1UA TV

Outside Baltimore, Maryland, sheets of tinplated steel transform into colorful cans and containers for Zippo lighter fluid, Starbucks cookies, Nestle chocolates, and premium brands of peanuts and popcorn. Machines stamp, cut, print, shape and assemble multiple product lines under the watchful eyes of skilled work crews at Independent Can Company, which is fighting the Trump administration’s 25 percent tariff on imported steel.

“We are the largest manufacturer of specialty tins in the United States,” ICC president and CEO Rick Huether said. “The tinplated steel that we buy is close to 50 percent of [the cost of] what we produce. It is the driver when there’s a change in our prices to the marketplace.”

The new steel tariff has been welcomed by U.S. producers of the material, but slammed by American manufacturers like ICC that rely on a global steel supply chain to stay afloat. The company says its clients will turn to foreign can makers if its prices rise too high.

“Our primary competitor would be China,”Huether said. “If we’re more than five-10 percent higher [in price] than China, our customers will shop overseas.”

The Trump administration continues to defend tariffs as stiff but appropriate medicine to save vital American industries battered by decades of predatory foreign competition.

“Steel and aluminum imports threaten to impair our national security,” Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said at a recent Senate hearing. “The tariff actions taken by the president are necessary to revive America’s essential steel and aluminum industries.”

Huether said ICC has bought U.S.-made steel, but that imports bridge a gap in supply for high-grade tinplated steel needed for blemish-free lithographic printing his customers demand, adding that the mere threat of tariff-induced price hikes already cost the company a $2 million order.

“We’d like to be fighting to grow our can business, but we’re fighting our supply side to just get materials to satisfy the demands we have now. So it’s a very frustrating situation,” the CEO said.

ICC is warning of possible job cuts. The company employs more than 400 workers, paying well above minimum wage with a benefits package that includes health care.

“There are craftsmen in here that have been doing this for 20, 30, 40 years,” ICC lithographer Bryon Borrell said, adding that he is thankful to hold a middle class manufacturing job. “I have been very successful, raised a family. That is all I can ask for.”

ICC has asked the Commerce Department for steel tariff exemptions. U.S. Steel Corporation filed objections, arguing it has been harmed by “unfairly traded imports” and that “the domestic industry has ample production capacity to supply ICC’s needs.”

Huether countered that he has no guarantee when domestic production will be ramped up, the price ICC will be charged for tinplated steel, or whether quality standards will be met.

“U.S. Steel says they can produce our specification in sufficient quantities. Yes they can, in a year, when they invest the money they’ve already committed to upgrading the mill,” Huether said. “We would like to buy domestic. The lead times are shorter [than buying imported steel], but right now they can’t give us the material when they promised.”

The Commerce Department has not acted on ICC’s requests, but signaled that tariff exemptions will be rare.

“Relatively few of those [exemptions] will be granted because many of them have no substance,” Secretary Ross said.

“I think we’re fighting people that are not listening to our problem, our industry’s problem,” Huether said. “This is my family’s business—my sister, my dad, my cousin, my son are in this every day, on the floor, trying to develop. We’ve brought back $4-5 million dollars worth of cans to manufacture in the United States in the last three or four years. Not many companies can say that.”

ICC just installed a state-of-the-art assembly line that will expand production, if the company has enough steel to run it, and if it is able to keep prices competitive on its containers.

Huether credited President Donald Trump for tax reform enacted last year, saying it’s a boost to companies like his, but added that tariffs are counterproductive.

“Yeah, he [Trump] is encouraging us to invest. But on the other hand he’s raising our costs to produce those goods. Who are we going to have to sell it to if we don’t hit a right price [on steel]?” he said.
…

Outside Baltimore, Maryland, sheets of tinplated steel transform into colorful cans and containers for Zippo lighter fluid, Starbucks cookies, Nestle chocolates, and premium brands of peanuts and popcorn. Machines stamp, cut, print, shape and assemble multiple product lines under the watchful eyes of skilled work crews at Independent Can Company, which is fighting the Trump administration’s 25 percent tariff on imported steel.

“We are the largest manufacturer of specialty tins in the United States,” ICC president and CEO Rick Huether said. “The tinplated steel that we buy is close to 50 percent of [the cost of] what we produce. It is the driver when there’s a change in our prices to the marketplace.”

The new steel tariff has been welcomed by U.S. producers of the material, but slammed by American manufacturers like ICC that rely on a global steel supply chain to stay afloat. The company says its clients will turn to foreign can makers if its prices rise too high.

“Our primary competitor would be China,”Huether said. “If we’re more than five-10 percent higher [in price] than China, our customers will shop overseas.”

The Trump administration continues to defend tariffs as stiff but appropriate medicine to save vital American industries battered by decades of predatory foreign competition.

“Steel and aluminum imports threaten to impair our national security,” Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said at a recent Senate hearing. “The tariff actions taken by the president are necessary to revive America’s essential steel and aluminum industries.”

Huether said ICC has bought U.S.-made steel, but that imports bridge a gap in supply for high-grade tinplated steel needed for blemish-free lithographic printing his customers demand, adding that the mere threat of tariff-induced price hikes already cost the company a $2 million order.

“We’d like to be fighting to grow our can business, but we’re fighting our supply side to just get materials to satisfy the demands we have now. So it’s a very frustrating situation,” the CEO said.

ICC is warning of possible job cuts. The company employs more than 400 workers, paying well above minimum wage with a benefits package that includes health care.

“There are craftsmen in here that have been doing this for 20, 30, 40 years,” ICC lithographer Bryon Borrell said, adding that he is thankful to hold a middle class manufacturing job. “I have been very successful, raised a family. That is all I can ask for.”

ICC has asked the Commerce Department for steel tariff exemptions. U.S. Steel Corporation filed objections, arguing it has been harmed by “unfairly traded imports” and that “the domestic industry has ample production capacity to supply ICC’s needs.”

Huether countered that he has no guarantee when domestic production will be ramped up, the price ICC will be charged for tinplated steel, or whether quality standards will be met.

“U.S. Steel says they can produce our specification in sufficient quantities. Yes they can, in a year, when they invest the money they’ve already committed to upgrading the mill,” Huether said. “We would like to buy domestic. The lead times are shorter [than buying imported steel], but right now they can’t give us the material when they promised.”

The Commerce Department has not acted on ICC’s requests, but signaled that tariff exemptions will be rare.

“Relatively few of those [exemptions] will be granted because many of them have no substance,” Secretary Ross said.

“I think we’re fighting people that are not listening to our problem, our industry’s problem,” Huether said. “This is my family’s business—my sister, my dad, my cousin, my son are in this every day, on the floor, trying to develop. We’ve brought back $4-5 million dollars worth of cans to manufacture in the United States in the last three or four years. Not many companies can say that.”

ICC just installed a state-of-the-art assembly line that will expand production, if the company has enough steel to run it, and if it is able to keep prices competitive on its containers.

Huether credited President Donald Trump for tax reform enacted last year, saying it’s a boost to companies like his, but added that tariffs are counterproductive.

“Yeah, he [Trump] is encouraging us to invest. But on the other hand he’s raising our costs to produce those goods. Who are we going to have to sell it to if we don’t hit a right price [on steel]?” he said.
…

The Trump administration’s 25 percent tariff on imported steel has been welcomed by U.S. producers of the material but slammed by American manufacturers that rely on a global steel supply chain to make everything from cars to razor blades. VOA’s Michael Bowman visited a can company that is being squeezed by the new tariff and has this report, which was produced by Elizabeth Cherneff.
…

The Trump administration’s 25 percent tariff on imported steel has been welcomed by U.S. producers of the material but slammed by American manufacturers that rely on a global steel supply chain to make everything from cars to razor blades. VOA’s Michael Bowman visited a can company that is being squeezed by the new tariff and has this report, which was produced by Elizabeth Cherneff.
…

U.S. President Donald Trump has pardoned two Oregon ranchers whose five-year prison sentences sparked an armed occupation of federal property.

The White House announced Tuesday that Trump has ordered the full pardon of rancher Dwight Lincoln Hammond, Jr. and his son Steven Hammond.  The two were convicted in 2012 of a 2001 arson on a wildlife refuge that abuts their cattle ranch.

A White House stamen said, “The evidence at trial regarding the Hammond’s responsibility for the fire was conflicting.”

Further complicating the matter, the judge who sentenced them in 2012 gave the father, now in his 70s, three months in prison.  The son was given one year in prison, despite a federally mandated five-year minimum sentence for the charges on which they were convicted.

Upon a federal appeal, however, the Hammonds were re-sentenced and returned to prison in 2016, despite having served out their initial sentences.

In response, supporters of the Hammonds staged an occupation of the wildlife refuge from January 2, 2016, to February 11 of that year, saying the federal officials were guilty of overreach.

The occupation ended a few days after the ringleader of the movement was arrested and another man was shot dead in a confrontation with Oregon State Police.

In its statement, the White House said Dwight Hammond, 76, has served about three years in prison now, while his son has served nearly four years.  The statement also said the men have also paid $400,000 to resolve a related civil suit.

“The Hammonds are devoted family men,” the statement said, “respected contributors to their local community, and have widespread support from their neighbors, local law enforcement, and farmers and ranchers across the West.  Justice is overdue for Dwight and Steven Hammond.”

President Trump had hinted before Tuesday’s pardons that he was considering the move on behalf of the Hammonds.

Since taking office, he has provided pardons for a number of high-profile figures.  They include author Dinesh D’Souza, who was convicted of illegal campaign contributions; former Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who was convicted of criminal contempt of court for failing to enforce regulations meant to prevent racial profiling; and Alice Johnson, a grandmother serving a life sentence on drug charges.

Trump provided the pardon for Johnson after reality star Kim Kardashian visited him at the White House to plead Johnson’s case.

 
…

U.S. President Donald Trump has pardoned two Oregon ranchers whose five-year prison sentences sparked an armed occupation of federal property.

The White House announced Tuesday that Trump has ordered the full pardon of rancher Dwight Lincoln Hammond, Jr. and his son Steven Hammond.  The two were convicted in 2012 of a 2001 arson on a wildlife refuge that abuts their cattle ranch.

A White House stamen said, “The evidence at trial regarding the Hammond’s responsibility for the fire was conflicting.”

Further complicating the matter, the judge who sentenced them in 2012 gave the father, now in his 70s, three months in prison.  The son was given one year in prison, despite a federally mandated five-year minimum sentence for the charges on which they were convicted.

Upon a federal appeal, however, the Hammonds were re-sentenced and returned to prison in 2016, despite having served out their initial sentences.

In response, supporters of the Hammonds staged an occupation of the wildlife refuge from January 2, 2016, to February 11 of that year, saying the federal officials were guilty of overreach.

The occupation ended a few days after the ringleader of the movement was arrested and another man was shot dead in a confrontation with Oregon State Police.

In its statement, the White House said Dwight Hammond, 76, has served about three years in prison now, while his son has served nearly four years.  The statement also said the men have also paid $400,000 to resolve a related civil suit.

“The Hammonds are devoted family men,” the statement said, “respected contributors to their local community, and have widespread support from their neighbors, local law enforcement, and farmers and ranchers across the West.  Justice is overdue for Dwight and Steven Hammond.”

President Trump had hinted before Tuesday’s pardons that he was considering the move on behalf of the Hammonds.

Since taking office, he has provided pardons for a number of high-profile figures.  They include author Dinesh D’Souza, who was convicted of illegal campaign contributions; former Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who was convicted of criminal contempt of court for failing to enforce regulations meant to prevent racial profiling; and Alice Johnson, a grandmother serving a life sentence on drug charges.

Trump provided the pardon for Johnson after reality star Kim Kardashian visited him at the White House to plead Johnson’s case.

 
…

If recent history is any indication, the confirmation hearing of Brett Kavanaugh, President Donald Trump’s latest Supreme Court pick, is likely to be dominated by questions about his views of Roe v. Wade.

The landmark 1973 Supreme Court ruling, which held that the U.S. Constitution protects a woman’s right to a have an abortion, stands as one of the high court’s most controversial and divisive decisions of the past century.

While polls show a majority of Americans support legal abortion, Roe v. Wade continues to divide broad swaths of society, pitting advocates, who see the decision as giving women power over their lives, against foes, who view it as an affront to the sanctity of life.

But the fracas over abortion predates Roe v. Wade. According to Peter Charles Hoffer, a historian and author of Roe v. Wade: The Abortion Rights Controversy in American History, the debate goes back to the 1861-65 American Civil War.

With the war wiping out nearly 2 percent of the American population, many doctors and pundits at the time claimed “the white race was in danger of disappearing” and states began to criminalize abortion, according to Hoffer.

The anti-abortion laws survived into the 20th century. And though several states legalized the practice later in the century, aborting a fetus remained a crime in most states prior to Roe v. Wade. That led to a bustling underground industry in often dangerous “back alley” abortions.

​Texas origins

The case that came to be known as Roe v. Wade was brought by Norma McCorvey, a k a Jane Roe, a 23-year-old expectant mother in Texas who could not afford to support a child and did not want to undergo an illegal procedure. She sued Henry Wade, then the Dallas district attorney known for prosecuting abortion doctors. 

The U.S. Supreme Court sided with Roe, ruling that the right to privacy alluded to in the Constitution extended to a woman’s right to have an abortion and that states could not legally ban the procedure.

In his book, Hoffer calls Roe v. Wade “a watershed event in American women’s history.”

“This is an issue that sits right across the divide between liberal, modernist opinions and more conservative, traditional religious opinions,” Hoffer, a professor at the University of Georgia, said in an interview.

Supporters of abortion rights brand themselves as “pro-choice” advocates.To them, Roe v. Wade became a symbol of women’s rights, the power to take control of one’s reproductive life without government interference.

To opponents of abortion, Roe v. Wade is an affront to the sanctity of life, and abortion is the murder of an unborn child.

Yet the political divisions over abortion are not always so cut and dried. There many moderate Republicans who support abortion rights, and many socially conservative Democrats who oppose them.

But since the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan, who won on a wave of support from pro-life Christian evangelicals, abortion has become a decisive issue in American electoral politics, according to Hoffer.

In recent years, Democratic presidential candidates have almost always run on a pro-choice platform, while their Republican opponents have campaigned against abortion.

Trump’s views on abortion have shifted over the years. As a presidential candidate, he promised to appoint conservative, pro-life justices to the Supreme Court to undo Roe v. Wade. But he’s since said he has no litmus test on Roe v. Wade for picking high-court nominees other federal judges.

​Some fear tilt

Nevertheless, with the nomination of Kavanaugh to replace the retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was a swing vote on many social issues, liberals fear the high court is likely to tilt further to the right, threatening to undermine landmark decisions such as Roe v. Wade.

“It’s absolutely at risk of being overturned, and certainly at risk of being hollowed out,” said Marge Baker, executive vice president of People for the American Way, a liberal-leaning advocacy organization.

But Trump allies are downplaying the risk that Roe v. Wade will be overturned.

Leonard Leo, vice president of the conservative Federalist Society who advises Trump on Supreme Court nominations, called the Democratic warnings that the court would overturn Roe v. Wade a “scare tactic.”

“We’ve seen this kind of hysteria for the last 36 years,” Leo told Fox News on July 2. “Every time, they say Roe v. Wade is going to be overturned. Now, what we have after 36 years is one justice on the court — Clarence Thomas — who’s explicitly said he’s going to overturn Roe.”

But abortion rights advocates say there are other things the justices can do to chip away at the decision without overturning it.

“There are lots of ways to hollow out Roe v. Wade,” Baker said. “Short of overturning it, there are ways to make it essentially impossible for women to have access to abortion.”
…

If recent history is any indication, the confirmation hearing of Brett Kavanaugh, President Donald Trump’s latest Supreme Court pick, is likely to be dominated by questions about his views of Roe v. Wade.

The landmark 1973 Supreme Court ruling, which held that the U.S. Constitution protects a woman’s right to a have an abortion, stands as one of the high court’s most controversial and divisive decisions of the past century.

While polls show a majority of Americans support legal abortion, Roe v. Wade continues to divide broad swaths of society, pitting advocates, who see the decision as giving women power over their lives, against foes, who view it as an affront to the sanctity of life.

But the fracas over abortion predates Roe v. Wade. According to Peter Charles Hoffer, a historian and author of Roe v. Wade: The Abortion Rights Controversy in American History, the debate goes back to the 1861-65 American Civil War.

With the war wiping out nearly 2 percent of the American population, many doctors and pundits at the time claimed “the white race was in danger of disappearing” and states began to criminalize abortion, according to Hoffer.

The anti-abortion laws survived into the 20th century. And though several states legalized the practice later in the century, aborting a fetus remained a crime in most states prior to Roe v. Wade. That led to a bustling underground industry in often dangerous “back alley” abortions.

​Texas origins

The case that came to be known as Roe v. Wade was brought by Norma McCorvey, a k a Jane Roe, a 23-year-old expectant mother in Texas who could not afford to support a child and did not want to undergo an illegal procedure. She sued Henry Wade, then the Dallas district attorney known for prosecuting abortion doctors. 

The U.S. Supreme Court sided with Roe, ruling that the right to privacy alluded to in the Constitution extended to a woman’s right to have an abortion and that states could not legally ban the procedure.

In his book, Hoffer calls Roe v. Wade “a watershed event in American women’s history.”

“This is an issue that sits right across the divide between liberal, modernist opinions and more conservative, traditional religious opinions,” Hoffer, a professor at the University of Georgia, said in an interview.

Supporters of abortion rights brand themselves as “pro-choice” advocates.To them, Roe v. Wade became a symbol of women’s rights, the power to take control of one’s reproductive life without government interference.

To opponents of abortion, Roe v. Wade is an affront to the sanctity of life, and abortion is the murder of an unborn child.

Yet the political divisions over abortion are not always so cut and dried. There many moderate Republicans who support abortion rights, and many socially conservative Democrats who oppose them.

But since the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan, who won on a wave of support from pro-life Christian evangelicals, abortion has become a decisive issue in American electoral politics, according to Hoffer.

In recent years, Democratic presidential candidates have almost always run on a pro-choice platform, while their Republican opponents have campaigned against abortion.

Trump’s views on abortion have shifted over the years. As a presidential candidate, he promised to appoint conservative, pro-life justices to the Supreme Court to undo Roe v. Wade. But he’s since said he has no litmus test on Roe v. Wade for picking high-court nominees other federal judges.

​Some fear tilt

Nevertheless, with the nomination of Kavanaugh to replace the retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was a swing vote on many social issues, liberals fear the high court is likely to tilt further to the right, threatening to undermine landmark decisions such as Roe v. Wade.

“It’s absolutely at risk of being overturned, and certainly at risk of being hollowed out,” said Marge Baker, executive vice president of People for the American Way, a liberal-leaning advocacy organization.

But Trump allies are downplaying the risk that Roe v. Wade will be overturned.

Leonard Leo, vice president of the conservative Federalist Society who advises Trump on Supreme Court nominations, called the Democratic warnings that the court would overturn Roe v. Wade a “scare tactic.”

“We’ve seen this kind of hysteria for the last 36 years,” Leo told Fox News on July 2. “Every time, they say Roe v. Wade is going to be overturned. Now, what we have after 36 years is one justice on the court — Clarence Thomas — who’s explicitly said he’s going to overturn Roe.”

But abortion rights advocates say there are other things the justices can do to chip away at the decision without overturning it.

“There are lots of ways to hollow out Roe v. Wade,” Baker said. “Short of overturning it, there are ways to make it essentially impossible for women to have access to abortion.”
…

The U.S. is placing visa restrictions on Myanmar (also known as Burma) and Laos for failing to accept their nationals when the U.S. seeks to deport them.

“Burma and Laos have denied or unreasonably delayed accepting their nationals ordered removed from the United States,” the Department of Homeland Security said in a news release.

The State Department Tuesday ordered consular offices in the two countries to begin visa restrictions on certain categories of visas. They are as follows:

BURMA: Discontinuing “issuance of all B1 (work) and B2 (travel) nonimmigrant visas for current officials at the Director General level and above from the Burmese Ministries of Labor, Immigration, and Population (MOLIP) and Home Affairs (MOHA), and their immediate family members, with limited exceptions.”

LAOS: Discontinuing “issuance of all B1, B2, and B1/B2 nonimmigrant visas for current officials at the Director General level and above from the Lao Ministry of Public Security (MPS) as well as their immediate families; and all A3 and G5 (diplomatic and employees of international organizations) nonimmigrant visas to individuals employed by Lao government officials, with limited exceptions.

The DHS release adds that “without an appropriate response” the sanctions “may be expanded to a wider population.” And they will be continued until DHS determines that “cooperation on removals has improved to an acceptable level.”

Both Myanmar and Laos are on the U.S. recalcitrant country list. The list includes nine countries that refuse to accept citizens deported from the U.S.

Sanctions are a step beyond being placed on the recalcitrant list. DHS says without a travel document to confirm identity and nationality, it cannot complete the deportation process.

“Burma and Laos have not established repeatable processes for issuing travel documents to their nationals ordered removed from the United States,” DHS said. “For this reason, ICE has been required to release Burmese and Lao nationals into the United States, some with serious criminal convictions.

 
…

The U.S. is placing visa restrictions on Myanmar (also known as Burma) and Laos for failing to accept their nationals when the U.S. seeks to deport them.

“Burma and Laos have denied or unreasonably delayed accepting their nationals ordered removed from the United States,” the Department of Homeland Security said in a news release.

The State Department Tuesday ordered consular offices in the two countries to begin visa restrictions on certain categories of visas. They are as follows:

BURMA: Discontinuing “issuance of all B1 (work) and B2 (travel) nonimmigrant visas for current officials at the Director General level and above from the Burmese Ministries of Labor, Immigration, and Population (MOLIP) and Home Affairs (MOHA), and their immediate family members, with limited exceptions.”

LAOS: Discontinuing “issuance of all B1, B2, and B1/B2 nonimmigrant visas for current officials at the Director General level and above from the Lao Ministry of Public Security (MPS) as well as their immediate families; and all A3 and G5 (diplomatic and employees of international organizations) nonimmigrant visas to individuals employed by Lao government officials, with limited exceptions.

The DHS release adds that “without an appropriate response” the sanctions “may be expanded to a wider population.” And they will be continued until DHS determines that “cooperation on removals has improved to an acceptable level.”

Both Myanmar and Laos are on the U.S. recalcitrant country list. The list includes nine countries that refuse to accept citizens deported from the U.S.

Sanctions are a step beyond being placed on the recalcitrant list. DHS says without a travel document to confirm identity and nationality, it cannot complete the deportation process.

“Burma and Laos have not established repeatable processes for issuing travel documents to their nationals ordered removed from the United States,” DHS said. “For this reason, ICE has been required to release Burmese and Lao nationals into the United States, some with serious criminal convictions.

 
…