Proposed bill would give hiring preference to displaced federal workers living in Montgomery County
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, Md. () – Montgomery County Council Vice President Will Jawando introduced Expedited Bill 10-25 on Tuesday. He's hoping qualified former federal employees are placed at the top of the list for county job openings.
'We're here quite simply, just to defend our neighbors,' Jawando said.
Rockville neighbors band together out of concern for dogs' welfare
The legislation is meant to help displaced federal workers.
'This bill will guarantee that these civil servants are considered earlier in the hiring process and are interviewed if they meet the qualifications of the job they are applying for,' Jawando said.
The proposal, which comes after actions by the Trump administration that left thousands of federal employees without jobs, is intended to give those workers a leg up in finding new positions.
Juliette Rizzo is among more than 1,000 federal workers who live in Montgomery County and lost their jobs.
'I just want to share a few hardships when I think about unemployment,' Rizzo said. 'For me, I think about the cost of this wheelchair that raises up to this podium.'
Montgomery County nonprofits team up to collect sports equipment for children
Kate Greenberg worked at the National Institutes of Health for nearly 15 years before she was fired.
'The mental toll is a lot harder than I thought it was going to be,' Greenberg said. 'This is not how you treat human beings, and this is certainly not how you treat your own workforce.'
Rizzo and Greenberg said they're grateful for the opportunity this bill could present if voted into law.
'I want to continue to serve,' Rizzo said. 'I believe in what's being done here for federal servants.'
Jawando addressed concerns of people who may apply for county jobs but aren't former federal workers.
'We want to help them find employment, too,' he said. 'But it's a whole government response, and I think this is a targeted response for people, specifically targeted in a negative way.'
Bethesda food pantry honors life of former Bullis School student
Community members will have a chance to share their thoughts about the bill during a public hearing on Tuesday, April 1.
'If the federal government won't retain its best and brightest, why not put that talent to work at the county level?' Greenberg said.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
an hour ago
- Miami Herald
The CDC says guns are the No. 1 killer of children. Here's what's really true
With Robert F. Kennedy's Make Children Healthy Again report under attack for questionable science, imaginary research and other 'formatting errors,' as the White House calls them, Democrats are worrying about a politicized public health system selling snake oil to the American public. You don't have to look far back in time for examples of the government public health system and the private sector experts who influence it and spearhead its research efforts selling snake oil. The coronavirus pandemic was rife with them. There was the time public health officials simply made up the claim that staying 6 feet apart would help stop the spread of COVID-19. And the time top officials and scientists conspired to falsely 'debunk' concerns that the coronavirus was released from a Chinese lab. And then there were times when public health advice was politicized, like when public health officials said gathering in groups was unsafe, except if it was to protest the death of George Floyd. They're not just about COVID, either. Remember the great kerfuffle over Flint, Michigan's lead problem? The people who were telling you that Black kids were poisoned forgot to tell you that there own data showed blood lead levels of lead in 'poisoned' kids were much lower than just a decade earlier when nobody was talking about poisoned kids. This weekend, you'll be treated to another misinformation campaign that comes with the imprimatur of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health. It's time for the annual 'Gun Violence Awareness Week.' This weekend, buildings all over the country will light up orange in solidarity with those who have lost their lives in what has become a daily bloodbath we spend most of the year ignoring. Among the claims you'll be hearing is one I received from a local Kansas City backer of Moms Demand Action, a gun control group. 'Gun deaths are the number one cause of deaths of American children and adolescents,' her email said. Others say the facts are even more stark. California Gov. Gavin Newsom took out ads on social media saying, 'Guns are the number one killer of kids.' In a speech to mayors, Vice President Kamala Harris said, 'Gun violence is the leading cause of death of the children of America — leading cause of death — not car accidents, not some form of cancer — gun violence.' Facts trigger truth The facts tell a different story. Guns are not the number one killer of children at any age between 0 and 12. They never have been. Cars are the biggest killer. Who says? The CDC database called WONDER that tracks the cause of death in most U.S. deaths indexed by race, sex and age among other characteristics. For a number of kids' years of life, drowning or falls are a greater threat than guns. I asked the Kansas City activist who sent that claim to me why she was spreading such a lie. She didn't respond, but the national press person for Everytown for Gun Safety did reply, citing the CDC and the National Institute of Health as her sources. She sent links. And she's right. Here's what the CDC says: 'Taking into account all types of firearm injuries, including homicides, suicides, and unintentional injuries, firearm injuries were the leading cause of death among children and teens ages one to 19 in 2020 and 2021.' What they mean is if you lump all the dead children and teens in one pile and count how they died, for the whole gruesome pile, the No. 1 killer was guns. But that is only because guns kill so many teens — a large number of them 18- and 19-year-old adult teens. It has nothing to do with children's deaths. Elsewhere on its website, the CDC admits this difference, giving the cause of death for different groups of children as 'accidents.' Why would the CDC do something so misleading? Well, it goes back many decades in which reporting what the leading killer of children and teens was made perfect sense. The killer was the same for them all — accidents, mostly car accidents. So naturally, they reported the number all together. When guns overtook car accidents during the Biden administration, they just kept doing the same thing they had always done. Gun control groups loved it because that let them make the claim that children were dying left and right from guns. That scared concerned parents into backing their agenda and coughing up donations. The Biden administration CDC didn't seem to mind. But there's more to this story that is misleading. Remember guns are the No. 1 killer of teens, but are guns a threat to your kids? Probably not. Which teens? The CDC's WONDER(ful) database reveals that: Guns are not the number one killer of female are not the number one killer of white are not the number one killer of Hispanic are not the number one killer of Asian are not the number one killer of Native American only group for whom this claim is true is Black teens, which is statistically troubling in itself. It isn't like these facts are a shock. I found many of them in the Journal of the American Medical Association. But they do reveal the politicization of our public health experts. When I asked the author of the article, Dr. Elizabeth Wolf, about the gun control groups' claim and the fact that it wasn't actually true that children, female teens, white teens, Hispanic teens, Asian teens and Native American teens were so threatened by guns, she replied that the claim is perfectly accurate and then stopped responding to my emails. That's nuts. So if there is an annual bloodbath of gun violence in the United States, why does the slicing and dicing of dry statistics matter? If your goal is to raise campaign donations and build a national political movement to restrict gun rights, it doesn't matter. Scaring parents whose kids are not at much risk by fudging the issue works great. If your goal is to get Congress to fork over millions in research grants on the problem of gun violence, it works great to make Congress think the bullets are flying everywhere and that the blood is flowing on rural, suburban and urban congressional district streets alike. But if your goal is to actually solve the problem, well, then it really does matter just who is dying and why. Only when we face the answer to that question can we focus resources where the problem is and come up with ways to do something about it. It would be nice if the CDC made that a priority.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Pope Leo plans to give a virtual address in his hometown of Chicago – at the same time as Trump's military parade
God-fearing patriots will now have a choice to make on Saturday between watching Donald Trump's military and birthday parade, and a special address by Pope Leo XIV. The pontiff has announced plans to screen a video message and mass in his hometown of Chicago at the same time that the president's multi-million dollar party will be happening in Washington, D.C. Tickets for the event, which is to be held at the Rate Field, home of the Chicago White Sox (Pope Leo's favorite team), are being sold online at $5 each. As of Wednesday the 40,000-sea stadium was almost entirely sold out. A prayer service, which is reportedly directed at young people of the world, begins at 2:30 p.m local time and mass will be held at 4:00 p.m. Both will be live streamed. Some 700 miles away in Washington, D.C., the atmosphere will be somewhat different. Trump's military parade is set to feature around 6,600 Army troops and military equipment such as a WWII-vintage B-25 bomber, a P-1 fighter and Huey helicopters used in the Vietnam War, as well as 25 M1 Abrams tanks, 28 Stryker armored vehicles, and four Paladin self-propelled artillery vehicles. Leo was elected to become The Holy See last month, and prior to his ascension was known to have disagreed with the president and vice president J.D. Vance in social media posts published while still a cardinal. The papacy has also criticized anti-immigrant rhetoric such as the comments from the Trump administration, though has not named the president specifically. In a mass on Sunday, held in St. Peter's Square, Leo criticized the surge of nationalist political movements in the world and prayed for reconciliation and dialogue. 'Where there is love, there is no room for prejudice, for 'security' zones separating us from our neighbors, for the exclusionary mindset that, tragically, we now see emerging also in political nationalisms,' he said. On the American west coast, violent clashes between demonstrators and law enforcement continued in Los Angeles following heavy-handed raids by immigration authorities. Trump later ordered 4,000 state national guardsmen to be mobilized to assist policing of the protests, as well as 700 active duty U.S. Marines. Prior to becoming pope, Leo also voiced opposition to the treatment of El Salvadorian immigrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who the Trump administration claimed was part of the MS-13 gang – which was not proven. The administration later admitted Abrego Garcia's deportation was an 'administrative error' and was later forced by a U.S. court to facilitate his return. El Salvador President Nayib Bukele called the decision 'preposterous.' In response, Leo reposted a link to an article by a bishop, who was born in El Salvador, asking, 'Do you not see the suffering? Is your conscience not disturbed? How can you stay quiet?'
Yahoo
19 hours ago
- Yahoo
NIH Director Struggles To Defend His Own Plan To Slash $18 Billion In Medical Research
WASHINGTON ― National Institutes of Health director Jayanta Bhattacharya got a cool reception from Democratic and Republican senators on Tuesday as he defended his agency's budget request for 2026, which would slash billions in cutting-edge biomedical research on cancer, Alzheimer's disease, diabetes and other health conditions. NIH is considered the crown jewel of American science and the global leader in biomedical research and innovation. Senators in both parties are proud of its success and of their own roles in boosting its funding over the years in support of medical breakthroughs. So Bhattacharya had to know his budget request would land with a thud as he presented it to a Senate appropriations subcommittee. He kept trying to square two things that didn't make sense: that Trump is committed to preserving America's role as the leader in biomedical research, and that his proposed $18 billion in cuts to the agency next year ― or 40% of its entire budget ― won't hamper that. Senators didn't buy it. At times, Bhattacharya didn't seem to want to defend it, either. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who chairs the full Senate Appropriations Committee, called the administration's proposed cuts to NIH 'so disturbing.' 'It would undo years of congressional investment in NIH, and it would delay or stop effective treatments and cures from being developed for diseases,' Collins said. 'We also risk falling behind China and other countries that are increasing their investment in biomedical research.' In particular, she asked why the administration is calling for the cutting of funding by 40% for the National Institutes of Aging, which funds most Alzheimer's research, when it's been successfully developing breakthrough drugs and blood tests. Bhattacharya, without defending his own proposed cuts, said 'the intention' of the Trump administration is to lead the world in biomedical research, suggesting Congress could make a counteroffer and potentially propose more spending. 'The budget is a collaborative effort between the Congress and the administration,' he said. Collins simply replied, 'We look forward to working with you to remedy these problems and the deficiencies in the budget.' Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the top Democrat on the appropriations panel, ripped the administration's 'catastrophic' cuts to NIH to date. She said Trump has so far forced out nearly 5,000 employees, prevented nearly $3 billion in grants from being awarded, and terminated nearly 2,500 grants totaling almost $5 billion for life-saving research. 'The Trump administration is already systematically dismantling the American biomedical research enterprise that is the envy of the world, throwing away billions in economic activity in every one of our states,' Murray fumed. 'This budget proposal would effectively forfeit our leadership in research innovation and competitiveness to China.' She tangled with Bhattacharya over one of dozens of clinical trials that have been halted due to frozen NIH funds: a 23-year research effort to develop an HIV vaccine. Scientists there are on 'the cusp of a functional cure for HIV,' she said, and now 6,000 people in that trial have been cut off from treatment. Bhattacharya jumped in to say he is 'absolutely committed' to supporting research on HIV. 'But you did terminate the HIV research at Fred Hutch that, again, was on the cusp of a treatment for 6,000 patients nationwide,' Murray replied, referring to the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle. 'You did do that,' she said, as they talked over each other. 'I'd have to get back to you on that,' said Bhattacharya. 'You did do that,' she repeated. After more back and forth, the NIH director said again, 'The budget request is a work of negotiation between Congress and the administration.' Minutes later, he said it yet again, as Murray pressed for details on how many fewer clinical trials there would be next year because of the Trump administration's proposed cuts. 'I'll say this,' Bhattacharya declared. 'The budget itself is a negotiation between Congress and the administration.' He said it several other times, too. In fact, it became clear this was the NIH director's go-to line for defending his own devastating budget request. It simultaneously allowed him to stand by his bosses ― Trump, and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ― while not exactly arguing in support of its specific cuts. 'President Trump has committed that the U.S. be the leading nation in biomedicine in the 21st century,' he said at one point. 'I entirely support that goal.' 'Well, I do too, but it's hard to understand how we're going to get there when the budget slashes funding,' replied Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.). 'Particularly in critical areas of research where our most critical competitor, the Chinese, are increasing funding in those areas and we're slashing the budgets.' Bhattacharya didn't respond. It's possible he may not have agreed with some of his own budget's cuts. Bhattacharya certainly had a hand in crafting his agency's budget, but so did other officials at the White House and the Department of Health and Human Services. Before becoming NIH director in April, Bhattacharya was a professor of medicine, economics and health research policy at Stanford University. He knows how vital and highly esteemed NIH is, worldwide. Why not put it on Congress to save it? 'You say this is a collaborative effort, and you're absolutely right, and I encourage Congress to exert its authorities,' said Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kansas). 'If Congress were to provide additional dollars above and beyond the president's budget request, how would we as a committee and how would you as NIH recommend for us to prioritize that spending?' Bhattacharya said he's focused on the 'real health needs' of Americans, like diabetes and cancer, and on the 'need to think big' for advancing science. 'Again, the budget, it's a collaborative effort,' he said. 'But I think it's going to be important that we address the real problems in science and the real needs of the American people with whatever budget comes out. That's my job.' Moran redirected Bhattacharya back to the need for more funding at NIH. 'I assume that means we need more resources,' said the Republican senator. 'And that you would put them to good use. Is that accurate?' 'That's my job,' replied the NIH director.
