Funding for the u. S. Postal service. Members of the House Rules Committee met on friday to consider the bill called the delivering for america act introduced by oversight and reform chair carolyn maloney. It provides 25 billion in funding to the Postal Service and returns Service Levels to those at the beginning of 2020. The rules committee voted to send this legislation to the house floor for debate. The rules committee will come to order. We are here today because this president has thrown our democracy further into chaos. We are just weeks away from early voting in some states. The Record Number of ballots are expected to be asked by mail. Are expected to be cast by mail. Sorting machines are disappearing. Delivery has been slowed. The postalle, service is still badly in need of Additional Resources. The house acted to provide more but nothinghs ago has been done. , this isy this clearly an assault on democracy. These actions call into question whether legal ballots will be counted
Idea, into your bill, out of your bill, appreciate that. I am curious if there have been any hearings about that. Now and as you stated, it is out of the bill. Lets go forward. Have there been any hearings on this legislation at all . Know, there were no hearings on the postmaster generals actions were he did not perform any of us and told us he wasnt stopping. Our constituents were saying they were being hurt. Can i respond . I would like to say i will give you more. Congressman tom and moran and Susan Collins, all republicans sent their own letters expressing concerns with the postmaster generals actions. I ask unanimous consent to place them into the record and for example congressman from montana stated the postmaster general on august 6th, 2020, delaying mail service is unacceptable as the country continues to combat covid19. It keeps our communities connected. Montanans defendant reliable access to receive prescription drugs, Online Purchases and financial documents. He also quot
But much more conservatively given that action. Weve got time for one question. Weve got one over here. My question is for resources and for actual and temptation, you set the individual select in the program arent necessarily eligible towards a term of community supervision. Who provides the service when you type about checking in on a weekly basis, are you checking in with the Probation Office . It is only so many Probation Officers limited to how many people they can supervise spirit at one time the committee placement of several may have four or five on their load of people because they spend so much time with each people to make sure they are successful. One of the things that we did in the alternative portion is further able to shed the community so we can watch supervision and work with partners and other state agencies to contribute training and resources. So there was no actual funding. It was just reinvestment. Please join me in taking our panel. [applause] you want me to int
Is u. S. Supreme court heard oral argument in questioning the constitutional treaty parties. The case bond versus the u. S. Involves governments prosecution in that pennsylvania woman under federal a federal law designed to ban chemical weapons. The woman was found spreading toxic chemicals on her friends personal property. The underlying issue in the case is the question of when the federal government may intrude on powers traditionally given to the states. In this case police powers. Here is the oral argument to that case. We with her arguments in case 12. 158 bond versus United States. Mr. Clement. Mr. Chief justice and may it please the court. If the statute at issue here really does reach every malicious use of chemicals anywhere in the nation as the government insists it clearly exceeds congresss limit limited and enumerated powers. This court cases that may clear the bedrock of our system that Congress Backs the General Police power to criminalize conduct without regard to juris
Gas it makes sense to say those are chemical weapons but with respect to otherwise harmless chemicals the only thing under the governments theory that turns them from chemical weapons weapons chemicals into chemical weapons as a verb. Its their malicious use in that puts it yuan an odd situation. If congress had come in and said look there are certain chemicals that by their very nature are almost inherently weaponized congress would have a lot more authority to proceed. Counsel we permit that in all sorts of definitional sections of the criminal code. We call a dangerous weapon anything that you used to inflict serious injury on someone. I dont think of a car is necessarily a dangerous weapon. Its something i used to transport myself. Its only when im using it for a prohibited purpose that it turns itself into a dangerous weapon. So i am having a problem with this noun herb distinction. Why isnt the intentional killing and burning of another human being using chemicals the essence of