Connect with us

South Dakota

Bipartisan border bill likely doomed in approaching U.S. Senate vote • South Dakota Searchlight

Published

on

Bipartisan border bill likely doomed in approaching U.S. Senate vote • South Dakota Searchlight


WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Democrats are pushing for a second attempt to pass a bipartisan border security bill that failed in February after Republicans walked away from the very deal they helped craft, and it’s likely to fail again when the Senate votes on the legislation Thursday.

“So why are we bringing this bill up the second time?” said Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., who was one of three negotiators of the measure. “The answer is simple. Democrats care about border security.”

The expected vote comes as immigration has continued to rise as a top concern for voters in the polls and as the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, Donald J. Trump, has centered his reelection campaign on the issue, promising to reinstate his previous policies and carry out mass deportations.

Advertisement

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

President Joe Biden called Republican leaders in both chambers Monday night to advocate for them to vote for passage of the bill that, among various things, would give Biden the executive authority to close the southern border when it’s overwhelmed.

Advertisement

“Mr. President, you caused this problem,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said he told Biden in their phone call.

McConnell said he pushed for Biden to reinstate Trump-era policies such as the completion of the border wall and the so-called Remain in Mexico policy, which required asylum seekers to stay in Mexico while waiting for their cases.

“The president needs to step up to it, do everything he can do on his own, because legislation obviously is not going to clear this year,” McConnell said.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, already said in a statement that should the bill pass the Senate, it’s dead on arrival in the House.

Thune: Democrats trying ‘political theater’

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, said he wanted Senate Republicans on the record for voting on the stand-alone bill. Republicans last year originally said they would only vote for vital aid to Ukraine if a border security bill was attached.

Advertisement

“Do Republicans want to improve the situation on the border, or not?” Schumer said. “Maybe they’re happy with the way things are.”

Schumer said that Republicans were on board with voting for the border security bill, “until President Trump told them to make a U-turn.”

Murphy as well as Kyrsten Sinema, an Arizona independent, and Republican James Lankford of Oklahoma spent months crafting a bipartisan border security bill that would overhaul U.S. immigration law. Senate Republicans walked away from the bill, eventually siding with their House colleagues and Trump.

South Dakota Sen. John Thune, the No. 2 Republican, said Democrats are only holding Thursday’s vote to protect vulnerable incumbents up for reelection this November such as Ohio’s Sherrod Brown and Montana’s Jon Tester.

“Where we are right now, this has become a political liability, a political vulnerability for the Democrats,” Thune said, adding “all the charades and political theater the Democrats are trying” are meant to protect incumbents.

Advertisement

The sweeping border security bill would raise the bar for migrants claiming asylum, clarify the White House’s parole authority and end the practice of allowing migrants to live in U.S. communities as they await their asylum hearings, among other things.

The Biden administration expressed frustration after Senate Republicans voted to kill the border security deal, frequently blaming Trump and Republicans for walking away.

“Every day between now and November, the American people are going to know that the only reason the border is not secure is Donald Trump and his MAGA Republican friends,” Biden said in February.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

South Dakota

Obituary for Robert DeVries at Miller Funeral Home & On-Site Crematory

Published

on

Obituary for Robert  DeVries at Miller Funeral Home & On-Site Crematory


Robert Ray DeVries, 83, entered into eternal rest on Wednesday, December 25, 2024, at Sanford USD Medical Center in Sioux Falls, SD. Funeral Services will be held at 1100 AM, Tuesday, December 31st at Peace Lutheran Church 5509 W. 41st St., Sioux Falls. The family will greet friends for visitation



Source link

Continue Reading

South Dakota

Obituary for Lorraine Weimer at Osheim & Schmidt Funeral Home

Published

on

Obituary for Lorraine  Weimer at Osheim & Schmidt Funeral Home


Lorraine Vivian Mowrey was born on May 27, 1933, in Belle Fourche, SD, to Chauncey Wilkes Mowrey and Lillian Ranghild Lofgren Mowrey. She was the fourth of the five Mowrey kids, joining siblings Connie Cunningham, Viola Friskey, Conrad Mowrey, and a few years later Linnea Gottman. When she was born,



Source link

Continue Reading

South Dakota

Federal government approves 20-year mining ban in part of SD’s Black Hills • North Dakota Monitor

Published

on

Federal government approves 20-year mining ban in part of SD’s Black Hills • North Dakota Monitor


The federal government approved a 20-year ban Thursday on new mining-related activity in a portion of South Dakota’s Black Hills.

The ban covers 32 square miles of federally owned land located about 20 miles west of Rapid City. The boundaries encompass the Pactola Reservoir and areas upstream that drain into the reservoir via Rapid Creek.

Lilias Jarding, executive director of the Black Hills Clean Water Alliance, hailed the action as “an expression of the will of the people.”

“It definitely shows that when people get active in their communities that we can influence what happens,” Jarding said.

Advertisement

Advocates for the ban rallied against a proposal from Minneapolis-based F3 Gold to conduct exploratory drilling. The project’s location is in the Jenney Gulch area of the Black Hills National Forest, within a mile of Pactola Reservoir. The man-made mountain lake is the largest and deepest reservoir in the Black Hills. It’s also a popular recreation destination and a drinking-water source for Rapid City and Ellsworth Air Force Base.

The boundaries of a ban on new mining-related activity encompassing the Pactola Reservoir and part of the Rapid Creek watershed. (Courtesy of U.S. Forest Service)

F3 won draft approval of its drilling plan from local Forest Service officials in 2022. Then, last year, the national offices of the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management announced they were considering a ban on new mining-related activity in the Pactola area.

Federal officials conducted a meeting about the proposed ban last year in Rapid City, where public sentiment was overwhelmingly against the drilling project and in favor of the ban. The Black Hills Clean Water Alliance said more than 1,900 people filed written comments on the ban, with 98% in support of it.

The ban is formally known as a “mineral withdrawal,” because it withdraws the area from eligibility for new mineral exploration and development. A 20-year ban is the maximum allowed by federal law, although the ban could be renewed after that. Only Congress can enact a permanent ban.

Advertisement

Decision comes from Interior Department

Interior Secretary Deb Haaland was the decision-maker on the mineral withdrawal, because the department’s Bureau of Land Management administers mining claims on federal land.

“I’m proud to take action today to withdraw this area for the next 20 years, to help protect clean drinking water and ensure this special place is protected for future generations,” Haaland said in a statement.

She also mentioned the area’s clean air, its recreational and ecological benefits, and the Black Hills’ sacred status in the traditional spiritual beliefs of many Great Plains Native American tribes. Haaland is a member of the Pueblo and Laguna tribes in New Mexico.

Tom Vilsack, secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which includes the Forest Service, issued a statement praising Haaland’s decision.

Advertisement

“The Pactola Reservoir–Rapid Creek Watershed provides so many benefits to the people and communities we serve, from clean water to world-class recreation, from livestock grazing to the spaces our Tribal communities consider sacred,” Vilsack said.

F3 Gold did not immediately return a message from South Dakota Searchlight. Jarding said F3’s Pactola project is negated by the 20-year ban on new activities.

“The only exception to that is if someone has already proved there is a mineral reserve, and without drilling, there’s no proving there’s a mineral resource,” Jarding said.

The company has another exploratory drilling project near Custer, outside of the Pactola ban area. The Custer project has final approval from the Forest Service.

Interest in Black Hills gold dates to its 1874 discovery by Lt. Col. George Armstrong Custer’s Black Hills Expedition. The discovery set off a gold rush that ultimately led to the development of the Homestake Mine near Lead, which was the largest and deepest gold mine in North America prior to its closure in 2001. Today, the only active, large-scale gold mine in the region is the Wharf Mine, also near Lead. There’s a large abandoned gold mine in the Lead area, the Gilt Edge Mine, that is undergoing a massive cleanup and water-treatment project supported by the Environmental Protection Agency’s Superfund.

Advertisement

Mining industry responds

Larry Mann, a retired South Dakota lobbyist who formerly represented F3, said the company’s project was treated unfairly. He said exploratory drilling would not damage the Pactola watershed, and that if drilling results justified developing a mine, the proposal would go through a rigorous permitting process that would probably take 10 to 15 years.

“F3 was willing to go through a lot of different things to accommodate concerns,” Mann said.

Mann wonders if the incoming administration of President-elect Donald Trump could seek to alter Haaland’s decision. Whether or not the new administration could do that, Mann expects Trump’s pick for secretary of the Interior Department — Republican former North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum — to be more supportive of mining on federal land.

“I think that there’s a possibility now with a change of leadership that the pendulum could start swinging the other way,” Mann said.

An official working for Burgum’s transition team did not immediately return a message from Searchlight. A spokesperson for the Bureau of Land Management responded by email to Searchlight, saying only that “we’re not going to speculate about decisions of a next Administration.”

Advertisement

F3 Gold is not a member of the South Dakota Mineral Industries Association, but the association issued a statement Thursday in response to Searchlight questions about the Pactola ban. The statement describes the ban as “federal overreach.” The association also alleged that the decision conflicts with federal mineral laws and policies and fails to recognize the significance of critical minerals — such as antimony, used in batteries — that the association said are present in the area covered by the ban.

“The secretary’s rushed decision on the withdrawal of over 20,000 acres proves this administration is desperate to complete executive actions before the new administration takes over on January 20th,” the association’s statement said, in part.

South Dakota Searchlight is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. South Dakota Searchlight maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Seth Tupper for questions: [email protected].
Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending