dailysignal--2020-07-29--Second House ‘Minibus,’ With $1 Trillion Onboard, Careens Off Road Into a Fiscal, Policy Wreck

The House of Representatives will likely vote later this week on H.R .
7617 , a 1,165-page behemoth that would spend more than $ 1 trillion in taxpayers ’ money and put a raft of troubling policies into place .
The bill is what ’ s called a “ minibus , ” one that would fund the majority of federal government activity , including the departments of Commerce , Defense , Education , Energy , Health and Human Services , Homeland Security , Housing and Urban Development , Justice , Labor , Transportation , and Treasury .
There ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be removed due to internal debate among House Democrats .
This is the second such package put forward for fiscal year 2021 .
On July 24 , the House passed H.R .
7608 , a 689-page spending bill on a party-line vote featuring bipartisan opposition .
Any legislation of such length and that covers so many things will have room for improvement .
But H.R .
7617 consistently moves in the wrong direction on a variety of fronts , including fiscal responsibility , national security , the rule of law , protecting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conscience .
Heritage Foundation experts have identified a number of policy concerns that the House should address .
The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019 dramatically increased spending levels through 2021 .
This should have provided congressional appropriators with more than enough money to cover both national priorities and pet programs .
Unfortunately , many legislators are seeking to leverage the COVID-19 pandemic as an excuse to spend even more and to add to a national debt that ’ s already more than $ 200,000 per household .
While the first appropriations package contained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ measures , this package adds a whopping $ 207 billion of such spending .
When we consider what ought to qualify for emergency spending designations , unusual circumstances such as natural disasters , wars , and pandemics top the list .
Congress has expanded and abused those budgetary exceptions over time , yet this bill would set a new low .
• $ 17 billion for Army Corps of Engineers work on water infrastructure projects such as dams .
This has nothing to do with the pandemic and would continue the “ rob @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subsidizing certain states and localities at the expense of others .
• $ 23.5 billion for the Department of Energy , most of which would go toward “ green ” initiatives .
This would be yet another attempt to jump-start the Green New Deal , which seeks to transform the economy by giving even more power and control to bureaucrats and politicians .
• $ 61 billion in subsidies for expanding broadband internet service , primarily to rural areas .
This is currently messaged as necessary to help children with remote learning as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In reality , it would be a substantial subsidy to a rapidly shrinking number of households , and deployment would take far too long to help districts during the upcoming school year .
• $ 26 billion for transportation infrastructure , which is promoted as an economic recovery measure .
There are gaping holes in this plan .
Infrastructure spending is ineffective as economic stimulus , since it ’ s slow-moving and tends to shift rather than create jobs .
Worse , the spending is weighted toward mass transit , which represents a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transportation use .
That means the spending would provide minimal value .
• $ 49 billion for the Department of Housing and Urban Development , which would roughly double its spending .
Nothing that this agency does has any meaningful relationship to addressing the pandemic , and the extra spending would primarily serve to subsidize people who choose to live in urban areas .
Billions in additional emergency funds are allocated to Health and Human Services to deal with current and future pandemic response .
While much of this is justified because of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through prioritizing regular spending , rather than adding to the debt .
Even without the emergency measures , the bill would still evade budget rules to the tune of $ 15 billion with a tired gimmick known as Changes in Mandatory Programs .
That occurs when Congress “ cuts ” programs such as the Crime Victims Fund and the Children ’ s Health Insurance Program .
Those funds have unspent balances , and the fake “ cuts ” are used to cover for real spending increases elsewhere .
Instead of pretending that there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ national debt , legislators should only utilize emergency spending for legitimate and urgent needs , and learn to live within spending limits .
The bill appropriates $ 694.6 billion in discretionary funds for the Department of Defense , $ 3.7 billion below the president ’ s budget request and the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019 .
The appropriators took an exceedingly partisan approach to their defense bill , in clear opposition to laudable bipartisanship of the Armed Services authorizers in both the Senate and the House .
At a time when the challenges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ becoming more aggressive , it ’ s more important than ever for Congress to show bipartisan support for a strong national defense .
The bill repeals the 2001 authorization for use of military force , which—unless fixed—would leave current operations stranded abroad without any legal basis .
The appropriators did increase the number of F-35s that the Pentagon will buy in the coming year .
That will move the program forward at a faster pace and ensure that the Air Force modernizes its arsenal faster and with the most dominant and cost-effective fighter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defense portion of the appropriations bill will require substantial work with the Senate to overcome its problems .
The House energy and water bill also contains provisions of concern related to the National Nuclear Security Administration .
First , the bill would not provide the requested funding for the W93 nuclear warhead program .
The W93 warhead will replace existing nuclear warheads on the Navy ’ s nuclear submarines once they begin to age out in the 2030s .
The commander of the U.S. Strategic Command , Adm. Charles Richard , has made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must “ begin immediately ” to avoid future risk to the sea leg of the U.S. strategic deterrent .
Both the defense and energy and water bills prohibit the use of funds to conduct , or prepare to conduct , yield-producing nuclear tests .
While the United States operates under a testing moratorium , it maintains nuclear test readiness should the need arise to conduct a nuclear test , a goal that President Bill Clinton established and every president since has endorsed .
This misguided prohibition would impinge on our nation ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a nuclear test to ensure the functionality of our aging nuclear arsenal .
Finally , the bill would prohibit the use of funds to increase the role of the Nuclear Weapons Council in crafting the NNSA ’ s budget .
The council , composed of defense officials and the NNSA administrator , plays the crucial role of ensuring alignment of nuclear weapons priorities between the Energy Department and its customer , the Defense Department .
Placing a blanket prohibition on giving the Defense Department—through the Nuclear Weapons Council—greater say in a process that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be irresponsible .
The Justice Department does not need an increase in its budget of $ 33.2 billion .
That is far more than is required for it to carry out its mission .
As an example , there ’ s an increase of $ 100 million for the Civil Rights Division to conduct what are called “ pattern and practice ” investigations of wrongdoing by law enforcement agencies .
However , the Special Litigation Section inside the Civil Rights Division that conducts those investigations does not currently lack for resources or personnel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration , this section abused its authority to go after local law enforcement agencies to force them to implement radical , progressive “ social justice ” policies that had nothing to do with effective policing and fair law enforcement .
The proposed increase in funding is simply a recipe for federal interference in local law enforcement .
The same thing is true for the increase in appropriations for the Community Relations Service , one of the most ineffective offices within the Justice Department .
Rather than accomplishing its mission of trying to calm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law enforcement incidents , during the Obama administration , Community Relations Service staffers actually went into some local communities like Ferguson , Missouri , to instigate and help organize social unrest .
The bill is filled with similar huge funding increases in various other Justice Department programs , offices , and divisions that have not been justified .
The House bill generally rejects measures to reduce the size and scope of government and opts for big spending at a time when Congress should be making serious efforts to make smart cuts .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Department of Energy programs , where the president ’ s budget largely reflected measures proposed to reduce or eliminate programs at the Energy Department that are better left to the private sector , academia , and states .
For example , excluding Office of Science spending , the House bill proposes to spend a little more than $ 5 billion to advance energy technologies to combat climate change .
On top of that , the appropriators want to quadruple down on taxpayer spending on government-defined clean energy with an additional $ 20.3 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a massive spending increase would be a raw deal for taxpayers and the future of competitive energy markets .
Through its offices of applied science and loan programs , the Energy Department has gone far beyond basic research to spend taxpayer dollars to commercialize specific energy technologies for conventional , nuclear , and renewable fuels .
When the government attempts to drive commercialization , the result is technological stagnation .
Instead of relying on market signals ( such as prices and consumer demand ) , companies rely in part on the government to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ research that ’ s in the early stages of commercial readiness but has an end goal of improving the functionality of a wind turbine , the energy efficiency of a window , or extracting natural resources more effectively should be left to the private sector .
The budget rejects changes to take legacy programs off the taxpayer dime , like the four electricity generation conglomerates known as Power Marketing Administrations that are quasi-owned by the federal government but face little accountability from it .
The House budget would continue to preserve the four @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rather than improve them with reforms that both Democrat and Republican presidents have pushed for .
Electricity sector innovation : The House bill report acknowledges promising technologies and tools that would generate innovation , empower customers , and improve competition in the electricity sector .
As the House report notes , technologies such as blockchain have huge potential to reduce inefficiencies in electricity delivery , move decisions about energy use closer to customers , and reduce costs for them .
The report encourages the Energy Department “ to continue efforts to support … @ @ @ @ @ @ @ controllers and systems , and transactive energy concepts , including studies and evaluations of energy usage behavior in response to price signals.
” The incentive for electricity companies to develop and provide these innovative services to customers is strong in regions of the country where competitive retail electricity markets are allowed .
In contrast , entrenched monopoly electricity providers have been far more resistant to technological innovations that reduce costs .
While there may be some minimal value to commission government research and reports on the uses of digital technologies in the electricity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doing—Congress should begin pursuing legislative and regulatory changes to promote the wider reach of competitive retail electricity markets .
“ False promise ” on nuclear waste management : The state of nuclear-waste management policy has fallen into disarray over the past several years , and the House bill provides no real leadership on the issue .
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 requires the nuclear industry to pay the Energy Department to build a permanent government repository for the disposal of nuclear waste , which the department was supposed to begin doing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concern in the 1980s of the Environmental Protection Agency and others that interim storage not become a de facto permanent solution that distracted from this permanent repository .
And yet the House bill appropriates $ 27.5 million for this shortsighted approach to identify a site for a federal interim storage facility for nuclear waste from commercial nuclear power plants without any policy direction for the long-term disposal that is needed .
Whereas , in the past , the House had shown dedicated leadership to finish the scientific review of a long-term repository at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act ) , the interim storage-only approach proposed here is only a patch to a broken system , and it ’ s doubtful that any state will take the Energy Department up on a bid to host an interim storage site without a clear plan for the long-term disposal that ’ s ultimately necessary .
Apt befuddlement on the uranium reserve : The House bill appropriately expresses skepticism of the administration ’ s plans for a uranium reserve .
The proposed reserve currently lacks detail from start to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what purposes it would serve .
The House bill is right to ask questions of the administration , especially because similar efforts in the past from both Republican and Democratic administrations have had negative economic consequences on the uranium mining industry .
Unfortunately , American uranium miners have often faced their own government as an obstacle to being competitive .
The federal government has made it exceedingly difficult for mining in the U.S. by blocking access and defeat-by-delay regulatory structures .
While the administration ’ s proposal is well-intended to help the industry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the long term for the administration and Congress to continue pursuing regulatory and policy changes that enable miners to be competitive and promote sound environmental stewardship .
The financial services funding bill maintains pro-life and conscience rights riders related to the Federal Employee Health Benefits programs and the District of Columbia ’ s contraceptive mandate .
However , it modifies the long-standing pro-life Dornan Amendment to allow local D.C. funding to pay for abortions .
When the Dornan Amendment was eliminated for a brief period during the Obama administration ( 2009-2011 ) , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Columbia funded 300 abortions .
Congress should reject this attempt to provide funding for abortions and restore the life-saving Dornan Amendment .
• The Hyde Amendment , which generally prohibits appropriated funds from paying for abortions .
• The Weldon Amendment , which protects health care providers from discrimination on the basis of their refusal to provide or pay for abortions , or refer women for abortion .
• The Dickey-Wicker Amendment , which prohibits Health and Human Services funds from being spent on embryo-destructive research .
However , hostility to life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the bill .
A number of the Trump administration ’ s critically important policy priorities would get the ax , including : • A regulation to strengthen pro-life protections in the federal Title X family planning program .
• A regulation to fully enforce civil rights law with respect to conscience and protect individuals and health care providers from discrimination or coercion in Health and Human Services-funded programs .
• A regulation to fix a misguided Obama-era policy regarding the Affordable Care Act that would have created serious conscience conflicts for medical professionals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ gender identity ” and “ termination of pregnancy ” with respect to nondiscrimination law .
Housing and Urban Development : Women seeking help at shelters for the homeless have survived rape , domestic violence , and/or sex trafficking .
This bill , however , would force shelters to admit any biological male who self-identifies as a woman and allow him to share bathrooms , showers , and sleeping quarters with those women .
The bill would not only reverse the Trump administration ’ s progress in protecting women ’ s privacy and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but would also make permanent the Obama administration ’ s attempt to force shelters nationwide to allow biological males in women ’ s spaces .
The House Appropriations Committee has passed a Homeland Security bill and amendments that will make our country less safe , undermine the rule of law , and make states and localities even more dependent on the federal government and federal tax dollars .
While increasing funds to most other Department of Homeland Security components , the House bill makes severe cuts to both Customs and Border Protection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2020 enacted level ) and to Immigration and Customs Enforcement ( $ 673.8 million below the fiscal 2020 enacted level ) .
Those cuts include no additional money for Border Patrol agents or border barriers .
It also rescinds $ 1.375 billion from the fiscal 2020 Procurement , Construction , and Improvements account in response to President Donald Trump ’ s using Defense Department funds for border barrier construction .
These cuts would hinder Customs and Border Protection ’ s ability to keep gang members , drugs , and illegal aliens out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Customs Enforcement from removing gang members and other serious criminal aliens from our country .
The committee also passed an amendment from Reps. Pete Aguilar , D-Calif. , and Will Hurd , R-Texas , to bar the Department of Homeland Security from spending funds to detain , remove , put into removal proceedings , or deny work authorization to anyone who : • Meets the criteria to participate in the Obama administration ’ s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program .
• Meets the requirements for Temporary Protected Status designations for the 10 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end of the Obama administration .
This amendment would undermine the Trump administration ’ s rescission of the DACA program as well as the termination of six TPS designations by providing amnesty and work authorization to beneficiaries of both programs .
Furthermore , the amendment , as written , expands DACA and TPS protections and benefits to populations broader than just those aliens who applied for and were granted relief .
An amendment from Rep. David Price , D-N.C. , would undercut some of the most significant and needed immigration changes made by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Department of Homeland Security spending on : • A proposed asylum and credible fear rule that would curtail the current extensive abuse of asylum .
• Migrant Protection Protocols , which have been a game changer in regaining operational control of our southwest border .
• The safe third-country rule , which requires aliens to apply for asylum in the first safe country they enter , rather than only applying for asylum in the U.S. , as well as the agreements the Trump administration made with Guatemala and other Central American countries to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amendment would lead to an open border and weaken our sovereignty as a nation .
The House bill significantly increases funding for DHS grants that are administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency : $ 474 million above the fiscal 2020 enacted level and $ 1.8 billion above the president ’ s fiscal 2021 request .
Boosting federal grants for states and localities increases their dependence on the federal taxpayer and decreases state and local security and disaster planning and preparation .
In addition , an amendment from Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ repayments of outstanding loan balances made under the Stafford Disaster Relief Fund .
That likewise disincentivizes states and localities to plan and prepare financially for emergencies because the federal taxpayers would bail them out .
Response to the COVID-19 pandemic throughout the U.S. has shown that states that prepare for , and adapt to , emergencies recover faster than those that don ’ t prepare and wait for federal assistance .
States and localities should pursue such self-reliance in the context of non-pandemic disasters as well .
The financial services bill includes a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The job of the commission would be to identify items of federal property that are “ inconsistent with the values of diversity , equity , and inclusion.
” As is often the case in our nation ’ s endless culture war , initiatives that sound harmless from the outside can lead to bitter conflict .
The commission would examine “ property names , monuments , statues , public artworks , historical markers , and other symbols owned by the Federal government ” —which means it would cover an incalculably large number of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s controversies regarding statues and military base names , the commission would become a fierce battleground .
Many on the left are determined to leverage the cultural moment and transform the nation .
In classic Orwellian fashion , that includes scouring the past for perceived transgressions .
Proponents of the commission will cite federal facilities with Confederate names as justification for the project .
However , we have seen that the urge to “ cancel ” historical figures and tear down statues can quickly spread to national heroes , such as George @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overreach by the commission would be virtually guaranteed , especially since it would need to find new instances of “ problematic ” federal names and artwork to ensure that the commission survives in perpetuity .
While there is little chance that the proposed commission would pass muster in the Senate , the fact that it has support from the House majority is a troubling sign .
The new Labor-Health and Human Services-Education bill would direct $ 73.5 billion to federal education programs , even though federal policymakers already provided states with an additional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the CARES Act—nearly the equivalent of what Washington annually spends on disadvantaged students in K-12 education .
Although states have allocated less than 1 % of their CARES Act funding , the House proposal would increase federal education spending by $ 716 million more than in fiscal 2020 , and is $ 6.9 billion more than requested by the president ’ s budget .
Unfortunately , the funding increases direct dollars to district schools that aren ’ t even open .
In fact , the proposal increases funding by $ 403.5 million for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ budget sought to eliminate .
For instance , the Senate proposal increases funding for 21st Century Community Learning Centers by $ 13 million .
Those centers have failed to improve the outcomes of participating students academically and behaviorally .
“ Of the 12 behavioral outcomes assessed by the evaluation , six measures indicate that 21st Century Community Learning Centers produced more harm than good .
Overall , teachers found participating students to have disciplinary problems that were confirmed by student-reported data , ” wrote former Heritage Foundation analyst David Muhlhausen .
The proposal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a federal pre-K program , by $ 150 million , even though Head Start has repeatedly failed to improve student outcomes .
According to a 2012 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services study , nearly all benefits Head Start participants gain disappear by third grade .
In fact , the study found harmful effects from Head Start participation relating to “ cognitive , social-emotional , health , and parenting practices.
” The proposal increases funding for other federal education programs that are duplicative and ineffective , including : • Title I Grants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 16.6 billion , $ 254 million more than the previous year .
The president ’ s budget eliminated the program .
• Student Support and Academic Enrichment State Grants , also eliminated by the president ’ s budget , would now receive $ 1.2 billion .
• TRIO programs will now receive $ 1.1 billion , $ 150 million more than requested in the president ’ s budget .
• Pell Grants increased by $ 150 to a maximum award of $ 6,495 per student .
Saddling future generations with debt , Congress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and ineffective programs .
Washington should return education funds to the states so states have the flexibility to spend their education dollars directly on local initiatives .
Although Washington funds only 8.5 % of K-12 education , Congress has spent $ 2 trillion in the past 60 years on federal K-12 education initiatives—to little or no avail .
Congress should learn from its unsuccessful track record and return education funds to the states with no strings attached .
The second House “ minibus ” package would unnecessarily add hundreds of billions to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law , remove protections for the unborn , and further expand the reach and power of an already too-large federal government .
Members of Congress in both chambers should carefully consider the bill ’ s contents and find an alternative approach that better fits the nation ’ s founding principles of limited government and federalism .

The House of Representatives will likely vote later this week on H.R. 7617, a 1,165-page behemoth that would spend more than $1 trillion in taxpayers’ money and put a raft of troubling policies into place.
The bill is what’s called a “minibus,” one that would fund the majority of federal government activity, including the departments of Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Labor, Transportation, and Treasury.
There’s a chance that the Homeland Security portion will be removed due to internal debate among House Democrats.
This is the second such package put forward for fiscal year 2021. On July 24, the House passed H.R. 7608, a 689-page spending bill on a party-line vote featuring bipartisan opposition.
Any legislation of such length and that covers so many things will have room for improvement. But H.R. 7617 consistently moves in the wrong direction on a variety of fronts, including fiscal responsibility, national security, the rule of law, protecting the unborn, and defending freedom of conscience.
Heritage Foundation experts have identified a number of policy concerns that the House should address.
Breaks and Dodges Spending Limits
The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019 dramatically increased spending levels through 2021. This should have provided congressional appropriators with more than enough money to cover both national priorities and pet programs.
Unfortunately, many legislators are seeking to leverage the COVID-19 pandemic as an excuse to spend even more and to add to a national debt that’s already more than $200,000 per household.
While the first appropriations package contained $37 billion in “emergency” measures, this package adds a whopping $207 billion of such spending.
When we consider what ought to qualify for emergency spending designations, unusual circumstances such as natural disasters, wars, and pandemics top the list. Congress has expanded and abused those budgetary exceptions over time, yet this bill would set a new low.
Examples of inappropriate “emergency” spending in H.R. 7617 include:
$17 billion for Army Corps of Engineers work on water infrastructure projects such as dams. This has nothing to do with the pandemic and would continue the “rob Peter to pay Paul” practice of subsidizing certain states and localities at the expense of others.
$23.5 billion for the Department of Energy, most of which would go toward “green” initiatives. This would be yet another attempt to jump-start the Green New Deal, which seeks to transform the economy by giving even more power and control to bureaucrats and politicians.
$61 billion in subsidies for expanding broadband internet service, primarily to rural areas. This is currently messaged as necessary to help children with remote learning as a result of school building closures. In reality, it would be a substantial subsidy to a rapidly shrinking number of households, and deployment would take far too long to help districts during the upcoming school year.
$26 billion for transportation infrastructure, which is promoted as an economic recovery measure. There are gaping holes in this plan. Infrastructure spending is ineffective as economic stimulus, since it’s slow-moving and tends to shift rather than create jobs. Worse, the spending is weighted toward mass transit, which represents a tiny portion of the nation’s transportation use. That means the spending would provide minimal value.
$49 billion for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which would roughly double its spending. Nothing that this agency does has any meaningful relationship to addressing the pandemic, and the extra spending would primarily serve to subsidize people who choose to live in urban areas.
Billions in additional emergency funds are allocated to Health and Human Services to deal with current and future pandemic response. While much of this is justified because of COVID-19, forward-looking activity should be done through prioritizing regular spending, rather than adding to the debt.
Even without the emergency measures, the bill would still evade budget rules to the tune of $15 billion with a tired gimmick known as Changes in Mandatory Programs. That occurs when Congress “cuts” programs such as the Crime Victims Fund and the Children’s Health Insurance Program. Those funds have unspent balances, and the fake “cuts” are used to cover for real spending increases elsewhere.
Instead of pretending that there are no consequences to adding to the national debt, legislators should only utilize emergency spending for legitimate and urgent needs, and learn to live within spending limits.
Shortchanges National Defense
The bill appropriates $694.6 billion in discretionary funds for the Department of Defense, $3.7 billion below the president’s budget request and the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019.
The appropriators took an exceedingly partisan approach to their defense bill, in clear opposition to laudable bipartisanship of the Armed Services authorizers in both the Senate and the House.
At a time when the challenges to American national security are proliferating and becoming more aggressive, it’s more important than ever for Congress to show bipartisan support for a strong national defense.
The bill repeals the 2001 authorization for use of military force, which—unless fixed—would leave current operations stranded abroad without any legal basis.
The appropriators did increase the number of F-35s that the Pentagon will buy in the coming year. That will move the program forward at a faster pace and ensure that the Air Force modernizes its arsenal faster and with the most dominant and cost-effective fighter available.
All in all, the defense portion of the appropriations bill will require substantial work with the Senate to overcome its problems.
Weakens Nuclear Deterrence
The House energy and water bill also contains provisions of concern related to the National Nuclear Security Administration.
First, the bill would not provide the requested funding for the W93 nuclear warhead program. The W93 warhead will replace existing nuclear warheads on the Navy’s nuclear submarines once they begin to age out in the 2030s.
The commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, Adm. Charles Richard, has made it clear that work on the W93 must “begin immediately” to avoid future risk to the sea leg of the U.S. strategic deterrent.
Both the defense and energy and water bills prohibit the use of funds to conduct, or prepare to conduct, yield-producing nuclear tests. While the United States operates under a testing moratorium, it maintains nuclear test readiness should the need arise to conduct a nuclear test, a goal that President Bill Clinton established and every president since has endorsed.
This misguided prohibition would impinge on our nation’s ability to respond to an emergency requiring a nuclear test to ensure the functionality of our aging nuclear arsenal.
Finally, the bill would prohibit the use of funds to increase the role of the Nuclear Weapons Council in crafting the NNSA’s budget. The council, composed of defense officials and the NNSA administrator, plays the crucial role of ensuring alignment of nuclear weapons priorities between the Energy Department and its customer, the Defense Department.
Placing a blanket prohibition on giving the Defense Department—through the Nuclear Weapons Council—greater say in a process that exists only to serve military requirements would be irresponsible.
Grows Wasteful Spending at the Justice Department
The Justice Department does not need an increase in its budget of $33.2 billion. That is far more than is required for it to carry out its mission.
As an example, there’s an increase of $100 million for the Civil Rights Division to conduct what are called “pattern and practice” investigations of wrongdoing by law enforcement agencies. However, the Special Litigation Section inside the Civil Rights Division that conducts those investigations does not currently lack for resources or personnel.
In fact, during the Obama administration, this section abused its authority to go after local law enforcement agencies to force them to implement radical, progressive “social justice” policies that had nothing to do with effective policing and fair law enforcement.
The proposed increase in funding is simply a recipe for federal interference in local law enforcement.
The same thing is true for the increase in appropriations for the Community Relations Service, one of the most ineffective offices within the Justice Department.
Rather than accomplishing its mission of trying to calm down local communities in the midst of law enforcement incidents, during the Obama administration, Community Relations Service staffers actually went into some local communities like Ferguson, Missouri, to instigate and help organize social unrest.
The bill is filled with similar huge funding increases in various other Justice Department programs, offices, and divisions that have not been justified.
Perpetuates Government Intervention in Energy Markets
The House bill generally rejects measures to reduce the size and scope of government and opts for big spending at a time when Congress should be making serious efforts to make smart cuts.
The House proposal consistently maintains or increases spending on Department of Energy programs, where the president’s budget largely reflected measures proposed to reduce or eliminate programs at the Energy Department that are better left to the private sector, academia, and states.
For example, excluding Office of Science spending, the House bill proposes to spend a little more than $5 billion to advance energy technologies to combat climate change. On top of that, the appropriators want to quadruple down on taxpayer spending on government-defined clean energy with an additional $20.3 billion in emergency spending.
Passing such a massive spending increase would be a raw deal for taxpayers and the future of competitive energy markets.
Through its offices of applied science and loan programs, the Energy Department has gone far beyond basic research to spend taxpayer dollars to commercialize specific energy technologies for conventional, nuclear, and renewable fuels.
When the government attempts to drive commercialization, the result is technological stagnation. Instead of relying on market signals (such as prices and consumer demand), companies rely in part on the government to push their technologies forward.
Even government-directed research that’s in the early stages of commercial readiness but has an end goal of improving the functionality of a wind turbine, the energy efficiency of a window, or extracting natural resources more effectively should be left to the private sector.
The budget rejects changes to take legacy programs off the taxpayer dime, like the four electricity generation conglomerates known as Power Marketing Administrations that are quasi-owned by the federal government but face little accountability from it.
The House budget would continue to preserve the four Power Marketing Administrations as they are, rather than improve them with reforms that both Democrat and Republican presidents have pushed for.
Electricity sector innovation: The House bill report acknowledges promising technologies and tools that would generate innovation, empower customers, and improve competition in the electricity sector. As the House report notes, technologies such as blockchain have huge potential to reduce inefficiencies in electricity delivery, move decisions about energy use closer to customers, and reduce costs for them.
The report encourages the Energy Department “to continue efforts to support … fundamental research and field validation of microgrid controllers and systems, and transactive energy concepts, including studies and evaluations of energy usage behavior in response to price signals.”
The incentive for electricity companies to develop and provide these innovative services to customers is strong in regions of the country where competitive retail electricity markets are allowed.
In contrast, entrenched monopoly electricity providers have been far more resistant to technological innovations that reduce costs. While there may be some minimal value to commission government research and reports on the uses of digital technologies in the electricity sector—which the private sector can and is doing—Congress should begin pursuing legislative and regulatory changes to promote the wider reach of competitive retail electricity markets.
“False promise” on nuclear waste management: The state of nuclear-waste management policy has fallen into disarray over the past several years, and the House bill provides no real leadership on the issue.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 requires the nuclear industry to pay the Energy Department to build a permanent government repository for the disposal of nuclear waste, which the department was supposed to begin doing by 1998. It was the distinct concern in the 1980s of the Environmental Protection Agency and others that interim storage not become a de facto permanent solution that distracted from this permanent repository.
And yet the House bill appropriates $27.5 million for this shortsighted approach to identify a site for a federal interim storage facility for nuclear waste from commercial nuclear power plants without any policy direction for the long-term disposal that is needed.
Whereas, in the past, the House had shown dedicated leadership to finish the scientific review of a long-term repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada (as required under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act), the interim storage-only approach proposed here is only a patch to a broken system, and it’s doubtful that any state will take the Energy Department up on a bid to host an interim storage site without a clear plan for the long-term disposal that’s ultimately necessary.
Apt befuddlement on the uranium reserve: The House bill appropriately expresses skepticism of the administration’s plans for a uranium reserve. The proposed reserve currently lacks detail from start to finish on how it would work and what purposes it would serve.
The House bill is right to ask questions of the administration, especially because similar efforts in the past from both Republican and Democratic administrations have had negative economic consequences on the uranium mining industry.
Unfortunately, American uranium miners have often faced their own government as an obstacle to being competitive. The federal government has made it exceedingly difficult for mining in the U.S. by blocking access and defeat-by-delay regulatory structures.
While the administration’s proposal is well-intended to help the industry, it would be far better in the long term for the administration and Congress to continue pursuing regulatory and policy changes that enable miners to be competitive and promote sound environmental stewardship.
Removes Pro-Life and Conscience Protections
The financial services funding bill maintains pro-life and conscience rights riders related to the Federal Employee Health Benefits programs and the District of Columbia’s contraceptive mandate.
However, it modifies the long-standing pro-life Dornan Amendment to allow local D.C. funding to pay for abortions. When the Dornan Amendment was eliminated for a brief period during the Obama administration (2009-2011), the Associated Press reported that the District of Columbia funded 300 abortions.
Congress should reject this attempt to provide funding for abortions and restore the life-saving Dornan Amendment.
The Health and Human Services bill maintains long-standing pro-life riders, including:
The Hyde Amendment, which generally prohibits appropriated funds from paying for abortions.
The Weldon Amendment, which protects health care providers from discrimination on the basis of their refusal to provide or pay for abortions, or refer women for abortion.
The Dickey-Wicker Amendment, which prohibits Health and Human Services funds from being spent on embryo-destructive research.
However, hostility to life and conscience rights is evident elsewhere in the bill.
A number of the Trump administration’s critically important policy priorities would get the ax, including:
A regulation to strengthen pro-life protections in the federal Title X family planning program.
A regulation to fully enforce civil rights law with respect to conscience and protect individuals and health care providers from discrimination or coercion in Health and Human Services-funded programs.
A regulation to fix a misguided Obama-era policy regarding the Affordable Care Act that would have created serious conscience conflicts for medical professionals by redefining “sex” to mean “gender identity” and “termination of pregnancy” with respect to nondiscrimination law.
Housing and Urban Development: Women seeking help at shelters for the homeless have survived rape, domestic violence, and/or sex trafficking. This bill, however, would force shelters to admit any biological male who self-identifies as a woman and allow him to share bathrooms, showers, and sleeping quarters with those women.
The bill would not only reverse the Trump administration’s progress in protecting women’s privacy and safety and the conscience rights of shelters, but would also make permanent the Obama administration’s attempt to force shelters nationwide to allow biological males in women’s spaces.
Congress should reject that language.
Weakens Homeland Security and Increases Dependence on Washington
The House Appropriations Committee has passed a Homeland Security bill and amendments that will make our country less safe, undermine the rule of law, and make states and localities even more dependent on the federal government and federal tax dollars.
While increasing funds to most other Department of Homeland Security components, the House bill makes severe cuts to both Customs and Border Protection ($75.1 million below the fiscal 2020 enacted level) and to Immigration and Customs Enforcement ($673.8 million below the fiscal 2020 enacted level).
Those cuts include no additional money for Border Patrol agents or border barriers.
It also rescinds $1.375 billion from the fiscal 2020 Procurement, Construction, and Improvements account in response to President Donald Trump’s using Defense Department funds for border barrier construction.
These cuts would hinder Customs and Border Protection’s ability to keep gang members, drugs, and illegal aliens out of the U.S., and prevent Immigration and Customs Enforcement from removing gang members and other serious criminal aliens from our country.
The committee also passed an amendment from Reps. Pete Aguilar, D-Calif., and Will Hurd, R-Texas, to bar the Department of Homeland Security from spending funds to detain, remove, put into removal proceedings, or deny work authorization to anyone who:
Meets the criteria to participate in the Obama administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.
Meets the requirements for Temporary Protected Status designations for the 10 countries that were in place at the end of the Obama administration.
This amendment would undermine the Trump administration’s rescission of the DACA program as well as the termination of six TPS designations by providing amnesty and work authorization to beneficiaries of both programs.
Furthermore, the amendment, as written, expands DACA and TPS protections and benefits to populations broader than just those aliens who applied for and were granted relief.
An amendment from Rep. David Price, D-N.C., would undercut some of the most significant and needed immigration changes made by the Trump administration.
It would prohibit Department of Homeland Security spending on:
A proposed asylum and credible fear rule that would curtail the current extensive abuse of asylum.
Migrant Protection Protocols, which have been a game changer in regaining operational control of our southwest border.
The safe third-country rule, which requires aliens to apply for asylum in the first safe country they enter, rather than only applying for asylum in the U.S., as well as the agreements the Trump administration made with Guatemala and other Central American countries to implement the safe third-country rule.
This amendment would lead to an open border and weaken our sovereignty as a nation.
The House bill significantly increases funding for DHS grants that are administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency: $474 million above the fiscal 2020 enacted level and $1.8 billion above the president’s fiscal 2021 request.
Boosting federal grants for states and localities increases their dependence on the federal taxpayer and decreases state and local security and disaster planning and preparation.
In addition, an amendment from Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman, D-N.J., would cancel state and local repayments of outstanding loan balances made under the Stafford Disaster Relief Fund. That likewise disincentivizes states and localities to plan and prepare financially for emergencies because the federal taxpayers would bail them out.
Response to the COVID-19 pandemic throughout the U.S. has shown that states that prepare for, and adapt to, emergencies recover faster than those that don’t prepare and wait for federal assistance.
States and localities should pursue such self-reliance in the context of non-pandemic disasters as well.
Naming Commission Empowers Radical Left
The financial services bill includes a new Commission on Federal Naming and Displays. The job of the commission would be to identify items of federal property that are “inconsistent with the values of diversity, equity, and inclusion.”
As is often the case in our nation’s endless culture war, initiatives that sound harmless from the outside can lead to bitter conflict.
The commission would examine “property names, monuments, statues, public artworks, historical markers, and other symbols owned by the Federal government”—which means it would cover an incalculably large number of items.
Clearly inspired by this summer’s controversies regarding statues and military base names, the commission would become a fierce battleground.
Many on the left are determined to leverage the cultural moment and transform the nation. In classic Orwellian fashion, that includes scouring the past for perceived transgressions.
Proponents of the commission will cite federal facilities with Confederate names as justification for the project. However, we have seen that the urge to “cancel” historical figures and tear down statues can quickly spread to national heroes, such as George Washington and Ulysses S. Grant.
Cultural overreach by the commission would be virtually guaranteed, especially since it would need to find new instances of “problematic” federal names and artwork to ensure that the commission survives in perpetuity.
While there is little chance that the proposed commission would pass muster in the Senate, the fact that it has support from the House majority is a troubling sign.
More Funding for Ineffective Education Programs
The new Labor-Health and Human Services-Education bill would direct $73.5 billion to federal education programs, even though federal policymakers already provided states with an additional $13.5 billion for K-12 education through the CARES Act—nearly the equivalent of what Washington annually spends on disadvantaged students in K-12 education.
Although states have allocated less than 1% of their CARES Act funding, the House proposal would increase federal education spending by $716 million more than in fiscal 2020, and is $6.9 billion more than requested by the president’s budget.
Unfortunately, the funding increases direct dollars to district schools that aren’t even open. In fact, the proposal increases funding by $403.5 million for 11 programs that the president’s budget sought to eliminate.
For instance, the Senate proposal increases funding for 21st Century Community Learning Centers by $13 million. Those centers have failed to improve the outcomes of participating students academically and behaviorally.
“Of the 12 behavioral outcomes assessed by the evaluation, six measures indicate that 21st Century Community Learning Centers produced more harm than good. Overall, teachers found participating students to have disciplinary problems that were confirmed by student-reported data,” wrote former Heritage Foundation analyst David Muhlhausen.
The proposal also increases funding for Head Start, a federal pre-K program, by $150 million, even though Head Start has repeatedly failed to improve student outcomes.
According to a 2012 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services study, nearly all benefits Head Start participants gain disappear by third grade.
In fact, the study found harmful effects from Head Start participation relating to “cognitive, social-emotional, health, and parenting practices.”
The proposal increases funding for other federal education programs that are duplicative and ineffective, including:
Title I Grants for Local Education Agencies would receive $16.6 billion, $254 million more than the previous year. The president’s budget eliminated the program.
Student Support and Academic Enrichment State Grants, also eliminated by the president’s budget, would now receive $1.2 billion.
TRIO programs will now receive $1.1 billion, $150 million more than requested in the president’s budget.
Pell Grants increased by $150 to a maximum award of $6,495 per student.
Saddling future generations with debt, Congress continues to spend taxpayer dollars on duplicative and ineffective programs. Washington should return education funds to the states so states have the flexibility to spend their education dollars directly on local initiatives.
Although Washington funds only 8.5% of K-12 education, Congress has spent $2 trillion in the past 60 years on federal K-12 education initiatives—to little or no avail.
Congress should learn from its unsuccessful track record and return education funds to the states with no strings attached.
Conclusion
The second House “minibus” package would unnecessarily add hundreds of billions to the national debt, damage the rule of law, remove protections for the unborn, and further expand the reach and power of an already too-large federal government.
Members of Congress in both chambers should carefully consider the bill’s contents and find an alternative approach that better fits the nation’s founding principles of limited government and federalism.


dailysignal--2020-07-30--What States Can Learn From Texas’ COVID-19 Response

Texas has seen a surge of COVID-19 cases in recent weeks , prompting the White House ’ s coronavirus task force coordinator , Dr. Deborah Birx , to call the state one of “ three New Yorks.
” Some have even blamed the state ’ s early attempt to reopen as the cause of surge .
While the surge needs to be taken seriously , there are reasons to be optimistic .
For instance , in Texas , testing has increased , the rate of positive cases are trending down , and hospitalizations are plateauing .
Texas ’ death rate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lower than rates in most other states .
In a renewed effort to fully reopen the state , mask wearing and hand washing are being made a top priority , and Texans are being reminded to social distance with more frequency .
If these healthy habits continue , Texas will soon be in a much better position to reopen completely .
While certain media outlets are portraying the health care system as overwhelmed by the pandemic , this is far from true .
Texas has a total of over 59,000 staffed hospital beds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to 20 % more .
Currently , there are more than 12,200 available beds , and less than 17 % of hospital beds are occupied by COVID-19 patients .
More than 80 % of Texas hospitalizations are not virus related , and 1,362 intensive care unit beds are available across the state .
Hotspot areas have received logistical support from federal and state sources .
Maintaining adequate personnel and personal protective equipment will continue to be a concern throughout the pandemic , but for the most part , resources have been sufficient .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the virus shows that Texas is similar to many other states in that the caseload is dominated by young adults .
The spread in this age group has likely resulted from large social gatherings , holiday outings , and riskier social behaviors .
Fortunately , this demographic has a much lower risk of developing severe illness compared to older age groups .
Texas has made some attempts to slowly reopen , and it ’ s likely that some elements of reopening contributed to the community spread .
But solely blaming the reopening for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The nation , at large , is seeing a dramatic uptick in cases .
Even in states like California , where strict lockdowns continue , the new COVID-19 case numbers have surpassed that of New York .
Other factors may also be contributing to Texas ’ increase in caseloads .
They include : • Individual responsibility .
Contact tracing shows that bars and businesses that allow social gatherings have increased caseloads in Texas and elsewhere .
Texas ’ Gov .
Greg Abbott quickly responded by closing or restricting these types of businesses .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a robust testing and surge response program for nursing homes , assisted living centers , and prisons in June .
This contributed to the initial spikes in the overall case counts .
Prisons have accounted for 13,601 positive cases and 98 probable deaths .
Assisted living centers and nursing homes account for over 17,000 positive cases and more than 350 deaths .
To their credit , Texas officials are continuing to address this concern and are protecting the most vulnerable .
With continued testing and tracing , Texas may see a decrease in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case numbers .
• Border crossings .
Texas has recently experienced an increase of cases in border counties .
In fact , the population in border county residents makes up only 10 % of the Texas population but border county patients account for more than 20 % of the deaths in Texas .
This could be attributable to the plight of Mexican nationals dealing with a widespread outbreak in their own country , and Mexico ’ s relatively poor health care infrastructure .
There are similar trends in border counties in Arizona and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ border to access health care in the U.S. • Changes in data collection .
Because of inconsistencies with data collection , Texas officials have changed and updated their procedures , calling into question the initial reports of viral spread and peaks in cases and fatalities .
As care for non-COVID-19 patients resumed , patients arriving at hospitals and outpatient facilities are being tested .
Those that are positive have either been asymptomatic or had mild illness .
As aggressive testing continues , additional cases may be found that do not directly impact hospital @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of COVID-19 illness in patients is important to evaluate for better decision-making .
Right now , all eyes are on Texas as states begin to prepare their own widespread reopening plans .
Texas developed its phased-in reopening plan with the expectation that there would be a slow reemergence of the virus among the general public , but also hoped to suppress it to a manageable level of cases .
If the recent wave falls within the ability of the health care system to respond , this should be encouraging as Texas , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reopening process .
Texas officials are also aware of the need to adjust to new problems as they emerge .
One such problem that states—including Texas—are facing is turnaround time for testing .
Lab turnaround times have varied greatly over the last few weeks with the greater demand .
Officials in Texas are aware of the problem and are actively working to reduce wait times .
Success here will be helpful to keep Texas on track with its reopening goals .
Another problem occurring in many larger counties in Texas is public health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ within a given county , even though some of the larger counties have many different cities and towns scattered across a vast area .
Decision makers should carefully consider targeting local problem areas , zip codes , and specific school districts or schools as needed , instead of issuing widespread whole-county orders , as we ’ ve seen in recent days in Dallas , Tarrant , and Travis counties .
With this week ’ s legal guidance from Attorney General Ken Paxton , the state appears to have done just this , limiting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ returning control to local school districts .
In order to issue more targeted and effective responses , policymakers should look at the percentage of patients that have tested positive , the percentage of patients that need hospitalization , and the overall severity of illness for people testing positive across the state .
This could better inform decision making and projections as we move forward .
The rest of the nation should focus on what we in Texas are learning , and to adjust their own reopening plans accordingly .
While the people of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resilient , the task ahead is to work our way through this global pandemic , rely on the science , and not allow fear to steal our liberty .

Texas has seen a surge of COVID-19 cases in recent weeks, prompting the White House’s coronavirus task force coordinator, Dr. Deborah Birx, to call the state one of “three New Yorks.” Some have even blamed the state’s early attempt to reopen as the cause of surge.
While the surge needs to be taken seriously, there are reasons to be optimistic.
For instance, in Texas, testing has increased, the rate of positive cases are trending down, and hospitalizations are plateauing. Texas’ death rate of 20 deaths per 100,000 is much lower than rates in most other states.
In a renewed effort to fully reopen the state, mask wearing and hand washing are being made a top priority, and Texans are being reminded to social distance with more frequency. If these healthy habits continue, Texas will soon be in a much better position to reopen completely.
While certain media outlets are portraying the health care system as overwhelmed by the pandemic, this is far from true.
Texas has a total of over 59,000 staffed hospital beds, with the option of surging up to 20% more. Currently, there are more than 12,200 available beds, and less than 17% of hospital beds are occupied by COVID-19 patients.
More than 80% of Texas hospitalizations are not virus-related, and 1,362 intensive care unit beds are available across the state.
Hot spot areas have received logistical support from federal and state sources. Maintaining adequate personnel and personal protective equipment will continue to be a concern throughout the pandemic, but for the most part, resources have been sufficient.
A closer look at who is getting the virus shows that Texas is similar to many other states in that the caseload is dominated by young adults. The spread in this age group has likely resulted from large social gatherings, holiday outings, and riskier social behaviors. Fortunately, this demographic has a much lower risk of developing severe illness compared to older age groups.
Texas has made some attempts to slowly reopen, and it’s likely that some elements of reopening contributed to the community spread. But solely blaming the reopening for the surge in cases is unjustified. The nation, at large, is seeing a dramatic uptick in cases.
Even in states like California, where strict lockdowns continue, the new COVID-19 case numbers have surpassed that of New York.
Other factors may also be contributing to Texas’ increase in caseloads. They include:
Individual responsibility. Contact tracing shows that bars and businesses that allow social gatherings have increased caseloads in Texas and elsewhere. Texas’ Gov. Greg Abbott quickly responded by closing or restricting these types of businesses. More thorough testing. Texas launched a robust testing and surge response program for nursing homes, assisted living centers, and prisons in June. This contributed to the initial spikes in the overall case counts. Prisons have accounted for 13,601 positive cases and 98 probable deaths. Assisted living centers and nursing homes account for over 17,000 positive cases and more than 350 deaths. To their credit, Texas officials are continuing to address this concern and are protecting the most vulnerable. With continued testing and tracing, Texas may see a decrease in cases from congregate facilities impacting the overall case numbers. Border crossings. Texas has recently experienced an increase of cases in border counties. In fact, the population in border county residents makes up only 10% of the Texas population but border county patients account for more than 20% of the deaths in Texas. This could be attributable to the plight of Mexican nationals dealing with a widespread outbreak in their own country, and Mexico’s relatively poor health care infrastructure. There are similar trends in border counties in Arizona and California indicating they may be crossing the border to access health care in the U.S. Changes in data collection. Because of inconsistencies with data collection, Texas officials have changed and updated their procedures, calling into question the initial reports of viral spread and peaks in cases and fatalities. As care for non-COVID-19 patients resumed, patients arriving at hospitals and outpatient facilities are being tested. Those that are positive have either been asymptomatic or had mild illness. As aggressive testing continues, additional cases may be found that do not directly impact hospital capacity and resources. The overall severity of COVID-19 illness in patients is important to evaluate for better decision-making.
Right now, all eyes are on Texas as states begin to prepare their own widespread reopening plans.
Texas developed its phased-in reopening plan with the expectation that there would be a slow reemergence of the virus among the general public, but also hoped to suppress it to a manageable level of cases.
If the recent wave falls within the ability of the health care system to respond, this should be encouraging as Texas, and other states, move forward with the reopening process.
Texas officials are also aware of the need to adjust to new problems as they emerge. One such problem that states—including Texas—are facing is turnaround time for testing. Lab turnaround times have varied greatly over the last few weeks with the greater demand. Officials in Texas are aware of the problem and are actively working to reduce wait times.
Success here will be helpful to keep Texas on track with its reopening goals.
Another problem occurring in many larger counties in Texas is public health departments making decisions for millions of people within a given county, even though some of the larger counties have many different cities and towns scattered across a vast area.
Decision-makers should carefully consider targeting local problem areas, ZIP codes, and specific school districts or schools as needed, instead of issuing widespread whole-county orders, as we’ve seen in recent days in Dallas, Tarrant, and Travis counties.
With this week’s legal guidance from Attorney General Ken Paxton, the state appears to have done just this, limiting sweeping decisions by public health officials and returning control to local school districts.
In order to issue more targeted and effective responses, policymakers should look at the percentage of patients that have tested positive, the percentage of patients that need hospitalization, and the overall severity of illness for people testing positive across the state. This could better inform decision-making and projections as we move forward.
The rest of the nation should focus on what we in Texas are learning and adjust their own reopening plans accordingly. While the people of Texas, like other Americans, are resilient, the task ahead is to work our way through this global pandemic, rely on the science, and not allow fear to steal our liberty.


dailysignal--2020-07-31--Obama Encourages Senate Democrats to Eliminate Filibuster

Democrats are looking again at eliminating the filibuster so that they can pass legislation in the Senate without difficulty if they retake the majority , and they gained an ally this week in former President Barack Obama .
Obama said during a politically charged eulogy Thursday at the Atlanta funeral service for Rep. John Lewis , D-Ga. , that it may be necessary to do away with the filibuster and inaccurately called the procedure a “ Jim Crow relic.
” First , Obama called for legislation giving voting representation in Congress to the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and guaranteeing that all Americans automatically are registered to vote , Politico and other news outlets reported .
“ And if all this takes eliminating the filibuster , another Jim Crow relic , in order to secure the God-given rights of every American , then that ’ s what we should do , ” Obama said .
The filibuster as a potential tactic to block a Senate vote actually dates to 1806 , not to the so-called Jim Crow laws that , beginning in the late 19th century , denied equal rights to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate filibuster actually occurred in 1837 , although segregationist Democrats did use it to block passage of civil rights laws in the 1950s and early 1960s .
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer , D-N.Y. , apparently agrees with Obama on the filibuster .
“ Job number one is for us to get the majority , ” Schumer told reporters last week .
“ We don ’ t take anything for granted , but it ’ s looking better and better .
Once we get the majority , we ’ ll discuss it in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the table.
” On Friday , former Louisiana Gov .
Bobby Jindal , a Republican , called out Obama for saying the filibuster should be put aside .
“ [ email protected ] tried to use filibuster to stop [ Samuel ] Alito nomination [ to the Supreme Court ] in ’ 06 ; 60 senators opposed @ realDonaldTrump effort to remove filibuster in 2017 , ” Jindal tweeted .
“ Obama now says filibuster a ‘ Jim Crow relic.
’ Dems should stop pretending they are fighting for principles , and admit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , three-fifths , or 60 , of the 100 senators , can “ invoke cloture , ” bypass a filibuster , and proceed to a vote , but Democrats again are looking at abolishing the practice .
Sen. Bernie Sanders , I-Vt. , said later Thursday that he agrees with Obama .
“ President Obama is absolutely right , ” Sanders tweeted .
“ It is an outrage that modern-day poll taxes , gerrymandering , I.D .
requirements , and other forms of voter suppression still exist today .
If expanding the Voting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ filibuster , then that is what we must do.
” Eliminating the filibuster and allowing the nuclear option would let Democrats pass legislation with just 51 votes rather than needing 60 to advance to a floor vote .
Not every Democrat is signing off on eliminating the filibuster , however .
“ I have never supported a repeal of the filibuster and I don ’ t support one now , ” Sen. Joe Manchin , D-W.V.
, tweeted .
“ I am willing to consider solutions that promote collaboration so the Senate is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But repealing the filibuster would result in even more partisanship.
” Republicans , who currently control the Senate with 53 seats , aren ’ t taking kindly to the idea .
“ It is all about power , folks , not for the good of the country : Joe Biden says Democrats will kill the 60-vote barrier if Senate Republicans are too ‘ obstreperous , ’ ” Sen. John Cornyn , R-Texas , tweeted July 17 .
Tom Jipping , deputy director of The Heritage Foundation ’ s Edwin Meese III Center @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Daily Signal in an email that Democrats already went too far in 2013 , when they eliminated the filibuster for a majority of presidential nominees .
“ Senate Democrats showed in 2013 how reckless they are willing to be when they think rigging the Senate ’ s rules will lead to short-term political gain , ” Jipping said .
“ Abandoning the legislative filibuster , the Senate ’ s most distinctive feature for more than 200 years , would do even greater damage and upset the balance that America ’ s founders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government .
”

Democrats are looking again at eliminating the filibuster so that they can pass legislation in the Senate without difficulty if they retake the majority, and they gained an ally this week in former President Barack Obama.
Obama said during a politically charged eulogy Thursday at the Atlanta funeral service for Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., that it may be necessary to do away with the filibuster and inaccurately called the procedure a “Jim Crow relic.”
First, Obama called for legislation giving voting representation in Congress to the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, making Election Day a federal holiday, and guaranteeing that all Americans automatically are registered to vote, Politico and other news outlets reported.
“And if all this takes eliminating the filibuster, another Jim Crow relic, in order to secure the God-given rights of every American, then that’s what we should do,” Obama said.
The filibuster as a potential tactic to block a Senate vote actually dates to 1806, not to the so-called Jim Crow laws that, beginning in the late 19th century, denied equal rights to blacks in the South.
The first Senate filibuster actually occurred in 1837, although segregationist Democrats did use it to block passage of civil rights laws in the 1950s and early 1960s.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., apparently agrees with Obama on the filibuster.
“Job No. 1 is for us to get the majority,” Schumer told reporters last week. “We don’t take anything for granted, but it’s looking better and better. Once we get the majority, we’ll discuss it in our caucus. Nothing’s off the table.”
On Friday, former Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a Republican, called out Obama for saying the filibuster should be put aside.
“@BarackObama tried to use filibuster to stop [Samuel] Alito nomination [to the Supreme Court] in ’06; 60 senators opposed @realDonaldTrump effort to remove filibuster in 2017,” Jindal tweeted. “Obama now says filibuster a ‘Jim Crow relic.’ Dems should stop pretending they are fighting for principles, and admit it’s about power.”
Currently, three-fifths, or 60, of the 100 senators can “invoke cloture,” bypass a filibuster, and proceed to a vote, but Democrats again are looking at abolishing the rule in favor of requiring a simple majority of 51 votes.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., said later Thursday that he agrees with Obama.
“President Obama is absolutely right,” Sanders tweeted. “It is an outrage that modern-day poll taxes, gerrymandering, I.D. requirements, and other forms of voter suppression still exist today. If expanding the Voting Rights Act requires us to eliminate the filibuster, then that is what we must do.”
Eliminating the filibuster and allowing the nuclear option would let Democrats pass legislation with just 51 votes rather than needing 60 to advance to a floor vote.
Not every Democrat is signing off on eliminating the filibuster, however.
“I have never supported a repeal of the filibuster and I don’t support one now,” Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., tweeted. “I am willing to consider solutions that promote collaboration so the Senate is able to be a productive body again. But repealing the filibuster would result in even more partisanship.”
Republicans, who currently control the Senate with 53 seats, aren’t taking kindly to the idea.
“It is all about power, folks, not for the good of the country: Joe Biden says Democrats will kill the 60-vote barrier if Senate Republicans are too ‘obstreperous,’” Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, tweeted July 17.
Tom Jipping, deputy director of The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, told The Daily Signal in an email that Democrats already went too far in 2013, when they eliminated the filibuster for a majority of presidential nominees.
“Senate Democrats showed in 2013 how reckless they are willing to be when they think rigging the Senate’s rules will lead to short-term political gain,” Jipping said.
“Abandoning the legislative filibuster, the Senate’s most distinctive feature for more than 200 years, would do even greater damage and upset the balance that America’s Founders struck when they designed our system of government.”


dailysignal--2020-07-31--63% of US Counties Still Have 5 or Fewer COVID-19 Deaths

As Heritage Foundation researchers have demonstrated throughout the coronavirus pandemic , the spread of COVID-19 in the U.S. has been heavily concentrated in a small number of states—and among a small number of counties within states .
Even though the U.S. has seen a rapid rise in cases during the past month , the overall levels of concentration have remained fairly consistent .
As of July 28 , for example , just 10 states account for 60 % of all U.S. cases and 68 % of all deaths ( greater than their 50 % share of the population ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ best way for America to reopen and return to business ?
The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission , a project of The Heritage Foundation , assembled America ’ s top thinkers to figure that out .
So far , it has made more than 260 recommendations .
Learn more here .
The five states with the most cases—New York , California , Florida , Texas , and New Jersey—report 44 % of all U.S. cases and 46 % of all deaths .
In the past 30 days , the five states with the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ California , Florida , Arizona , and New York ( in descending order ) .
Together , these five states reported 52 % of all the COVID-19 deaths during the past 30 days , although they account for 36 % of the U.S. population .
For comparison , Texas reported approximately 3,500 COVID-19 deaths over the past 30 days .
In April and May , New York reported the most COVID-19 deaths—about 21,000 in April and 6,200 in May—as situations began to improve in the state .
Together , New York and New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all COVID-19 deaths , though they include only 9 % of the U.S. population .
Those two states reported 9 % of the COVID-19 deaths in the past 30 days .
These state-level figures do not , however , adequately describe the concentrated nature of the spread of COVID-19 .
The 30 counties with the most COVID-19 deaths , for example , account for 28 % of all the cases in the U.S. and 46 % of all deaths , much greater than their 17 % share of the U.S. population .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ counties in the U.S. , representing 17 % of the U.S. population , are responsible for almost half of the country ’ s COVID-19 deaths .
Of those 30 counties , 23 are in the Northeast corridor between Philadelphia and Boston , the passageway served by a commuter railway system that runs through Manhattan .
Overall , only about 10 % of the counties in the U.S. contain 90 % of all the COVID-19 deaths , even though those counties include 60 % of the population .
Throughout the pandemic , there have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID-19 deaths .
For instance , as of May 11 , 64 % of all counties ( 16 % of the U.S. population ) had one or no COVID-19 deaths .
As of July 28 , 43 % of all counties ( 8 % of the population ) have no more than one COVID-19 death each .
While these numbers have obviously declined since May , many counties still have a relatively small number of COVID-19 deaths .
In particular , as of July 28 , 63 % of all counties ( 16 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or fewer COVID-19 deaths .
In the past 30 days , the 30 counties with the most COVID-19 deaths account for 39 % of the COVID-19 deaths reported in the U.S. , almost double their population share of 21 % .
Now that COVID-19 testing has dramatically increased and many state and local governments have relaxed stay-at-home orders , it is even more critical to study the trends in deaths along with cases .
To make studying these trends easier , The Heritage Foundation now has two interactive COVID-19 trackers .
One tracks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tracks trends in deaths .
The trackers describe whether the trend of cases—or deaths—is increasing or decreasing over the prior 14 days , and provides a visual depiction of new cases—or deaths—during that time period .
These tools help put the concentrated nature of the pandemic in perspective with county-level data , and they show just how difficult it can be to use only one metric to gauge whether a county—or state—is doing well .
For instance , on July 14 , Harris County in Texas had 2,001 new cases , the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the number of cases then trended down for the next 14 days .
While the number of deaths has increased as well , an unusually large number was reported on July 27 .
Readers are invited to explore the information in the tracker and check back frequently for updates , as well as explore the other visual tools on Heritage ’ s COVID-19 resources page .

As Heritage Foundation researchers have demonstrated throughout the coronavirus pandemic, the spread of COVID-19 in the U.S. has been heavily concentrated in a small number of states—and among a small number of counties within states.
Even though the U.S. has seen a rapid rise in cases during the past month, the overall levels of concentration have remained fairly consistent.
As of July 28, for example, just 10 states account for 60% of all U.S. cases and 68% of all deaths (greater than their 50% share of the population).
>>> What’s the best way for America to reopen and return to business? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, assembled America’s top thinkers to figure that out. So far, it has made more than 260 recommendations. Learn more here.
The five states with the most cases—New York, California, Florida, Texas, and New Jersey—report 44% of all U.S. cases and 46% of all deaths.
In the past 30 days, the five states with the most reported COVID-19 deaths is very similar—Texas, California, Florida, Arizona, and New York (in descending order). Together, these five states reported 52% of all the COVID-19 deaths during the past 30 days, although they account for 36% of the U.S. population.
For comparison, Texas reported approximately 3,500 COVID-19 deaths over the past 30 days. In April and May, New York reported the most COVID-19 deaths—about 21,000 in April and 6,200 in May—as situations began to improve in the state.
Together, New York and New Jersey alone account for 31% of all COVID-19 deaths, though they include only 9% of the U.S. population. Those two states reported 9% of the COVID-19 deaths in the past 30 days.
These state-level figures do not, however, adequately describe the concentrated nature of the spread of COVID-19.
The 30 counties with the most COVID-19 deaths, for example, account for 28% of all the cases in the U.S. and 46% of all deaths, much greater than their 17% share of the U.S. population. That is, just 1% of the counties in the U.S., representing 17% of the U.S. population, are responsible for almost half of the country’s COVID-19 deaths.
Of those 30 counties, 23 are in the Northeast corridor between Philadelphia and Boston, the passageway served by a commuter railway system that runs through Manhattan.
Overall, only about 10% of the counties in the U.S. contain 90% of all the COVID-19 deaths, even though those counties include 60% of the population.
Throughout the pandemic, there have been many U.S. counties with relatively few COVID-19 deaths. For instance, as of May 11, 64% of all counties (16% of the U.S. population) had one or no COVID-19 deaths. As of July 28, 43% of all counties (8% of the population) have no more than one COVID-19 death each.
While these numbers have obviously declined since May, many counties still have a relatively small number of COVID-19 deaths. In particular, as of July 28, 63% of all counties (16% of the population) have five or fewer COVID-19 deaths.
In the past 30 days, the 30 counties with the most COVID-19 deaths account for 39% of the COVID-19 deaths reported in the U.S., almost double their population share of 21%.
Now that COVID-19 testing has dramatically increased and many state and local governments have relaxed stay-at-home orders, it is even more critical to study the trends in deaths along with cases.
To make studying these trends easier, The Heritage Foundation now has two interactive COVID-19 trackers. One tracks trends in cases, while the other tracks trends in deaths.
The trackers describe whether the trend of cases—or deaths—is increasing or decreasing over the prior 14 days, and provides a visual depiction of new cases—or deaths—during that time period.
These tools help put the concentrated nature of the pandemic in perspective with county-level data, and they show just how difficult it can be to use only one metric to gauge whether a county—or state—is doing well.
For instance, on July 14, Harris County in Texas had 2,001 new cases, the most of the previous two-week period. However, the number of cases then trended down for the next 14 days. While the number of deaths has increased as well, an unusually large number was reported on July 27.
Readers are invited to explore the information in the tracker and check back frequently for updates, as well as explore the other visual tools on Heritage’s COVID-19 resources page.


dailysignal--2020-08-01--What We Know Now About Hydroxychloroquine to Treat COVID-19

Early in health officials ’ response to the pandemic , one drug offered hope of a safe , widely available , and cheap therapeutic that would break the death grip that COVID-19 held on the world .
However , after its promised efficacy didn ’ t materialize in large , statistically significant numbers , enthusiasm for the drug , hydroxychloroquine , quickly waned .
Why , then , has it made its way back into the headlines ?
When it was first suggested that hydroxychloroquine may be an effective antiviral against the new coronavirus , which scientists call SARS-CoV-2 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drug by the millions of doses even before research could prove its efficacy .
> > > What ’ s the best way for America to reopen and return to business ?
The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission , a project of The Heritage Foundation , assembled America ’ s top thinkers to figure that out .
So far , it has made more than 260 recommendations .
Learn more here .
At the time , what scarce data was available suggested it would work , and waiting much longer would ’ ve been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has a decadeslong history of use to treat malaria .
But with those millions of doses being administered , clinicians found only mixed results .
Some , as in the early French trial , found tremendous success , while many others found no clinical benefit .
Thus , the buzz surrounding hydroxychloroquine began to die down and it nearly was forgotten in the news cycle , until early July when the results of 2,500-person study were published by the Henry Ford COVID-19 Task Force .
That study found that among those who received @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This compares to those who received none of the studied drugs , among whom the mortality was 26.4 % .
The group of patients who received hydroxychloroquine alone suffered about half the mortality of the baseline group .
Note that this is different from saying hydroxychloroquine “ was responsible for reducing mortality by half.
” The Ford study is a retrospective observational study , which means it looks back on cases that already have happened .
These studies often can gather a large amount of data , but they tell only correlation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s a positive study for the drug , it adds to a growing body of mixed results .
To tell definitively whether hydroxychloroquine is responsible for the reduction in mortality , what ’ s required is a randomized controlled trial .
That is , a prospective study designed to test the direct effect of a drug or intervention .
One such randomized controlled trial was published in July in the New England Journal of Medicine , which also put hydroxychloroquine back in the news .
The study , of 507 patients with confirmed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ difference in clinical outcome with the addition of hydroxychloroquine , either with or without azithromycin .
Patients included in this study were hospitalized but did not require more than four liters of supplemental oxygen .
This means that the condition of the patients studied was of relatively low severity , and that treatment with hydroxychloroquine began earlier on in the course of the disease .
Therefore , this study was intended to test the conditions for which hydroxychloroquine has been proposed to be used and found it to have no clinical benefit over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the researchers noted several limitations to their study .
For instance , the study was not blinded , which could have skewed the results , and there was difficulty with adherence to the treatment regimen , which could have affected the outcomes .
Furthermore , hydroxychloroquine with or without azithromycin was compared to the “ standard of care , ” which at the time of the study , in March , was not very standard .
Physicians were free to use other drugs such as steroids , immunomodulators , or other antibiotics .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ better than other drugs , but it is difficult to say that hydroxychloroquine had zero effect when its effect may have been matched or covered up by other drugs considered “ standard of care ” at the time .
As if it weren ’ t already confusing enough , few studies have included zinc as part of the treatment regimen along with hydroxychloroquine .
Zinc is an essential mineral that is important for immune function , and may have some direct antiviral properties that some researchers propose would be amplified when used in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ York University Langone Health , a medical center , began adding zinc to their treatment plans for COVID-19 patients .
In a study of 932 patient cases , the medical center found that the addition of zinc to hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin was associated with a decrease in mortality in patients who were not admitted to the intensive care unit .
Because this also was a retrospective study , it can tell only correlation and not causation .
That said , it ’ s a promising result that suggests hydroxychloroquine might need supplemental zinc @ @ @ @ @ @ @ further investigation .
Few published results exist from studies that include zinc , and fewer if any results exist from a clinical trial of zinc with hydroxychloroquine .
But several studies of this drug combination are in progress , some of which are expected to conclude as late as next year .
All of this is to say that the science is not yet settled .
It is an open question as to whether hydroxychloroquine in combination with any number of other drugs may have a beneficial effect on the disease course of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says it doesn ’ t work , but enough evidence says hydroxychloroquine does work that it would be irresponsible to write it off completely at this time , especially in combination with other drugs .
In fact , researchers around the world are conducting hundreds of trials with hydroxychloroquine .
Hydroxychloroquine is dominating the news again for many reasons , not the least of which is that results from several important studies recently have been released .
But the angst , the controversy , and cynical politicking around the drug is completely unwarranted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ certain if , and in what manner , hydroxychloroquine works .
We should trust clinicians to review the data for themselves , and it would behoove the media , the politicians , and the public to let the science play out .

Early in health officials’ response to the pandemic, one drug offered hope of a safe, widely available, and cheap therapeutic that would break the death grip that COVID-19 held on the world.
However, after its promised efficacy didn’t materialize in large, statistically significant numbers, enthusiasm for the drug, hydroxychloroquine, quickly waned. Why, then, has it made its way back into the headlines?
When it was first suggested that hydroxychloroquine may be an effective antiviral against the new coronavirus, which scientists call SARS-CoV-2, the U.S. government purchased and delivered the drug by the millions of doses even before research could prove its efficacy.
>>> What’s the best way for America to reopen and return to business? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, assembled America’s top thinkers to figure that out. So far, it has made more than 260 recommendations. Learn more here.
At the time, what scarce data was available suggested it would work, and waiting much longer would’ve been unethical. After all, the drug has a decadeslong history of use to treat malaria.
But with those millions of doses being administered, clinicians found only mixed results. Some, as in the early French trial, found tremendous success, while many others found no clinical benefit.
Thus, the buzz surrounding hydroxychloroquine began to die down and it nearly was forgotten in the news cycle, until early July when the results of 2,500-person study were published by the Henry Ford COVID-19 Task Force.
That study found that among those who received hydroxychloroquine, the mortality was 13.5%. This compares to those who received none of the studied drugs, among whom the mortality was 26.4%.
The group of patients who received hydroxychloroquine alone suffered about half the mortality of the baseline group. Note that this is different from saying hydroxychloroquine “was responsible for reducing mortality by half.”
The Ford study is a retrospective observational study, which means it looks back on cases that already have happened. These studies often can gather a large amount of data, but they tell only correlation rather than causation. Although it’s a positive study for the drug, it adds to a growing body of mixed results.
To tell definitively whether hydroxychloroquine is responsible for the reduction in mortality, what’s required is a randomized controlled trial. That is, a prospective study designed to test the direct effect of a drug or intervention.
One such randomized controlled trial was published in July in the New England Journal of Medicine, which also put hydroxychloroquine back in the news. The study, of 507 patients with confirmed COVID-19, found there was no significant difference in clinical outcome with the addition of hydroxychloroquine, either with or without azithromycin.
Patients included in this study were hospitalized but did not require more than four liters of supplemental oxygen. This means that the condition of the patients studied was of relatively low severity, and that treatment with hydroxychloroquine began earlier on in the course of the disease.
Therefore, this study was intended to test the conditions for which hydroxychloroquine has been proposed to be used and found it to have no clinical benefit over the “standard of care.”
But the researchers noted several limitations to their study. For instance, the study was not blinded, which could have skewed the results, and there was difficulty with adherence to the treatment regimen, which could have affected the outcomes.
Furthermore, hydroxychloroquine with or without azithromycin was compared to the “standard of care,” which at the time of the study, in March, was not very standard. Physicians were free to use other drugs such as steroids, immunomodulators, or other antibiotics.
So hydroxychloroquine in this study did no better than other drugs, but it is difficult to say that hydroxychloroquine had zero effect when its effect may have been matched or covered up by other drugs considered “standard of care” at the time.
As if it weren’t already confusing enough, few studies have included zinc as part of the treatment regimen along with hydroxychloroquine. Zinc is an essential mineral that is important for immune function, and may have some direct antiviral properties that some researchers propose would be amplified when used in conjunction with hydroxychloroquine.
Researchers at New York University Langone Health, a medical center, began adding zinc to their treatment plans for COVID-19 patients. In a study of 932 patient cases, the medical center found that the addition of zinc to hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin was associated with a decrease in mortality in patients who were not admitted to the intensive care unit.
Because this also was a retrospective study, it can tell only correlation and not causation.
That said, it’s a promising result that suggests hydroxychloroquine might need supplemental zinc to be fully effective. This warrants further investigation.
Few published results exist from studies that include zinc, and fewer if any results exist from a clinical trial of zinc with hydroxychloroquine. But several studies of this drug combination are in progress, some of which are expected to conclude as late as next year.
All of this is to say that the science is not yet settled. It is an open question as to whether hydroxychloroquine in combination with any number of other drugs may have a beneficial effect on the disease course of COVID-19.
A great deal of evidence says it doesn’t work, but enough evidence says hydroxychloroquine does work that it would be irresponsible to write it off completely at this time, especially in combination with other drugs. In fact, researchers around the world are conducting hundreds of trials with hydroxychloroquine.
Hydroxychloroquine is dominating the news again for many reasons, not the least of which is that results from several important studies recently have been released. But the angst, the controversy, and cynical politicking around the drug is completely unwarranted.
We don’t know for certain if, and in what manner, hydroxychloroquine works. We should trust clinicians to review the data for themselves, and it would behoove the media, the politicians, and the public to let the science play out.