#Jerry McNerney

[stlhandyman]

Supreme Court, U.S FILED In The OCT 2 2022 Supreme Court ofthe United States  RALAND J BRUNSON, Petitioner,

Named persons in their capacities as United States House Representatives: ALMA S. ADAMS; PETE AGUILAR; COLIN Z. ALLRED; MARK E. AMODEI; KELLY ARMSTRONG; JAKE AUCHINCLOSS; CYNTHIA AXNE; DON BACON; TROY BALDERSON; ANDY BARR; NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN; KAREN BASS; JOYCE BEATTY; AMI BERA; DONALD S. BEYER JR.; GUS M. ILIRAKIS; SANFORD D. BISHOP JR.; EARL BLUMENAUER; LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER; SUZANNE BONAMICI; CAROLYN BOURDEAUX; JAMAAL BOWMAN; BRENDAN F. BOYLE; KEVIN BRADY; ANTHONY G. BROWN; JULIA BROWNLEY; VERN BUCHANAN; KEN BUCK; LARRY BUCSHON; CORI BUSH; CHERI BUSTOS; G. K. BUTTERFIELD; SALUD 0. CARBAJAL; TONY CARDENAS; ANDRE CARSON; MATT CARTWRIGHT; ED CASE; SEAN CASTEN; KATHY CASTOR; JOAQUIN CASTRO; LIZ CHENEY; JUDY CHU; DAVID N. CICILLINE; KATHERINE M. CLARK; YVETTE D. CLARKE; EMANUEL CLEAVER; JAMES E. CLYBURN; STEVE COHEN; JAMES COMER; GERALD E. CONNOLLY; JIM COOPER; J. LUIS CORREA; JIM COSTA; JOE COURTNEY; ANGIE CRAIG; DAN CRENSHAW; CHARLIE CRIST; JASON CROW; HENRY CUELLAR; JOHN R. CURTIS; SHARICE DAVIDS; DANNY K. DAVIS; RODNEY DAVIS; MADELEINE DEAN; PETER A. DEFAZIO; DIANA DEGETTE; ROSAL DELAURO; SUZAN K. DELBENE; Ill ANTONIO DELGADO; VAL BUTLER DEMINGS; MARK DESAULNIER; THEODORE E. DEUTCH; DEBBIE DINGELL; LLOYD DOGGETT; MICHAEL F. DOYLE; TOM EMMER; VERONICA ESCOBAR; ANNA G. ESHOO; ADRIANO ESPAILLAT; DWIGHT EVANS; RANDY FEENSTRA; A. DREW FERGUSON IV; BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK; LIZZIE LETCHER; JEFF FORTENBERRY; BILL FOSTER; LOIS FRANKEL; MARCIA L. FUDGE; MIKE GALLAGHER; RUBEN GALLEGO; JOHN GARAMENDI; ANDREW R. GARBARINO; SYLVIA R. GARCIA; JESUS G. GARCIA; JARED F. GOLDEN; JIMMY GOMEZ; TONY GONZALES; ANTHONY GONZALEZ; VICENTE GONZALEZ; JOSH GOTTHEIMER; KAY GRANGER; AL GREEN; RAUL M. GRIJALVA; GLENN GROTHMAN; BRETT GUTHRIE; DEBRA A. HAALAND; JOSH HARDER; ALCEE L. HASTINGS; JAHANA HAYES; JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER; BRIAN HIGGINS; J. FRENCH HILL; JAMES A. HIMES; ASHLEY HINSON; TREY HOLLINGSWORTH; STEVEN HORSFORD; CHRISSY HOULAHAN; STENY H. HOYER; JARED HUFFMAN; BILL HUIZENGA; SHEILA JACKSON LEE; SARA JACOBS; PRAMILA JAYAPAL; HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES; DUSTY JOHNSON; EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON; HENRY C. JOHNSON JR.; MONDAIRE JONES; DAVID P. JOYCE; KAIALPI KAHELE; MARCY KAPTUR; JOHN KATKO; WILLIAM R. KEATING; RO KHANNA; DANIEL T. KILDEE; DEREK KILMER; ANDY KIM; YOUNG KIM; RON KIND; ADAM KINZINGER; ANN KIRKPATRICK; RAJA KRISHNAMOORTHI; ANN M. KUSTER; DARIN LAHOOD; CONOR LAMB; JAMES R. LANGEVIN; RICK LARSEN; JOHN B. LARSON; ROBERT E. LATTA; JAKE LATURNER; BRENDA L. LAWRENCE; AL LAWSON JR.; BARBARA LEE; SUSIE LEE; TERESA LEGER FERNANDEZ; ANDY LEVIN; MIKE LEVIN; TED LIEU; IV ZOE LOFGREN; ALAN S.LOWENTHAL; ELAINE G. LURIA; STEPHEN F. LYNCH; NANCY MACE; TOM MALINOWSKI; CAROLYN B. MALONEY; SEAN PATRICK MALONEY; KATHY E. MANNING; THOMAS MASSIE; DORIS 0. MATSUI; LUCY MCBATH; MICHAEL T. MCCAUL; TOM MCCLINTOCK; BETTY MCCOLLUM; A. ADONALD MCEACHIN; JAMES P. MCGOVERN; PATRICK T. MCHENRY; DAVID B. MCKINLEY; JERRY MCNERNEY; GREGORY W. MEEKS; PETER MEIJER; GRACE MENG; KWEISI MFUME; MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS; JOHN R. MOOLENAAR; BLAKE D. MOORE; GWEN MOORE; JOSEPH D. MORELLE; SETH MOULTON; FRANK J. MRVAN; STEPHANIE N. MURPHY; JERROLD NADLER; GRACE F. NAPOLITANO; RICHARD E. NEAL; JOE NEGUSE; DAN NEWHOUSE; MARIE NEWMAN; DONALD NORCROSS; ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ; TOM O'HALLERAN; ILHAN OMAR; FRANK PALLONE JR.; JIMMY PANETTA; CHRIS PAPPAS; BILL PASCRELL JR.; DONALD M. PAYNE JR.; NANCY PELOSI; ED PERLMUTTER; SCOTT H. PETERS; DEAN PHILLIPS; CHELLIE PINGREE; MARK POCAN; KATIE PORTER; AYANNA PRESSLEY; DAVID E. PRICE; MIKE QUIGLEY; JAMIE RASKIN; TOM REED; KATHLEEN M. RICE; CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS; DEBORAH K. ROSS; CHIP ROY; LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD; RAUL RUIZ; C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER; BOBBY L. RUSH; TIM RYAN; LINDA T. SANCHEZ; JOHN P. SARBANES; MARY GAY SCANLON; JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY; ADAM B. SCHIFF; BRADLEY SCOTT SCHNEIDER; KURT SCHRADER; KIM SCHRIER; AUSTIN SCOTT; DAVID SCOTT; ROBERT C. SCOTT; TERRI A. SEWELL; BRAD SHERMAN; MIKIE SHERRILL; MICHAEL K. SIMPSON; ALBIO SIRES; ELISSA SLOTKIN; ADAM SMITH; CHRISTOPHER H. V SMITH; DARREN SOTO; ABIGAIL DAVIS SPANBERGER; VICTORIA SPARTZ; JACKIE SPEIER; GREG STANTON; PETE STAUBER; MICHELLE STEEL; BRYAN STEIL; HALEY M. STEVENS; STEVE STIVERS; MARILYN STRICKLAND; THOMAS R. SUOZZI; ERIC SWALWELL; MARK TAKANO; VAN TAYLOR; BENNIE G. THOMPSON; MIKE THOMPSON; DINA TITUS; RASHIDA TLAIB; PAUL TONKO; NORMA J. TORRES; RITCHIE TORRES; LORI TRAHAN; DAVID J. TRONE; MICHAEL R. TURNER; LAUREN UNDERWOOD; FRED UPTON; JUAN VARGAS; MARC A. VEASEY; FILEMON VELA; NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ; ANN WAGNER; MICHAEL WALTZ; DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ; MAXINE WATERS; BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN; PETER WELCH; BRAD R. WENSTRUP; BRUCE WESTERMAN; JENNIFER WEXTON; SUSAN WILD; NIKEMA WILLIAMS; FREDERICA S. WILSON; STEVE WOMACK; JOHN A. YARMUTH; DON YOUNG; the following persons named are for their capacities as U.S. Senators; TAMMY BALDWIN; JOHN BARRASSO; MICHAEL F. BENNET; MARSHA BLACKBURN; RICHARD BLUMENTHAL; ROY BLUNT; CORY A. BOOKER; JOHN BOOZMAN; MIKE BRAUN; SHERROD BROWN; RICHARD BURR; MARIA CANTWELL; SHELLEY CAPITO; BENJAMIN L. CARDIN; THOMAS R. CARPER; ROBERT P. CASEY JR.; BILL CASSIDY; SUSAN M. COLLINS; CHRISTOPHER A. COONS; JOHN CORNYN; CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO; TOM COTTON; KEVIN CRAMER; MIKE CRAPO; STEVE DAINES; TAMMY DUCKWORTH; RICHARD J. DURBIN; JONI ERNST; DIANNE FEINSTEIN; DEB FISCHER; KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND; LINDSEY GRAHAM; CHUCK GRASSLEY; BILL HAGERTY; MAGGIE HASSAN; MARTIN HEINRICH; JOHN HICKENLOOPER; MAZIE HIRONO; JOHN HOEVEN; JAMES INHOFE; RON VI JOHNSON; TIM KAINE; MARK KELLY; ANGUS S. KING, JR.; AMY KLOBUCHAR; JAMES LANKFORD; PATRICK LEAHY; MIKE LEE; BEN LUJAN; CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS; JOE MANCHIN III; EDWARD J. MARKEY; MITCH MCCONNELL; ROBERT MENENDEZ; JEFF MERKLEY; JERRY MORAN; LISA MURKOWSKI; CHRISTOPHER MURPHY; PATTY MURRAY; JON OSSOFF; ALEX PADILLA; RAND PAUL; GARY C. PETERS; ROB PORTMAN; JACK REED; JAMES E. RISCH; MITT ROMNEY; JACKY ROSEN; MIKE ROUNDS; MARCO RUBIO; BERNARD SANDERS; BEN SASSE; BRIAN SCHATZ; CHARLES E. SCHUMER; RICK SCOTT; TIM SCOTT; JEANNE SHAHEEN; RICHARD C. SHELBY; KYRSTEN SINEMA; TINA SMITH; DEBBIE STABENOW; DAN SULLIVAN; JON TESTER; JOHN THUNE; THOM TILLIS; PATRICK J. TOOMEY; HOLLEN VAN; MARK R. WARNER; RAPHAEL G. WARNOCK; ELIZABETH WARREN; SHELDON WHITEHOUSE; ROGER F. WICKER; RON WYDEN; TODD YOUNG; JOSEPH ROBINETTE BIDEN JR in his capacity of President of the United States; MICHAEL RICHARD PENCE in his capacity as former Vice President of the United States, and KAMALA HARRIS in her capacity as Vice President of the United States and JOHN and JANE DOES 1-100.  

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-380/243739/20221027152243533_20221027-152110-95757954-00007015.pdf

[mark-matos]

🚀💥AI Invasion: Congress Scrambles to Regulate AI, And Silicon Valley Holds the Guidebook!😲🤖💼

💡🏛🤯Congress Wakes Up to the AI Awakening – Let's Catch Up!

Back in 2018, Jerry McNerney 🙇‍♂️ could barely gather a quorum for an AI meeting📚, now Congress is buzzing like the Death Star just parked on the lawn 🛸. ChatGPT, the AI supernova, is shaking the internet harder than Baby Yoda's debut🍼👶.

🎓🏃‍♀️💻Congress on a Learning Spree: AI Crash Courses Galore!

The EU's strides in AI regulation have our beloved Congress hustling like Frodo Baggins 🧝‍♂️ rushing towards Mount Doom🌋. From huddling with industry bigwigs to summoning academic aces🎓, they're on an epic quest to master AI's One Ring💍.

😎💼💡Silicon Valley Joins the Fray – The Charm Offensive

But our Silicon Valley sorcerers aren't mere spectators. They're traipsing to D.C., eager to 'help', or, let's face it, influence🎭. Enter Brad Smith and Elon Musk - like Dumbledore and Gandalf schooling the Ministry of Magic🪄.

🍽🤷‍♂️🧐 AI Regulation – A Recipe Cooked by the Industry?

Ever wonder who should whip up the AI Regulation recipe📜? Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt says it's the industry. It's like asking Tony Stark to set rules for the Iron Man suit – fair, or will we see Ultron-esque side effects🤔?

🎯📚😊 The Stereotype Smackdown – Can Congress Keep Pace?

Breaking the stereotype that Congress and technology go together like water and oil🚫💧, Brad Smith insists they're ready to roll with AI punches🥊. Regular briefings, including ones from MIT professors, have become their training montages📚🎓.

🤔🥊💥 AI Regulation – A Fight Between David and Goliath?

But is this corporate influence a friend or foe? Some critics argue it's like inviting Voldemort to teach Defense Against the Dark Arts – risky business🐍. This flurry of lobbying and private dinners might make lawmakers too cozy with the industry they're supposed to regulate🤝.

👊📚💼 Congress Gears Up – Ready for the AI Challenge?

Despite worries about AI regulation being a Batman-vs-schoolboy face-off, some are backing Congress. They argue lawmakers don’t need to build the Batmobile to understand its impact on Gotham City🦸‍♂️🏙.

[natesafety]

Thank you to Congressman Jerry McNerney for visiting NATE member companies Apex Site Solutions and American Tower Corporation at a tower site in the 9th Congressional District in Northern California. NATE and our member companies appreciate Congressman McNerney’s support for our industry’s policy priorities! https://www.instagram.com/p/Ch_b7oYAfdP/?igshid=NGJjMDIxMWI=

[eastcountytoday]

Community Celebrates Opening of BART to Antioch Extension, Opens Saturday

Community Celebrates Opening of BART to Antioch Extension, Opens Saturday

A ribbon-cutting celebration was held today for BART’s newest addition, the BART to Antioch extension.

Elected officials and BART representatives joined hundreds of community members for the ceremony outside of the new Antioch Station, one day before the official start of service.

BART Director Joel Keller receiving a Key to BART.

“East County residents now have an environmentally friendly,…

[gallysgalaxy]

[floorcharts]

Who: Representative Jerry McNerney (D-California)

Twitter: @RepMcNerney

When: October 2017

What: Women and small business

Watch on C-SPAN

Read Congressional Record

[oilchangeus-blog]

The Trump administration’s crusade against science is reminiscent of other battles in the war on science, like when big tobacco tried to raise doubts that its products are addictive and harmful.

Rep. Jerry McNerney represents the 9th District of California and serves on the House Science, Space & Technology Committee and the Energy & Commerce Committee. Read full piece. 

[votenet-blog]

Dems under pressure to return megadonor Ed Buck’s money after second death at apartment

Dems under pressure to return megadonor Ed Buck’s money after second death at apartment

Source: Fox News

Democratic political figures are facing pressure to return or redirect campaign contributions from Democratic megadonor Ed Buck after a second dead man was recently found dead in his apartment, but some – including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama – are staying silent.

A growing number of Democrats have announced plans to return the donations. But more than 10 current and…

[thejewishlink]

McCarthy Condemns Dem Effort To De-Platform Newsmax, Fox, OANN

McCarthy Condemns Dem Effort To De-Platform Newsmax, Fox, OANN

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy on Wednesday condemned fellow California Reps. Anna Eshoo and Jerry McNerney and the lower chamber’s hearing by the Energy and Commerce Committee for what he called the power to “coerce and control the information Americans can watch and access in their own homes.” In a “one-minute speech” on the House floor, McCarthy vilified Eshoo and McNerney for…

[merelygifted]

DirecTV dropped OAN today, rejecting GOP pleas to keep right-wing network | Ars Technica

One America News has officially been removed from DirecTV, as the TV provider resisted pressure from Republicans to keep the right-wing network in its channel lineup. A DirecTV spokesperson confirmed to Ars today that the channel removal went ahead as scheduled.

OAN's future is in doubt as the network's owner has said losing the DirecTV deal might force it to shut down. DirecTV previously issued a notice to users stating that OAN would leave DirecTV's satellite channel lineup and the online service DirecTV Stream after April 4. The removal also affected A Wealth of Entertainment (AWE), another channel owned by OAN parent company Herring Networks.

DirecTV announced it wouldn't renew its carriage deal with OAN after pressure from advocacy groups that pointed out OAN "is a major supporter of the Stop the Steal movement," spread "election fraud lies that claimed the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump," "stok[ed] violent calls for the attack on the US Capitol," and airs "wall-to-wall COVID-19 disinformation." US Reps. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) and Jerry McNerney (D-Calif.) had also questioned DirecTV owner AT&T and other TV providers about why they carry OAN, Newsmax, and Fox News.  ...

[cultml]

Just a couple of months ago, having a press secretary sneer at reporters constituted an attack on the First Amendment and qualified journalists for hazard pay. When House Democrats attempt to take news channels off of cable and satellite systems through intimidation, suddenly the story becomes — wait for it — “Republicans pounce!”

In Politico’s case, it’s that the GOP outrage over the letter from Anna Eshloo and Jerry McNerney might “sidetrack” Congress’ look at misinformation during the election. Their report even accuses Republicans of “tarring” Eshloo and McNerney over their intimidation campaign

gas lighting

[sgreffenius]

Representatives Anna Eshoo and Jerry McNerney sent an open letter to Amazon and other companies, to demand that they strictly limit what they see as unacceptable political speech. Here is a sentence from their letter:

“Our country’s public discourse is plagued by misinformation, disinformation, conspiracy theories, and lies.”

This statement, by two members of Congress no less, suggests that the First Amendment has to go because they - two lawmakers - do not like its results. You have to say, “So what?” If people get to say what they want, what do you expect? Of course you will find misinformation, disinformation, conspiracy theories, and lies.

The idea that you can prohibit speech, and abrogate First Amendment rights because you do not like what people say seems absurd to me. The whole concept, coming from the heart of our government, appears to be a conspiracy theory and a lie. Of the five hundred thirty-five people we send to the Capitol to uphold the Constitution, how many of them are in on this conspiracy? What committee or law will distinguish between permissible, acceptable speech, and prohibited speech?

For reference, I looked up the oath that new members of Congress swear on their first day in office:

“I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

So help me God. So where do they get the idea that the First Amendment is not part of the Constitution, or that it is not worth their support or defense? By attacking the First Amendment, have they not made themselves domestic enemies of the Constitution? I am sure they do not see themselves that way. In fact, I am sure they have found a way to put themselves in the opposite light, whereby they defend the Constitution when they prohibit what they regard as dangerous ideas and statements.

Our media have always produced information that someone can call dangerous. Information wars - that is, using public statements as weapons in political battles - began in earnest during George Washington’s second term, and they have not stopped since. A lot of people expressed shock at Donald Trump’s battlefield tactics. He took no prisoners: he was out there to kill you. When he talked or typed, he intended to destroy anything in his way, like a mobile howitzer. His opponents could not believe how easily he mowed them down.

I spend a little time on Trump’s tactics, because it explains why we appear so concerned about disinformation at the moment. The attack on free speech has built steam for some time, of course, but it has accelerated during the last four years. Why did we tolerate four hundred years of disinformation, from 1620 until 2020, then become so concerned with censorship since 2016? Does it have something to do with Trump’s effectiveness as an attack dog, where he violated expectations about acceptable propaganda and dissimulation in order to win?

If he had returned to Mar-a-Lago after November 3 without his usual bluster, if his usual bluster had not turned into incitement at the Ellipse, if his disinformation campaign of November and December had not resulted in the last ditch insurrection at the Capitol, would we hear talk from congressmen at this point, about how we need to throw out everyone’s First Amendment rights? I don’t believe we would.

For some time the left has advanced the idea that we need to suppress speech from people on the right, just as Trump and his allies propagated the idea that we need to limit fake news and other obnoxious emissions from people on the left. The rest of us could step out to enjoy the battle, if we could tolerate the hypocrisy and sulfurous odor.

Congressmen, however, given their proximity to Trump’s post-election information war, may feel a little like the Washington residents who brought their lawn chairs out to watch the First Battle of Bull Run. When Confederate soldiers routed the Union army, spectators had to scamper back to their homes. Congressmen forced to cower behind blockades while a mad, armed mob rampaged in the Capitol hallways may feel similarly humiliated.

The loss of our ability to express ourselves freely would be grievous. I write about it a lot. Note, however, that prohibitions on speech will not diminish our political battles, nor will they prevent the next insurrection. Rulers in trouble always try to limit free expression. It is their first, self-protective instinct. These prohibitions always fail. The top blows off their efforts, with a force they never seem to anticipate.

In fact, the January 6 rioters may illustrate that pattern. They desired to keep their champion in office, because the outgoing president did not see them as deplorable, worthless actors. He loved them, as he said on that day. Many may have felt that if they acceded to his defeat, if they did not ‘Stop the Steal,’ the soft suppression they already knew could only become harder and more intolerable. How many times had they heard, in familiar tones of contempt, that white nationalist grievances their opponents attribute to them are worse than evil?

We are in for rough times. People recognize we have arrived at a place where our democratic values no longer carry the weight they did, not so long ago. For all the ability words have to inflame people, to kindle brush fires, free expression is the only outlet that prevents open warfare. Without free expression, however ugly, aggrieved political actors resort to violence of the kind we witnessed at the Capitol.

We appear to believe that tempestuous words incite violent behavior, that we can temper violence if get rid of the words. Human psychology works the other way around. Suppression of tempestuous thoughts makes people snap. It invites physical expression of their anger, collective outbursts that express their sense of helplessness. We saw that in widespread riots last summer, where so many political actors felt no one would listen to them. Free expression encourages accommodation. It does not always have that result, but you cannot reach that outcome by any other means.

We saw similar qualities, grievances, and pressures for change in battles that played out during the 1960s, where race and a distant, deadly war focused political energies. People then feared for the future of our republic. If we do not permit free expression this time around, violent conflict will escalate drastically. In fact, it already has.

[rjzimmerman]

Excerpt from this story from Grist:

When President Trump signed a $1.4 trillion spending package in December to keep the government funded through 2020, there was a climate policy milestone buried in the budget. For the first time ever, the government allocated funding for a federal agency to conduct geoengineering research.

A line item in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association’s budget provides the agency with at least $4 million to study the stratosphere, the second layer of the atmosphere up from the earth. That kind of research already falls within the agency’s purview, but the language in the bill continues, “including the impact of the introduction of material into the stratosphere from changes in natural systems, increased air and space traffic, proposals to inject material to affect climate, and the assessment of solar climate interventions” (emphasis added).

Simultaneously, Democratic Representative Jerry McNerney of California introduced a bill that would bolster this new mandate by creating a formal solar climate intervention research program at NOAA and making the agency responsible for the oversight of proposals to conduct climate geoengineering experiments in the United States.

For geoengineering critics, the earmark and McNerney’s bill might sound like cause for alarm. But experts and policymakers say that these twin developments represent not an endorsement of geoengineering proposals but an acknowledgment that they exist — and a desire to know more about their benefits and drawbacks.

“This is, I think, one of the tools we might need,” Representative McNerney told Grist. “So we need to develop the scientific understanding, a firm understanding, of what it means and what the risks are so that we can decide if it’s something we want to use or not.”

[adewaleadebiyi]

Lawmakers grow impatient for FDA cannabis rules

Lawmakers grow impatient for FDA cannabis rules

[ad_1]

Congress is cranking up the pressure on the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to draft rules to regulate cannabis-based products. 

Lawmakers legalized the use of hemp-based cannabidiol (CBD) products late last year in the farm bill, sending the agency scrambling to figure out new rules around regulating a unique product that is both a drug and a dietary supplement.

But Congress is…