<a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?514537-1/joint-chiefs-chair-general-milley-testify-afghanistan-withdrawal&amp;live&amp;vod">Click here </a>to watch his testimony

WASHINGTON (AP) — The top U.S. military officer told Congress on Tuesday that he knew former President Donald Trump wasn’t planning to attack China and that it was his job to reassure the Chinese of this in the phone calls that have triggered outrage from some lawmakers.

<a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-afghanistan-lloyd-austin-joint-chiefs-of-staff-b93c6da6e9fdf61b2a185df9baa4e2a7">Army Gen. Mark Milley</a>, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, delivered a vehement defense of two calls he made to his Chinese counterpart, saying he was responding to a “significant degree of intelligence” that China was worried about a U.S. attack.

“I know, I am certain, that President Trump did not intend to attack the Chinese. ... And it was my directed responsibility by the secretary to convey that intent to the Chinese,” Milley told the Senate Armed Services Committee. “My task at that time was to de-escalate. My message again was consistent: Stay calm, steady, and de-escalate. We are not going to attack you.”

Milley has been at the center of controversy after reports that he made two calls to Gen. Li Zuocheng of the People’s Liberation Army to assure him that the United States was not suddenly going to go to war with or attack China. Details of the calls were first aired in excerpts from&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-united-states-china-bob-woodward-joint-chiefs-of-staff-ee2577288a524ab846fd91e9da689176">the recently released book “Peril”</a>&nbsp;by Washington Post journalists Bob Woodward and Robert Costa.

While Tuesday’s hearing largely focused on the troop withdrawal from Afghanistan and the chaotic evacuation of Americans, Afghans and others from the country, a few senators condemned Milley for what they saw as inappropriate communications with Li.

In his most extensive comments to date on the matter, Milley said the calls on Oct. 30 and Jan. 8 were fully coordinated with the defense secretaries at the time as well as other U.S. national security agencies. And he said that such military-to-military communications are critical to prevent war between great powers that possess nuclear weapons.

The calls came during Trump’s turbulent last months in office as he&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-government-and-politics-elections-ap-fact-check-election-2020-b3905c30c8bb585e20850da3c3f022e8">challenged the results of the 2020 election</a>. The second call came two days after Jan. 6, when&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-confirm-joe-biden-78104aea082995bbd7412a6e6cd13818">a violent mob attacked the U.S. Capitol</a>&nbsp;in an effort to prevent Congress from certifying Biden’s White House victory.

Milley said the October call was made at the direction of then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper and the second was done at the request of the Chinese and coordinated with then-acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller’s office.

Asked if he spoke with the book’s authors and if his remarks were “accurately represented,” Milley said he spoke with Woodward and that he has not read the book but has seen press reports on it.

Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., asked that he provide more answers once he’s read the book. She and Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., questioned whether Milley shared private presidential conversations with the authors.

Milley said he did not leak private conversations he had with Trump, and said he routinely speaks with the media to provide information and transparency to the American people.

Milley also addressed a call he received from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. He said Pelosi “called me to inquire about the president’s ability to launch nuclear weapons. I sought to assure her that nuclear launch is governed by a very specific and deliberate process.”

He said he assured her that while the president is the sole nuclear launch authority, “he doesn’t launch them alone.” He said that as chairman he is part of the launch decision process.

“There are processes, protocols and procedures in place, and I repeatedly assured her there is no chance of an illegal, unauthorized or accidental launch,” Milley said.

The book asserts that during the call, Milley agreed with Pelosi’s statement that Trump was suffering a mental decline after the election. During Tuesday’s hearing, Milley appeared to discount that, saying “I am not qualified to determine the mental health of the president of the United States.”

He said that after the call was over, he had a short meeting with staff to go over the process. He also said he informed Miller of the call at the time.

“At no time was I attempting to change or influence the process, usurp authority or insert myself in the chain of command, but I am expected, I am required, to give my advice and ensure that the president is fully informed,” Milley said.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The top U.S. military officer called the 20-year war in Afghanistan a “strategic failure” and told Congress on Tuesday that he believes the U.S. should have kept several thousand troops in the country to prevent the unexpectedly rapid takeover by the Taliban.

In his first congressional testimony on the tumultuous withdrawal, Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, refused to say what advice he gave President Joe Biden last spring when Biden was considering whether to keep any troops in Afghanistan.

But he told the Senate Armed Services Committee it was his personal opinion that at least 2,500 were needed to guard against a collapse of the Kabul government and a return to Taliban rule.

In a blunt assessment of a war that cost 2,461 American lives, Milley said the result was years in the making.

“Outcomes in a war like this, an outcome that is a strategic failure — the enemy is in charge in Kabul, there’s no way else to describe that — that is a cumulative effect of 20 years,” he said, adding that lessons need to be learned, including whether the U.S. military made the Afghans overly dependent on American technology in a mistaken effort to make the Afghan army look like the American army.

Gen. Frank McKenzie, who as head of Central Command had overseen the final months of the U.S. war, said he agreed with Milley that a few thousand troops should have been kept in Afghanistan, despite the Trump administration’s agreement with the Taliban in 2020 that all U.S. troops would leave by May 2021.

“I recommended that we maintain 2,500 troops in Afghanistan, and I also recommended early in the fall of 2020 that we maintain 4,500 at that time, those were my personal views,” McKenzie said. “I also had a view that the withdrawal of those forces would lead inevitably to the collapse of the Afghan military forces and eventually the Afghan government.”

The Senate hearing was at times contentious, as Republicans sought to portray Biden as having ignored advice from military officers and mischaracterized the military options he was presented last spring and summer. Several Republicans tried unsuccessfully to draw Milley, McKenzie and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin into commenting on the truthfulness of Biden’s statement to ABC News on Aug. 18, three days after the Taliban took control of Kabul, that no senior military commander had recommended against a full troop withdrawal when it was under discussion in the first months of Biden’s term.

Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., asked Milley why he did not choose to resign after his advice was rejected.

Milley, who was appointed to his position as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff by President Donald Trump and retained by Biden, said it was his responsibility to provide the commander in chief with his best advice.

“The president doesn’t have to agree with that advice,” Milley said. “He doesn’t have to make those decisions just because we are generals. And it would be an incredible act of political defiance for a commissioned officer to resign just because my advice was not taken.”

Testifying alongside Milley and McKenzie, Austin defended the military’s execution of a frantic airlift from Kabul in August and asserted it will be “difficult but absolutely possible” to contain future threats from Afghanistan without troops on the ground. Under questioning, he, too, declined to say what advice he had given Biden about whether to make a full troop withdrawal.

Milley also told Congress he knew former President Donald Trump wasn’t planning to attack China and it was his job to reassure the Chinese of that fact in the phone calls that have triggered outrage from some lawmakers.&nbsp; Milley delivered a vehement defense of two calls he made to his Chinese counterpart, saying he was responding to “concerning intelligence” China was worried about a U.S. attack. Milley says his task was “to de-escalate.” Details of Milley’s calls were first aired in excerpts from the book “Peril” by Washington Post journalists Bob Woodward and Robert Costa.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/9/1632855649721.png" alt="Joint Chiefs Chair Gen. Mark Milley testified on the Afghanistan withdrawal Tuesday -photo courtesy CSPAN" />
 <figcaption>Joint Chiefs Chair Gen. Mark Milley testified on the Afghanistan withdrawal Tuesday -photo courtesy CSPAN</figcaption>
 </figure><a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?514537-1/joint-chiefs-chair-general-milley-testify-afghanistan-withdrawal&amp;live&amp;vod">Click here </a>to watch his testimonyWASHINGTON (AP) — The top U.S. military officer told Congress on Tuesday that he knew former President Donald Trump wasn’t planning to attack China and that it was his job to reassure the Chinese of this in the phone calls that have triggered outrage from some lawmakers.<a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-afghanistan-lloyd-austin-joint-chiefs-of-staff-b93c6da6e9fdf61b2a185df9baa4e2a7">Army Gen. Mark Milley</a>, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, delivered a vehement defense of two calls he made to his Chinese counterpart, saying he was responding to a “significant degree of intelligence” that China was worried about a U.S. attack.“I know, I am certain, that President Trump did not intend to attack the Chinese. ... And it was my directed responsibility by the secretary to convey that intent to the Chinese,” Milley told the Senate Armed Services Committee. “My task at that time was to de-escalate. My message again was consistent: Stay calm, steady, and de-escalate. We are not going to attack you.”Milley has been at the center of controversy after reports that he made two calls to Gen. Li Zuocheng of the People’s Liberation Army to assure him that the United States was not suddenly going to go to war with or attack China. Details of the calls were first aired in excerpts from&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-united-states-china-bob-woodward-joint-chiefs-of-staff-ee2577288a524ab846fd91e9da689176">the recently released book “Peril”</a>&nbsp;by Washington Post journalists Bob Woodward and Robert Costa.ADVERTISEMENTWhile Tuesday’s hearing largely focused on the troop withdrawal from Afghanistan and the chaotic evacuation of Americans, Afghans and others from the country, a few senators condemned Milley for what they saw as inappropriate communications with Li.In his most extensive comments to date on the matter, Milley said the calls on Oct. 30 and Jan. 8 were fully coordinated with the defense secretaries at the time as well as other U.S. national security agencies. And he said that such military-to-military communications are critical to prevent war between great powers that possess nuclear weapons.The calls came during Trump’s turbulent last months in office as he&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-government-and-politics-elections-ap-fact-check-election-2020-b3905c30c8bb585e20850da3c3f022e8">challenged the results of the 2020 election</a>. The second call came two days after Jan. 6, when&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-confirm-joe-biden-78104aea082995bbd7412a6e6cd13818">a violent mob attacked the U.S. Capitol</a>&nbsp;in an effort to prevent Congress from certifying Biden’s White House victory.Milley said the October call was made at the direction of then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper and the second was done at the request of the Chinese and coordinated with then-acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller’s office.Asked if he spoke with the book’s authors and if his remarks were “accurately represented,” Milley said he spoke with Woodward and that he has not read the book but has seen press reports on it.Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., asked that he provide more answers once he’s read the book. She and Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., questioned whether Milley shared private presidential conversations with the authors.Milley said he did not leak private conversations he had with Trump, and said he routinely speaks with the media to provide information and transparency to the American people.Milley also addressed a call he received from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. He said Pelosi “called me to inquire about the president’s ability to launch nuclear weapons. I sought to assure her that nuclear launch is governed by a very specific and deliberate process.”He said he assured her that while the president is the sole nuclear launch authority, “he doesn’t launch them alone.” He said that as chairman he is part of the launch decision process.“There are processes, protocols and procedures in place, and I repeatedly assured her there is no chance of an illegal, unauthorized or accidental launch,” Milley said.The book asserts that during the call, Milley agreed with Pelosi’s statement that Trump was suffering a mental decline after the election. During Tuesday’s hearing, Milley appeared to discount that, saying “I am not qualified to determine the mental health of the president of the United States.”He said that after the call was over, he had a short meeting with staff to go over the process. He also said he informed Miller of the call at the time.“At no time was I attempting to change or influence the process, usurp authority or insert myself in the chain of command, but I am expected, I am required, to give my advice and ensure that the president is fully informed,” Milley said.-----------WASHINGTON (AP) — The top U.S. military officer called the 20-year war in Afghanistan a “strategic failure” and told Congress on Tuesday that he believes the U.S. should have kept several thousand troops in the country to prevent the unexpectedly rapid takeover by the Taliban.In his first congressional testimony on the tumultuous withdrawal, Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, refused to say what advice he gave President Joe Biden last spring when Biden was considering whether to keep any troops in Afghanistan.But he told the Senate Armed Services Committee it was his personal opinion that at least 2,500 were needed to guard against a collapse of the Kabul government and a return to Taliban rule.In a blunt assessment of a war that cost 2,461 American lives, Milley said the result was years in the making.“Outcomes in a war like this, an outcome that is a strategic failure — the enemy is in charge in Kabul, there’s no way else to describe that — that is a cumulative effect of 20 years,” he said, adding that lessons need to be learned, including whether the U.S. military made the Afghans overly dependent on American technology in a mistaken effort to make the Afghan army look like the American army.Gen. Frank McKenzie, who as head of Central Command had overseen the final months of the U.S. war, said he agreed with Milley that a few thousand troops should have been kept in Afghanistan, despite the Trump administration’s agreement with the Taliban in 2020 that all U.S. troops would leave by May 2021.“I recommended that we maintain 2,500 troops in Afghanistan, and I also recommended early in the fall of 2020 that we maintain 4,500 at that time, those were my personal views,” McKenzie said. “I also had a view that the withdrawal of those forces would lead inevitably to the collapse of the Afghan military forces and eventually the Afghan government.”The Senate hearing was at times contentious, as Republicans sought to portray Biden as having ignored advice from military officers and mischaracterized the military options he was presented last spring and summer. Several Republicans tried unsuccessfully to draw Milley, McKenzie and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin into commenting on the truthfulness of Biden’s statement to ABC News on Aug. 18, three days after the Taliban took control of Kabul, that no senior military commander had recommended against a full troop withdrawal when it was under discussion in the first months of Biden’s term.Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., asked Milley why he did not choose to resign after his advice was rejected.Milley, who was appointed to his position as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff by President Donald Trump and retained by Biden, said it was his responsibility to provide the commander in chief with his best advice.“The president doesn’t have to agree with that advice,” Milley said. “He doesn’t have to make those decisions just because we are generals. And it would be an incredible act of political defiance for a commissioned officer to resign just because my advice was not taken.”Testifying alongside Milley and McKenzie, Austin defended the military’s execution of a frantic airlift from Kabul in August and asserted it will be “difficult but absolutely possible” to contain future threats from Afghanistan without troops on the ground. Under questioning, he, too, declined to say what advice he had given Biden about whether to make a full troop withdrawal.Milley also told Congress he knew former President Donald Trump wasn’t planning to attack China and it was his job to reassure the Chinese of that fact in the phone calls that have triggered outrage from some lawmakers.&nbsp; Milley delivered a vehement defense of two calls he made to his Chinese counterpart, saying he was responding to “concerning intelligence” China was worried about a U.S. attack. Milley says his task was “to de-escalate.” Details of Milley’s calls were first aired in excerpts from the book “Peril” by Washington Post journalists Bob Woodward and Robert Costa.

🎥  Milley defends calls to Chinese at end of Trump presidency

News Release Federal Bureau of Investigation

A former employee who stole more than $270,000 from the church that employed her was sentenced today to more two years in federal prison.

Melissa Noland, age 47, from Polk City, Iowa, received the prison term after a May 12, 2021, guilty plea to one count of wire fraud.

Information from a plea agreement and court hearings showed that Noland was employed by a church between January 2015 and January 2019.&nbsp; During that time, Noland stole money from the church in various ways.&nbsp; Noland wrote checks to herself using the church’s checkbook, used church bank accounts to pay her own credit card bills, and made excess payroll distributions to herself.&nbsp; Noland eventually stole $274,222.09 from the church.&nbsp; Once the church discovered her thefts, she was terminated from her employment.&nbsp;

Noland was sentenced in Cedar Rapids by United States District Court Chief Judge Leonard T. Strand.&nbsp; Noland was sentenced to 27 months’ imprisonment.&nbsp;&nbsp; She was ordered to make $274,222.09 in restitution the church.&nbsp; She must also serve a three-year term of supervised release after the prison term.&nbsp; There is no parole in the federal system.&nbsp; Noland was released on the bond previously set and is to surrender to the Bureau of Prisons on a date yet to be set.

The case was prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Anthony Morfitt and investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Mason City Police Department.&nbsp;

News Release Federal Bureau of InvestigationA former employee who stole more than $270,000 from the church that employed her was sentenced today to more two years in federal prison.Melissa Noland, age 47, from Polk City, Iowa, received the prison term after a May 12, 2021, guilty plea to one count of wire fraud.Information from a plea agreement and court hearings showed that Noland was employed by a church between January 2015 and January 2019.&nbsp; During that time, Noland stole money from the church in various ways.&nbsp; Noland wrote checks to herself using the church’s checkbook, used church bank accounts to pay her own credit card bills, and made excess payroll distributions to herself.&nbsp; Noland eventually stole $274,222.09 from the church.&nbsp; Once the church discovered her thefts, she was terminated from her employment.&nbsp;Noland was sentenced in Cedar Rapids by United States District Court Chief Judge Leonard T. Strand.&nbsp; Noland was sentenced to 27 months’ imprisonment.&nbsp;&nbsp; She was ordered to make $274,222.09 in restitution the church.&nbsp; She must also serve a three-year term of supervised release after the prison term.&nbsp; There is no parole in the federal system.&nbsp; Noland was released on the bond previously set and is to surrender to the Bureau of Prisons on a date yet to be set.The case was prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Anthony Morfitt and investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Mason City Police Department.&nbsp;

Former Iowa church employee gets prison for stealing from church

OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — A judge has refused to block Creighton University’s requirement that all students get vaccinated against COVID-19 despite the objections of a handful of students who said getting the shots would violate their religious beliefs against abortion. 

The Catholic university in Omaha mandated that all students get vaccinated in August. 

The lawsuit says the students object because vaccines were developed or tested using cells from aborted fetuses. 

The Vatican has declared that such vaccines are morally acceptable when others aren’t available. 

The students’ attorney didn’t immediately respond to questions on Monday, so it wasn’t immediately clear if they will continue to press the lawsuit.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/6/1622643904241.jpeg" alt="" />
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure>OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — A judge has refused to block Creighton University’s requirement that all students get vaccinated against COVID-19 despite the objections of a handful of students who said getting the shots would violate their religious beliefs against abortion. The Catholic university in Omaha mandated that all students get vaccinated in August. The lawsuit says the students object because vaccines were developed or tested using cells from aborted fetuses. The Vatican has declared that such vaccines are morally acceptable when others aren’t available. The students’ attorney didn’t immediately respond to questions on Monday, so it wasn’t immediately clear if they will continue to press the lawsuit.

Judge won't block Creighton University's vaccine mandate

COLUMBIA, Mo. (AP) — The Missouri Department of Conservation plans to test hundreds of deer for COVID-19 this hunting season following a recent federal report.

The U.S Department of Agriculture reported the results of a federal study testing white-tailed deer in Illinois, Michigan, New York and Pennsylvania. Samples showed at least 7% of the population having antibodies for the virus that causes COVID-19. The highest population showed a whopping 67% in Michigan.

The USDA report shows that although deer were carrying the antibodies, none of them actually fell ill. There is no evidence of deer dying or humans contracting the coronavirus from eating venison.

“We want to be proactive,” said Jasmine Batten, wildlife health program supervisor for the Missouri Department of Conservation. “We’re paying attention to other states, and this is the first step to see what’s going on in our state.”

Batten emphasized that the testing plan is still in the preliminary stage, the Columbia Missourian&nbsp;<a href="https://www.columbiamissourian.com/news/missouri-conservationists-to-test-deer-for-covid-this-fall/article_32eddf54-1cce-11ec-b5ea-635efa069e5d.html">reported</a>. As of now, the plan is to test the deer that will be killed this hunting season.

Deer hunting season has already begun for archery, and begins Oct. 30 for youth hunters and Nov. 13 for adult hunters with firearms.

COLUMBIA, Mo. (AP) — The Missouri Department of Conservation plans to test hundreds of deer for COVID-19 this hunting season following a recent federal report.The U.S Department of Agriculture reported the results of a federal study testing white-tailed deer in Illinois, Michigan, New York and Pennsylvania. Samples showed at least 7% of the population having antibodies for the virus that causes COVID-19. The highest population showed a whopping 67% in Michigan.The USDA report shows that although deer were carrying the antibodies, none of them actually fell ill. There is no evidence of deer dying or humans contracting the coronavirus from eating venison.“We want to be proactive,” said Jasmine Batten, wildlife health program supervisor for the Missouri Department of Conservation. “We’re paying attention to other states, and this is the first step to see what’s going on in our state.”Batten emphasized that the testing plan is still in the preliminary stage, the Columbia Missourian&nbsp;<a href="https://www.columbiamissourian.com/news/missouri-conservationists-to-test-deer-for-covid-this-fall/article_32eddf54-1cce-11ec-b5ea-635efa069e5d.html">reported</a>. As of now, the plan is to test the deer that will be killed this hunting season.Deer hunting season has already begun for archery, and begins Oct. 30 for youth hunters and Nov. 13 for adult hunters with firearms.

Missouri to test deer for COVID-19 this hunting season

WICHITA, Kan. (AP) — Court documents say a woman now charged with involuntary manslaughter in the crash death of her 5-year-old daughter told a deputy that she had been drunk at the time of the March crash. 

Sedgwick County Sheriff's deputies say in an arrest affidavit that Nory Lam was holding her injured daughter, Aleah Reyes, in her lap in the backseat of the crashed sport utility vehicle when deputies arrived around 3 a.m. March 7. 

The deputy who questioned Lam said she told him, “We were drunk driving,” and said the crash was her fault. The girl died as paramedics tried to treat her injuries. The affidavit says Lam told a deputy she had consumed several shots of tequila at a party before driving.

SEDGWICK COUNTY—Law enforcement authorities investigating a fatal car accident early Sunday have identified the victim as 5-year-old Aleah A. Reyes of Wichita&nbsp; according Sedgwick County Sheriff's Lt. Benjamin Blick.

Just after 3a.m. Sunday, deputies were dispatched to an injury accident near 47th Street South and 127th Street East, according to Blick.

 When deputies arrived they located a 2014 Ford Escape driven by 26-year-old Nory Lam of Wichita that had been westbound on 47th Street South when it left the road and overturned. 

Lam had minor injuries. The passenger, Lam's 5-year-old daughter Aleah A. Reyes of Wichita was unresponsive.&nbsp; EMS provided life saving measures to Reyes but she was pronounced deceased at 3:39a.m., according to Blick.

During the accident investigation deputies discovered evidence that indicated alcohol may have contributed to the accident, according to Blick. Additional investigative efforts determined probable cause existed to arrest and<a href="https://ssc.sedgwickcounty.org/sheriffinmates/SheriffInmateDetail.aspx?nameId=20069853"> book Nory Lam for</a> Involuntary Manslaughter, Driving under the Influence and Transporting an Open Container of an Alcoholic Beverage.&nbsp;&nbsp;

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/3/1615146641270.png" alt="Investigators at the scene of the crash -photo courtesy KWCH" />
 <figcaption>Investigators at the scene of the crash -photo courtesy KWCH</figcaption>
 </figure>WICHITA, Kan. (AP) — Court documents say a woman now charged with involuntary manslaughter in the crash death of her 5-year-old daughter told a deputy that she had been drunk at the time of the March crash. Sedgwick County Sheriff's deputies say in an arrest affidavit that Nory Lam was holding her injured daughter, Aleah Reyes, in her lap in the backseat of the crashed sport utility vehicle when deputies arrived around 3 a.m. March 7. <figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/3/1615146154109.png" alt="Lam photo Sedgwick Co." />
 <figcaption>Lam photo Sedgwick Co.</figcaption>
 </figure>The deputy who questioned Lam said she told him, “We were drunk driving,” and said the crash was her fault. The girl died as paramedics tried to treat her injuries. The affidavit says Lam told a deputy she had consumed several shots of tequila at a party before driving.---------SEDGWICK COUNTY—Law enforcement authorities investigating a fatal car accident early Sunday have identified the victim as 5-year-old Aleah A. Reyes of Wichita&nbsp; according Sedgwick County Sheriff's Lt. Benjamin Blick.Just after 3a.m. Sunday, deputies were dispatched to an injury accident near 47th Street South and 127th Street East, according to Blick. When deputies arrived they located a 2014 Ford Escape driven by 26-year-old Nory Lam of Wichita that had been westbound on 47th Street South when it left the road and overturned. Lam had minor injuries. The passenger, Lam's 5-year-old daughter Aleah A. Reyes of Wichita was unresponsive.&nbsp; EMS provided life saving measures to Reyes but she was pronounced deceased at 3:39a.m., according to Blick.During the accident investigation deputies discovered evidence that indicated alcohol may have contributed to the accident, according to Blick. Additional investigative efforts determined probable cause existed to arrest and<a href="https://ssc.sedgwickcounty.org/sheriffinmates/SheriffInmateDetail.aspx?nameId=20069853"> book Nory Lam for</a> Involuntary Manslaughter, Driving under the Influence and Transporting an Open Container of an Alcoholic Beverage.&nbsp;&nbsp;

Kan. woman admitted 'drunk driving' before crash that killed daughter

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden received his COVID-19 booster shot on Monday, days after federal regulators recommended a third dose of the Pfizer vaccine for Americans age 65 or older and approved them for others with preexisting medical conditions and high-risk work environments

The most important thing we need to do is get more people vaccinated," Biden said before getting the booster, adding that he did not have side effects after his first or second shots.

Biden, 78, got his first shot on Dec. 21 and his second dose three weeks later, on Jan. 11, along with his wife, Jill Biden. Biden said the first lady, who's 70, would also receive the booster dose, but she was teaching on Monday at Northern Virginia Community College, where she is a professor of English.

Speaking on Friday after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration authorized the Pfizer booster, Biden told reporters, “It’s hard to acknowledge I’m over 65, but I’ll be getting my booster shot." He repeated the joke about being over 65 on Monday.

Biden emerged as a champion of booster doses in the summer, as the U.S. experienced a sharp rise in coronavirus cases from the more transmissible delta variant. While the vast majority of cases continue to occur among unvaccinated people, regulators pointed to evidence from Israel and early studies in the U.S. showing that protection against so-called breakthrough cases was vastly improved by a third dose of the Pfizer shot.

But the aggressive American push for boosters, before many poorer nations have been able to provide even a modicum of protection for their most vulnerable populations, has drawn the ire of the World Health Organization and some aid groups, which have called on the U.S. to pause third shots to free up supply for the global vaccination effort.

Biden said last week that the U.S. was purchasing another 500 million doses of the Pfizer vaccine — for a total of 1 billion over the coming year — to donate to less well off nations.

Vice President Kamala Harris, 56, received the Moderna vaccine, for which federal regulators have not yet authorized boosters — but they are expected to in the coming weeks. Regulators are also expecting data about the safety and efficacy of a booster for the single-dose Johnson &amp; Johnson shot soon.

At least 2.66 million Americans have received booster doses of the Pfizer vaccine since mid-August, according to the CDC. About 100 million Americans have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19 through the Pfizer shot. U.S. regulators recommend getting the boosters at least six months after the second shot of the initial two-dose series.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/9/1632773278988.png" alt="Speaking on Friday after the CDC and the FDA authorized the Pfizer booster, Biden told reporters, “It’s hard to acknowledge I’m over 65, but I’ll be getting my booster shot." He repeated the joke about being over 65 on Monday." />
 <figcaption>Speaking on Friday after the CDC and the FDA authorized the Pfizer booster, Biden told reporters, “It’s hard to acknowledge I’m over 65, but I’ll be getting my booster shot." He repeated the joke about being over 65 on Monday.</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden received his COVID-19 booster shot on Monday, days after federal regulators recommended a third dose of the Pfizer vaccine for Americans age 65 or older and approved them for others with preexisting medical conditions and high-risk work environments<div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Tune in as I deliver remarks and receive my COVID-19 booster shot. <a href="https://t.co/GurbbWdrvF">https://t.co/GurbbWdrvF</a>&mdash; President Biden (@POTUS) <a href="https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1442536204302307334?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 27, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>The most important thing we need to do is get more people vaccinated," Biden said before getting the booster, adding that he did not have side effects after his first or second shots.Biden, 78, got his first shot on Dec. 21 and his second dose three weeks later, on Jan. 11, along with his wife, Jill Biden. Biden said the first lady, who's 70, would also receive the booster dose, but she was teaching on Monday at Northern Virginia Community College, where she is a professor of English.Speaking on Friday after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration authorized the Pfizer booster, Biden told reporters, “It’s hard to acknowledge I’m over 65, but I’ll be getting my booster shot." He repeated the joke about being over 65 on Monday.Biden emerged as a champion of booster doses in the summer, as the U.S. experienced a sharp rise in coronavirus cases from the more transmissible delta variant. While the vast majority of cases continue to occur among unvaccinated people, regulators pointed to evidence from Israel and early studies in the U.S. showing that protection against so-called breakthrough cases was vastly improved by a third dose of the Pfizer shot.But the aggressive American push for boosters, before many poorer nations have been able to provide even a modicum of protection for their most vulnerable populations, has drawn the ire of the World Health Organization and some aid groups, which have called on the U.S. to pause third shots to free up supply for the global vaccination effort.Biden said last week that the U.S. was purchasing another 500 million doses of the Pfizer vaccine — for a total of 1 billion over the coming year — to donate to less well off nations.Vice President Kamala Harris, 56, received the Moderna vaccine, for which federal regulators have not yet authorized boosters — but they are expected to in the coming weeks. Regulators are also expecting data about the safety and efficacy of a booster for the single-dose Johnson &amp; Johnson shot soon.At least 2.66 million Americans have received booster doses of the Pfizer vaccine since mid-August, according to the CDC. About 100 million Americans have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19 through the Pfizer shot. U.S. regulators recommend getting the boosters at least six months after the second shot of the initial two-dose series.

President Biden jokes about his age, gets COVID-19 booster shot 

OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — Authorities have identified the teenager who was killed in a two-car crash last Friday that also injured four others. 

The Douglas County Sheriff’s Department said Monday that Jamin Creek, 18, died. 

The crash happened shortly before 4 a.m. Friday when two cars entered an intersection just southwest of Omaha at the same time. 

The four other teens who were riding in Creek’s car who were also injured are: 17-year-old Shea Alfrey, 17-year-old Payton Royal, 17-year-old Alexis Liebsack and 18-year-old David Kay. 

The driver of the other car who was taken to the hospital as a precaution is 43-year-old Gino Dawson. Authorities are still investigating what caused the crash.

OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — Authorities have identified the teenager who was killed in a two-car crash last Friday that also injured four others. The Douglas County Sheriff’s Department said Monday that Jamin Creek, 18, died. The crash happened shortly before 4 a.m. Friday when two cars entered an intersection just southwest of Omaha at the same time. The four other teens who were riding in Creek’s car who were also injured are: 17-year-old Shea Alfrey, 17-year-old Payton Royal, 17-year-old Alexis Liebsack and 18-year-old David Kay. The driver of the other car who was taken to the hospital as a precaution is 43-year-old Gino Dawson. Authorities are still investigating what caused the crash.

Authorities identify teen who died in crash near Omaha

Billions more in profits are at stake for some vaccine makers as the U.S. moves toward dispensing COVID-19 booster shots to shore up Americans’ protection against the virus.

How much the manufacturers stand to gain depends on how big the rollout proves to be.

U.S. health officials have&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-science-business-health-coronavirus-vaccine-9da6d4dab4f3dc0542db951557042ac9">endorsed booster shots</a>&nbsp;of the Pfizer vaccine for all Americans 65 and older — along with tens of millions of&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-science-health-9d5b5e9774f7dc6016e84696cf13cf34">younger people who are at higher risk</a>&nbsp;from the coronavirus because of health conditions or their jobs.

Officials described the move as a first step. Boosters will likely be offered even more broadly in the coming weeks or months, including boosters of vaccines made by Moderna and Johnson &amp; Johnson. That, plus continued growth in initial vaccinations, could mean a huge gain in sales and profits for Pfizer and Moderna in particular.

“The opportunity quite frankly is reflective of the billions of people around the world who would need a vaccination and a boost,” Jefferies analyst Michael Yee said.

Wall Street is taking notice. The average forecast among analysts for Moderna’s 2022 revenue has jumped 35% since President Joe Biden laid out his booster plan in mid-August.

Most of the vaccinations so far in the U.S. have come from Pfizer, which developed its shot with Germany’s BioNTech, and Moderna. They have inoculated about 99 million and 68 million people, respectively. Johnson &amp; Johnson is third with about 14 million people.

No one knows yet how many people will get the extra shots. But Morningstar analyst Karen Andersen expects boosters alone to bring in about $26 billion in global sales next year for Pfizer and BioNTech and around $14 billion for Moderna if they are endorsed for nearly all Americans.

Those companies also may gain business from people who got other vaccines initially. In Britain, which plans to offer boosters to everyone over 50 and other vulnerable people, an expert panel has recommended that Pfizer’s shot be the primary choice, with Moderna as the alternative.

Andersen expects Moderna, which has no other products on the market, to generate a roughly $13 billion profit next year from all COVID-19 vaccine sales if boosters are broadly authorized.

Potential vaccine profits are harder to estimate for Pfizer, but company executives have said they expect their pre-tax adjusted profit margin from the vaccine to be in the “high 20s” as a percentage of revenue. That would translate to a profit of around $7 billion next year just from boosters, based on Andersen’s sales prediction.

J&amp;J and Europe’s AstraZeneca have said they don’t intend to profit from their COVID-19 vaccines during the pandemic.

For Pfizer and Moderna, the boosters could be more profitable than the original doses because they won’t come with the research and development costs the companies incurred to get the vaccines on the market in the first place.

WBB Securities CEO Steve Brozak said the booster shots will represent “almost pure profit” compared with the initial doses.

Drugmakers aren’t the only businesses that could see a windfall from delivering boosters. Drugstore chains CVS Health and Walgreens could bring in more than $800 million each in revenue, according to Jeff Jonas, a portfolio manager with Gabelli Funds.

Jonas noted that the drugstores may not face competition from mass vaccination clinics this time around, and the chains are diligent about collecting customer contact information. That makes it easy to invite people back for boosters.

Drugmakers are also developing COVID-19 shots that target certain variants of the virus, and say people might need annual shots like the ones they receive for the flu. All of that could make the vaccines a major recurring source of revenue.

The COVID-19 vaccines have already done much better than their predecessors.

Pfizer said in July it expects revenue from its COVID-19 vaccine to reach $33.5 billion this year, an estimate that could change depending on the impact of boosters or the possible expansion of shots to elementary school children.

That would be more than five times the $5.8 billion racked up last year by the world’s most lucrative vaccine — Pfizer’s Prevnar13, which protects against pneumococcal disease.

It also would dwarf the $19.8 billion brought in last year by AbbVie’s rheumatoid arthritis treatment Humira, widely regarded as the world’s top-selling drug.

This bodes well for future vaccine development, noted Erik Gordon, a business professor at the University of Michigan.

Vaccines normally are nowhere near as profitable as treatments, Gordon said. But the success of the COVID-19 shots could draw more drugmakers and venture capitalists into the field.

“The vaccine business is more attractive, which, for those of us who are going to need vaccines, is good,” Gordon said.

By TOM MURPHY, Associated PressBillions more in profits are at stake for some vaccine makers as the U.S. moves toward dispensing COVID-19 booster shots to shore up Americans’ protection against the virus.How much the manufacturers stand to gain depends on how big the rollout proves to be.U.S. health officials have&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-science-business-health-coronavirus-vaccine-9da6d4dab4f3dc0542db951557042ac9">endorsed booster shots</a>&nbsp;of the Pfizer vaccine for all Americans 65 and older — along with tens of millions of&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-science-health-9d5b5e9774f7dc6016e84696cf13cf34">younger people who are at higher risk</a>&nbsp;from the coronavirus because of health conditions or their jobs.Officials described the move as a first step. Boosters will likely be offered even more broadly in the coming weeks or months, including boosters of vaccines made by Moderna and Johnson &amp; Johnson. That, plus continued growth in initial vaccinations, could mean a huge gain in sales and profits for Pfizer and Moderna in particular.“The opportunity quite frankly is reflective of the billions of people around the world who would need a vaccination and a boost,” Jefferies analyst Michael Yee said.Wall Street is taking notice. The average forecast among analysts for Moderna’s 2022 revenue has jumped 35% since President Joe Biden laid out his booster plan in mid-August.Most of the vaccinations so far in the U.S. have come from Pfizer, which developed its shot with Germany’s BioNTech, and Moderna. They have inoculated about 99 million and 68 million people, respectively. Johnson &amp; Johnson is third with about 14 million people.No one knows yet how many people will get the extra shots. But Morningstar analyst Karen Andersen expects boosters alone to bring in about $26 billion in global sales next year for Pfizer and BioNTech and around $14 billion for Moderna if they are endorsed for nearly all Americans.Those companies also may gain business from people who got other vaccines initially. In Britain, which plans to offer boosters to everyone over 50 and other vulnerable people, an expert panel has recommended that Pfizer’s shot be the primary choice, with Moderna as the alternative.Andersen expects Moderna, which has no other products on the market, to generate a roughly $13 billion profit next year from all COVID-19 vaccine sales if boosters are broadly authorized.Potential vaccine profits are harder to estimate for Pfizer, but company executives have said they expect their pre-tax adjusted profit margin from the vaccine to be in the “high 20s” as a percentage of revenue. That would translate to a profit of around $7 billion next year just from boosters, based on Andersen’s sales prediction.J&amp;J and Europe’s AstraZeneca have said they don’t intend to profit from their COVID-19 vaccines during the pandemic.For Pfizer and Moderna, the boosters could be more profitable than the original doses because they won’t come with the research and development costs the companies incurred to get the vaccines on the market in the first place.WBB Securities CEO Steve Brozak said the booster shots will represent “almost pure profit” compared with the initial doses.Drugmakers aren’t the only businesses that could see a windfall from delivering boosters. Drugstore chains CVS Health and Walgreens could bring in more than $800 million each in revenue, according to Jeff Jonas, a portfolio manager with Gabelli Funds.Jonas noted that the drugstores may not face competition from mass vaccination clinics this time around, and the chains are diligent about collecting customer contact information. That makes it easy to invite people back for boosters.Drugmakers are also developing COVID-19 shots that target certain variants of the virus, and say people might need annual shots like the ones they receive for the flu. All of that could make the vaccines a major recurring source of revenue.The COVID-19 vaccines have already done much better than their predecessors.Pfizer said in July it expects revenue from its COVID-19 vaccine to reach $33.5 billion this year, an estimate that could change depending on the impact of boosters or the possible expansion of shots to elementary school children.That would be more than five times the $5.8 billion racked up last year by the world’s most lucrative vaccine — Pfizer’s Prevnar13, which protects against pneumococcal disease.It also would dwarf the $19.8 billion brought in last year by AbbVie’s rheumatoid arthritis treatment Humira, widely regarded as the world’s top-selling drug.This bodes well for future vaccine development, noted Erik Gordon, a business professor at the University of Michigan.Vaccines normally are nowhere near as profitable as treatments, Gordon said. But the success of the COVID-19 shots could draw more drugmakers and venture capitalists into the field.“The vaccine business is more attractive, which, for those of us who are going to need vaccines, is good,” Gordon said.

COVID-19 vaccine boosters: Big profits for drugmakers

SHAWNEE COUNTY —Law enforcement authorities investigating a fatal Kansas house fire have identified the victim as 29-year-old Palmer S. Thompson., according to Police Lt. Shane Hilton.

Just after 7:30a.m. Sunday, Fire crews and American Medical Response were sent to report of a house fire in the 300 block of NE Spruce Lane in Topeka, according to Police&nbsp; Lt. Aaron Jones.

As fire crews were making the initial fire attack, a fire fighter fell through the floor, landing in the basement. A May-day (emergency on the fire ground) was called and the firefighter was subsequently rescued by other firefighters on scene. The firefighter who fell through the floor was not

injured and continued fighting the fire.&nbsp;

During a search of the residence, fire crews found Thompson and removed him from the residence as others continued to battle the fire. First responders determined the man was deceased under suspicious circumstances, according to Jones.

American Medical Response requested Topeka Police respond to the scene. Topeka Police Detectives and Fire Investigators from the City and State worked together to investigate the incident now considered a homicide investigation.&nbsp;

Preliminary investigation indicates the cause of the fire as intentionally set. The estimated dollar loss&nbsp; is $121,540 total loss with $106,540 in damage to the structure and $15,000 in contents. The home also had no working smoke detectors.

SHAWNEE COUNTY —Law enforcement authorities are investigating a fatal Kansas house fire.

Just after 7:30a.m. Sunday, Fire crews and American Medical Response were sent to report of a house fire in the 300 block of NE Spruce Lane in Topeka, according to Lt. Aaron Jones.

Fire crews found a man and removed him from the residence as others continued to battle the fire. First responders determined the man was deceased under suspicious circumstances, according to Jones.

American Medical Response requested Topeka Police respond to the scene. Topeka Police Detectives and Fire Investigators from the City and State are currently working together to investigate the incident.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/9/1632669511894.png" alt="Sunday morning fatal house fire in Topeka- photo courtesy WIBW TV" />
 <figcaption>Sunday morning fatal house fire in Topeka- photo courtesy WIBW TV</figcaption>
 </figure>SHAWNEE COUNTY —Law enforcement authorities investigating a fatal Kansas house fire have identified the victim as 29-year-old Palmer S. Thompson., according to Police Lt. Shane Hilton.Just after 7:30a.m. Sunday, Fire crews and American Medical Response were sent to report of a house fire in the 300 block of NE Spruce Lane in Topeka, according to Police&nbsp; Lt. Aaron Jones.As fire crews were making the initial fire attack, a fire fighter fell through the floor, landing in the basement. A May-day (emergency on the fire ground) was called and the firefighter was subsequently rescued by other firefighters on scene. The firefighter who fell through the floor was notinjured and continued fighting the fire.&nbsp;During a search of the residence, fire crews found Thompson and removed him from the residence as others continued to battle the fire. First responders determined the man was deceased under suspicious circumstances, according to Jones.American Medical Response requested Topeka Police respond to the scene. Topeka Police Detectives and Fire Investigators from the City and State worked together to investigate the incident now considered a homicide investigation.&nbsp;Preliminary investigation indicates the cause of the fire as intentionally set. The estimated dollar loss&nbsp; is $121,540 total loss with $106,540 in damage to the structure and $15,000 in contents. The home also had no working smoke detectors.SHAWNEE COUNTY —Law enforcement authorities are investigating a fatal Kansas house fire.Just after 7:30a.m. Sunday, Fire crews and American Medical Response were sent to report of a house fire in the 300 block of NE Spruce Lane in Topeka, according to Lt. Aaron Jones.Fire crews found a man and removed him from the residence as others continued to battle the fire. First responders determined the man was deceased under suspicious circumstances, according to Jones.American Medical Response requested Topeka Police respond to the scene. Topeka Police Detectives and Fire Investigators from the City and State are currently working together to investigate the incident.

Homicide: Police ID victim found in Kansas house fire

WASHINGTON (AP) — It’s a consequential week for&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/business-health-coronavirus-pandemic-9dfc2b9e8b72ca51d5b818708442d955">President Joe Biden’s agenda</a>, as Democratic leaders delicately trim back his $3.5 trillion “Build Back Better” package to win over remaining lawmakers and work to quickly pass legislation to avoid a federal shutdown.

An expected Monday vote on a related $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure package is now postponed until Thursday, amid ongoing negotiations. More immediately, the Senate has a test vote set Monday to keep the government funded and avert a federal debt default before Thursday’s fiscal year-end deadline. That package stands to run into a blockade by Republican senators — all but ensuring lawmakers will have to try again later in the week.

All this while Biden’s domestic agenda hangs in the balance, at risk of collapse and&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/immigration-joe-biden-elections-campaigns-race-and-ethnicity-5a5a71aab543b990464207e1062c32aa">political fallout&nbsp;</a>if he and Democratic leaders cannot pull their party together to deliver what could be a signature piece of legislation and the biggest overhaul of the nation’s tax and spending priorities in decades. Over the weekend, Biden personally spoke with lawmakers on the path forward, according to a White House official who requested anonymity to discuss the private conversations.

“Let me just say, it’s an eventful week,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.”

Biden, Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer are deep into negotiations over the president’s broader proposal, which is being chiseled back to win over key senators and a few House lawmakers who have so far refused the $3.5 trillion price tag and the tax increases on corporations and the wealthy to pay for it.

Behind-the-scenes talks churned, allowing for needed breathing room after Monday’s anticipated vote on the companion $1 trillion public works measure was postponed. The two bills are related, and centrists and progressive factions are at odds at prioritizing one ahead of the other. Pelosi announced the Thursday vote in a letter late Sunday evening to colleagues, noting it’s also a deadline for related transportation programs in the infrastructure bill.

Rep. Josh Gottheimer, D-N.J., who led a group of House moderates in&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/house-passes-budget-blueprint-0a1258e07b1a8b9aeddb69980093c838">a securing a vote on the slimmer infrastructure bill</a>, said earlier Sunday he wouldn’t be bothered by a slight delay. He was optimistic both pieces of legislation could be resolved this week.

The more difficult action now lies in the Senate, as Democrats are under pressure to amass the votes for Biden’s big package. It would provide an expansion of existing health, education and child care programs for Americans young and old, alongside new federal efforts to curb climate change.

Republicans are lockstep opposed to Biden’s&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/technology-joe-biden-business-personal-taxes-137e00b41f113f85cc241438c780785b">proposal, which would be paid&nbsp;</a>for by increasing the corporate tax rate, from 21% to 26.5% on businesses earning more than $5 million a year, and raising the top rate on individuals from 37% to 39.6% for those earning more than $400,000 a year, or $450,000 for couples.

Two Democratic holdouts, Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, also have said they won’t support a bill of that size. Manchin has previously proposed spending of $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion.

Asked Sunday on ABC if she agrees the final number on the so-called reconciliation bill will be “somewhat smaller” than $3.5 trillion, Pelosi responded: “That seems self-evident.”

“We’ll see how the number comes down and what we need,” she added. “I think even those who want a smaller number, support the vision of the president, and this is really transformative.”

Her comments reflected the enormous stakes for the coming week, one that could define the Biden presidency and shape the political contours of next year’s midterm elections.

For Pelosi and Schumer, two veteran political leaders, it is the job of their careers.

Democrats have only a few votes to spare in the House and no votes to spare in the 50-50 Senate, since there is no Republican support expected for Biden’s massive agenda. Some Republican senators did back the $1 trillion public works bill, but now House Republicans are objecting, saying it is too much.

While progressives say they have already compromised enough on Biden’s big bill, having come down from a bill they originally envisioned at $6 trillion, some are also acknowledging the more potential changes.

Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., who heads the Congressional Progressive Caucus, didn’t rule out additional cuts to the $3.5 trillion proposal to reach agreement.

“If somebody wants to take something out, we need to hear what that is,” she said.

The House Budget Committee on Saturday advanced a first version of the $3.5 trillion, 10-year bill, though one Democrat voted “no,” illustrating the challenges party leaders face.

Pelosi suggested that House-Senate agreement could be reached this week, depending on rulings from the Senate parliamentarian on what provisions could be included.

The overall bill embodies the crux of Biden’s top domestic goals, with billions for rebuilding infrastructure, tackling climate change and expanding or introducing a range of services, from free prekindergarten and to child tax breaks to dental, vision and hearing aid care for older Americans.

While Democrats are largely in agreement on Biden’s vision — many ran their campaigns on the longstanding party priorities — stubborn disputes remain. Among them are splits over which initiatives should be reshaped, including how to push toward cleaner energy or to lower prescription drug costs.

Republicans say the proposal isn’t needed and can’t be afforded given accumulated federal debt exceeding $28 trillion. They also argue that it reflects Democrats’ drive to insert government into people’s lives.

Gottheimer spoke to CNN’s “State of the Union” and Jayapal appeared on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/9/1632493649692.png" alt="&nbsp;President Biden personally spoke with lawmakers on the path forward, according to a White House official who requested anonymity to discuss the private conversations-photo courtesy White House" />
 <figcaption>&nbsp;President Biden personally spoke with lawmakers on the path forward, according to a White House official who requested anonymity to discuss the private conversations-photo courtesy White House</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — It’s a consequential week for&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/business-health-coronavirus-pandemic-9dfc2b9e8b72ca51d5b818708442d955">President Joe Biden’s agenda</a>, as Democratic leaders delicately trim back his $3.5 trillion “Build Back Better” package to win over remaining lawmakers and work to quickly pass legislation to avoid a federal shutdown.An expected Monday vote on a related $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure package is now postponed until Thursday, amid ongoing negotiations. More immediately, the Senate has a test vote set Monday to keep the government funded and avert a federal debt default before Thursday’s fiscal year-end deadline. That package stands to run into a blockade by Republican senators — all but ensuring lawmakers will have to try again later in the week.All this while Biden’s domestic agenda hangs in the balance, at risk of collapse and&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/immigration-joe-biden-elections-campaigns-race-and-ethnicity-5a5a71aab543b990464207e1062c32aa">political fallout&nbsp;</a>if he and Democratic leaders cannot pull their party together to deliver what could be a signature piece of legislation and the biggest overhaul of the nation’s tax and spending priorities in decades. Over the weekend, Biden personally spoke with lawmakers on the path forward, according to a White House official who requested anonymity to discuss the private conversations.“Let me just say, it’s an eventful week,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.”Biden, Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer are deep into negotiations over the president’s broader proposal, which is being chiseled back to win over key senators and a few House lawmakers who have so far refused the $3.5 trillion price tag and the tax increases on corporations and the wealthy to pay for it.Behind-the-scenes talks churned, allowing for needed breathing room after Monday’s anticipated vote on the companion $1 trillion public works measure was postponed. The two bills are related, and centrists and progressive factions are at odds at prioritizing one ahead of the other. Pelosi announced the Thursday vote in a letter late Sunday evening to colleagues, noting it’s also a deadline for related transportation programs in the infrastructure bill.Rep. Josh Gottheimer, D-N.J., who led a group of House moderates in&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/house-passes-budget-blueprint-0a1258e07b1a8b9aeddb69980093c838">a securing a vote on the slimmer infrastructure bill</a>, said earlier Sunday he wouldn’t be bothered by a slight delay. He was optimistic both pieces of legislation could be resolved this week.The more difficult action now lies in the Senate, as Democrats are under pressure to amass the votes for Biden’s big package. It would provide an expansion of existing health, education and child care programs for Americans young and old, alongside new federal efforts to curb climate change.Republicans are lockstep opposed to Biden’s&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/technology-joe-biden-business-personal-taxes-137e00b41f113f85cc241438c780785b">proposal, which would be paid&nbsp;</a>for by increasing the corporate tax rate, from 21% to 26.5% on businesses earning more than $5 million a year, and raising the top rate on individuals from 37% to 39.6% for those earning more than $400,000 a year, or $450,000 for couples.Two Democratic holdouts, Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, also have said they won’t support a bill of that size. Manchin has previously proposed spending of $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion.Asked Sunday on ABC if she agrees the final number on the so-called reconciliation bill will be “somewhat smaller” than $3.5 trillion, Pelosi responded: “That seems self-evident.”“We’ll see how the number comes down and what we need,” she added. “I think even those who want a smaller number, support the vision of the president, and this is really transformative.”Her comments reflected the enormous stakes for the coming week, one that could define the Biden presidency and shape the political contours of next year’s midterm elections.For Pelosi and Schumer, two veteran political leaders, it is the job of their careers.Democrats have only a few votes to spare in the House and no votes to spare in the 50-50 Senate, since there is no Republican support expected for Biden’s massive agenda. Some Republican senators did back the $1 trillion public works bill, but now House Republicans are objecting, saying it is too much.While progressives say they have already compromised enough on Biden’s big bill, having come down from a bill they originally envisioned at $6 trillion, some are also acknowledging the more potential changes.Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., who heads the Congressional Progressive Caucus, didn’t rule out additional cuts to the $3.5 trillion proposal to reach agreement.“If somebody wants to take something out, we need to hear what that is,” she said.The House Budget Committee on Saturday advanced a first version of the $3.5 trillion, 10-year bill, though one Democrat voted “no,” illustrating the challenges party leaders face.Pelosi suggested that House-Senate agreement could be reached this week, depending on rulings from the Senate parliamentarian on what provisions could be included.The overall bill embodies the crux of Biden’s top domestic goals, with billions for rebuilding infrastructure, tackling climate change and expanding or introducing a range of services, from free prekindergarten and to child tax breaks to dental, vision and hearing aid care for older Americans.While Democrats are largely in agreement on Biden’s vision — many ran their campaigns on the longstanding party priorities — stubborn disputes remain. Among them are splits over which initiatives should be reshaped, including how to push toward cleaner energy or to lower prescription drug costs.Republicans say the proposal isn’t needed and can’t be afforded given accumulated federal debt exceeding $28 trillion. They also argue that it reflects Democrats’ drive to insert government into people’s lives.Gottheimer spoke to CNN’s “State of the Union” and Jayapal appeared on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

Biden, Congress face big week for agenda, government funding

WASHINGTON&nbsp;—&nbsp;The Internal Revenue Service announced today that 
starting Oct. 28, a new $67 user fee will apply to any estate that 
requests a closing letter for its federal estate tax return.

The new user fee was authorized under final regulations, <a href="https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/td-9957.pdf">TD 9957</a>, available today in the Federal Register. Closing letter requests must be made using <a href="https://www.pay.gov/public/home">Pay.gov</a>. The IRS will provide further procedural details before the user fee goes into effect.

By law, federal agencies are required to charge a user fee to cover 
the cost of providing certain services to the public that confer a 
special benefit to the recipient. Moreover, agencies must review these 
fees every two years to determine whether they are recovering the cost 
of these services.

Under the final regulations, the IRS has determined that issuing 
closing letters is a service that confers a special benefit warranting a
 user fee. That's because, though obtaining a closing letter from the 
IRS can be helpful to an executor of an estate, it is not required by 
law. Moreover, the estate has the option of obtaining from the IRS, free
 of charge, an <a href="https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/transcripts-in-lieu-of-estate-tax-closing-letters">account transcript</a>,
 showing certain information from the estate tax return, comparable to 
that found in a closing letter. As noted in the final regulations, 
account transcripts can be used to confirm that an estate tax return 
examination has been completed and the IRS file has been closed, which 
is the reason most often cited for requesting a closing letter.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2020/9/1599869632873.png" alt="" />
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure>IRSWASHINGTON&nbsp;—&nbsp;The Internal Revenue Service announced today that 
starting Oct. 28, a new $67 user fee will apply to any estate that 
requests a closing letter for its federal estate tax return.The new user fee was authorized under final regulations, <a href="https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/td-9957.pdf">TD 9957</a>, available today in the Federal Register. Closing letter requests must be made using <a href="https://www.pay.gov/public/home">Pay.gov</a>. The IRS will provide further procedural details before the user fee goes into effect.By law, federal agencies are required to charge a user fee to cover 
the cost of providing certain services to the public that confer a 
special benefit to the recipient. Moreover, agencies must review these 
fees every two years to determine whether they are recovering the cost 
of these services.Under the final regulations, the IRS has determined that issuing 
closing letters is a service that confers a special benefit warranting a
 user fee. That's because, though obtaining a closing letter from the 
IRS can be helpful to an executor of an estate, it is not required by 
law. Moreover, the estate has the option of obtaining from the IRS, free
 of charge, an <a href="https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/transcripts-in-lieu-of-estate-tax-closing-letters">account transcript</a>,
 showing certain information from the estate tax return, comparable to 
that found in a closing letter. As noted in the final regulations, 
account transcripts can be used to confirm that an estate tax return 
examination has been completed and the IRS file has been closed, which 
is the reason most often cited for requesting a closing letter.

Federal estate tax fee goes into effect next month

OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — An Omaha woman has been charged with felony animal neglect after authorities found 45 dead animals inside her home. 

A judge set 47-year-old Jaime Kimbrough's bail at $20,000 on Friday. The Omaha World-Herald could not reach her by phone for comment Saturday night. 

According to court documents, Kimbrough’s home was searched on Aug. 19. Investigators said they found a garage with solid rabbit waste several inches high and a basement with abundant dog feces and mold. 

Two birdcages were in a bedroom with two bird skeletons inside. Thirty-eight dead rabbits were found in the garage, and five more dead rabbits were found at a second location owned by Kimbrough.

OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — An Omaha woman has been charged with felony animal neglect after authorities found 45 dead animals inside her home. A judge set 47-year-old Jaime Kimbrough's bail at $20,000 on Friday. The Omaha World-Herald could not reach her by phone for comment Saturday night. According to court documents, Kimbrough’s home was searched on Aug. 19. Investigators said they found a garage with solid rabbit waste several inches high and a basement with abundant dog feces and mold. Two birdcages were in a bedroom with two bird skeletons inside. Thirty-eight dead rabbits were found in the garage, and five more dead rabbits were found at a second location owned by Kimbrough.

Omaha woman charged after authorities find 45 dead animals

NEW YORK (AP) — Amid the Boy Scouts of America’s complex bankruptcy case, there is worsening friction between the BSA and the major religious groups that help it run thousands of scout units. At issue: the churches’ fears that an eventual settlement — while protecting the BSA from future sex-abuse lawsuits — could leave many churches unprotected.

The Boy Scouts sought bankruptcy protection in February 2020 in an effort to halt individual lawsuits and create a huge compensation fund for thousands of men who say they were molested as youngsters by scoutmasters or other leaders. At the time, the national organization estimated it might face 5,000 cases; it now faces 82,500.

In July, the BSA proposed an $850 million deal that would bar further lawsuits against it and its local councils. The deal did not cover the more than 40,000 organizations that have charters with the BSA to sponsor scout units, including many churches from major religious denominations that are now questioning their future involvement in scouting.

The&nbsp;<a href="https://www.umc.org/en/content/bsa-bankruptcy-affects-united-methodist-congregations" target="_blank">United Methodist Church</a>&nbsp;— which says up to 5,000 of its U.S. congregations could be affected by future lawsuits — recently advised those churches not to extend their charters with the BSA beyond the end of this year. The UMC said these congregations were “disappointed and very concerned” that they weren’t included in the July deal.

Everett Cygal, a lawyer for Catholic churches monitoring the case, said it is unfair that parishes now face liability “solely as a result of misconduct by Boy Scout troop leaders who frequently had no connection to the parish.”

“Scouting can only be delivered with help of their chartered organizations,” Cygal told The Associated Press. “It’s shortsighted not to be protecting the people they absolutely need to ensure that scouting is viable in the future.”

Officials of several other denominations — including the Southern Baptist Convention, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) — have advised their churches to hire their own legal counsel if they fear possible sex-abuse litigation.

The Presbyterian Church said its national leadership can’t act on behalf of member churches because they are separate corporations. The leadership of the Evangelical Lutheran church also said its congregations were on their own, legally speaking, and must decide for themselves whether to continue any relationship with the BSA.

“As a result of the bankruptcy, the congregation cannot confidently rely on the BSA, the local council, or their insurers to defend it,” the Lutheran church warned. “The congregation needs to make sure that it has sufficient insurance and that its own insurance will cover them.”

The Boy Scouts, in a statement provided to the AP, said its partnership with chartered organizations, including churches, “has been critical to delivering the Scouting program to millions of youth in our country for generations.” It said negotiations with those organizations are continuing, and it hopes to conclude the bankruptcy proceedings around the end of this year.

Negotiators face a challenging situation.

According to lawyers representing different parties in the bankruptcy case, the Boy Scouts have suggested chartered organizations have some protection from liability for abuse cases that occurred after 1975, due to an insurance arrangement that took effect in 1976. The BSA has said there’s little or no protection, however, for the many pre-1976 cases, and the best way for organizations to gain protection for that era would be to make a substantial financial contribution to a settlement fund.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints took such a step last week, agreeing to contribute $250 million to a compensation fund in exchange for a release from further liability. The denomination, widely known as the Mormon church, pulled its units out of the BSA on Jan. 1, 2020, after decades as the biggest sponsor.

One key distinction: The Latter-day Saints have a centralized governing structure, making possible a contribution covering its vast former network of scout units. The remaining faith-based charter organizations are more decentralized, complicating the question of how contributions to the compensation fund would be mandated and organized.

Jeremy Ryan, a lawyer representing United Methodist churches, said his clients believe there is some pre-1976 insurance available to them under policies the BSA and its local councils held at the time.

Cygal, the lawyer representing Catholic churches, made a similar argument but said some chartered organizations eventually may have to make an appropriate financial contribution “to put an end to this dispute once and for all.”

Another complication in the negotiations: differing views on how much blame lies with the churches.

Some of the churches argue that they merely provided a venue for a local scout unit to meet, while scout leaders were responsible for hiring decisions that might have led to sexual abuse. Some lawyers for the plaintiffs disagree, saying church leaders were often actively involved in those decisions.

“The Scouts had plenty of fault due to their negligence, but the local institutions had plenty of fault also,” said Christopher Hurley, whose Chicago law firm says it represents about 4,000 men who filed claims in the bankruptcy.

“It’s just not OK to pass the buck on this,” Hurley added. “Everybody’s got to suck it up and make a fair contribution to get justice for these guys.”

Stephen Crew, whose Oregon-based law firm represents about 400 plaintiffs, said he sympathizes with faith-based chartered organizations who “worry about being hung out to dry.”

“But survivors also have a lot of anxiety,” said Crew. “And the problem now is that the insurance companies are balking at everybody.”

A third lawyer for plaintiffs, California-based Paul Mones, blamed the churches’ predicament on the BSA, saying its initial bankruptcy strategy failed to properly anticipate the impact on chartered organizations.

“For decades, the religious organizations have been the backbone of the BSA,” Mones said. “They did not sign up thinking they’d have any kind of liability ... and all of a sudden they’re being told, ‘You’re going to get sued.’ It’s a hot mess.”

Some church leaders, such as United Methodist Bishop Ruben Saenz Jr., have been blunt in their dismay over the bankruptcy fallout.

“This is a very sad and tragic matter that has occurred within our nation and the Church,” Saenz said in a recent&nbsp;<a href="https://www.greatplainsumc.org/newsdetail/churches-receive-instructions-on-boy-scouts-bankruptcy-15408400" target="_blank">letter</a>&nbsp;to the clergy he oversees in Kansas and Nebraska. He said there might be 110 abuse claims in the bankruptcy case potentially connected to UMC churches in his region.

Saenz said the BSA might struggle to move forward post-bankruptcy without participation of the UMC, the biggest active sponsor of Scout units.

But due to BSA positions in the case that are detrimental to the UMC, Saenz wrote, “We simply cannot currently commit to the relationship with the BSA as we have in the past.”

NEW YORK (AP) — Amid the Boy Scouts of America’s complex bankruptcy case, there is worsening friction between the BSA and the major religious groups that help it run thousands of scout units. At issue: the churches’ fears that an eventual settlement — while protecting the BSA from future sex-abuse lawsuits — could leave many churches unprotected.The Boy Scouts sought bankruptcy protection in February 2020 in an effort to halt individual lawsuits and create a huge compensation fund for thousands of men who say they were molested as youngsters by scoutmasters or other leaders. At the time, the national organization estimated it might face 5,000 cases; it now faces 82,500.In July, the BSA proposed an $850 million deal that would bar further lawsuits against it and its local councils. The deal did not cover the more than 40,000 organizations that have charters with the BSA to sponsor scout units, including many churches from major religious denominations that are now questioning their future involvement in scouting.The&nbsp;<a href="https://www.umc.org/en/content/bsa-bankruptcy-affects-united-methodist-congregations" target="_blank">United Methodist Church</a>&nbsp;— which says up to 5,000 of its U.S. congregations could be affected by future lawsuits — recently advised those churches not to extend their charters with the BSA beyond the end of this year. The UMC said these congregations were “disappointed and very concerned” that they weren’t included in the July deal.Everett Cygal, a lawyer for Catholic churches monitoring the case, said it is unfair that parishes now face liability “solely as a result of misconduct by Boy Scout troop leaders who frequently had no connection to the parish.”“Scouting can only be delivered with help of their chartered organizations,” Cygal told The Associated Press. “It’s shortsighted not to be protecting the people they absolutely need to ensure that scouting is viable in the future.”Officials of several other denominations — including the Southern Baptist Convention, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) — have advised their churches to hire their own legal counsel if they fear possible sex-abuse litigation.The Presbyterian Church said its national leadership can’t act on behalf of member churches because they are separate corporations. The leadership of the Evangelical Lutheran church also said its congregations were on their own, legally speaking, and must decide for themselves whether to continue any relationship with the BSA.“As a result of the bankruptcy, the congregation cannot confidently rely on the BSA, the local council, or their insurers to defend it,” the Lutheran church warned. “The congregation needs to make sure that it has sufficient insurance and that its own insurance will cover them.”The Boy Scouts, in a statement provided to the AP, said its partnership with chartered organizations, including churches, “has been critical to delivering the Scouting program to millions of youth in our country for generations.” It said negotiations with those organizations are continuing, and it hopes to conclude the bankruptcy proceedings around the end of this year.Negotiators face a challenging situation.According to lawyers representing different parties in the bankruptcy case, the Boy Scouts have suggested chartered organizations have some protection from liability for abuse cases that occurred after 1975, due to an insurance arrangement that took effect in 1976. The BSA has said there’s little or no protection, however, for the many pre-1976 cases, and the best way for organizations to gain protection for that era would be to make a substantial financial contribution to a settlement fund.The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints took such a step last week, agreeing to contribute $250 million to a compensation fund in exchange for a release from further liability. The denomination, widely known as the Mormon church, pulled its units out of the BSA on Jan. 1, 2020, after decades as the biggest sponsor.One key distinction: The Latter-day Saints have a centralized governing structure, making possible a contribution covering its vast former network of scout units. The remaining faith-based charter organizations are more decentralized, complicating the question of how contributions to the compensation fund would be mandated and organized.Jeremy Ryan, a lawyer representing United Methodist churches, said his clients believe there is some pre-1976 insurance available to them under policies the BSA and its local councils held at the time.Cygal, the lawyer representing Catholic churches, made a similar argument but said some chartered organizations eventually may have to make an appropriate financial contribution “to put an end to this dispute once and for all.”Another complication in the negotiations: differing views on how much blame lies with the churches.Some of the churches argue that they merely provided a venue for a local scout unit to meet, while scout leaders were responsible for hiring decisions that might have led to sexual abuse. Some lawyers for the plaintiffs disagree, saying church leaders were often actively involved in those decisions.“The Scouts had plenty of fault due to their negligence, but the local institutions had plenty of fault also,” said Christopher Hurley, whose Chicago law firm says it represents about 4,000 men who filed claims in the bankruptcy.“It’s just not OK to pass the buck on this,” Hurley added. “Everybody’s got to suck it up and make a fair contribution to get justice for these guys.”Stephen Crew, whose Oregon-based law firm represents about 400 plaintiffs, said he sympathizes with faith-based chartered organizations who “worry about being hung out to dry.”“But survivors also have a lot of anxiety,” said Crew. “And the problem now is that the insurance companies are balking at everybody.”A third lawyer for plaintiffs, California-based Paul Mones, blamed the churches’ predicament on the BSA, saying its initial bankruptcy strategy failed to properly anticipate the impact on chartered organizations.“For decades, the religious organizations have been the backbone of the BSA,” Mones said. “They did not sign up thinking they’d have any kind of liability ... and all of a sudden they’re being told, ‘You’re going to get sued.’ It’s a hot mess.”Some church leaders, such as United Methodist Bishop Ruben Saenz Jr., have been blunt in their dismay over the bankruptcy fallout.“This is a very sad and tragic matter that has occurred within our nation and the Church,” Saenz said in a recent&nbsp;<a href="https://www.greatplainsumc.org/newsdetail/churches-receive-instructions-on-boy-scouts-bankruptcy-15408400" target="_blank">letter</a>&nbsp;to the clergy he oversees in Kansas and Nebraska. He said there might be 110 abuse claims in the bankruptcy case potentially connected to UMC churches in his region.Saenz said the BSA might struggle to move forward post-bankruptcy without participation of the UMC, the biggest active sponsor of Scout units.But due to BSA positions in the case that are detrimental to the UMC, Saenz wrote, “We simply cannot currently commit to the relationship with the BSA as we have in the past.”

Boy Scouts' bankruptcy creates rift with religious partners

HALL COUNTY, Neb.-Authorities in Hall County are searching for a suspect in an assault case and said he should be considered armed and dangerous.

On Sept. 23, at approximately 11:30 a.m. Hall County Sheriff’s Deputies responded to 3533 Prairieview St., Grand Island Regional Hospital, in Grand Island reference an assault that occurred in Alda.

Deputies contacted the victim and after the investigation determined 36-year-old James Timmerman had pointed a handgun at the victim and threatened to shoot her at their residence in Alda at approximately 10 a.m. that day. Timmerman also physically assaulted the victim and stole items from her.  

Timmerman then transported the victim to Grand Island Regional Hospital after she complained of an injury. He accompanied the victim into the hospital but left shortly afterward.  

Timmerman’s whereabouts are unknown at this time and he should be considered armed and dangerous.  An arrest warrant has been issued for him for the following criminal charges: Terroristic Threats, Use of a Weapon to Commit a Felony, Domestic Assault 3rd Degree, Assault by Strangulation, Robbery, and False Imprisonment.

If you have information on Timmerman’s whereabouts please contact the Sheriff’s Department at 308-385-5200 or call 911.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/9/1632666583869.png" alt="" />
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure>HALL COUNTY, Neb.-Authorities in Hall County are searching for a suspect in an assault case and said he should be considered armed and dangerous.On Sept. 23, at approximately 11:30 a.m. Hall County Sheriff’s Deputies responded to 3533 Prairieview St., Grand Island Regional Hospital, in Grand Island reference an assault that occurred in Alda.Deputies contacted the victim and after the investigation determined 36-year-old James Timmerman had pointed a handgun at the victim and threatened to shoot her at their residence in Alda at approximately 10 a.m. that day. Timmerman also physically assaulted the victim and stole items from her. Timmerman then transported the victim to Grand Island Regional Hospital after she complained of an injury. He accompanied the victim into the hospital but left shortly afterward. Timmerman’s whereabouts are unknown at this time and he should be considered armed and dangerous. An arrest warrant has been issued for him for the following criminal charges: Terroristic Threats, Use of a Weapon to Commit a Felony, Domestic Assault 3rd Degree, Assault by Strangulation, Robbery, and False Imprisonment.If you have information on Timmerman’s whereabouts please contact the Sheriff’s Department at 308-385-5200 or call 911.

Hall County authorities search for assault suspect

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democrats pushed a $3.5 trillion, 10-year bill strengthening social safety net and climate programs through the House Budget Committee, but one Democrat voted “no,” illustrating the challenges party leaders face in winning the near unanimity they’ll need to push the sprawling package through Congress.

The Democratic-dominated panel, meeting virtually Saturday, approved the measure on a near party-line vote, 20-17. Passage marked a necessary but minor checking of a procedural box for Democrats by edging it a step closer to debate by the full House. Under budget rules, the committee wasn’t allowed to significantly amend the 2,465-page measure, the product of 13 other House committees.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/9/1632661305209.png" alt="Many Democrats don’t want to become politically vulnerable by backing language that might be controversial back home, only to see it not become law.&nbsp; Photo courtesy White House" />
 <figcaption>Many Democrats don’t want to become politically vulnerable by backing language that might be controversial back home, only to see it not become law.&nbsp; Photo courtesy White House</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — Democrats pushed a $3.5 trillion, 10-year bill strengthening social safety net and climate programs through the House Budget Committee, but one Democrat voted “no,” illustrating the challenges party leaders face in winning the near unanimity they’ll need to push the sprawling package through Congress.The Democratic-dominated panel, meeting virtually Saturday, approved the measure on a near party-line vote, 20-17. Passage marked a necessary but minor checking of a procedural box for Democrats by edging it a step closer to debate by the full House. Under budget rules, the committee wasn’t allowed to significantly amend the 2,465-page measure, the product of 13 other House committees.More important work has been happening in an opaque procession of mostly unannounced phone calls, meetings and other bargaining sessions among party leaders and rank-and-file lawmakers.&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-jon-tester-50483a8c3be3d60d3d4e171db68dd5c1">President Joe Biden</a>, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., have led a behind-the-scenes hunt for compromises to resolve internal divisions and, they hope, allow approval of the mammoth bill soon.Pelosi told fellow Democrats Saturday that they “must” pass the social and environment package this week, along with a separate infrastructure bill and a third measure&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-business-bills-bcc426ff4b7225132bcbf870ecaaf9d8">preventing a government shutdown on Friday</a>. Her letter to colleagues underscored the pile of crucial work Congress’ Democratic majority faces in coming days and seemed an effort to build urgency to resolve long-standing disputes quickly.“The next few days will be a time of intensity,” she wrote.Moderate Rep. Scott Peters, D-Calif., joined all 16 Republicans on the Budget committee in opposing the legislation. His objections included one that troubles many Democrats: a reluctance to back a bill with provisions that would later be dropped by the Senate.Many Democrats don’t want to become politically vulnerable by backing language that might be controversial back home, only to see it not become law. That preference for voting only on a social and environment bill that’s already a House-Senate compromise could complicate Pelosi’s effort for a House vote this week.Peters was among three Democrats who earlier this month voted against a plan favored by most in his party to lower pharmaceutical costs by letting Medicare negotiate for the prescription drugs it buys.Party leaders have tried for weeks to resolve differences among Democrats over the package’s final price tag, which seems sure to shrink. There are also disputes over which initiatives should be reshaped, among them expanded Medicare, tax breaks for children and health care, a push toward cleaner energy and&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-business-nancy-pelosi-10f0a84bc96fdaf86a92fa4d3ab69a5c">higher levies on the rich and corporations</a>.Democrats’ wafer-thin majorities in the House and Senate mean compromise is mandatory. Before the measure the Budget panel approved Saturday even reaches the House floor, it is expected to be changed to reflect whatever House-Senate accords have been reached, and additional revisions are likely.The overall bill embodies the crux of Biden’s top domestic goals. Budget panel chairman John Yarmuth, D-Ky., cited “decades of disinvestment” on needs like health care, education, child care and the environment as the rationale for the legislation.“The futures of millions of Americans and their families are at stake. We can no longer afford the costs of neglect and inaction. The time to act is now,” Yarmuth said.Republicans say the proposal is unneeded, unaffordable amid accumulated&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/debt-limit-explained-8c9cbcd3d0c4a8fe989a0110f5159f7c">federal debt exceeding $28 trillion&nbsp;</a>and reflects Democrats’ drive to insert government into people’s lives. Its tax boosts will cost jobs and include credits for buying electric vehicles, purchases often made by people with comfortable incomes, they said.“This bill is a disaster for working-class families,” said Rep. Jason Smith of Missouri, the committee’s top Republican. “It’s a big giveaway to the wealthy, it’s a laundry list of agenda items pulled right out of the Bernie Sanders socialist playbook.”The unusual weekend session occurred as top Democrats amp up efforts to end increasingly bitter disputes between the party’s centrist and progressive wings that threaten to undermine Biden’s agenda.Biden conceded Friday that talks among Democrats were at a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-business-bills-b9fb060c728da28709fc9effaecb0b9a">“stalemate,”</a>&nbsp;though Pelosi and Schumer have been more positive in an apparent effort to build momentum and soothe differences. A collapse of the measure at his own party’s hands would be a wounding preview to the coming election year, in which House and Senate control are at stake.To nail down moderates’ support for an earlier budget blueprint, Pelosi promised to begin House consideration by Monday of another pillar of Biden’s domestic plans: a $1 trillion collection of roadway and other infrastructure projects. Pelosi reaffirmed this week that the infrastructure debate would begin Monday.But many moderates who consider the infrastructure bill their top goal also want to cut the $3.5 trillion social and environment package and trim or reshape some programs. They include Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz.In response, progressives — their top priority is the $3.5 trillion measure — are threatening to vote against the infrastructure bill if it comes up for a vote first. Their opposition seems likely to be enough to scuttle it, and Pelosi hasn’t definitively said when a vote on final passage of the infrastructure measure will occur.With each portion of the party threatening to upend the other’s most cherished goal —&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/immigration-joe-biden-elections-campaigns-race-and-ethnicity-5a5a71aab543b990464207e1062c32aa">a political disaster in the making for Democrats</a>&nbsp;— top Democrats are using the moment to accelerate talks on the massive social and climate legislation. The party can lose no votes in the Senate and a maximum of three in the House to succeed in the narrowly split Congress.