership fee either.”

Additionally, ERIC’s member states are mandated to provide data on individuals who are nearing voter age. Upon learning of the state’s membership in ERIC, Allen noted that he was dismayed that Alabama would belong to an organization that holds such ties to the leftist financier.

“We should not be providing any information to this Democrat-controlled database but we absolutely should never give the personal information of minors to these people,” Allen asserted. “There is no justification for any state’s involvement in ERIC but the minute I become Secretary of State, Alabama will be out of it for good.”

According to Allen’s campaign, ERIC was established with a grant provided by the Open Society Foundations, a global grantmaking network which actively funds far-left political causes.

The organization was originally managed David Becker, who is a prominent Democrat election lawyer and former Obama administration-era U.S. Department of Justice official. Becker went on to create the Center for Election Innovation and Research, which distributed millions of dollars worth of funds donated by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg to Democrat-majority counties during the 2020 election cycle.

Allen concluded, “I don’t know how Alabama got mixed up with these people but nothing like this will ever happen under my watch if I am elected to serve as Alabama’s next Secretary of State. Soros can take his minions and his database and troll someone else because Alabamians are going to be off limits – permanently.”

Dylan Smith is a staff writer for Yellowhammer News. You can follow him on Twitter @DylanSmithAL

Part of my job as your Representative in Congress is to listen to the people I have the privilege of working for and to ensure that you have a direct voice in Washington as we debate policy that impacts your everyday life. While I hear from my constituents when Congress is in session through letters, phone calls, emails, meetings, and social media, the time I get to spend having in-person conversations back at home is truly invaluable.

With Congress out of session for the Easter district work period, I have the opportunity to spend a couple of weeks on the road in Alabama visiting with constituents and hearing directly from you. In the first week of this district work period I spent time in Troy, Elba, Geneva, Montgomery, Dothan, and Greenville.

My visits covered a wide range of topics, including efforts to crack down on human trafficking and crimes against children as well as how to train students to be smart Internet users in the era of evolving technology. In addition to those topics, the economy and the positive impact of tax reform on local businesses in our area has been a common theme of discussion during my conversations on the road. (more…)

Last week we reported that the outgoing head of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency (MDA) initiated the process of insourcing the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense program (GMD)—the only system that can protect the U.S. from the threat of ICBM-delivered nuclear weapons. In other words, he moved to take the program out of the hands of those who’ve developed it and bring it under the functional control of the federal government.

While the GMD system works right now, and it’s our only defense against ICBM’s, it’s still under development. And, the North Koreans are going as fast as they can to make a nuclear-tipped ballistic missile aimed at the United States. Therefore, making wholesale changes right now risks destabilizing the gains made so far by your neighbors and friends in Alabama. Thankfully, Alabama Congressman Mike Rogers is on the House Armed Services Committee, and he’s initiated legislation to slow these changes down, requiring further study and waiting on the new administration’s policy direction before restructuring the program.

The Congressman came on Yellowhammer Radio today and explained that the MDA has a ton on its plate, and emphasized the growing threat from North Korea, now is not the time to start tweaking the sole program that defends us from ICBM’s. As he told Yellowhammer News,

With the growing threats from North Korea and Iran, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) has plenty on its plate. Our missile defense systems have suffered under the ravages of the last eight years under the Obama Administration.  Now is not the time to complicate our homeland defense by introducing unnecessary uncertainty and disrupting the management of the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) program. This is why in my mark as Chair of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee on the House Armed Services Committee, we direct that Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) office take a holistic look at the program before making any drastic changes to how its run.

While national security is obviously the most important reason to leave the program in Huntsville where it was developed, another result of moving the GMD is that Alabama jobs will eventually be lost. These jobs will either become government jobs or they’ll be outsourced to companies outside of Alabama.

Boeing has been the lead systems integrator and prime contractor responsible for developing the GMD program and they have 336 employees in Huntsville devoted to the project. However, the total number of workers devoted to the GMD in Huntsville is between 800 and 1,000, many of whom are employed by small companies that could go out of business if the GMD is moved out of Alabama.
Below are some of the companies that the break-up of the GMD is likely to hurt:

• All Points Logistical, LLC
• Apex Technology Design of Alabama, LLC,
• Cornerstone Supply Inc.
• Davidson Technologies Inc.
• DESE Research Inc.
• Iroquoi Systems Inc.
• JIT Military Sales, KORD Technologies Inc.
• NLOGIC LLC
• Packaging Unlimited,
• PENTA Research Inc,
• SEA Wire & Cable Inc,
• Sexton Welding and Supply,
• TelTron Telementary Systems, Trident Group Inc,
• Victory Solutions Inc,
• Wildwood Electronics Inc.

The Missile Defense Agency has new leadership. As of last week, Lt Gen Sam Greaves took over the reins. Hopefully, his new leadership, combined with the legislation to further study the changes will allow the Alabamians who largely developed the GMD to finish their work and ensure our safety from ballistic missiles and to keep high-paying jobs in Alabama. As Congressman Rogers concluded,

As a member of the Alabama delegation, I know the outstanding work done by the men and women of our state in support of our nation’s defense. It is time to give them the tools necessary to get the job done.  I look forward to working with President Trump to build the best and most robust missile defense system for our nation.

Related: How Leftover Obama Appointees Are Threatening Alabama’s Jobs and Our National Security

Related: Boeing System Created in Alabama Successful In Destroying North Korean-Type Missiles

YHRadio: Yellowhammer Radio talks to Cong. Mike Rogers on why it’s important to leave our country’s missile defense system in Alabama

About the Author: Larry Huff is Yellowhammer’s Executive Editor and you can follow him on Twitter @LHYellowhammer

As we reported on May 31, Alabama is the proud home of Ground-Based Midcourse Defense program (GMD), which is the only system that can protect our homes from the threat of ICBM-delivered nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, unelected Obama-era appointees who direct our nation’s missile defense programs are trying to undo that, months after President Trump’s election and only three weeks after the first-ever successful intercept test of an ICBM, the same kind of missiles North Korea would use if it launched a real attack on the United States.

Thanks to the innovative Ground-Based Midcourse Defense program (GMD), conceptualized and developed by proud Alabamians living and working in the great city of Huntsville, the U. S. is protected from nuclear attacks via long-range missiles if North Korea and Iran develop the capabilities to reach our shores.

While North Korea has not yet successfully launched a test ICBM, they have conducted more than 50 tests in the last year. They learn more with each test, and will eventually have a missile capable of reaching America. Last month North Korea launched a missile that reportedly went 1,200 miles into space, which is almost 1,000 miles above the International Space Station.

One of the first acts of the Obama Administration was to slash GMD funding, which protects America. Instead, he shifted to programs to defend Europe and NATO allies instead of our own country. Obama deployed Aegis Ashore and Standard Missile 3s in Romania and Poland to defend the Europeans, who aren’t paying a dime for their missile defenses. While the strategic defense of those countries is geopolitically compelling, our first and highest duty is to defend the United States of America.

This trend of looking after foreign countries first was started and administered by Vice Admiral James Syring who was appointed by Obama as the director of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency (MDA). Syring faithfully supported and executed the politics of defending Europe over the United States, even turning down additional funding to do the political bidding of the Obama White House. Dissatisfied with just prioritizing European defense over protecting the U.S., Syring also wants the government to take over and run the GMD by “insourcing” the program. Doing so is a continuation of the Obama missile defense policy.

Certain to get a promotion had Hillary Clinton become president, Syring worked to secure his job in the new administration soon after President Trump was elected, but his efforts ultimately failed. June 17th is his last day on the job at the Pentagon, and today he made a move to carry out the ultimate Obama policy. This move stands to weaken our national security, take jobs from Alabama, and it flies in the face of President Trump’s directives to shrink the federal government.

Yellowhammer has learned that Syring signed the paperwork this evening that will set a plan in motion for the U.S. Government to take functional control of the GMD program—the only system that stands between the U.S. and a North-Korean nuclear attack.

It is essential for every person in Alabama to understand the implications of Syring’s move to break-up the structure of the GMD program, based in Huntsville. This move will:

• Weaken America’s ability to defend against a North Korean-type ICBMs
• Increase cost of the GMD program and delay critical schedules
• Make taxpayers responsible for more government jobs and pensions
• Take Alabama’s high-wage jobs associated with the GMD program and turn them into federal government jobs out of state—at least 1,200 jobs

In other words, this move will dearly cost Alabama’s economy and America’s security, while placing a greater burden on taxpayers to foot the bill for more government bureaucracy.

Economic Impact Studies by the University of Alabama-Huntsville have shown that for every GMD employee in Huntsville, four additional jobs are created in the local Alabama economy. Many of the hard-working Alabama small businesses who built this system will be blocked from working on it in the future because of new rules being implemented by the government. These small companies will eventually have to shut their doors, putting many of our friends and neighbors out of work.

In summary, six months after President Trump’s election and three weeks after a successful GMD intercept test, Obama’s lackeys are hard at work implementing his plans to take high-tech jobs the GMD program generates for Alabamians and turn them into government jobs in states like Virginia and California. This move comes at a critical time in our nation’s history when we desperately need a stable missile defense system protecting us from North Korea. Therefore, anyone who cares about our national defense, Alabama’s economy, and America’s tax burden, must not allow an unelected, Obama-appointed bureaucrat to destabilize the GMD by changing direction midstream.

Chris Reid

For generations, politicians have won their elections promising to fix America’s broken healthcare system, and despite attempts by both political parties over the years, our system remains broken. We spend more money than other country on earth on healthcare, yet in many health indicators we continue to do poorly, especially when it comes to quality of life issues. America is the wealthiest nation on earth, yet our country ranks third in depression, anxiety and substance abuse according to a 2016 World Health Organization Study.

Lost in the healthcare debate is what can we do to actually improve the quality of life of our citizens. Saint Augustine once said “Every man, whatsoever his condition, desires to be happy,” and compared to most other industrialize countries we fail miserable on this front. In a study of American states, Alabama ranked 2nd to last in terms of overall happiness. Policy makers need to ask themselves whether the policies they support are actually leading to better outcomes. A great example of this was a 2013 Oregon study done on Medicaid recipients by the New England Journal of Medicine which held that “Medicaid generated no significant improvement in measured physical health outcomes when compared with people who had no insurance at all.” The Obama administration made the reasonable assumption that people who had Medicaid coverage would fare better than those who didn’t, but when a study was done to confirm this it showed that despite billions of dollars of funding those Medicaid recipients where no better off. America can no longer afford to pass legislation that bankrupts the treasury if what we are doing doesn’t actually improve health outcomes. Before we dramatically change health care once again, we need to ask ourselves whether the policies we are proposing will make people’s lives better, and if not then we need to go back to the drawing board. In the Oregon study, the unspoken reason the outcomes weren’t better was that despite receiving healthcare, the Medicaid recipients were struggling with making better health choices, so even access to good doctors did the patients no good, since they didn’t comply with instructions. As an attorney, I see this frequently, and it is among the most frustrating things I have to deal with. I tell a client what they need to do in order to solve the legal issue they find themselves in, and even though it is often simple, there are just some people who won’t follow instructions. The reason it is hard for people to comply isn’t that simply they are stubborn, but that they lack hope for a future and therefore they can’t see the value in making better choices when to them it seems like no matter what they choose, life will not get any better.

The issues with America’s healthcare system are many, but one major reason people don’t take care of themselves is they don’t see the point and therefore they seek out unhealthy behavior that allows them to escape the pain of life. Some find their escape in drugs and others find it in unhealthy lifestyle choices, but all those things tend to only make the problem worse. America has a health crisis, but it also has a moral crisis because as a society we keep moving further away from the things that were staples of happiness for generations. Many children grow up outside of two parent homes or with parents who have divorced. Technology has made it easier to isolate ourselves, and we tend not to seek out community like the generation before us. God made us to be in relationship with each other, and it seems like our society encourages independence to the point where we no longer value each other and we wonder why depression is on the rise. The Scriptures teach that we are made to love and serve each other, and the more we only seek to advance our own interest, the less happy we are. Jesus gave us the perfect example of what it meant to live a life of service. He left the glory of heaven to live among us and teach us not only about salvation but how to live a life that matters. The best way to overcome any challenge in life is to live life with a purpose. When someone finally starts to believe that life can be better, they often find a way to overcome the challenges they face. As someone who loves policy and has spent my life surrounded by medicine, I am reminded of an old proverb that says “Laughter is the best medicine.” I deal with the challenges that come from arthritis, and even though it is important that I continue the treatment given by my doctors, I also realize that having a joyful life can make all the difference in the world. As our leaders discuss what to do with the nation’s healthcare, I would encourage you to consider ways you can slow down a little bit and take time to enjoy the life you have and also encourage others who are struggling so they do not lose hope. I hope our policy makers will consider not only the structural issues our healthcare system face but understand that what every voter wants is to have a high quality of life.

Mr. Reid is general practice attorney in Birmingham Alabama. He has worked for Republican leadership in the United State House of Representatives in Washington, DC, and was a health policy advisor to the Governor of Alabama. You can contact him by email at chris.reid@reidlawalabama.com or by phone at 205-913-7406. A description of his practice areas is available at www.reidlawalabama.com. His firm practices law throughout most of the state of Alabama.

As President Trump continues to issue executive orders to undo overreaching regulations implemented over the past eight years, Alabama Representative Bradley Byrne is also attempting to slash one of the Obama Administration’s harmful “power grabs.”

As the chair of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, Rep. Byrne introduced a resolution rejecting the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) unlawful “Volks” rule from implementation.

The OSHA rule forces businesses to keep more extensive records of workplace injuries, and threatens greater penalty for failing to do so. The controversial mandate has been on the losing end of two federal court cases, which had originated after individual businesses faced massive citations for clerical errors that took place years prior.

Byrne says that overturning the unconstitutional rule will encourage a more “proactive” approach to worker health and safety policies.

“Every worker deserves safe and healthy working conditions, and bad actors who put hardworking men and women in harm’s way must be held accountable. That’s why Republicans have consistently called on OSHA to improve its enforcement efforts and collaborate with employers to address gaps in safety,” Rep Byrne said.

“Unfortunately, the Obama administration consistently doubled down on failed, punitive policies that do more to tie small businesses in red tape than protect workers,” he added. “With this rule, OSHA rewrote federal law while doing nothing to improve worker health and safety. Congress must reject this unlawful power grab and encourage the agency to adopt the responsible, proactive safety approach that America’s workers deserve.”

A local Alabama police department could soon get back life-saving equipment that had been removed by the Obama Administration, according to new reports.

On Monday, the Associated Press announced that president-elect Donald Trump could make certain defense tools and military-grade weaponry- including surplus military grenade launchers, bayonets, tracked armored vehicles and high-powered firearms and ammunition- available to local law enforcement. It would be a return to a pre-2015 policy, before President Obama issued an executive order restricting local access to such gear.

Trump told the Fraternal Order of Police that he would prioritize cancelling Obama’s order.
“The 1033 program is an excellent program that enhances community safety. I will rescind the current executive order,” he wrote in September.

In Alabama, the Calhoun County Sheriff’s office was heavily affected by the President’s order. Now, if the executive mandate is indeed repealed, they could get back two tracked armored vehicles.

The county’s two armored vehicles were first obtained after three local police officers were shot by a mentally ill individual in 2001. They were used to search a wooded area where a police shooting suspect was believed to be hiding out in 2011 and later utilized as transportation during ice storms.

In November of 2015, Senator Richard Shelby was among the lawmakers on Capitol Hill calling for local police to get back the defense gear they need. At the time, he criticized Obama for making critical decisions without considering the safety needs of law enforcement or their community.

“Time and time again, President Obama abuses the authority of his office by making unilateral decisions through executive fiat,” he said. “From his attempts to grant executive amnesty to illegal immigrants and his plans to allow Syrian refugees to resettle in the United States, to his decision to take away vehicles from local law enforcement in Calhoun County, it is clear that this president is more interested in scoring political points than ensuring the safety of our citizens.”

A potentially damaging federal labor regulation proposed by the Obama Administration has just been blocked in court, thanks to Alabama and twenty other states that fought back against the rule. Now, Alabama Congressional leaders are praising the decision as one that will protect jobs.

The reaction surrounds the Department of Labor’s Overtime law, which was set to go into effect on December 1. First announced on May 23, the regulation would have meant that U.S. workers making under $47,500 a year would be required to be given overtime pay for working more than 40 hours a week. The rule was overturned on Tuesday, when U.S. District Judge Amos Mazzant agreed that the rule was unlawful and issued a nationwide injunction.

According to reports, over 46 percent of workers within the state would have been affected. Many business owners claimed it would have forced them to either lay off employees or pass the increased the cost of doing business on to customers.

For months, Republican leaders in Congress have eyed a quick repeal of the mandate, which has been made possible through Trump’s election.

Rep. Bradley Byrne, a former labor lawyer, had been outspoken about the rule since it was first issued. He said that it was “never what the Obama Administration wanted people to believe it was.”

“The rule would have hurt American workers by moving them from salaried to hourly employees and greatly reducing opportunities for advancement. The rule would have been especially damaging for schools and non-profits, who couldn’t just increase costs to offset the added expenses,” Rep. Byrne said.

Senator Richard Shelby anticipates that similar regulations will soon be repealed under a GOP-led Congress.

“Americans spoke loud and clear about their frustration with these types of unilateral executive regulations that stifle economic growth and opportunity,” Sen. Shelby said. “Yesterday’s ruling is a victory for the American people, and I look forward to working with President-elect Trump and my Republican colleagues to reverse this and other job-destroying rules in the coming months.”

Alabama Congressman Mo Brooks has been one of Capitol Hill’s most outspoken critics of the President’s refugee resettlement plan. He says local governments deserve to have more control over those who are placed in their state. Now, he’s signed on to a bill that would grant states the power to approve refugee resettlements.

The Allow State Sovereignty Upon Refugee Entry Act (ASSURE) responds to an Obama Administration order that would allow an additional 110,000 new refugees into the country over the next year. Already, the President has reported that 324,000 have been admitted into the United States throughout the past five years.

Rep. Brooks says the President’s action is costing taxpayers billions each year, and believes Congress must push back.

“Unsurprisingly, this Administration has shunned and disregarded as irrelevant all thought to how its dangerous policies impact local communities, threaten American lives, and drive up our nation’s exploding $19 trillion debt,” Rep. Brooks told Yellowhammer.

Pointing to a study from the Center for Immigration Studies, he says that each refugee from the Middle East will costs American taxpayers $64,370 within the first five years of their resettlement.

“That amounts to 12 times what the UN estimates it would cost to care for one refugee in neighboring Middle Eastern countries,” he added.

More than a being a threat to America’s pocketbook, Rep. Brooks believes refugees could also pose a security risk.

“This Administration has shown a pattern and practice of discriminating against peaceful Christian and other non-Muslim immigrants in favor of unvetted and potentially dangerous Muslim immigrants,” Rep. Brooks said. “Remarkably, so far this year more than 99% of the Syrian refugees admitted to the United States have been unvetted Muslims.”

If passed, the ASSURE Act would require the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to submit a report to each state with detailed information about proposed refugee resettlements, as well as the cost of housing, education, health care, and more.

Despite opposition by the American people, a documented link between terrorism and individuals admitted to the United States as refugees, and over $19 trillion in debt, the Obama Administration has committed the United States to admitting 110,000 refugees during Fiscal Year 2017—a roughly 57 percent increase in the number of refugees the United States admitted as recently as FY 2015, and a roughly 29 percent increase from the Administration’s target for FY 2016.

The common sense concerns of the American people are simply ignored as the Administration expands its reckless and extreme policies.

Terrorists have announced that they will infiltrate the refugee population and have successfully done so multiple times in Europe over the last year. These asylum-seekers are overwhelmingly male who make the journey from hotbeds of terrorism to countries throughout Europe. Earlier this year, General Philip Breedlove, who served as NATO’s top commander, saidthat ISIS was ‘spreading like cancer’ among the refugee population. And unsurprisingly, there have been numerous terror attacks in Europe this year linked to the refugee crisis. Indeed, just this past weekend, Germany’s Interior Minister said that there are more than 500 terrorists inside Germany alone who are capable of carrying out terrorist attacks. It is all but certain that many of those potential terrorists exploited the refugee crisis to get to Germany, and that there are likely thousands more all across Europe today.

Here in the United States, we face the same risks. The Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Secretary of Homeland Security have acknowledged that terrorists could infiltrate the refugee population. And for good reason—as it is clear that terrorists have done so successfully in the past. The Director of the FBI has testified that he cannot certify that every refugee admitted to the United States is not a security threat, and recently compared the FBI’s anti-terrorism mission to ‘looking for needles in a nationwide haystack’ while also figuring out ‘which pieces of hay might someday become needles.’ Regardless, President Obama and his Administration are now pushing their extreme policies even further by stubbornly placing the requests of the United Nations above the safety of the American people by surging refugee admissions to 110,000.

The Administration’s claim that the program costs roughly $1.5 billion drastically understates the true costs of initial resettlement—as it does not include costs for programs such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Medicaid, or Supplemental Security Income, among others.

In addition to the very serious national security implications and the initial resettlement costs, admitting 110,000 refugees will result in an enormous long-term financial burden on the taxpayers. Robert Rector, Senior Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, has estimated that the total lifetime cost of admitting 10,000 refugees —which includes all costs at the federal, state, and local level—is $6.5 billion. Using Mr. Rector’s numbers as a baseline, admitting the 110,000 refugees that the Obama Administration proposes to admit beginning on October 1 will result in a total lifetime cost to the taxpayers of $71.5 billion. This would be added every year that these levels are continued.

The simple fact is that it would be safer and more cost-effective to establish safe zones for refugees as close to their homes as possible—particularly for those from the Middle East. One estimate found that resettling one refugee in the United States was nearly 12 times more expensive than providing care for that refugee abroad. With the prospect for a cease-fire in the region, there is even more reason to focus on providing temporary support for displaced persons in the region.

The American people do not support these radical plans, which amount to a complete betrayal from their leaders in Washington.

Jeff Sessions represents Alabama in the United States Senate, where he is Chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and The National Interest.

Despite a clear nexus between immigration and terrorism, and warnings from top officials in his own Administration about their inability to properly vet refugees, President Obama remains in denial ‎about the dangers that his policies pose to the United States. Instead of taking a sober assessment of the ‎dangers that we face, and analyzing the immigration histories of recent terrorists so that we can more effectively safeguard our immigration system from being infiltrated, the Obama Administration leads the United States down a dangerous path – admitting as many refugees as possible from areas of the world where terrorists roam freely, and granting a temporary amnesty to Syrians living in the United States illegally. And contrary to the assertions made by many, the potential for future terror activity is real.

Our primary effort, and that of our allies, should be to provide support to those who are displaced as close to their homes as possible, and work to return them home as soon as possible. Of course, our foreign policy should always seek to avoid situations where such violence and chaos occur. But instead of pursuing these policies, the Obama Administration continues with its radical plans.

The 10,000 Syrian refugees his Administration will admit this Fiscal Year represent a nearly 500 percent increase over the roughly 1,600 Syrian refugees who were admitted last year. This radical increase places the safety and security of the American people at risk, there will surely be consequences.

Since September 11, 2001, we know that at least 40 individuals who were admitted to the United States as refugees have been convicted for, or implicated in, terrorism or terrorism-related offenses – and the total is likely much higher. Some were admitted as adults, others as children, but these cases refute the false assertion that those admitted to the United States as refugees never engage in terrorism. But because these facts do not fit within his worldview, President Obama rejects them. ‎And in so doing, he rejects his sacred oath for what he perceives as political gain.

Plainly, there is no way to properly vet these refugees. Our intelligence databases are only as good as the information that goes into them – meaning that the absence of derogatory information in our systems about an individual does not ‎mean that admitting that individual carries no risk. Nor do we have an effective method to screen refugees for the possibility of potential post-entry radicalization.

Good public policy puts the safety and security of this country first. There is no doubt that this continuous, dramatic increase in refugees from areas of the world where terrorists roam freely will endanger this nation. We must change course.

Jeff Sessions represents Alabama in the United States Senate.

(Video above: Congressman Bradley Byrne demands Secretary of Defense Ash Carter release strategy to defeat ISIS)

WASHINGTON – Congressman Bradley Byrne (R-AL1), a member of the House Armed Services Committee, on Thursday said the Obama administration’s newly released plan to defeat the so called Islamic State is so poorly done it is “insulting.”

In the wake of the latest terrorist attack in Belgium, Byrne last week demanded Secretary of Defense Ash Carter produce an overdue report to Congress outlining the U.S. military’s strategy to defeat ISIS. The report has finally been released and quickly drew harsh criticism from the south Alabama congressman.

“The Obama Administration’s ‘plan’ for defeating ISIS is over a month late and lacks a cohesive strategy,” he said. “I continue to be deeply concerned the Administration failed to follow the law and submit the report on time. The late delivery is especially insulting when you consider how little information is contained in the seven page document. Either the Administration didn’t take this request from Congress seriously or they actually lack a real strategy for combating Islamic extremism and defeating ISIS. Sadly, I fear both of those are true.”

Section 1222 of last year’s National Defense Authorization Act, which was signed into law by President Barack Obama, required the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to Congress by February 15, 2016 that outlined a strategy for U.S. military operations in the Middle East and to combat violent extremism. The report was finally released over a month late, coming two days after Congressman Byrne questioned the Defense Secretary.

During Congressman Byrne’s questioning, Secretary Carter simply responded by saying that the report’s release was “imminent.” Byrne noted that lives are at risk everyday due to the lack of a strategy to defeat Islamic extremism.

A transcript of the exchange between Congressman Byrne and Secretary Carter can be found below. The full, somewhat hostile exchange can be viewed in the video above.

Byrne: “Mr. Secretary, obviously we are hearing today of tragedy. Tragedy for the Belgians. Tragedy for the world. ISIS has now taken responsibility for the murders this morning. We had a Marine that was killed last weekend in Iraq.

“We have a law that we passed called the National Defense Authorization Act. It required you to submit to the Congress, by February 15th, a plan for defeating these people. I know you told the Chairman that it was imminent. You have failed to do it by February 15th. You are in violation of the law. When an average American violates the law there are consequences. Would you care to explain to the Committee why there shouldn’t be consequences for your failure to follow the law that was signed by your President?”

Carter: “It will be in front of you imminently…”

Byrne: “Mr. Secretary that’s not my question. The statute says you shall do it by February 15th. Do you not agree that you are in violation of that law?”

Carter: “We are prepared…we are going to submit that report. It has taken some time…”

Byrne: “I’m going to ask you again. Do you not agree that you are in violation of the law?”

Carter: “We will have that report to you shortly Congressman.”

Byrne: “I don’t think that’s a satisfactory response. When we pass a law around here, it means something. Now people’s lives are at stake. You know that better than any of the rest of us. I don’t think it is too much to ask that you comply with the laws that we pass and the President signs. So it is not sufficient for you to say that it is imminent. You need to give us a plan now.”

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed a regulation to prohibit conversion of vehicles originally designed for on-road use into race cars. The regulation would also make the sale of certain products for use on such vehicles illegal. The proposed regulation was contained within a non-related proposed regulation entitled “Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles—Phase 2.”

The regulation would impact all vehicle types, including the sports cars, sedans and hatch-backs commonly converted for use at the track. While the Clean Air Act prohibits certain modifications to motor vehicles, it is clear that vehicles built or modified for racing, and not used on the streets, are not the “motor vehicles” that Congress intended to regulate.

“This prohibition would include even those vehicles used solely at the track and never again used on public roads,” according to the Specialty Equipment Market Association, which represents parts makers that supply the do-it-yourself racer circuit. The group represents a $36 billion market that include 6,633 member-companies.

Alabama has over 40 racetracks open to amateur racers that would be affected by the EPA’s regulation. Modified vehicles that run on the state’s many asphalt and dirt ovals, drag strips, and road courses could be taken out of commission.

The U.S. Senate and House have passed separate bills to roll back the proposed regulations. Both the House and Senate bills seek to ensure that converting street vehicles to race cars used exclusively in competition does not violate the Clean Air Act. The bill would have to be signed into law by President Obama.

MONTGOMERY, Ala. — During a pre-legislative session budget hearing on Wednesday, State Representative Lynn Greer (R- Rogersville) warned that the unchecked growth of Alabama’s medicaid program is threatening to bankrupt the state.

“Unless we can get control of Medicaid… it can be the downfall of the state of Alabama,” he said.

Medicaid is the joint-federal and state healthcare program designed to provide coverage for low-income and disabled individuals.The program is currently the largest line item in Alabama’s budget, comprising 37 percent of the General Fund. According to the Alabama Policy Institute, Alabama’s Medicaid expenditures increased by 53% between 2001 and 2013, and as the state’s senior population increases, costs are expected to grow even further. But because the federal government covers 70% of the cost of Medicaid and mandates certain levels of coverage for enrollees, the state has essentially no control over the exploding costs.

The head of the Alabama Medicaid Agency on Wednesday asked lawmakers for an additional $156 million in 2016, but was met with fierce opposition from Republicans, including Rep. Arnold Mooney (R-Birmingham) who insisted that Alabamians are “not going to put money into failing programs.”

Alabama’s Medicaid rolls eclipsed 1 million in 2015, after over 38,000 new enrollees became Medicaid recipients in a single year. More than one in five Alabamians is now enrolled in the government healthcare program.

Medicaid reforms passed by the legislature last year are expected to save the state an estimated $1.5 billion over the next decade, if the Obama administration grants Alabama a “waiver” that would allow the reforms to go into effect.

But the Bentley administration is also believed to be exploring ways to expand the program, which Governor Bentley concedes would be a costly proposition.

“(Y)ou have to realize it is going to cost the state of Alabama over the next six years $710 million in the General Fund,” Bentley said in November. “Now folks, I can’t even get (the Legislature) to raise a hundred million dollars. So we’ve got to look at a funding stream if we’re going to do it.”

The governor appointed the state’s Health Officer to chair the task force, which was given the responsibility of finding ways to improve the accessibility, affordability, and quality of healthcare for Alabamians. The governor appointed 37 other people to the task force, including legislators, healthcare professionals, and insurance company representatives.

Among those appointed are several members who have been longtime Medicaid expansion advocates, including three Democratic members of the state legislature, the policy director of the liberal advocacy group Alabama Arise, and an employee of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama.

Several representatives from the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) were also appointed to the task force. In 2014 UAB released a study saying Medicaid expansion would create thousands of jobs and bring increased tax revenue to the state. Governor Bentley called the study “bogus” at the time, and another study from Troy University later refuted the majority of its claims.

The only two Republican legislators on the task force were the chairmen of the Alabama House and Senate Health committees.

Similar to Pennsylvania and Arkansas, which are also led by Republican governors, Gov. Bentley has suggested he would like to be able to funnel federal tax dollars through the state government and into private insurers. The private insurers would then use those taxpayer dollars to cover uninsured individuals up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level, the same ultimate outcome as Medicaid expansion under ObamaCare. The political benefit is that by receiving a “waiver” from the Obama administration, Republican governors have been able to expand the program while selling it as something completely different. In Pennsylvania they call it the “Healthy PA” plan. In Arkansas it’s commonly referred to as the “private option.”

Conservative policy and advocacy groups have taken to calling such plans “Medicaid expansion by another name.”

Gov. Bentley has insisted he would only pursue such a plan as a “block grant” from the federal government. Block grants are federal funds granted to states that include more flexibility in how they are spent than traditional “categorical grants.”

“It would have to be in the private sector and there would have to be some requirements on it,” Bentley told reporters in December. One specific requirement he mentioned was that he’d like to see the system tied to employment. “(Recipients) need to be working on getting a job, or having a job.”

Other states that have tried to tie work requirements to Medicaid benefits have been denied. In rejecting such a proposal from Utah last year, U.S. Health and Human Services Department spokesman Ben Wakana said, “encouraging work is a legitimate state objective. However, work initiatives are not the purpose of the Medicaid program and cannot be a condition of Medicaid eligibility.”

The bottom line is, the Obama administration will have to sign off on any plan Alabama pursues.

The legislature will convene for its 2016 legislative session next month.

WASHINGTON — Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions (R) slammed the Obama administration’s policies for admitting refugees from the Middle East Thursday.

In a hearing before the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, which Sessions chairs, an official from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service revealed that more than 90 percent of refugees who have requested asylum in the United States have received approval.

Sessions called the subcommittee hearing after the Obama administration announced it would admit approximately 85,000 refugees from Syria and other war-torn countries in the Middle East over the next two fiscal years.

During his opening statement, Sessions blasted what he views as the administration’s prioritization of the refugees over American citizens.

“The economic and physical security of the American people must never be a secondary consideration,” the Senator impressed. “With workers’ pay stagnant, our entitlement programs on the verge of insolvency, our law enforcement struggling to combat radicalization and increasing crime, and our schools and communities struggling to keep up, voters are rightly wondering about their government’s priorities.”

Related: Byrne has ‘tremendous security concerns’ with letting Syrian refugees into America

Mobile, Alabama, Senator Sessions’s hometown, will house approximately 130 of those refugees through a non-governmental organization’s partnership with the State Department.

“Once here with refugee status, these individuals can claim any job and collect any federal welfare benefit,” Sessions explained. “Recent statistics from the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Refugee Resettlement indicate that 75 percent of refugees receive food stamps and more than half receive free healthcare and cash welfare. For refugees from the Middle East, the numbers are even higher: more than 90% of recent Mideast refugees draw food stamps and about 70% receive free healthcare and cash welfare.”

Sessions and many of his colleagues have also expressed concerns over terrorists’ use of the refugee system to infiltrate the United States and its allies.

“Refugee resettlement also comes with security risks, as we have witnessed with the surge of ISIS recruitment among Somali-refugee communities in Minnesota,” said Sessions. “Anyone claiming to have a serious and honest discussion of refugee resettlement must ask the difficult questions about integration, assimilation and community safety.

“This is certainly true with respect to countries like Syria, where we have little to no information about who these people are, and no ability to determine whether they are radicalized now, or likely to radicalize after their arrival in the U.S. Indeed, the FBI Assistant Director for Counterterrorism has testified that the United States does not have ‘systems in places on the ground’ in Syria to collect enough information to properly screen refugees. Our Subcommittee is currently investigating the scores of examples of refugees and asylees who go on to commit acts of terror or become involved with terrorist organizations.”

Like this article? Hate it? Follow me and let me know how you feel on Twitter!

— Elizabeth BeShears (@LizEBeesh) January 21, 2015

The VA Accountability Act, sponsored by Florida Congressman Jeff Miller and cosponsored by Congresswoman Martha Roby (R-AL2), authorizes the VA to remove or demote an employee based on performance or misconduct, as well as provides protections for whistleblowers.

The entire Alabama Republican congressional delegation supported the Act. The state’s lone Democratic member of Congress, Representative Terri Sewell (D-AL7) voted with nearly all of her Democratic colleagues against the bill.

The Obama administration has already issued a veto threat for the legislation, in a move widely believed to be a show of solidarity with government employee unions.

“Our military veterans deserve our very best,” said Congressman Gary Palmer (R-AL6). “The scandals at the VA demonstrate they have instead received some of our worst. This is wrong.”

“Correcting misconduct requires that people are held accountable for misbehavior. This bill will ensure greater accountability for VA employees by allowing for timely dismissal of employees who engage in misconduct, while ensuring whistleblower protection.”

Rep. Roby, who has been on the forefront of procuring more accountability for the VA since reports of manipulated waiting times and employee misconduct became known more than a year ago, said she believes the VA Accountability Act is a step in the right direction, but there is still much work to be done.

“I believe sweeping authority to remove problem employees will help solve some of the broader problems with accountability that exist throughout this sprawling federal agency,” Roby told Yellowhammer Thursday.

“However, I also believe the VA has more acute problems at particularly troubled medical centers that will require more specific measures. That’s why this week I filed legislation to compel top Department of Veterans Affairs officials to intervene and take over failing VA medical centers. It’s called the Failing VA Medical Center Recovery Act, and it offers the VA new tools to turn around the worst of our health care centers and puts responsibility for doing so squarely on the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.”

In an impassioned floor speech Tuesday, Roby specifically highlighted the lack of institutional control in Alabama. “I’m glad the Secretary used his authority to take control of the situation in Phoenix. But my question is, why not Montgomery? Why not Tuskegee? Why not come and take control of the worst or second worst situation in the country, especially after we have repeatedly asked and pleaded him to do so?”

“I’m tired of asking, and that’s why my bill requires the VA to step in and take charge,” she said.

Like this article? Hate it? Follow me and let me know how you feel on Twitter!

— Elizabeth BeShears (@LizEBeesh) January 21, 2015

The ruling orders the EPA to rewrite sulfur-dioxide and nitrogen-oxide standards for 13 states, including Alabama, that “contribute to soot and smog along the East Coast.”

The court said the EPA’s rule imposed overly strict limits on the 13 upwind states, of which Alabama is a part. As a practical matter, the limits would result in downwind states “overachieving” air quality standards for sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide.

“EPA’s uniform cost thresholds have required states to reduce pollutants beyond the point necessary” to keep down-wind states in compliance with pollution rules, Circuit Court Judge Brett Kavanaugh wrote. “That violates the Supreme Court’s clear mandate.”

Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange applauded the decision. “Alabama is working carefully to meet federal cross-state emission limits and we are gratified that the DC Circuit Court has agreed with our position that the EPA is once again acting against the best interest of our consumers and our state through overly burdensome and unjustified regulation,” He wrote in a press release.

“The court ruling noted that the EPA is requiring Alabama to implement cost controls that are five times as costly as what would be required to attain the standard,” Strange added. “Clearly, the EPA has overstepped its bounds.”

Under the Obama Administration, the EPA has had an extended record of overreach. Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Agency’s use of the Clean Air Act beyond its original intentions. In a 5-4 decision, the majority held that the EPA “unreasonably” interpreted the Clean Air Act when it decided not to consider industry compliance costs and whether regulating the pollutants is “appropriate and necessary.”

That very decision, Michigan v. EPA, shaped the D.C. court’s ruling Tuesday.

Recently, the EPA has also come under fire for its “Waters of the United States” rule, that Alabama is also challenging in Federal Court. The new rule extends the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers’ regulatory reach to an indefinite number of small bodies of water, including roadside ditches, temporary streams or “any waters located within the 100-year floodplain of a traditional navigable water.”

Alabama was one of four states suing the EPA over the overly restrictive cross-state emission standards to prevail in the court ruling. The other states include Georgia, South Carolina and Texas.

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. — The Alabama Policy Institute hosted an event Tuesday debating the merits of IRS controls over non-profits and tax-exempt groups that “benefit social welfare.”

The Internal Revenue Service announced earlier this year it is seeking to broaden a rule policing political nonprofits to include political parties and political actions committees. By changing this rule, many current 501(c)(3) groups could fall under 501(c)(4) status requiring the disclosure of their donor lists.

501(c)(3) non-profits are largely not allowed to participate in the political process—but are only allowed to provide educational, issue-based materials. and 501(c)(4)s have a little more leeway, but are still not allowed to have any contact to strategize with candidates or their committees.

Hans Von Spakovsky, a Huntsville native and researcher at the Heritage Foundation, argues that this donor disclosure of private donations constitutes a chilling effect on free speech and a violation of privacy.

Craig Holman, of the advocacy group Public Citizen, strongly disagreed. He argues that the use of undisclosed “dark” money “harms democracy” and places elections in the hands of an elite few.

Alabama has had a major part to play in the world of campaign finance post Citizen’s United. During the IRS scandal in which conservative political groups were targeted, the Wetumpka Tea Party had its 501(c)(4) nonprofit status super-reviewed by the tax agency. The landmark Supreme Court case of McCutcheon v. FEC, which declared aggregate contribution limits to campaign finance unconstitutional, came from a suit brought by Birmingham native and conservative donor Shaun McCutcheon.

During much of the API debate, Holman argued that many Super-PACs that help candidates get into office have mysterious origins and voters cannot truly tell what their intentions are without donors being known. He said that “With groups like the NRA and Sierra Club, we generally know where the money is coming from. But with these other groups, voters have no idea.”

Spakovsky countered that America post-Citizen’s United, is actually more democratic and more free. He pointed out that since the 2010 election, the first cycle after the landmark court decision, the rate of incumbency has gone down at a faster rate since any time back to the 1930s.

Transparency became a major point of disagreement where both sides could not agree about the balance between it and privacy. Holman suggested a system where groups have a “political account” in which people donate to and knowingly acknowledge their disclosure. But, Spakovsky took umbrage with the point that the everyday man, or even CEO, could, without consequence, let everyone in the world know their political beliefs.

Spakovsky cited the firing of Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich after the dating site OK Cupid publicized Eich’s donation to Prop. 8, a California ballot initiative that barred same-sex marriage in the Golden State. “There are a lot of Americans that can’t afford to have their opinions known,” he added.

“Transparency is about us trying to keep an eye on what the government is doing, not about the government keeping an eye on what we’re doing,” Spakovsky said.

In the 2012 election cycle, $7.3 billion were spent on all federal elections. To put that number in perspective, $7.3 billion represents less than 5 percent of the total ad spending in all U.S. media in the same year.

You can watch the entire debate on API’s YouTube channel.

(Video Above: Byrne explains the problem with the U.S. negotiations with Iran)

WASHINGTON — Congressman Bradley Byrne (R-AL1) expressed his frustration with the Obama administration’s negotiations with Iran as yet another deadline has passed.

“It has gotten to the point now where these deadlines don’t really mean anything because we have had deadline after deadline after deadline, and we just blow right through them,” Rep. Byrne says in the video statement above. “This makes a mockery of this whole process that is supposedly a ‘negotiation.’”

The negotiations, whose first deadline passed last November, were supposed to be completed by midnight of June 30th. When that deadline slipped by, the State Department set another deadline of July 7th, which was violated as well.

The Obama administration is now reportedly suggesting forgoing deadlines altogether, insisting instead on open-ended talks. According to the Wall Street Journal, Iranian negotiators have recently increased their demands that a United Nations embargo on Tehran’s ballistic-missile program and arms trade be removed as part of a broader nuclear accord.

Revealingly, Iranian representatives to the discussions say they are not bound by any White House-imposed deadlines.

Congressman Byrne believes the United States is coming out on the losing end of these diplomatic talks, and should back out opting instead for continued sanctions.

“This is not a negotiation,” Byrne insisted. “America is being played by the Iranians, and it is time for us to say that this is a bad deal, get away from it, and use our economic sanctions to keep the Iranians from getting a nuclear weapon. Time is not on our side in this matter. It is time for us to act decisively to keep the Iranians from getting a nuclear weapon.”

Last week, fellow Alabama Republican Congresswoman Martha Roby (R-AL2) echoed Rep. Byrne’s sentiments, saying, “[t]he fact that we keep extending the deadline tells you all you need to know about the priorities at play for the Administration. It seems President Obama and Secretary Kerry want a deal, any deal, so badly that they are not willing to walk away from a bad one as deadlines keep passing. Now might be time to withdraw from these negotiations altogether.”

“We cannot trust Iran – a country that encourages its people to chant ‘death to America’ – to do the right thing,” Roby continued. “We ought to be able to inspect Iran’s facilities anytime, anywhere – including nuclear facilities.”

Like this article? Hate it? Follow me and let me know how you feel on Twitter!

— Elizabeth BeShears (@LizEBeesh) January 21, 2015

WASHINGTON– The U.S. House voted 247-180 Wednesday to approve H.R. 2042, the Ratepayer Protection Act which would delay mandatory compliance with EPA emissions rules for power plants.

Alabama legislators account for five of the bill’s 67 bi-partisan co-sponsors with Democrat representative Terri Sewell (AL7) joining Republican representatives Mo Brooks (AL5), Bradley Byrne (AL1), Mike Rogers (AL3), and Martha Roby (AL2).

“According to a recent government study, Obama’s proposed rule would increase electricity prices by approximately 9.4% by 2020 in the Tennessee Valley,” said Congressman Brooks in a press release following the vote.

Representative Gary Palmer (R-AL6), a supporter of the bill, spoke Wednesday in a House Science, Space and Technology Committee’s Subcommittee on Environment and Energy hearing to discuss the negative impact of the EPA’s rule.

In 2014, the EPA proposed the ‘Clean Power Plant’ rule which, according to Palmer and other opponents of the rule, would “require power plants to reduce emissions by 30% in the next 15 years in order to achieve little to no environmental benefit.”

The Ratepayer Protection Act would give governors the chance to opt out of the EPA’s rule if they determine it would have a “significant adverse effect” on the state’s residential, commercial, or industrial ratepayers or the reliability of the state’s electricity system.

While Palmer acknowledged that it’s possible the rule could be struck down in court, he added that, “In the meantime, it could do significant economic damage.”

According to Brooks, 12 states have sued the Obama Administration in an attempt to stop what they consider is yet another power grab by the EPA. The Administration has stated that President Obama plans to veto the bill.

“The EPA is misusing the Clean Air Act to force states to implement higher cost greenhouse gas emission standards without regard for the damage ensuing higher utility costs will have on strained American family budgets,” Brooks said.

The legislation would extend the time allowed to states before mandatory compliance with the bill by 60 days.

A similar bill has been introduced in the Senate by Senator Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV). It is currently unclear whether the House passed legislation or Capito’s bill will make it to the Senate floor.

The Obama Administration has already signaled it would veto the bill.

MONTGOMERY, Ala. — Alabama State Representative Mack Butler (R-Rainbow City), recently spoke out against the Obama administration for mandating federal contractors and buildings allow individuals to use restrooms according to what gender they identify with, instead of their biological or presented sex.

In a Facebook post Tuesday evening, Butler stated that “This will set the tone for schools and public buildings across the nation,” calling Obama’s mandate the “dumbest move ever.”

Representative Butler told Yellowhammer Wednesday morning that he doesn’t at all believe transgender individuals are predators, but that requiring gender neutral bathrooms opens the door for predators to take advantage of citizens, particularly children.

“We all expect at minimum, government to promote public safety, and this move of the Obama administration is actually doing the opposite of that.” Butler said.

This move by the Obama administration comes as part of Executive Order 13672, which according to the U.S. Department of Labor, exists to “prohibit federal contractors and subcontractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.”

The DOL defines gender identity as, “one’s internal sense of one’s own gender.” Adding that, “It may or may not correspond to the sex assigned to a person at birth, and may or may not be made visible to others.”

As Butler said in his Facebook post, the Obama administration has set the tone for schools and other public buildings to adopt this in the future.

“Could you imagine, you know in high school, it would come to a basically a co-ed locker room, you could walk in there and say: “Oh today I was identifying as a girl but tomorrow I’m identifying as a male,” Butler explained.

Butler explained that there could be a situation where police are called and a man could say that he identifies as a woman. Butler also stated that he knows the West Coast has been pushing for gender neutral bathrooms for quite some time, and that if it came to Alabama, he feels certain the state legislature would do something to block it.

“I look at this move as endangering children, putting them at risk,” Butler concluded.