Senate advances two Ayotte priority causes
Jan. 30—The state Senate advanced two of Gov. Kelly Ayotte's priority causes Thursday: a ban on so-called sanctuary city policies and a dramatic increase in prison time for those convicted of dealing deadly drugs.
Largely along party lines, the Senate approved two bills on illegal immigration and two that increase minimum mandatory prison terms for for fentanyl-related offenses.
During a speech to the Republican State Committee annual meeting last week, Ayotte made clear what's atop her wish list.
"I want you to send me a ban on sanctuary city policies and I want you to send me tougher penalties for fentanyl dealers," Ayotte said.
Senators jousted over whether New Hampshire communities actively refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Bill Gannon, R-Sandown, pointed to "welcoming ordinances" in Hanover and Lebanon in the Upper Valley.
"The Lebanon ordinance states, 'No agent shall participate in immigration enforcement actions,'" said Gannon. "My friends, that's a sanctuary city policy and it has no place in New Hampshire."
Sen. Suzanne Prentiss, D-Lebanon, said over the past five years, law enforcement in her hometown has worked with federal officials to detain and prosecute three illegal immigrants who had committed crimes.
"We don't just open the door and set them free," Prentiss said.
The New Hampshire Association of Counties has raised concern the anti-sanctuary bill could force property taxpayers to foot the bill to care for illegal immigrants in county jails beyond existing reimbursement agreements that counties have with the U.S. Marshal's Office.
One bill (SB 71) passed and sent to the Senate Finance Committee would prevent any city or town from having a policy that declines to work with federal immigration officials.
The other that cleared the Senate (SB 62) expressly permits local cities and towns to sign agreements with federal officials to proactively work with Immigration Customs Enforcement on these matters.
Both passed on 15-8 votes, with all Republicans present in support and all Democrats against.
The 16th Republican senator, Kevin Avard, R-Nashua, was absent for Thursday's session.
The House debates its own anti-sanctuary bill (HB 511) next week. That bill cleared a House committee by a 16-0 vote.
Drug sentencing
The two fentanyl bills that passed Thursday increase the minimum mandatory sentences for anyone who possesses fentanyl with the intent to sell (SB 14) or who knowingly gives a person a drug that causes death (SB 15).
Gannon said he amended SB 14 in response to defense lawyers and police chiefs.
Anyone caught possessing 20 grams of fentanyl could face at least a 3 1/2 -year prison term; the minimum goes up to 7 years for anyone with 50 grams.
Senate Democratic Leader Rebecca Perkins Kwoka, of Portsmouth, said there's no evidence that mandatory minimums reduce overdoses and lawmakers should not "legislate headlines."
"In fact, we heard several studies that mandatory minimums are not an effective deterrent of crime and are expensive. There are better ways to properly crack down on the distribution of fentanyl — one without the severe consequences this bill carries," Perkins Kwoka said.
Sen. Daryl Abbas, R-Salem, and a defense lawyer, said dealers won't sell as many drugs in states that carry automatic jail time.
"Twenty grams of fentanyl is 10,000 lethal doses; that is not a personal dosage," Abbas said. "I think that is a good headline for you to send to the people who are selling fentanyl."
klandrigan@unionleader.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump blocks California rules for greener vehicles and gas-powered car ban
Donald Trump has blocked California's first-in-the-nation rule banning the sale of new gas-powered cars by 2035, signing a resolution on Thursday to stymie the state's ambitious attempt to tackle the climate crisis by pivoting to greener vehicles. The state quickly announced it was challenging the move in court, with California's attorney general holding a news conference to discuss the lawsuit before Trump's signing ceremony ended at the White House. The resolution was approved by Congress last month and aims to quash the country's most aggressive attempt to phase out gas-powered cars. Trump also signed measures to overturn state policies curbing tailpipe emissions in certain vehicles and smog-forming nitrogen oxide pollution from trucks. Related: Fury as Republicans go 'nuclear' in fight over California car emissions California has some of the worst smog and air quality issues in the nation, and has for decades been able to seek waivers from the Environmental Protection Agency that have allowed the state to adopt stricter emissions standards than the federal government. But Trump, who has pledged to revive the US auto manufacturing industry and boost oil and gas drilling, called California's regulations 'crazy'. 'It's been a disaster for this country,' he said at a White House ceremony where he signed the resolutions. In his first term, Trump revoked California's ability to enforce its own standards, which Joe Biden reinstated in 2022. The move is the latest in an ongoing battle between the Trump administration and heavily Democratic California over issues including tariffs, LGBTQ+ rights and immigration. The state is already involved in more than two dozen lawsuits challenging Trump administration actions, and the state's attorney general, Rob Bonta, announced the latest one at a news conference in California. Ten other states, all with Democratic attorneys general, joined the lawsuit filed on Thursday. 'The federal government's actions are not only unlawful; they're irrational and wildly partisan,' Bonta said. 'They come at the direct expense of the health and the wellbeing of our people.' The three resolutions Trump signed will block California's rule phasing out gas-powered cars and ending the sale of new ones by 2035. They will also kill rules that phase out the sale of medium- and heavy-duty diesel vehicles and cut tailpipe emissions from trucks. In his remarks at the White House, Trump expressed doubts about the performance and reliability of electric vehicles, though he had some notably positive comments about the company owned by Elon Musk, despite their fractured relationship. 'I like Tesla,' Trump said. In remarks that often meandered off topic, Trump used the East Room ceremony to also muse on windmills, which he claimed 'are killing our country', the prospect of getting electrocuted by an electric-powered boat if it sank and whether he'd risk a shark attack by jumping as the boat went down. 'I'll take electrocution every single day,' the president said. When it comes to cars, Trump said he likes combustion engines but, for those that prefer otherwise, 'if you want to buy electric, you can buy electric'. The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, which represents major carmakers, applauded Trump's action. 'Everyone agreed these EV sales mandates were never achievable and wildly unrealistic,' John Bozzella, the group's president and CEO, said in a statement. Newsom, who is considered a likely 2028 Democratic presidential candidate, said Trump's action was a continuation of his 'all-out assault' on California. 'And this time he's destroying our clean air and America's global competitiveness in the process,' Newsom said in a statement. 'We are suing to stop this latest illegal action by a president who is a wholly owned subsidiary of big polluters.' Related: 'Putting profit over people': big gas is waging war on a California clean air rule The signings come as Trump has pledged to revive American auto manufacturing and boost oil and gas drilling. The move follows other steps the Trump administration has taken to roll back rules that aim to protect air and water and reduce emissions that cause climate change. The Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday proposed repealing rules that limit greenhouse gas emissions from power plants fueled by coal and natural gas. Dan Becker with the Center for Biological Diversity, said the signing of the resolutions was 'Trump's latest betrayal of democracy'. 'Signing this bill is a flagrant abuse of the law to reward big oil and big auto corporations at the expense of everyday people's health and their wallets,' Becker said in a Associated Press contributed reporting
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Act of GENIUS or Blockheaded Bill? Congress Considers Stablecoins
The US Senate voted last week to advance the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins Act which, because D.C. lawmakers of all stripes love cringe acronyms, stands for the GENIUS Act. The purported stroke of brilliance would lay out the first-ever regulatory framework for stablecoins, or digital tokens pegged to the value of the dollar. It has found both Republican and Democratic support and opposition. Those who see genius in GENIUS say it takes a commonsense approach to balancing innovation and regulation. Those who think it's a blockheaded approach to blockchain have ideologically diverse critiques, which we'll get to. A final vote has been scheduled for tomorrow. READ ALSO: Can Blue Origin Fill NASA's SpaceX Void? and BlackRock's Virtual Investment Analyst 'Asimov' Ushers in AI Era on Wall Street The GENIUS Act, if passed, would let banks and private companies approved by federal regulators issue their own stablecoins. Those issuers would be required to back their stablecoins at all times with a 1:1 reserve of a stable asset, either cash or short-term Treasurys. They'd also be subject to some anti-money laundering laws and be required to adhere to US sanctions on foreign entities. The idea behind using the specified assets is implied in the term stablecoin: It means the tokens are more stable than most digital coins, which can exhibit dramatic price swings. Take, for example, 2022 — when Bitcoin had a high of $46,000 in March and a low of around $16,000 in December. The bill and its safeguards have managed to win the support of almost all the Republicans and 18 Democrats in the Senate. And, The Wall Street Journal reported Friday, the issue has generated enough excitement that both Amazon and Walmart are entertaining issuing their own stablecoins, a move that would allow them to sidestep billions of fees involved in cash and card transactions that involve the traditional financial system. But there are holdouts in the Senate, and their opposition comes from wildly different places: First, there's Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky. It's no surprise that the libertarian-leaning lawmaker is leaning 'against' the bill because he's not convinced of the need for federal regulation of stablecoins at all. Then there's his GOP colleague Josh Hawley of Missouri, a Silicon Valley skeptic who has called for the breakup of Big Tech companies. He has warned that the bill would let tech behemoths issue stablecoins that compete with the dollar and use them to collect inordinate amounts of data on people. Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren, an expert in bankruptcy and commercial law, supports 'a strong stablecoin bill' but says the GENIUS Act is not that, arguing it could trigger 'the next financial meltdown' because it 'folds stablecoins directly into the traditional financial system while applying weaker safeguards than banks or investment companies must adhere to.' Warren noted that, in the past, some stablecoins have failed to maintain their pegs: The 2022 crypto crash, which led to Bitcoin's fall that year, was caused by the collapse of Terraform Labs' Terra/Luna 'algorithmic' stablecoin, which cost investors $42 billion. One 2023 study that analyzed 60 stablecoins found every single one of them had de-pegged from its underlying asset at least once. A Bond Boon? ARK Invest argued, in a report earlier this month, that a turbocharged stablecoin would be good for the Federal Reserve by encouraging companies to become more active in holding US Treasurys. That, the investment firm said, could help offset the sharp decline in foreign holdings of US debt in recent years, which has accelerated amid the tariff pressures created by the Trump administration. This post first appeared on The Daily Upside. To receive delivering razor sharp analysis and perspective on all things finance, economics, and markets, subscribe to our free The Daily Upside newsletter.
19 minutes ago
Cambodia threatens Thai fruits ban as tensions over border disputes continue to soar
PHNOM PENH, Cambodia -- Cambodia on Monday said it would stop importing Thai fruits and vegetables if Thailand refused to lift border restrictions imposed following a deadly clash in one of the disputed areas between the two countries. An armed confrontation at the border on May 28 left one Cambodian soldier dead. The incident, which each side blamed on the other, reportedly took place in a relatively small 'no man's land' along their border that both countries claim as their own. Cambodian and Thai authorities have engaged in saber-rattling since last week, and continue to implement or threaten measures short of armed force, keeping tensions high. Thailand has added restrictions at border crossings, and Cambodia has banned Thai movies and TV shows and implemented a boycott of the neighboring country's international internet links. Cambodian Senate President Hun Sen, the former prime minister, said in a televised speech Monday that the ban on Thai fruits and vegetables would take effect if Thailand doesn't lift the border restrictions by Tuesday. Thai Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra later said Thailand decided to impose the border restrictions out of safety concerns for the citizens of both countries due to the heavier presence of armed forces along the areas. She also said any 'unprofessional communication' that was conveyed outside a bilateral mechanism would only hurt the interests of both sides. Officials of the two countries met over the weekend in Cambodia's capital, Phnom Penh, on the conflicting territorial claims that led to last month's deadly confrontation. While both sides said the meeting was held in a good atmosphere, it appears no major breakthrough was achieved to resolve the current spat. Cambodia on Sunday said it has officially submitted a request to the U.N.'s International Court of Justice, seeking a resolution to the ongoing border disputes with Thailand in four areas. The Cambodia's State Secretariat of Border Affairs said after the weekend meetings concluded that Cambodia would no longer discuss these areas under the bilateral mechanism of the two countries. The Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs said Monday that it was deeply disappointed that Cambodia refused to address the disputes through the existing mechanism and reiterated that Thailand does not accept the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. Both however agreed to participate in the next round of meetings on border issues to be hosted by Thailand in September. Much of their war of words has appeared intended to mollify nationalistic critics on both sides of the border. In Thailand, the elected government of Prime Minister Paetongtarn has been attacked by right-wing nationalists who are longtime foes of her father, former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. There is a long history to the territorial disputes between the two countries. Thailand is still rankled by a 1962 ICJ ruling that awarded Cambodia the disputed territory where the historic Preah Vihear temple stands. There were sporadic though serious clashes there in 2011. The ruling was reaffirmed in 2013. ——-
