Alabama Senate committee approves bill to demolish Statehouse
The Alabama State House in Montgomery, Alabama as seen on July 10, 2023. A Senate committee last week approved the demolition of the building after work is complete on a new Statehouse, expected to be occupied next year. (Stew Milne for Alabama Reflector)
An Alabama Senate committee unanimously approved the demolition of the Alabama State House last week.
SB 279, sponsored by Sen. Sam Givhan, R-Huntsville, allows the Alabama Legislature to demolish the current State House once the lawmakers and staff have moved into the new Statehouse, expected to take place in 2026. Givhan told the Senate State Governmental Affairs Committee that he did not know when the demolition would happen or how much it would cost, although the expense would come from the General Fund.
'This destruction is going to have to be paid for, in full, by Alabama taxpayer money,' chair of the Senate General Fund Committee Sen. Greg Albritton, R-Atmore, said.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
The Legislature has occupied the current Statehouse, the old Highway Building, since 1986. The building, meant to be temporary to allow renovations to the Alabama State Capitol to proceed, has mold and other issues that led the Legislature in 2023 to approve construction of a new facility.
When completed, the Statehouse will be the first new one built in the nation since 1977.
Givhan, seemingly joking, said there could be a raffle for people to participate in the demolition, but that would be determined later.
'We may also raffle off tickets to get people with sledge hammers, like you used to do with old cars to beat them up a little,' he said. 'This gives us the right to do that.'
The bill also allows the clerk of the house and the secretary of the senate to sell furniture that will not be used in the new building. Rep. Chris Pringle, R-Mobile, carries a companion bill in the House, which has yet to be seen in the House State Governmental Affairs Committee.
Givhan's bill will now be considered by the full Senate.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
13 House Republicans urge Senate to scale back clean energy cuts in bill they voted for
WASHINGTON — Thirteen House Republicans who voted for President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' sent a letter Friday urging Senate GOP leaders to scale back some of its clean energy cuts, sparking pushback from conservative hard-liners. The unusual criticism of their own bill indicates a modicum of regret by the GOP lawmakers, whose votes were critical to the bill passing the House by a narrow margin last month. 'While we were proud to have worked to ensure that the bill did not include a full repeal of the clean energy tax credits, we remain deeply concerned by several provisions,' said the Republicans in the letter, led by Rep. Jen Kiggans, R-Va. They cited provisions that 'abruptly terminate several credits just 60 days after enactment for projects that have not yet begun construction,' and 'restrictions to transferability.' 'This approach jeopardizes ongoing development, discourages long-term investment, and could significantly delay or cancel energy infrastructure projects across the country,' the group of House Republicans said in criticizing the legislation they voted for, while suggesting some changes to 'mitigate' the harm it could cause. Kiggans, like most of the signatories, represents a competitive district that Democrats are targeting in the 2026 election. Other politically vulnerable members include: Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa.; Juan Ciscomani, R-Ariz.; Mike Lawler, R-N.Y.; Don Bacon, R-Neb.; Gabe Evans, R-Colo.; Young Kim, R-Calif.; David Valadao, R-Calif.; Rob Bresnahan, R-Pa.; and Tom Kean, R-N.J. The remaining three, who hold comparably safer seats, are Reps. Mark Amodei, R-Nev.; Andrew Garbarino, R-N.Y.; and Nick LaLota, R-N.Y. The 13 Republicans warned that 'the House-passed bill includes a phase out schedule for credits that would cause significant disruption to projects under development and stop investments needed to win the global energy race.' The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee mocked the letter and said the lawmakers will own their votes for the bill. 'These 13 Republicans promised not to support cuts to clean energy tax credits, then cast the deciding votes to raise energy costs on American families, kill tens of thousands of jobs, and undermine our nation's energy security. They are responsible for this Big, Ugly Bill and all the harm it will cause,' DCCC spokesperson Viet Shelton said. 'This toothless letter is the worst kind of political hypocrisy and voters will see it for what it is, a lie perpetrated by endangered House Republicans who caved to their D.C. party bosses at the expense of the American people.' Kiggans' office did not immediately return a request for comment on whether she was aware of the provisions when supporting the bill, or if she'd vote for one that falls short of her new demands. Senate Republicans are eyeing changes to the House bill to ease some of the negative impacts of the funding cuts. Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, told NBC News her version of the bill will probably relax some of the deadlines to cut off funding. But she said Thursday that there probably won't be massive changes to the House-passed bill. 'I imagine it's going to track fairly similarly, but I think some of the deadlines are pretty tight in terms of when you have to have construction and those things,' Capito said. 'We've been approached by several employers who need some of those tax credits.' Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., said he's willing to undo some of the clean energy funding, but he wants to make sure that existing business investments aren't harmed by the bill. 'What we're trying to focus on is to make sure that if businesses have invested and have projects in progress, that we do everything we can to hold them harmless,' he said. 'Whether or not we continue some of these programs out into the future — that's a separate question that I'm willing to entertain.' Meanwhile, the conservative group Club For Growth is running ads targeting Sens. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., John Curtis, R-Utah, and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, for backing more modest rollbacks of the clean energy funding, which carries benefits for their states. There's another reason changing the bill is easier said than done: The speedy cuts to clean energy funding under the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act were part of a House agreement to win the votes of conservative hard-liners who want to reduce the bill's red ink. House Republicans have a majority of 220 to 212, meaning they can only spare three 'no' votes in their ranks to pass the bill when the Senate sends back its revised version. 'You backslide one inch on those IRA subsidies and I'm voting against this bill,' Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, said Friday on the House floor. 'So you do what you want to do in the Senate, House of Lords, have your fun. But if you mess up the Inflation Reduction Act, Green New Scam subsidies, I ain't voting for that bill.' This article was originally published on
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Inside the Trump-Musk Breakup
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. For once, President Donald Trump was trying to be the adult in the room. Trump and Elon Musk, two billionaires with massive egos and combustible temperaments, had forged an unlikely friendship over the past year, one built on proximity, political expediency, and, yes, a touch of genuine warmth. Relations between the president and his top benefactor had grown somewhat strained in recent weeks, as Trump began to feel that Musk had overstayed his welcome in the West Wing. Musk had suggested privately that he could stay on at the White House, an offer that Trump gently declined, two people familiar with the situation told us. (They, like others we talked with for this story, spoke anonymously in order to share candid details about a sensitive feud.) But Musk was still given a gracious send-off last Friday—complete with a large golden, albeit ceremonial, key—aimed at keeping the mercurial tech baron more friend than foe. The peace didn't last even a week. On Tuesday, Musk took to X to attack the Republican spending bill being debated in the Senate, trashing Trump's signature piece of legislation as 'a disgusting abomination.' Even as the White House tried to downplay any differences, Musk couldn't let go of his grievances—the exclusion of electric-vehicle tax credits from the bill, and Trump's rejection of Musk's pick to run NASA. Yesterday, the planet's richest man attacked its most powerful. Each took aim at the other from their respective social-media platform, forcing rubberneckers into a madcap toggle between Truth Social and X. Trump deemed his former aide 'CRAZY,' while Musk went much further, dramatically escalating the feud by calling for Trump's impeachment, suggesting that the president had been part of Jeffrey Epstein's notorious sex-trafficking ring, and—likely worst of all in Trump's mind—taking credit for the president's election in November. [Charlie Warzel: The Super Bowl of internet beefs] For one day, Musk made X great again. The spectacle seemed to subside today, as Trump showed—at least by his standards—some restraint. The president insisted that he was not thinking about Musk and wanted only to pass the reconciliation bill that had featured in the brawl. Musk, meanwhile, has far more to lose: his newfound stardom within the MAGA movement, his personal wealth, and government contracts worth billions to his businesses. Steven Bannon, the influential Trump adviser who has long been critical of Musk, crowed that the tech billionaire's attacks on Trump were so personal that he won't be forgiven by the MAGA crowd. 'Only the fanboys are going to stick with him—he's a man without a country,' Bannon told us. Trump and Musk were inseparable during the transition and in the first months after the inauguration. At times, Musk stayed over in the White House residence, regaling reporters with tales of late-night Häagen-Dazs ice-cream binges (caramel flavor) in the White House kitchen. He grew close to Trump's powerful adviser Stephen Miller and to Miller's wife, Katie, who'd entered the administration as a special government employee alongside Musk; the trio socialized outside of work. (Musk has since unfollowed Stephen Miller on X.) Musk's 5-year-old son, X, became a frequent visitor to the Oval Office and Mar-a-Lago, at times scampering around the tables at Trump's private club. But friction mounted over time: a West Wing shouting match between Musk and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, a heated Cabinet meeting about job cuts, clashes with senior White House staffers. Trump grew angry that Musk was bad-mouthing his tariff plan to CEOs, and was especially incensed when The New York Times reported in March that Musk was scheduled to receive a classified briefing at the Pentagon about China; the president began quietly telling confidants last month that he was getting tired of the Tesla chief. The cuts forced by Musk's Department of Government Efficiency—symbolized by Musk wielding a gold-plated chain saw at the Conservative Political Action Conference—angered even some Republicans, who depended on the government services DOGE was slashing. Trump initially bought into Musk's claim that DOGE would find $2 trillion in cuts, two advisers told us. But the potential savings shrank as the chaos grew, and Trump became disillusioned 'Trump started off as more than enamored, then it faded when it turned out the trillion dollars in DOGE cuts was bullshit,' Bannon told us. 'Trump was like, Okay.' Musk's 130-day tenure as a special government employee expired late last month. Despite growing disenchanted with Washington, he suggested to the White House that he wanted to stay on, the two advisers told us. Trump declined. A representative for Musk did not respond to requests for comment. 'Trump was like, You know, he's been around long enough, but he was not mad, not like, Screw this guy,' one of the advisers told us. 'It was like, It's probably time to turn the page.' The White House built Musk a dignified off-ramp, with aides putting together an exit plan that would allow Musk to leave the team on good terms. White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles had often found herself in the unenviable position of trying to manage Musk—a man Trump privately described as part genius, part child. But in the hours before his departure, Musk was dealt a disappointment over a government job that was very important to SpaceX. Trump had announced Jared Isaacman, an aviation entrepreneur and a Musk ally, as his pick for NASA administrator in early December. But Isaacman faced opposition on Capitol Hill, and the scheduling of his confirmation vote forced the issue last week. Trump, after hearing senators' complaints, asked Sergio Gor, the personnel director who had previously clashed with Musk, for Isaacman's vetting files. The White House was unhappy about the nominee's previous donations to Democrats, a White House official told us, and his nomination was withdrawn. [David A. Graham: Elon Musk goes nuclear] At the same time, Musk took aim at the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that encapsulated the entirety of the Republican legislative agenda. He privately lobbied Trump, Wiles, and House Speaker Mike Johnson to include an EV tax credit and then publicly torched the bill when they didn't, posting on Tuesday to his 220 million X followers: 'Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong.' The split has forced Republicans in Congress to choose between a president who demands their loyalty and a billionaire who helped fund their victory last year (and who could finance their opponents' campaigns, if he chooses to). Some rushed to proclaim their neutrality. 'I learned a long time ago when I was fighting to stay out of other people's fights,' Senator Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma, a Trump ally, posted yesterday on X. (A former wrestler, Mullin had a brief professional career in mixed martial arts.) Other Republicans assumed the posture of a child begging their warring parents to get along for the sake of the family. Representative Beth Van Duyne began a post on X, 'We have the best chance to save America, save the world, and bring lasting prosperity.' Then she dropped the politesse: 'WE ARE STRONGER TOGETHER!! CEASE FIRE FOR GOD'S SAKE!' For GOP leaders, the choice seems to be an easy one: They have stuck with Trump, fiercely defending the bill they wrote on his behalf and are rushing to enact before the self-imposed July 4 deadline. After Musk took credit for the party's majorities in Congress as part of his X tirade yesterday, Johnson told reporters that the glory belonged not to Musk, but to the president. A few House conservatives seized on Musk's complaints about the deficit-busting nature of the bill and suggested that they might reconsider their support if the Senate does not improve the legislation. 'He made the biggest mistake in Washington,' a Republican strategist who requested anonymity to speak frankly told us. 'He told the truth. He is not wrong, even if he is annoying.' But Musk might have overplayed his hand in pivoting from policy to personal attacks on the president. 'He hasn't moved a vote,' House Majority Leader Steve Scalise told reporters, according to NBC News. Perhaps realizing that he was destined to lose a fight he'd started, Musk appeared to cool off late yesterday, approvingly quoting social-media posts about stopping the fight and saying that he would not follow through on his threat to decommission SpaceX's Dragon spaceships, which are used to transport NASA astronauts and supplies to and from the International Space Station. He might have 38 billion reasons for seeking détente: That's the number of dollars his companies are believed to receive in government contracts, deals that could be canceled by a vengeful president. Musk spent nearly $300 million supporting Trump and other Republicans in the 2024 presidential election, but slumping Tesla sales worldwide—due, in large part, to anger about his alliance with Trump—are estimated to have cost him well over $100 billion since he took his government post. Tesla stock fell 14 percent the day of Musk's fight with Trump. As of early this afternoon, Trump had not posted again about the feud. He gave brief interviews to a few reporters in which he insisted that he was not thinking about Musk, though he referred to his once–top aide as 'the man who has lost his mind' to ABC News. Trump allies circulated to reporters allegations of Musk's drug use recently aired by The New York Times ('I think the ketamine finally rotted his brain,' one told us; Musk has disputed the Times report). White House aides, stung by Musk's eruption yesterday, let it be known that Trump has no intention of speaking with Musk today and that the president plans to sell or give away the Tesla he'd bought back in March as a show of support for Musk. Asked for comment on the breakup, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt did not mention Musk, saying instead that the administration will 'continue the important mission of cutting waste, fraud, and abuse from our federal government' and that 'the One Big Beautiful Bill is critical to helping accomplish that mission.' Musk typically averages about 100 X posts a day. But through the afternoon today, he's posted only a handful, all promotions of his various businesses. None were about Trump. Article originally published at The Atlantic
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
46 State Medical Associations Urge Senate to Reject Medicaid Cuts in H.R. 1
The House Budget Reconciliation bill will cause at least 7.8 million Medicaid enrollees to lose their health care coverage. SACRAMENTO, Calif., June 6, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- Just days ahead of an expected Senate vote on H.R. 1, 46 state medical associations, as part of Physicians for Medicaid have sent a letter to the United States Senate urging them to reject the dangerous cuts to Medicaid proposed in H.R. 1 that will cause millions of patients to lose coverage and even more to lose access to care - children, pregnant women, seniors, veterans, the disabled and working families. Statewide hospital associations have also weighed in, as proposed cuts impact all providers, including physicians and hospitals. The bill, which includes $200 billion in cuts to the existing and longstanding provider taxes, would have a catastrophic effect on state budgets and the country's entire health care delivery system and would impact 49 state Medicaid programs. Provider taxes have been authorized under federal law, approved by both Republican and Democratic administrations, and affirmed by state legislatures in 49 states for decades. They are a legitimate financing mechanism used by states in partnership with the federal government to fund essential health services and have kept rural hospitals, maternity wards, nursing homes, and physician practices open. The bill also imposes damaging changes to federal student loan programs making it harder for students to pursue medical careers at a time of critical physician shortages. We urge the Senate to pursue more balanced solutions that expand the physician workforce and preserve Medicaid for our patients. "If these provider tax cuts are enacted, it will create significant gaps in State budgets, forcing states to raise taxes, or reduce benefits, coverage, and provider payments. These reductions will lead to even more crowding of emergency departments and as the uncompensated care burdens grow from patients losing coverage, many rural hospitals, nursing homes, and community physician practices will be forced to close to all patients," the letter says. There are three main provisions in H.R. 1 (as passed by the House of Representatives on May 22, 2025) that will drastically limit or eliminate existing provider taxes nationwide. These provisions below apply to all provider taxes, including hospitals, nursing homes, managed care organizations, and other provider categories. Moratorium on New or Increased Provider Taxes (SEC. 44132) – Under the provisions of H.R. 1, none of these taxes could be increased after the passage and enactment of the law nor can any new taxes be adopted by the state Legislatures (there are 19 categories of provider taxes). This provision would freeze taxes and not keep pace with increasing health care costs over time. It is also not equitable between states. Revising Payments for Certain State Directed Payments (SEC. 44133) – Once a provider tax is established, state Medicaid programs can fund supplemental or enhanced payments to providers using a variety of rate methodologies. Under H.R. 1, any future directed payments would be limited to the Medicare payment rate. Medicare physician payment rates are already 33% behind the costs to provide health care. These rates will not keep pace for public hospitals and physician specialists that care for the sickest patients nationwide. Requirements Regarding Waiver of Uniform Tax Requirement for Medicaid Provider Tax (SEC. 44134) – The language in H.R. 1 requires provider taxes in multiple states to uniformly tax hospitals, nursing homes, and managed care organizations within each category of provider tax. The uniformity requirement will be extremely difficult for most states to meet and therefore, it eliminates multiple provider taxes in many states. The HHS Secretary has discretion to allow for a transition period, which is not something upon which states can rely. "These provisions will destabilize state health systems, reduce access to care, and worsen physician shortages. Instead, we encourage you to protect Medicaid – a proven, cost-effective safety net that serves 80 million vulnerable Americans," the letter concluded. View original content to download multimedia: SOURCE California Medical Association; Physicians for Medicaid Sign in to access your portfolio
