Mediaboss Marketing

FIRST ON FOX: Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul will release a book later this year that focuses on the origins of the coronavirus pandemic, and argues that former National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases' director Dr. Anthony Fauci deceived the world about the disease.

The book is called "Deception: The Great CovidCoverup" and will be released in October by Regnery Publishing, a Salem Media Group company and the publisher of numerous conservative books.

"Covid-19 was deadly, but the real killer was the cover-up, led by Anthony Fauci Americas most durable medical bureaucrat who knew from the beginning the virus was likely genetically engineered and possibly leaked from a lab," Paul said in a statement in the publisher's news release. "He knew because hed skirted regulations and funded gain-of-function research in Wuhan and elsewhere. We cant allow Fauci and his yes-men to walk away from what theyve done, or the next pandemic may be far worse."

SEN. RAND PAUL ACCUSES FAUCI OF COLLUDING WITH TEACHERS UNION TO PROMOTE 'HYSTERIA' AROUND SCHOOL REOPENINGS

Sen. Rand Paul will release a book later this year that focuses on the origins of the coronavirus pandemic, as well as former National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases' director Dr. Anthony Fauci's role in the process. (Regnery Publishing, Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

"Wielding previously unimaginable power, Anthony Fauci misled the country about the origins of theCovid pandemic and shut down scientific dissent. One of the few leaders who dared to challenge'Americas Doctor' was Senator Rand Paul, himself a physician. Deceptionis his indictment ofthe catastrophic failures of the public health bureaucracy during the pandemic," Regnery said of the book in a press release.

Paul has consistently taken aim at Fauci for his role in the COVID-19 pandemic response, and has criticized the health official for the NIAID's involvement with the Wuhan, China, lab that studied coronaviruses.

Dr. Anthony Fauci responds to questions from Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., at a Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee hearing on Capitol Hill on January 11, 2022 in Washington, D.C. (Greg Nash-Pool/Getty Images)

Last month, Paul accused Fauci of being culpable of "one of the worst judgment errors" in his handling of COVID by pushing for the funding "gain of function" research in China.

RAND PAUL BLASTS FAUCI AFTER FREEZE-OUT ALLEGATIONS: A FACT FAUCI CONVINCED SCIENTISTS TO CHANGE MINDS

"I think Fauci deserves culpability and history is going to judge him very poorly because he made the judgment to fund this research. It's dangerous research. He doesn't want to call it gain of function, but most other scientists do call it gain of function in Wuhan in an opaque totalitarian country. And in the end, there was a leak from the lab and millions of people died worldwide. And this didn't happen sort of accidentally. The leak may have been accident, but the funding wasn't accidental," Paul said during an appearance on Fox and Friends in April.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., questions Dr. Anthony Fauci during a Senate hearing to examine the federal response to COVID-19 and emerging variants on Jan. 11, 2022 at Capitol Hill in Washington. (GREG NASH/POOL/AFP via Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"Tony Fauci actually went around the system. We had set up a system where there's a committee, they're supposed to go before a committee to judge whether this was dangerous and whether it should be funded. Tony Fauci exempted Wuhan from the committee. They never went before the committee. And this is extraordinary. The committee that was supposed to provide safety and review this, never looked at the research in Wuhan because Tony Fauci gave them exception. So the thing is, yes, he does bear responsibility for maybe one of the worst judgment errors in the history of modern medicine or modern public health to fund this dangerous research," he added.

Paul's book, which is now available for pre-order on Amazon, is slated to be released on October 10.

See the rest here:
Sen. Rand Paul takes aim at Dr. Fauci in new book focused on the COVID-19 'cover-up' - Fox News

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., on Sunday wouldn't commit to supporting a short-term extension of the debt ceiling and insisted on a "clean" debt ceiling lift, in an exclusive interview on Meet the Press, as congressional leaders remain in a gridlock to work out a deal.

Asked by NBC News' Chuck Todd whether he accepts the premise that Democrats won't get a clean debt ceiling hike, Jeffries said: I do not because we have a constitutional responsibility to make sure that we protect the full faith and credit of the United States of America."

Everyday Americans understand this principle: If you have a bill, you need to pay it, he added. If you fail to pay it. Its going to adversely impact your credit rating, your credit score will drop. If your credit score drops, your costs are going to go up and if America defaults on our bills, thats exactly what is going to happen. And everyone is going to pay the price.

The White House is weighing whether to broker a short-term extension of the debt ceiling to allow more time to pass alargerincrease, five sources familiar with the matter told NBC News last week a backstop with three weeks until the current deadline in June.

Jeffries argued that the only responsible action would be to help President Joe Biden raise the debt ceiling and avoid a default as Democrats did three times during the Trump administration.

Asked if a short-term fix is the best way forward, Jeffries said: Well, I dont think the responsible thing to do is to kick the can down the road when President Biden has been saying, for months the position of leader Schumer, the position of House Democrats has been we have to avoid a default."

"America should pay its bills. Protect the full faith and credit of the United States of America," he said.

House Republicans are pushing to attach spending cuts to a debt ceiling increase, while Democrats have hesitated to negotiate over whether to pay the countrys bills or default. Democrats, resistant to policy conditions, have insisted on a clean debt limit hike. They want Congress to negotiate over spending cuts that Republicans have demanded in the separate government funding process, which has a deadline of Sept. 30.

Jeffries said Democrats are open to discussing what types of investments, spending and revenues are appropriate to protect the health, safety and economic well-being of the American people.

Thats a process that is available to us right now, he said. I dont think we need to delay those discussions for a few months.

Jeffries remarks come before he and other congressional leaders are scheduled to meet with Biden this week to discuss the looming debt limit deadline, which could be as early as June 1.

The Biden administration agrees with Jeffries' remarks, saying that a short-term extension is "not our plan," a White House spokesperson said in a statement to NBC News.

"We are focused on removing the threat of default, which will erase our economic progress," the spokesperson added. "As the President has made clear, default is not negotiable.

The office of House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Biden last week insisted that he will only accept a bill with no strings attached, as he dismissed Republicans demands for concessions ahead of the meeting on Tuesday with congressional leaders, including McCarthy, Jeffries, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.

The president has said he plans to reiterate to the leaders during the meeting that they should do what every other Congress has done, that is pass the debt limit, avoid default.

Biden invited the lawmakers to the meeting hours after Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen warned in a letter that the U.S. could breach the debt ceiling as soon as June 1, narrowing the timeline from the June 5 date she previously had set. Its common for the Treasury to adjust the date for when money runs dry based on fluctuating tax collections that can be tricky to predict.

Forty-three Senate Republicans, including leadership, on Saturday said in a letter to Schumer that they wont support a clean debt ceiling lift without spending cuts in a letter to Schumer.

In the letter, led bySen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, the Senate Republicans wrote that they're united behind their colleagues in the House in support of spending cuts and structural budget reform as a starting point for negotiations on the debt ceiling.

As such, we will not be voting for cloture on any bill that raises the debt ceiling without substantive spending and budget reforms, they wrote.

Only six Republicans in the chamber did not sign onto the letter, including Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Rand Paul of Kentucky, and Josh Hawley of Missouri.

With the absence of Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., Democrats would need 10 Republicans to join them in voting for a debt ceiling increase, which they already appear to fall short of. The letter from Senate Republicans, however, does not mention whether they would be open to a short-term fix.

The White House swiftly pushed back against Republicans call for attaching spending cuts to any debt limit increase.

At a moment when the country just posted historic jobs gains, this is no time for these Senators to reverse their support for avoiding default without conditions during the Trump presidency, White House deputy press secretary Andrew Bates said in a statement shared with NBC News.

They need to honor their Constitutional obligation to pay our bills and not unilaterally inflict a recession on the country, Bates added. The American people would not stand for that threat under any circumstances, but especially not to allow the draconian cuts in the House bill that would throw veterans, law enforcement, manufacturing workers, and sick children under the bus.

Summer Concepcion is a politics reporter for NBC News.

Julie Tsirkin and Mike Memoli contributed.

Continue reading here:
Hakeem Jeffries wont commit to a short-term debt ceiling deal - NBC News

One of the stranger features of the politics of the war in Ukraine is that the most vocal opposition to it tends to come from the hard right. In some ways, that right sounds like the hard left it used to oppose so fiercely.

On April 20, 19 Republican lawmakers, including Sens. Rand Paul, Mike Lee and J.D. Vance, sent a letter to President Joe Biden decrying "unlimited arms supplies in support of an endless war." Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis have each expressed their opposition to Western support for Ukraine (though the Florida governor seemed to walk his opposition back); both are keenly attuned to what they think will play well in GOP primaries.

Opposition also comes from what passes for an anti-war conservative intelligentsia. Peter Hitchens, the brother of Christopher Hitchens, is a fierce critic, as is Orbanist American writer Rod Dreher, whose manner of critique is "Russia is wrong, but ... ." Tucker Carlson routinely used his prime-time pedestal to disparage Volodymyr Zelenskyy, calling the Ukrainian president a "dictator" and comparing his dress style to that of the manager of a strip club. The Buchananite American Conservative is against the war on principle; the Trumpian Federalist is against it as a matter of political opportunism.

"While forcing his own people and those whose migration keeps the cartels supplied with the billions to buy military-grade weaponry to suffer murder, rape and other heinous crimes, Biden is abroad encouraging ongoing violence in Ukraine," wrote The Federalist's executive editor, Joy Pullmann, giving readers a taste of the quality of both her thinking and her prose.

Is there a coherent philosophical grounding for these anti-war conservatives? On the surface, no.

From Vietnam to Iraq, the anti-war left (both in the United States and abroad) tended to be united by a kind of instinctive pacifism, a belief that war was almost never the right answer. There has also often been a fair amount of anti-Americanism on the left the Chomskyite view that Washington's foreign policy is generally a force for neo-imperialism and rapacious capitalism.

But that's not the case with the anti-war right.

Some of the more dovish conservative voices on Ukraine, who fear that the war could set off a nuclear conflagration with Moscow, are uber-hawks when it comes to China: They argue that the resources we are pouring into Ukraine should be held in reserve for a looming battle with Beijing over Taiwan. They are also the same people who fault Biden's shambolic withdrawal from Afghanistan for making America seem weak, without appearing to be the least bit concerned about the signal that an American abandonment of Ukraine might also send.

Some of the Tuckerite conservatives who accuse Zelenskyy of illiberal policies in Ukraine such as banning pro-Russian political parties that could be expected to serve as Vladimir Putin's puppets in the event of a Russian military victory go out of their way to celebrate the illiberal policies of the government in Budapest, Hungary.

Some of the historical revisionists who embrace Putin's pretext for invasion that he was provoked by the West into coming to the defense of ethnic Russians who were "stranded" in a "Nazi" Ukraine after the breakup of the Soviet Union would never accept those arguments in any other context: They're the people who believe in the absolute inviolability of America's Southern border when it comes to the "invasion" of Latin American immigrants.

Much of this incoherence is partly explained via the George Costanza school of modern conservatism: If a Democrat is for it, they're against it.

But something darker is also at work. In Putin's cult of machismo; his suppression of political opposition; his "almost sublime contempt for truth" (Joseph Conrad's memorable line about Russian officialdom); his opportunistic embrace of religious orthodoxy; his loathing of "decadent" Western culture; his sneering indifference to international law; and, above all, his contempt for democratic and liberal principles, he represents a form of politics the Tuckerites glimpsed but never quite got in Trump's presidency.

It isn't new. In the 1930s, there was Ezra Pound and Charles Lindbergh and Diana and Oswald Mosley. The hard right's reverence for the principles of raw strength and unblinking obedience runs deep.

This is not true of every conservative. The Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, remains firmly on Ukraine's side, as do the editorialists at The Wall Street Journal and National Review and even conservative firebrands like Mark Levin. A narrow plurality of Republican-leaning voters feel the same way. To tar the entire American right as pro-Putin is a slur, much as old right-wing allegations about liberal softness on communism used to be. But there's also more than a nugget of truth to it.

Certain conservative readers of this column will no doubt feel insulted and claim that it should be possible to oppose U.S. support for the war on strategic grounds without being labeled pro-Putin.

It's worth reminding them what George Orwell wrote in 1942 about the position of Western pacifists vis--vis Nazi Germany: "Pacifism is objectively pro-fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side, you automatically help that of the other."

The New York Times

More:
Opinion: The curious conservative case against defending Ukraine - Chattanooga Times Free Press

Do you approve of the way Congress is handling its job? According to Gallups latest polling data, just 16 percent of Americans give the folks on Capitol Hill a thumbs up. The question for golf-minded constituents is would Washington, D.C., run more effectively if our elected officials played more or less golf?

At first glance, the answer seems clear: Spend more time in the office and less on the course. However, in a time when gridlock, partisanship and culture wars are the default, perhaps our nations leaders should get some more tee times on the books. Tossing up balls to get paired with a political rivalwho then cans a 20-footer to keep your side square in a four-ball matchmight help strip down the ideological barriers preventing meaningful discussion.

We think many of the individuals featured in our latest ranking of Washingtons top golfers favor this position, given the quality of players in our nations capital. In the latest edition of this ranking of presidents, senators, representatives, congressional staffers, lobbyists and other power brokers, 58 boast single-digit handicaps. To qualify for this list, a person must be an elected official in the federal government, spend considerable time in the metro-D.C. area and work within the political ecosystem or be a former politician with continued strong connections to our nations capital.

Taking the top spot is former college golfer, T-Mobile lobbyist and plus-1.9-handicap Tony Russo, who was first on our lists in 2016, 2011 and 2008 as well. The son of former congressman Marty Russo, Tony was a college teammate of Steve Stricker at the University of Illinois and has won club championships at Congressional Country Club and Robert Trent Jones Golf Club. Fred Eames (plus-0.5), a partner at Hunton Andrews Kurth law firm, is the only other member of the list with a plus Index.

Donald Trump (2.5)No. 11 on our listleads the way among former presidents, though his posting of just one score during the past seven years doesnt do much to deter critics who argue Trump holds a vanity Index. Still, his lead over President Joe Biden (10) and the 44th president, Barack Obama (8), is substantial. President Bidens 10 handicap is likely a little dusty, considering his rounds in office are pacing well behind those of his two predecessors. Obama, on the other hand, has reportedly ticked some shots off his game in recent years as he makes a significant move up our ranking to No. 43.

Roger Williams (5), the U.S. representative for Texas 25th congressional district, takes the top spot among current elected officials, coming in at No. 18. Also in the top half of the ranking are Williams colleagues in the House, U.S. Reps. Will Timmons (R-SC, 6.6) and Rick Allen (R-GA, 9.2). President Biden and U.S. Rep. Dan Kildee (D-MI, 10.1) are the top Democrats in office, a position long held by John Yarmuth, the former congressman from Kentucky.

Linda DiVall, founder and executive chair of the polling company American Viewpoint, has a 3.9 Handicap Index and at No. 15 is the top-ranked female on our list. An accomplished amateur golfer, DiVall is a three-time winner of the Virginia Senior Womens Amateur and a past champion of the Virginia Senior Womens Stroke Play.

Editors Note: Indexes are as of April 20, 2023. Handicaps without decimal points are approximate, provided by those familiar with the golfers game. *Indicates that the golfer has not posted a score within the past year.

(1) Tony Russo, +1.9, vice president, federal government relations, T-Mobile

(2) Fred Eames, +0.5, partner, Hunton Andrews Kurth

(3) Nat Hoopes, 0.1, head of public policy and regulatory affairs, Upstart

(4) Dan Murray, 0.8, director, government affairs, Southern Company

(5) Clark Milner, 0.9, senior advisor and chief counsel to Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-TN)

(6) Chris Lamond, 1.3, founding partner, Thorn Run Partners

(7) Baker Elmore, 2.0, managing director, federal government affairs, Duke Energy

(8) Bret Baier, 2.2, host, Fox News Channel

(9) Bob Okun, 2.3, CEO, The O Team

(10) Jared Powell, 2.4, chief of staff, U.S. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA)

(11) Donald Trump, 2.5*, former president of the United States (R)

(12) Trey Gowdy, 3.4, former U.S. representative (R-SC), current Fox News host

(13) Barry Hutchison, 3.6, assistant vice president, AT&T

(14) Robert Dibblee, 3.8, vice president, government relations, National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts

(15) Linda DiVall, 3.9, founder, executive chair, American Viewpoint

(16) Phil Musser, 4.5, vice president, head of government affairs, Nextera

(17) Roger Williams, 5, U.S. representative (R-TX)

(18) Chris Cylke, 5.1, senior vice president, government relations, American Gaming Association

(T-19) John Connell, 5.4, chief of staff, Sen. Todd Young (R-IN)

(T-19) Brad Card, 5.4, CEO, Card & Associates

(21) Dan Conston, 5.5, president, Congressional Leadership Fund

(22) Moutray McLaren, 5.6, vice president, public policy, International Council of Shopping Centers

(T-23) Robert Fisher, 5.9, senior vice president, federal government relations, Verizon

(T-23) John Buscher, 5.9, senior consultant, Cornerstone Government Affairs

(25) Andrew King, 6.0, founder, Neale Creek

(26) Evan Tracey, 6.2, senior vice president, National Media Research Planning and Placement

(27) Geoff Gonella, 6.3, CEO, Cornerstone Government Affairs

(T-28) Ben Napier, 6.4, floor director, Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-LA)

(T-28) Mike Collins, 6.4, vice president, government relations, Broadcast Music Inc.

(30) Chris Gorud, 6.5, legislative director, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)

(T-31) William Timmons, 6.6, U.S. representative (R-SC)

(T-31) Peter Gordon, 6.6, director, government affairs, Center for American Progress

(T-31) Penny Lee, 6.6, president, CEO, Financial Technology Association

(34) Arthur Mason, 6.7, executive vice president, Cassidy & Associates

(T-35) Chris Hodgson, 6.8, principal, Cornerstone Government Affairs

(T-35) Jamie Gillespie, 6.8, executive vice president, government relations, Fox Corporation

(37) Chris Cox, 7.0, president, Capitol 6 Advisors

(T-38) Adam Grzybicki, 7.1, president, national regulatory and external affairs, AT&T

(T-38) Jesse McCollum, 7.1, senior director, government and public affairs, Nike

(40) Mick Mulvaney, 7.6, former U.S. representative (R-SC) and Office of Management and Budget director

(41) Scott LaGanga, 7.8, senior vice president of state advocacy, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA)

(42) Tucker Foote, 7.9, executive vice president, public policy, Mastercard

(43) Barack Obama, 8, former president of the United States (D)

(44) Tyler Threadgill, 8.2, vice president, head of federal government affairs, LKQ

(45) Steve Ubl, 8.3, president, CEO, PhRMA

(46) Kevin Gundersen, 8.4, director of global government affairs, Huntsman Corporation

(47) Don Nickles, 8.5, chair, CEO, The Nickles Group; former senator (R-OK)

(48) Phil Cox, 8.7, co-founder, partner, GP3 Partners

(49) Ryan Canfield, 9.1, principal, GuidePost Strategies

(50) Rick Allen, 9.2, U.S. representative (R-GA)

(51) Justin Rzepka, 9.3, principal, BGR Group

(T-52) Jim McCool, 9.4, director, federal legislative affairs, Southern Company

(T-52) John Herzog, 9.4, senior vice president, government affairs, Kimbell & Associates

(54) Roshan Patel, 9.5, executive director, Democratic Lieutenant Governors Association

(55) Chip Roy, 9.6*, U.S. representative (R-TX)

(56) Rob Ellsworth, 9.7, co-founder, partner, Majority Group

(57) David Planning, 9.8, floor director, Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-MN)

(58) Ozzie Palomo, 9.9, founding partner, managing director, Chartwell Strategy Group

(59) Joe Biden, 10, President of the United States (D)

(60) Rand Paul, 10, senator (R-KY)

(61) Dan Kildee, 10.1, U.S. representative (D-MI)

(T-62) Kevin Hern, 10.3, U.S. representative (R-OK)

(T-62) Bryan Anderson, 10.3, executive vice president and president of external affairs, Southern Company

(64) Cedric Richmond, 10.5, former U.S. representative (D-LA)

(65) Charlie Shipp, 10.7, founding partner, SC Partners

(T-66) Tommy Tuberville, 10.9, senator (R-AL)

(T-66) Parish Braden, 10.9, staff director, House Committee on Agriculture

(T-68) Pete Aguilar, 11, U.S. representative (D-CA)

(T-68) Ben Cantrell, 11, chief of staff, Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK)

(T-68) Jim Richards, 11.0, principal and director, Cornerstone Government Affairs

(71) Joe Courtney, 11.6, U.S. representative (D-CT)

(T-72) Lindsey Graham, 12, senator (R-SC)

(T-72) John Hoeven, 12, senator (R-ND)

(T-72) Jean Statler, 12.0, CEO, Alliance for Lifetime Income

(75) Jim Carroll, 12.1, senior vice president, global government relations, Honeywell

(76) Larry Calhoun, 13, chief of staff, U.S. Rep. Kat Cammack (R-FL)

(77) Blake Moore, 13.5, U.S. representative (R-UT)

(78) Ron Johnson, 13.8*, senator (R-WI)

(T-79) Richard Burr, 14.0, former senator (R-NC); Principal policy advisor, DLA Piper

(T-79) Jordan Ebert, 14, banking and consumer finance council, Senate Banking Committee

(81) Shahira Knight, 14.2, managing principal, policy and government relations, Deloitte

(82) Marty Reiser, 14.3, principal, government relations, S-3 Group

(83) Matt Cartwright, 14.5*, U.S. representative (D-PA)

(84) Pat Raffaniello, 14.8, principal, Raffaniello & Associates

(85) Will King, 14.9, staff member, House Natural Resources Committee

(T-86) George W. Bush, 15, former president of the United States (R)

(T-86) Joe Knowles, 15, chief of staff, U.S. Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA)

(88) John Boehner, 15.1, former Speaker of the House (R-OH)

(89) Jim Clyburn, 15.2*, U.S. representative (D-SC)

(90) Lewis Myers, 15.5, senior advisor, U.S. Rep. Tony Cardenas (D-CA)

(91) Mike Gallagher, 15.7, U.S. representative (R-WI)

(92) Ryan Kaldahl, 16, budget director, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

Read the rest here:
Washington, D.C.s Top 100 Golfers - GolfDigest.com

Food safety is reason enough to kill the Processing Revival and Interstate Meat Exemption Act, otherwise known as the PRIME Act, according to some of the industrys most powerful players.

The North American Meat Institute and the National Cattlemens Beef Association put themselves on record for the 118th Congress as again opposing the PRIME Act. The PRIME Act is seen as vital to small-scale producers, their communities, and consumers who demand local products by the legislations sponsors.

NCBA President Todd Wilkinson says the nations largest organization for the cattle industry is in favor of reducing regulatory burdens, but not at the expense of food safety, He calls the PRIME Act well-intentioned, but allowing uninspected beef to enter the retail market is dangerous to consumers.

American consumers rely on rigorous USDA inspection to ensure the safety and quality of their meat and poultry,said Meat Institute President and CEO Julie Anna Potts.Allowing the meat to enter commerce without inspection and without alerting consumers they are buying uninspected meat jeopardizes food safety and will undermine consumer confidence in all meat products.

If passed, the PRIME Act would amend the Federal Meat Inspection Act to allow custom slaughter facilities to sell uninspected meat directly to consumers, to restaurants and food service, and at retail. The Act currently permits custom slaughter facilities to harvest livestock for the personal use of the owner of the animal. The food produced may not enter commerce. There is no continuous inspection and no veterinarian is required to assess the health of the livestock.

Further, federally inspected facilities, and state-inspected facilities with cooperative agreements with USDAs Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), have inspectors continuously conducting oversight of operations to ensure the safety and quality of meat and poultry and the health and wellness of the livestock. Should a problem occur, products bearing the mark of USDA inspection can be traced to protect consumers.

It is important for the American economy and the entire meat value chain that the safety of our meat and poultry is never taken for granted. The meat and poultry industry, and the taxpayer, has invested billions of dollars in food safety protections, research, and infrastructure to ensure we have the safest meat in the world, said Potts. While this bill may be well-intentioned, it poses especially unnecessary risks given the many resources available to help new and small facilities gain inspection from FSIS.

The PRIME Act was reintroduced earlier this year into the 118th Congress by Reps. Thomas Massie, R- KY., and Chellie Pingree, D- ME. in the House and by Sens. Angus King, I- Maine, and Rand Paul, R-KY. The current bill appears to be no different than earlier versions that failed during previous sessions.

However, it may be picking up more steam than previously.

Among its now significant bipartisan support are original sponsors in the House including Reps. Jeff Duncan, R-SC., Jared Huffman, D-CA., Randy Feenstra, R-IA, Darren Soto, D-FL., Tim Burchett, R-TN., Ken Buck, R-CO., Mo Brooks, R-AL., Warren Davidson, R-OH, Paul Gosar, R-AZ., Jaime Herrera Beutler, R-WA., Louie Gohmert, R-TX, Ted Budd, R-NC., Ralph Norman, R-SC., Chip Roy, R-TX, Scott Perry, R-PA, Michael Cloud, R-LA., Tom McClintock, R-CA, Glenn Grothman, R-WS., Debbie Lesko, R-AZ., Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-GA., Nancy Mace, R-SC., Matt Rosendale, R-MT, Lauren Boebert, R-CO., Andy Biggs, R-AZ., Jason Smith, R-MoO, and Matt Gaetz, R-FL

If passed, Prime Act supporters say the bill will allow states to set their own standards for processing meat sold within their borders. It would permit states to pass their own laws and regulations to allow custom-exempt processing facilities to slaughter and process meat for intrastate commercial.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News,clickhere)

See the rest here:
Food safety concerns are said to require the defeat of the "well ... - Food Safety News