Bryan Watch Jan 2022
Steil Shafts Voters, Veterans and Reservists
January 2022 – Week 2
Congress started the year with a relatively slow but hyper-partisan week. There were nine votes this week, eight of them party line and Rep. Steil voted with the Republicans on every single one of them.
The biggest vote of the week was on HR 5746. While ostensibly a bill on NASA leasing agreements, the House substituted the John Lewis Freedom to Vote Act (originally HR 4) in place of the NASA language. The bill is major civil rights legislation that would reverse several bad decisions by the Supreme Court and protect the rights of citizens against abusive state legislatures.
Quite naturally, Republicans unanimously voted against ending voter suppression tactics, including Steil. (RC 9, Jan 13)
The other major bill up this week was HR 1836, the Guard and Reserve GI Bill Parity Act, It seeks to expand eligibility for Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits so that members of the National Guard and Reserve have greater access to educational opportunities.
Roughly two-thirds of Republicans (68 to 135) voted against expanding educational chances for veterans, and Steil was one of them. (RC 6, Jan 12)
Steil also supported an effort by Wisconsin’s own Scott Fitzgerald (Moron-WI) to send HR 1836 back to the Committee on Veterans Affairs, effectively killing the bill (RC 5, Jan 12)
Steil also supported an idiotic amendment by Rep. Barry Moore of Alabama that would effectively eliminate an incentive for military personnel to train, which would dramatically harm readiness. Fortunately the idea was shot down 198 to 225. (Moore Amendment #2, RC 4, Jan 12)
And as usual, Republicans voted against even considering legislation proposed by House Democrats. They tried to stop the John Lewis Act (HR 5746), unanimously voting against consideration and the Previous Question (RC 7 and 8, Jan 12)
Republicans also voted against considering HR 1836 (RC 2 and 3, Jan 11)
Last and truly least, the House opened with a quorum call on January 10. Congressman Steil was present for the vote (RC 1, Jan 10)
January – Week 3
There were only five votes during the third week of January, 14 in total all month.
The only major issue this week was HR 4673, the Ensuring Veterans' Smooth Transition Act (EVEST). The bill would automatically enroll newly discharged members of the military into the Veterans Administration Health care system.
The bill passed by a margin of 265 to 163, with 44 Republicans voting for it. Rep. Steil was not one of them, choosing to side with the 163 Republicans seeking to make it harder foe veterans to obtain health care. (RC 14, January 20).
Steil did vote for a motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on Veterans Affairs by Rep. Mike Bost (Illinois). (RC 13, January 20) And he voted against an amendment by Rep. Veronica Escobar of Texas that would extend automatic enrollment to veterans who were discharged within the last three months (Escobar Amendment #3, RC 12, January 20). Only 8 Republicans voted in favor of Escobar’s idea. Steil was not one of them.
On January 19. The House passed S 452, the Willie O’Ree Congressional Gold Medal Act by a unanimous margin of 426 to nothing. (RC 11). O’Ree was the first African American to play in the National Hockey League, playing for the Boston Bruins in the 1958 and 1960-61 seasons. He is regarded as the “Jackie Robinson of Hockey.”
And on January 18, the House passed S 2959, the Supplemental Impact Aid Flexibility Act by a margin of 414 to 6. The six against were the usual suspects of the Crazy Caucus, including Madison Cawthorn, Marjorie Greene and Chip Roy. (RC 10). The bill seeks to mitigate the damage cause by federally tax exempt property on the revenues of local school districts. Steil and the vast majority of Republicans (195 of them) actually sided with local school districts on this one.
About the Creator
Keep reading
More stories from John Heckenlively and writers in The Swamp and other communities.
Bryan Watch: Dec 2021 NPL
The House cast 37 votes that were non-partisan in December. Rep. Steil voted with the sensible majority on all of them, so there isn’t much news there. But in the interests of full coverage, here are the mostly mundane votes the House cast during the first two weeks of December.
By John Heckenlively4 years ago in The Swamp
Berlin Blackout Sparks Alarm After Left-Wing Group Claims Responsibility for Sabotage
Start wrBerlin is no stranger to political protest, but a recent citywide blackout has pushed Germany into uneasy territory. After tens of thousands of residents were left without power, a left-wing activist group came forward claiming responsibility, framing the incident as an act of political sabotage aimed at forcing attention on climate policy and technological governance. The claim has intensified public concern, not only about the blackout itself, but about the growing willingness of activist groups to target critical infrastructure. What began as a disruption has now become a national debate over the limits of protest, the definition of extremism, and how democracies should respond when political activism crosses into sabotage. The Blackout That Shook the Capital The outage affected multiple districts across Berlin, disrupting homes, businesses, and public transport systems. Traffic lights failed, trains were delayed, and residents reported hours without heating, internet access, or reliable communication. While hospitals and emergency facilities relied on backup generators, authorities acknowledged that the incident placed significant strain on public services. Initial reports described the blackout as a technical failure. That explanation changed dramatically when a left-wing group issued a statement online claiming responsibility, describing the outage as a deliberate act designed to expose what it called the “fragility of systems that sustain an unjust and destructive status quo.” The group framed the sabotage as non-violent, arguing that disruption — not harm — was the goal. The Group’s Message and Motivation In its statement, the group linked the blackout to broader grievances over climate change, artificial intelligence, and what it described as government inaction. According to the group, modern societies continue to rely on fossil fuels, centralized energy grids, and rapidly advancing technologies without sufficient democratic oversight. By targeting infrastructure, the activists said they hoped to demonstrate how vulnerable modern life is — and how urgently political priorities need to shift. This rhetoric reflects a growing strand within radical activism that views disruption of everyday life as a legitimate tool. Supporters argue that traditional protests no longer generate meaningful political change. Critics see a dangerous escalation that risks normalizing tactics once associated with extremist movements. Government and Security Response German authorities reacted swiftly. Interior Ministry officials condemned the sabotage, stressing that interference with critical infrastructure is a serious criminal offense regardless of political motivation. Investigators are now working to verify the group’s claim and determine how the outage was carried out. Security agencies have also launched a broader review of infrastructure protection, particularly energy systems that are increasingly decentralized and digitized. Officials warned that while the blackout did not result in fatalities, similar incidents could have far more serious consequences in the future. Several political leaders called for tougher penalties for those who sabotage essential services, arguing that democratic societies cannot tolerate actions that endanger public safety. Public Reaction: Sympathy Meets Anger Public opinion in Berlin and across Germany has been sharply divided. Some residents expressed sympathy with the underlying causes highlighted by the group, particularly concerns over climate change and unchecked technological power. However, frustration and anger dominated many responses. Small business owners reported financial losses. Families with elderly or medically vulnerable members described fear and anxiety during the outage. Commuters voiced outrage at being used, in their words, as “collateral damage” in a political statement. For many, the group’s justification rang hollow. While climate anxiety is widespread, the idea of sabotaging infrastructure crossed a line. Protest or Extremism? The central question now facing Germany is how to define actions like the Berlin blackout. Is this civil disobedience, or does it constitute political extremism? Legal experts point out that intent matters. Civil disobedience traditionally involves breaking laws openly and accepting consequences to highlight injustice. Sabotage, by contrast, is covert and risks unintended harm. The blackout’s scale and impact complicate claims that the action was harmless. German history adds another layer of sensitivity. The country remains acutely aware of how political extremism — from both the far right and far left — has threatened democratic stability in the past. As a result, there is little tolerance for actions that undermine public trust or safety. Infrastructure as a New Protest Target The Berlin blackout underscores a worrying trend: infrastructure has become a new battleground for political activism. Energy grids, transport networks, and data systems are increasingly seen as pressure points capable of generating maximum attention with minimal effort. Experts warn that this approach carries serious risks. Even well-intentioned activists cannot fully control the consequences of infrastructure disruption. Power outages can affect hospitals, emergency communications, and vulnerable populations in unpredictable ways. There is also concern that such tactics could inspire copycat actions — not only by activists, but by criminal or hostile actors exploiting similar vulnerabilities. Political Fallout and Policy Implications The incident is already shaping political discussions in Germany. Lawmakers are debating whether existing laws adequately address sabotage motivated by ideology. Some have proposed expanding surveillance powers or tightening restrictions on protest activities near critical infrastructure. Civil liberties groups caution against overreaction, warning that broad crackdowns could erode democratic freedoms and push activism further underground. They argue that the solution lies not only in security measures, but in addressing the grievances that fuel radicalization. The challenge for policymakers is finding a balance: protecting infrastructure without criminalizing dissent. A Warning for Europe Berlin’s blackout is being closely watched across Europe. As cities become smarter, greener, and more interconnected, they also become more vulnerable. Energy transitions, while essential for climate goals, introduce new complexities into grid management and security. The incident serves as a reminder that resilience is not just about technology, but governance. Transparent decision-making, public trust, and credible political pathways for change are crucial in preventing radical escalation. Conclusion: A Line Has Been Crossed The claim of responsibility by a left-wing group has transformed the Berlin blackout from a technical incident into a political reckoning. While the urgency of climate change and concerns about technology are widely shared, the method chosen has sparked fear rather than consensus. Democracies depend on protest, but they also depend on trust and safety. When activism turns to sabotage, it risks undermining the very values it claims to defend. Berlin’s blackout is more than a disruption of power — it is a warning about how fragile the line between protest and extremism can become in an age of crisis, urgency, and political frustration.iting...
By Muhammad Hassan6 days ago in The Swamp
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.