One hundred fifty-three House Democrats and nine Republicans voted for an amendment, sponsored by Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), that would require Obama to present a plan by next April for the “safe, orderly and expeditious redeployment of U.S. troops” and allow a vote in Congress to stop additional war funding if withdrawal does not start by next July, the time administration officials have said they will start reducing forces in Afghanistan.
Ninety-three Democrats, along with seven Republicans, backed an even more restrictive amendment from Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) that would allow the war funds to be spent only on withdrawing troops from Afghanistan.
Neither amendment passed, because nearly all Republicans opposed them, along with many Democrats. But frustration with the war is so widespread that two lawmakers in charge of shepherding the bill through the House, Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-Wisc.) and Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.), who heads the Rules Committee that establishes the procedures for votes on legislation, both said that the war is unwinnable and that they were merely fulfilling their duties as committee chairs in moving the funding toward a vote
Let’s hope our Connecticut delegation (none of whom voted against the final bill), are willing to go public in opposition to this unwinnable war.
Tibetan adaptation to high altitude occurred in less than 3,000 years
Tibetans have mutations in numerous genes related to how the body uses oxygen
A comparison of the genomes of 50 Tibetans and 40 Han Chinese shows that ethnic Tibetans split off from the Han less than 3,000 years ago and since then rapidly evolved a unique ability to thrive at high altitudes and low oxygen levels.
The genome-wide comparison, performed by evolutionary biologists at the University of California, Berkeley, uncovered more than 30 genes with DNA mutations that have become more prevalent in Tibetans than Han Chinese, nearly half of which are related to how the body uses oxygen. One mutation in particular spread from fewer than 10 percent of the Han Chinese to nearly 90 percent of all Tibetans.
“This is the fastest genetic change ever observed in humans,” said Rasmus Nielsen, UC Berkeley professor of integrative biology, who led the statistical analysis. “For such a very strong change, a lot of people would have had to die simply due to the fact that they had the wrong version of a gene.”
The widespread mutation in Tibetans is near a gene called EPAS1, a so-called “super athlete gene” identified several years ago and named because some variants of the gene are associated with improved athletic performance, Nielsen said. The gene codes for a protein involved in sensing oxygen levels and perhaps balancing aerobic and anaerobic metabolism.
The new findings could steer scientists to till-now unknown genes that play a role in how the body deals with decreased oxygen, and perhaps explain some diseases, including schizophrenia and epilepsy, associated with oxygen deprivation in the womb, he said.
Nielsen and his colleagues in China and Europe report their findings in the July 2 issue of the journal Science.
Nielsen, a computational evolutionary biologist, mines genomic information to discover genetic changes driven by natural selection as humans and animals have adapted to new environments. Changes in the frequency of DNA mutations are one clue.
“You look for rapid evolution in genes because there must be something important about that gene forcing it to change so fast,” he said. “The new finding is really the first time evolutionary information alone has helped us pinpoint an important function of a gene in humans.”
Adaptation to low oxygen levels has allowed many peoples, from Andeans to Tibetans, to live at high altitude. When people from lower elevations move above about 13,000 feet, where oxygen levels are about 40 percent lower than at sea level, they typically tire easily, develop headaches, produce babies with lower birth weights and have a higher infant mortality rate. Tibetans have none of these problems, despite lower oxygen saturation in the blood and lower hemoglobin levels. Hemoglobin, which gives blood its red color, binds and transports oxygen to the body’s tissues.
Nielsen used genome data produced by the Beijing Genomics Institute (BGI) in Shenzhen, China’s flagship genome center, to tease out the genetic changes associated with these physiological changes.
“We’re looking for footprints of past selection to find something functional in our genome,” Nielsen said
BGI researchers obtained DNA from 50 Tibetans living in the Tibet Autonomous Region of China and 40 Han Chinese from Beijing. The Tibetans lived in two villages located at elevations of 4,300 meters (14,100 feet) and 4,600 meters (15,100 feet). All reported at least three generations of ancestors had lived at the same site. After obtaining informed consent, the Chinese researchers took blood samples from the participants and measured oxygen saturation, red blood cell concentration and hemoglobin content in their blood.
Back in the lab, the BGI team isolated only the active genes, or exons, from each individual, then used next-generation sequencing technology to sequence these so-called exomes. This involved cutting the DNA into many short pieces, sequencing each about 18 times with state-of-the-art Illumina sequencing machines, and then using overlaps to help reassemble the complete genome of each person. That work was directed by Jun Wang of BGI and the University of Copenhagen in Denmark.
Nielsen and post-doctoral fellows John E. Pool, Emilia-Huerta Sanchez and Nicolas Vinckenbosch conducted the analysis at UC Berkeley, locating all point mutations, called single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), in the 90 genomes and then comparing Tibetan and Han separately to a control group of 100 Europeans (Danes).
The analysis revealed that the common ancestors of Tibetans and Han Chinese split into two populations about 2,750 years ago, with the larger group moving to the Tibetan plateau. That group eventually shrank, while the low-elevation Han population expanded dramatically. Today, the Han Chinese are the dominant ethnic group in mainland China. The Tibetan branch either merged with the people’s already occupying the Tibetan plateau, or replaced them.
“We can’t distinguish intermixing and replacement,” Nielsen said. “The Han Chinese and Tibetans are as different from one another as if the Han completely replaced the Tibetans about 3,000 years ago.”
The Tibetan and Han Chinese genomes are essentially identical in terms of the frequency of polymorphisms in the roughly 20,000 genes, though some 30 genes stood out because of dramatic differences between the Tibetans and the Han.
“We made a list of the genes that changed the most,” Nielsen said, “and what was fascinating was that, bing!, at the top of that list was a gene that had changed very strongly, and it was related to the response to oxygen.”
The SNP with the most dramatic change in frequency, from 9 percent in Han Chinese to 87 percent in Tibetans, was associated with lower red blood cell count and lower hemoglobin levels in Tibetans. That variation occurred near a gene called EPAS1, which earlier studies suggest is involved in regulating hemoglobin in the blood as a response to oxygen levels. The mutation may be in a transcription factor that regulates the activity of EPAS1.
Tibetans carrying only one allele with this mutation had about the same hemoglobin concentration as Han Chinese, but those with two mutated alleles had significantly lower hemoglobin concentration. However, they all have about the same oxygen concentration in the blood. For some reason, individuals with two copies of the mutation function well in high altitude with relatively low hemoglobin concentration in their blood. The mutation seems to provide an alternative inborn mechanism for dealing with the low oxygen levels, Nielsen said.
Other strongly selected variants were near the genes for the fetal and adult versions of the globin genes, which produce the structural proteins of hemoglobin.
Two other genes showing a dramatic shift in frequency have been linked to anemia, while several other genes have been linked to diseases, including schizophrenia and epilepsy, possibly caused by low oxygen levels in the womb.
“…. In recent days, the issue of immigration has become once more a source of fresh contention in our country, with the passage of a controversial law in Arizona and the heated reactions we’ve seen across America. Some have rallied behind this new policy. Others have protested and launched boycotts of the state. And everywhere, people have expressed frustration with a system that seems fundamentally broken.
Of course, the tensions around immigration are not new. On the one hand, we’ve always defined ourselves as a nation of immigrants — a nation that welcomes those willing to embrace America’s precepts. Indeed, it is this constant flow of immigrants that helped to make America what it is. The scientific breakthroughs of Albert Einstein, the inventions of Nikola Tesla, the great ventures of Andrew Carnegie’s U.S. Steel and Sergey Brin’s Google, Inc. -– all this was possible because of immigrants.
And then there are the countless names and the quiet acts that never made the history books but were no less consequential in building this country — the generations who braved hardship and great risk to reach our shores in search of a better life for themselves and their families; the millions of people, ancestors to most of us, who believed that there was a place where they could be, at long last, free to work and worship and live their lives in peace.
So this steady stream of hardworking and talented people has made America the engine of the global economy and a beacon of hope around the world. And it’s allowed us to adapt and thrive in the face of technological and societal change. To this day, America reaps incredible economic rewards because we remain a magnet for the best and brightest from across the globe. Folks travel here in the hopes of being a part of a culture of entrepreneurship and ingenuity, and by doing so they strengthen and enrich that culture. Immigration also means we have a younger workforce -– and a faster-growing economy — than many of our competitors. And in an increasingly interconnected world, the diversity of our country is a powerful advantage in global competition…
(T)he politics of who is and who is not allowed to enter this country, and on what terms, has always been contentious. And that remains true today. And it’s made worse by a failure of those of us in Washington to fix a broken immigration system.
To begin with, our borders have been porous for decades. Obviously, the problem is greatest along our Southern border, but it’s not restricted to that part of the country. In fact, because we don’t do a very good job of tracking who comes in and out of the country as visitors, large numbers avoid immigration laws simply by overstaying their visas.
The result is an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States. The overwhelming majority of these men and women are simply seeking a better life for themselves and their children. Many settle in low-wage sectors of the economy; they work hard, they save, they stay out of trouble. But because they live in the shadows, they’re vulnerable to unscrupulous businesses who pay them less than the minimum wage or violate worker safety rules -– thereby putting companies who follow those rules, and Americans who rightly demand the minimum wage or overtime, at an unfair [dis]advantage. Crimes go unreported as victims and witnesses fear coming forward. And this makes it harder for the police to catch violent criminals and keep neighborhoods safe. And billions in tax revenue are lost each year because many undocumented workers are paid under the table.
More fundamentally, the presence of so many illegal immigrants makes a mockery of all those who are going through the process of immigrating legally. Indeed, after years of patchwork fixes and ill-conceived revisions, the legal immigration system is as broken as the borders. Backlogs and bureaucracy means the process can take years. While an applicant waits for approval, he or she is often forbidden from visiting the United States –- which means even husbands and wives may be forced to spend many years apart. High fees and the need for lawyers may exclude worthy applicants. And while we provide students from around the world visas to get engineering and computer science degrees at our top universities, our laws discourage them from using those skills to start a business or power a new industry right here in the United States. Instead of training entrepreneurs to create jobs on our shores, we train our competition.
In sum, the system is broken. And everybody knows it. Unfortunately, reform has been held hostage to political posturing and special-interest wrangling -– and to the pervasive sentiment in Washington that tackling such a thorny and emotional issue is inherently bad politics.
Just a few years ago, when I was a senator, we forged a bipartisan coalition in favor of comprehensive reform. Under the leadership of Senator Kennedy, who had been a longtime champion of immigration reform, and Senator John McCain, we worked across the aisle to help pass a bipartisan bill through the Senate. But that effort eventually came apart. And now, under the pressures of partisanship and election-year politics, many of the 11 Republican senators who voted for reform in the past have now backed away from their previous support.
Into this breach, states like Arizona have decided to take matters into their own hands. Given the levels of frustration across the country, this is understandable. But it is also ill conceived. And it’s not just that the law Arizona passed is divisive -– although it has fanned the flames of an already contentious debate. Laws like Arizona’s put huge pressures on local law enforcement to enforce rules that ultimately are unenforceable. It puts pressure on already hard-strapped state and local budgets. It makes it difficult for people here illegally to report crimes -– driving a wedge between communities and law enforcement, making our streets more dangerous and the jobs of our police officers more difficult.
And you don’t have to take my word for this. You can speak to the police chiefs and others from law enforcement here today who will tell you the same thing.
These laws also have the potential of violating the rights of innocent American citizens and legal residents, making them subject to possible stops or questioning because of what they look like or how they sound. And as other states and localities go their own ways, we face the prospect that different rules for immigration will apply in different parts of the country -– a patchwork of local immigration rules where we all know one clear national standard is needed.
Our task then is to make our national laws actually work -– to shape a system that reflects our values as a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. And that means being honest about the problem, and getting past the false debates that divide the country rather than bring it together.
For example, there are those in the immigrants’ rights community who have argued passionately that we should simply provide those who are [here] illegally with legal status, or at least ignore the laws on the books and put an end to deportation until we have better laws. And often this argument is framed in moral terms: Why should we punish people who are just trying to earn a living?
I recognize the sense of compassion that drives this argument, but I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair. It would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there will be no repercussions for such a decision. And this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. And it would also ignore the millions of people around the world who are waiting in line to come here legally.
Ultimately, our nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders and set laws for residency and citizenship. And no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable.
Now, if the majority of Americans are skeptical of a blanket amnesty, they are also skeptical that it is possible to round up and deport 11 million people. They know it’s not possible. Such an effort would be logistically impossible and wildly expensive. Moreover, it would tear at the very fabric of this nation -– because immigrants who are here illegally are now intricately woven into that fabric. Many have children who are American citizens. Some are children themselves, brought here by their parents at a very young age, growing up as American kids, only to discover their illegal status when they apply for college or a job. Migrant workers -– mostly here illegally -– have been the labor force of our farmers and agricultural producers for generations. So even if it was possible, a program of mass deportations would disrupt our economy and communities in ways that most Americans would find intolerable.
Now, once we get past the two poles of this debate, it becomes possible to shape a practical, common-sense approach that reflects our heritage and our values. Such an approach demands accountability from everybody -– from government, from businesses and from individuals…
(W)e have to demand responsibility from people living here illegally. They must be required to admit that they broke the law. They should be required to register, pay their taxes, pay a fine, and learn English. They must get right with the law before they can get in line and earn their citizenship — not just because it is fair, not just because it will make clear to those who might wish to come to America they must do so inside the bounds of the law, but because this is how we demonstrate that being — what being an American means. Being a citizen of this country comes not only with rights but also with certain fundamental responsibilities. We can create a pathway for legal status that is fair, reflective of our values, and works.
Now, stopping illegal immigration must go hand in hand with reforming our creaky system of legal immigration. We’ve begun to do that, by eliminating a backlog in background checks that at one point stretched back almost a year. That’s just for the background check. People can now track the status of their immigration applications by email or text message. We’ve improved accountability and safety in the detention system. And we’ve stemmed the increases in naturalization fees. But here, too, we need to do more. We should make it easier for the best and the brightest to come to start businesses and develop products and create jobs.
Our laws should respect families following the rules -– instead of splitting them apart. We need to provide farms a legal way to hire the workers they rely on, and a path for those workers to earn legal status. And we should stop punishing innocent young people for the actions of their parents by denying them the chance to stay here and earn an education and contribute their talents to build the country where they’ve grown up. The DREAM Act would do this, and that’s why I supported this bill as a state legislator and as a U.S. senator — and why I continue to support it as president.
So these are the essential elements of comprehensive immigration reform. The question now is whether we will have the courage and the political will to pass a bill through Congress, to finally get it done…
I’m ready to move forward; the majority of Democrats are ready to move forward; and I believe the majority of Americans are ready to move forward. But the fact is, without bipartisan support, as we had just a few years ago, we cannot solve this problem. Reform that brings accountability to our immigration system cannot pass without Republican votes. That is the political and mathematical reality. The only way to reduce the risk that this effort will again falter because of politics is if members of both parties are willing to take responsibility for solving this problem once and for all.
And, yes, this is an emotional question, and one that lends itself to demagoguery. Time and again, this issue has been used to divide and inflame -– and to demonize people. And so the understandable, the natural impulse among those who run for office is to turn away and defer this question for another day, or another year, or another administration. Despite the courageous leadership in the past shown by many Democrats and some Republicans — including, by the way, my predecessor, President Bush -– this has been the custom. That is why a broken and dangerous system that offends our most basic American values is still in place.
But I believe we can put politics aside and finally have an immigration system that’s accountable. I believe we can appeal not to people’s fears but to their hopes, to their highest ideals, because that’s who we are as Americans. It’s been inscribed on our nation’s seal since we declared our independence. “E pluribus unum.” Out of many, one. That is what has drawn the persecuted and impoverished to our shores. That’s what led the innovators and risk-takers from around the world to take a chance here in the land of opportunity. That’s what has led people to endure untold hardships to reach this place called America.
One of the largest waves of immigration in our history took place little more than a century ago. At the time, Jewish people were being driven out of Eastern Europe, often escaping to the sounds of gunfire and the light from their villages burning to the ground. The journey could take months, as families crossed rivers in the dead of night, traveled miles by foot, endured a rough and dangerous passage over the North Atlantic. Once here, many made their homes in a teeming and bustling Lower Manhattan.
It was at this time that a young woman named Emma Lazarus, whose own family fled persecution from Europe generations earlier, took up the cause of these new immigrants. Although she was a poet, she spent much of her time advocating for better health care and housing for the newcomers. And inspired by what she saw and heard, she wrote down her thoughts and donated a piece of work to help pay for the construction of a new statue — the Statue of Liberty — which actually was funded in part by small donations from people across America. ”
Years before the statue was built — years before it would be seen by throngs of immigrants craning their necks skyward at the end of long and brutal voyage, years before it would come to symbolize everything that we cherish — she imagined what it could mean. She imagined the sight of a giant statue at the entry point of a great nation -– but unlike the great monuments of the past, this would not signal an empire. Instead, it would signal one’s arrival to a place of opportunity and refuge and freedom.
“Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand,” she wrote,
A mighty woman with a torch…
From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome…
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!”…
“Give me your tired, and your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to be free…
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
Let us remember these words. For it falls on each generation to ensure that that lamp -– that beacon -– continues to shine as a source of hope around the world, and a source of our prosperity here at home.
Thank you. God bless you. And may God bless the United States of America. Thank you.
The Department of Health and Human Services has established the Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan. This transition program, created by the Affordable Care Act, offers coverage to uninsured Americans with pre-existing conditions until the permanent ban of such discriminatory practices in 2014.
The Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan is administered either by a state or by the Department of Health and Human Services. All states are required to participate, or to implement their own programs. 29 states, including Connecticut, have opted to establish their own programs, while 21 states have elected to have HHS administer their plans.
“The creation today of the Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan will ensure that Americans who are most in need, who have serious medical concerns and bills, will be able to obtain quality, affordable health insurance. The Affordable Care Act seeks to protect patients, and consumers, hold insurance companies accountable, and reduce costs for those who have insurance while making coverage more affordable for people currently without it,” said Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro. “This transition program will ensure that no one is excluded from the benefits of the new health reform law, and is a great example of how the Affordable Care Act helps protect the American public and ensure that everyone has access to the health insurance they need.”
The USDA has issued tougher new standards for ground beef purchased by the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) to be used in federal food and nutrition assistance programs, including the National School Lunch Program.
Specifically, the standards include the continuing zero tolerance policy for E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella, tightens testing protocols and critical limits, increases sampling frequency, and toughens rejection criteria for AMS purchased ground beef. Additionally, AMS will now reject any vendor designated by the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) as having a poor long-term safety record until a complete analysis can be completed.
“It is absolutely critical that strong food safety standards for school meals be among USDA’s highest priorities. Today’s announcement represents a positive first step toward protecting school kids from food-borne illness, but significant work remains to ensure the safety and quality of foods served in the school lunch program,” said Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro. “I look forward to working with USDA to ensure that it has the adequate funding and leadership to implement these standards.”
