OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — Officials in the Omaha area are allocating $10 million of unspent federal coronavirus relief aid for rent, food aid and mental health services.

 The Omaha World-Herald reports that Douglas County Board member Mike Boyle said many people continue to be evicted from their homes despite a federal moratorium. And he described Tuesday’s decision to give $2 million in rent and mortgage assistance to the Metro Area Continuum of Care for the Homeless to distribute as “a rare opportunity” to help people who are “really hurting.” 

Another $6 million will be earmarked for mental health, although the details haven’t been finalized. 

 The board also unanimously approved allowing $2 million to the the Food Bank for the Heartland.

OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — Officials in the Omaha area are allocating $10 million of unspent federal coronavirus relief aid for rent, food aid and mental health services. The Omaha World-Herald reports that Douglas County Board member Mike Boyle said many people continue to be evicted from their homes despite a federal moratorium. And he described Tuesday’s decision to give $2 million in rent and mortgage assistance to the Metro Area Continuum of Care for the Homeless to distribute as “a rare opportunity” to help people who are “really hurting.” Another $6 million will be earmarked for mental health, although the details haven’t been finalized. The board also unanimously approved allowing $2 million to the the Food Bank for the Heartland.

Unspent coronavirus aid to be spent on rent, food aid

COLUMBIA, Mo. (AP) — A Missouri senator on Monday pitched a bill that would allow the use of deadly force against protesters on private property and give immunity to people who run over demonstrators blocking traffic.

The&nbsp;<a href="https://www.senate.mo.gov/21info/bts_web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&amp;BillID=54250840" target="_blank">proposal</a>&nbsp;is one of several that follow sometimes violent protests in Missouri last summer over the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis police custody, including demonstrations that blocked traffic on busy roads in the St. Louis area.

“To think that your right to protest enables you the right to stop traffic and literally stop people’s ability to move about freely in this nation is a gross misunderstanding of our constitutional rights,” bill sponsor Sen. Rick Brattin said during the Monday hearing.

The Harrisonville Republican said blocking traffic can be dangerous if it stops ambulances or police from responding to emergencies.

Missouri civil rights leader the Rev. Darryl Gray told committee members that people also disagreed with how the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. protested, but “those same methods that you seek to criminalize are the same methods that helped to destroy Jim Crow laws, segregation and destroyed centuries of hatred and bigotry.”

He asked lawmakers not to expand the use of deadly force to those outside of law enforcement.

“If this bill is enacted it would vilify non-violent protesters,” Gray said. “I don’t believe that any members of this august body would deliberately seek to shield drivers who willfully choose to run over protesters.”

Brattin’s bill targets unlawful assemblies on a number of fronts, including making it a felony crime to block traffic as part of a protest. It also would expand misdemeanor harassment laws to include causing emotional distress during protests.

“People can’t even go have a nice meal without being harassed, run out,” Brattin said. “I wanted to ensure that people are able to go and enjoy their freedoms and liberties just like anyone else should be able to.”

Government employees convicted of participating in unlawful assemblies could no longer be paid and would be stripped of all other employment benefits. Cities and counties would be cut off from any state funding if local officials make cuts to police budgets that are significantly deeper than cuts to other services, an effort to stymie activists’ calls to defund the police.

Anyone charged with assaulting a law enforcement official or first responder also no longer would be eligible for bond, probation or parole under the legislation.

The Kansas City police union supports the bill.

The Senate committee hasn’t yet scheduled a vote on the bill.

COLUMBIA, Mo. (AP) — A Missouri senator on Monday pitched a bill that would allow the use of deadly force against protesters on private property and give immunity to people who run over demonstrators blocking traffic.The&nbsp;<a href="https://www.senate.mo.gov/21info/bts_web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&amp;BillID=54250840" target="_blank">proposal</a>&nbsp;is one of several that follow sometimes violent protests in Missouri last summer over the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis police custody, including demonstrations that blocked traffic on busy roads in the St. Louis area.“To think that your right to protest enables you the right to stop traffic and literally stop people’s ability to move about freely in this nation is a gross misunderstanding of our constitutional rights,” bill sponsor Sen. Rick Brattin said during the Monday hearing.The Harrisonville Republican said blocking traffic can be dangerous if it stops ambulances or police from responding to emergencies.Missouri civil rights leader the Rev. Darryl Gray told committee members that people also disagreed with how the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. protested, but “those same methods that you seek to criminalize are the same methods that helped to destroy Jim Crow laws, segregation and destroyed centuries of hatred and bigotry.”He asked lawmakers not to expand the use of deadly force to those outside of law enforcement.“If this bill is enacted it would vilify non-violent protesters,” Gray said. “I don’t believe that any members of this august body would deliberately seek to shield drivers who willfully choose to run over protesters.”Brattin’s bill targets unlawful assemblies on a number of fronts, including making it a felony crime to block traffic as part of a protest. It also would expand misdemeanor harassment laws to include causing emotional distress during protests.“People can’t even go have a nice meal without being harassed, run out,” Brattin said. “I wanted to ensure that people are able to go and enjoy their freedoms and liberties just like anyone else should be able to.”Government employees convicted of participating in unlawful assemblies could no longer be paid and would be stripped of all other employment benefits. Cities and counties would be cut off from any state funding if local officials make cuts to police budgets that are significantly deeper than cuts to other services, an effort to stymie activists’ calls to defund the police.Anyone charged with assaulting a law enforcement official or first responder also no longer would be eligible for bond, probation or parole under the legislation.The Kansas City police union supports the bill.The Senate committee hasn’t yet scheduled a vote on the bill.

Missouri bill would allow deadly force against demonstrators

PAPILLION, Neb. (AP) — The driver of a dump truck that killed two siblings from Millard has been sentenced to prison.

 Thirty-nine-year-old Jesse Knight, of Papillion, was sentenced Tuesday to four years and three months in prison in the August 2019 collision. 

Authorities said Knight was driving a dump truck that slammed into a minivan that was stopped at a light. 

The crash killed 10-year-old Stephen Young, and his 16-year-old sister, Abby Young. 

The children's mother, two siblings and three people in different vehicles were injured. 

Young was found guilty in November on two counts of felony motor vehicle homicide and two counts of reckless driving.

PAPILLION, Neb. (AP) — The driver of a dump truck that killed two siblings from Millard has been sentenced to prison. Thirty-nine-year-old Jesse Knight, of Papillion, was sentenced Tuesday to four years and three months in prison in the August 2019 collision. Authorities said Knight was driving a dump truck that slammed into a minivan that was stopped at a light. The crash killed 10-year-old Stephen Young, and his 16-year-old sister, Abby Young. The children's mother, two siblings and three people in different vehicles were injured. Young was found guilty in November on two counts of felony motor vehicle homicide and two counts of reckless driving.

Dump truck driver sentenced in wreck that killed 2 siblings

By JOSEPH PISANI-Associated Press&nbsp;&nbsp;

NEW YORK (AP) – Walmart is enlisting the help of robots to keep up with a surge in online orders.

The company said Wednesday that it plans to build warehouses at its stores where self-driving robots will fetch groceries and have them ready for shoppers to pick up in an hour or less.

Walmart declined to say how many of the warehouses it will build, but construction has started at stores in Lewisville, Texas; Plano, Texas; American Fork, Utah; and Bentonville, Arkansas, where Walmart’s corporate offices are based. A test site was opened more than a year ago at a store in Salem, New Hampshire.

Walmart hopes the warehouses will speed up curbside pickups, where orders are brought outside to shoppers' cars. Both options became increasingly popular as virus-weary shoppers avoid going inside stores. At the start of the pandemic last year, Walmart said delivery and pickup sales grew 300%.

The company said the robots won’t roam store aisles. Instead, they'll stay inside warehouses built in separate areas, either within a store or next to it. Windows will be placed at some locations so shoppers can watch the robots work.

The wheeled robots carry crates of apple juice, cereal and other small goods to Walmart workers, who then bag them for shoppers. Rival Amazon uses similar technology in its warehouses, with robots bringing books, vitamins and other small items to workers to box and ship.

Walmart said the robots save time since employees don’t have to walk store aisles to find items. Workers will, however, have to go into the store to pick out fresh groceries, such as meat, fish and vegetables. They’ll also have to grab TVs, vacuum cleaners and other large items that are too large for the robots to carry.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/1/1611746024036.png" alt="" />
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure>By JOSEPH PISANI-Associated Press&nbsp;&nbsp;NEW YORK (AP) – Walmart is enlisting the help of robots to keep up with a surge in online orders.The company said Wednesday that it plans to build warehouses at its stores where self-driving robots will fetch groceries and have them ready for shoppers to pick up in an hour or less.Walmart declined to say how many of the warehouses it will build, but construction has started at stores in Lewisville, Texas; Plano, Texas; American Fork, Utah; and Bentonville, Arkansas, where Walmart’s corporate offices are based. A test site was opened more than a year ago at a store in Salem, New Hampshire.Walmart hopes the warehouses will speed up curbside pickups, where orders are brought outside to shoppers' cars. Both options became increasingly popular as virus-weary shoppers avoid going inside stores. At the start of the pandemic last year, Walmart said delivery and pickup sales grew 300%.The company said the robots won’t roam store aisles. Instead, they'll stay inside warehouses built in separate areas, either within a store or next to it. Windows will be placed at some locations so shoppers can watch the robots work.The wheeled robots carry crates of apple juice, cereal and other small goods to Walmart workers, who then bag them for shoppers. Rival Amazon uses similar technology in its warehouses, with robots bringing books, vitamins and other small items to workers to box and ship.Walmart said the robots save time since employees don’t have to walk store aisles to find items. Workers will, however, have to go into the store to pick out fresh groceries, such as meat, fish and vegetables. They’ll also have to grab TVs, vacuum cleaners and other large items that are too large for the robots to carry.

Walmart to build more robot-filled warehouses at stores

WASHINGTON (AP) —Answering growing frustration over vaccine shortages, President Joe Biden announced Tuesday that the U.S. is ramping up deliveries to hard-pressed states over the next three weeks and expects to provide enough doses to vaccinate 300 million Americans by the end of the summer or early fall.

Biden, calling the push a “wartime effort,” said the administration was working to buy an additional 100 million doses of each of the two approved coronavirus vaccines. He acknowledged that states in recent weeks have been left guessing how much vaccine they will have from one week to the next.

Shortages have been so severe that some vaccination sites around the U.S. had to cancel tens of thousands of appointments with people seeking their first shot.

“This is unacceptable,” Biden said. “Lives are at stake.”

He promised a roughly 16% boost in deliveries to states over the next three weeks.

The administration said it plans to buy another 100 million doses each from drugmakers Pfizer and Moderna to ensure it has enough vaccine for the long term. Even more vaccine could be available if federal scientists approve a single-dose shot from Johnson &amp; Johnson, which is expected to seek emergency authorization in the coming weeks.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that the government plans to make about 10.1 million first and second doses available next week, up from this week’s allotment of 8.6 million. The figures represent doses of both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. It was not immediately clear how long the surge of doses could be sustained.

Governors and top health officials have been increasingly raising the alarm about inadequate supplies and the need for earlier and more reliable estimates of how much vaccine is on the way so that they can plan.

Biden’s team held its first virus-related call with the nation’s governors on Tuesday and pledged to provide states with firm vaccine allocations three weeks ahead of delivery.

Biden’s announcement came a day after he grew more bullish about exceeding his vaccine pledge to deliver 100 million injections in his first 100 days in office, suggesting that a rate of 1.5 million doses per day could soon be achieved.

The administration has also promised more openness and said it will hold news briefings three times a week, beginning Wednesday, about the outbreak that has killed over 420,000 Americans.

“We appreciate the administration stating that it will provide states with slightly higher allocations for the next few weeks, but we are going to need much more supply,” said Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, a Republican.

The setup inherited from the Trump administration has been marked by miscommunication and unexplained bottlenecks, with shortages reported in some places even as vaccine doses remain on the shelf.

Officials in West Virginia, which has had one of the best rates of administering vaccine, said they have fewer than 11,000 first doses on hand even after this week’s shipment.

“I’m screaming my head off” for more, Republican Gov. Jim Justice said.

California, which has faced criticism over a slow vaccine rollout, announced Tuesday that it is centralizing its hodgepodge of county systems and streamlining appointment sign-up, notification and eligibility. Residents have been baffled by the varying rules in different counties.

And in Colorado, Democratic Gov. Jared Polis said that the limited supply of vaccine from the federal government is prompting the state to repurpose second doses as first doses, though he expects that people scheduled for their second shot will still be able to keep their appointments.

The weekly allocation cycle for first doses begins on Monday nights, when federal officials review data on vaccine availability from manufacturers to determine how much each state can have. Allocations are based on each jurisdiction’s population of people 18 and older.

States are notified on Tuesdays of their allocations through a computer network called Tiberius and other channels, after which they can specify where they want doses shipped. Deliveries start the following Monday.

A similar but separate process for ordering second doses, which must be given three to four weeks after the first, begins each week on Sunday night.

As of Tuesday afternoon, the CDC reported that just over half of the 44 million doses distributed to states have been put in people’s arms. That is well short of the hundreds of millions of doses that experts say will need to be administered to achieve herd immunity and conquer the outbreak.

The U.S. ranks fifth in the world in the number of doses administered relative to the country’s population, behind No. 1 Israel, United Arab Emirates, Britain and Bahrain, according to the University of Oxford.

The reason more of the available shots in the U.S. haven’t been dispensed isn’t entirely clear. But many vaccination sites are apparently holding large quantities of vaccine in reserve to make sure people who have already gotten their first shot receive the required second one on schedule.

Also, some state officials have complained of a lag between when they report their vaccination numbers to the government and when the figures are posted on the CDC website.

In the New Orleans area, Ochsner Health said Monday that inadequate supply forced the cancellation last week of 21,400 first-dose appointments but that second-dose appointments aren’t affected.

In North Carolina, Greensboro-based Cone Health announced it is canceling first-dose appointments for 10,000 people and moving them to a waiting list because of supply problems.

Jesse Williams, 81, of Reidsville, North Carolina, said his appointment Thursday with Cone Health was scratched, and he is waiting to hear when it might be rescheduled. The former volunteer firefighter had hoped the vaccine would enable him to resume attending church, playing golf and seeing friends.

“It’s just a frustration that we were expecting to be having our shots and being a little more resilient to COVID-19,” he said.

The vaccine rollout across the 27-nation European Union has also run into roadblocks and has likewise been criticized as too slow. Pfizer is delaying deliveries while it upgrades its plant in Belgium to increase capacity. And AstraZeneca disclosed that its initial shipment will be smaller than expected.

The EU, with 450 million citizens, is demanding that the pharmaceutical companies meet their commitments on schedule.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/1/1611700674264.png" alt="President Biden during a Tuesday news conference promised a roughly 16% boost in vaccine deliveries to states over the next three weeks-Photo courtesy White House&nbsp;" />
 <figcaption>President Biden during a Tuesday news conference promised a roughly 16% boost in vaccine deliveries to states over the next three weeks-Photo courtesy White House&nbsp;</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) —Answering growing frustration over vaccine shortages, President Joe Biden announced Tuesday that the U.S. is ramping up deliveries to hard-pressed states over the next three weeks and expects to provide enough doses to vaccinate 300 million Americans by the end of the summer or early fall.Biden, calling the push a “wartime effort,” said the administration was working to buy an additional 100 million doses of each of the two approved coronavirus vaccines. He acknowledged that states in recent weeks have been left guessing how much vaccine they will have from one week to the next.Shortages have been so severe that some vaccination sites around the U.S. had to cancel tens of thousands of appointments with people seeking their first shot.“This is unacceptable,” Biden said. “Lives are at stake.”He promised a roughly 16% boost in deliveries to states over the next three weeks.The administration said it plans to buy another 100 million doses each from drugmakers Pfizer and Moderna to ensure it has enough vaccine for the long term. Even more vaccine could be available if federal scientists approve a single-dose shot from Johnson &amp; Johnson, which is expected to seek emergency authorization in the coming weeks.The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that the government plans to make about 10.1 million first and second doses available next week, up from this week’s allotment of 8.6 million. The figures represent doses of both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. It was not immediately clear how long the surge of doses could be sustained.Governors and top health officials have been increasingly raising the alarm about inadequate supplies and the need for earlier and more reliable estimates of how much vaccine is on the way so that they can plan.Biden’s team held its first virus-related call with the nation’s governors on Tuesday and pledged to provide states with firm vaccine allocations three weeks ahead of delivery.Biden’s announcement came a day after he grew more bullish about exceeding his vaccine pledge to deliver 100 million injections in his first 100 days in office, suggesting that a rate of 1.5 million doses per day could soon be achieved.The administration has also promised more openness and said it will hold news briefings three times a week, beginning Wednesday, about the outbreak that has killed over 420,000 Americans.“We appreciate the administration stating that it will provide states with slightly higher allocations for the next few weeks, but we are going to need much more supply,” said Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, a Republican.The setup inherited from the Trump administration has been marked by miscommunication and unexplained bottlenecks, with shortages reported in some places even as vaccine doses remain on the shelf.Officials in West Virginia, which has had one of the best rates of administering vaccine, said they have fewer than 11,000 first doses on hand even after this week’s shipment.“I’m screaming my head off” for more, Republican Gov. Jim Justice said.California, which has faced criticism over a slow vaccine rollout, announced Tuesday that it is centralizing its hodgepodge of county systems and streamlining appointment sign-up, notification and eligibility. Residents have been baffled by the varying rules in different counties.And in Colorado, Democratic Gov. Jared Polis said that the limited supply of vaccine from the federal government is prompting the state to repurpose second doses as first doses, though he expects that people scheduled for their second shot will still be able to keep their appointments.The weekly allocation cycle for first doses begins on Monday nights, when federal officials review data on vaccine availability from manufacturers to determine how much each state can have. Allocations are based on each jurisdiction’s population of people 18 and older.States are notified on Tuesdays of their allocations through a computer network called Tiberius and other channels, after which they can specify where they want doses shipped. Deliveries start the following Monday.A similar but separate process for ordering second doses, which must be given three to four weeks after the first, begins each week on Sunday night.As of Tuesday afternoon, the CDC reported that just over half of the 44 million doses distributed to states have been put in people’s arms. That is well short of the hundreds of millions of doses that experts say will need to be administered to achieve herd immunity and conquer the outbreak.The U.S. ranks fifth in the world in the number of doses administered relative to the country’s population, behind No. 1 Israel, United Arab Emirates, Britain and Bahrain, according to the University of Oxford.The reason more of the available shots in the U.S. haven’t been dispensed isn’t entirely clear. But many vaccination sites are apparently holding large quantities of vaccine in reserve to make sure people who have already gotten their first shot receive the required second one on schedule.Also, some state officials have complained of a lag between when they report their vaccination numbers to the government and when the figures are posted on the CDC website.In the New Orleans area, Ochsner Health said Monday that inadequate supply forced the cancellation last week of 21,400 first-dose appointments but that second-dose appointments aren’t affected.In North Carolina, Greensboro-based Cone Health announced it is canceling first-dose appointments for 10,000 people and moving them to a waiting list because of supply problems.Jesse Williams, 81, of Reidsville, North Carolina, said his appointment Thursday with Cone Health was scratched, and he is waiting to hear when it might be rescheduled. The former volunteer firefighter had hoped the vaccine would enable him to resume attending church, playing golf and seeing friends.“It’s just a frustration that we were expecting to be having our shots and being a little more resilient to COVID-19,” he said.The vaccine rollout across the 27-nation European Union has also run into roadblocks and has likewise been criticized as too slow. Pfizer is delaying deliveries while it upgrades its plant in Belgium to increase capacity. And AstraZeneca disclosed that its initial shipment will be smaller than expected.The EU, with 450 million citizens, is demanding that the pharmaceutical companies meet their commitments on schedule.___

Biden: More vaccine is on the way

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department on Tuesday rescinded a Trump-era memo that established a “zero tolerance” enforcement policy for migrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border illegally, which resulted in thousands of family separations.

Acting Attorney General Monty Wilkinson issued the new memo to federal prosecutors across the nation, saying the department would return to its longstanding previous policy and instructing prosecutors to act on the merits of individual cases.

“Consistent with this longstanding principle of making individualized assessments in criminal cases, I am rescinding — effective immediately — the policy directive,” Wilkinson wrote.

Wilkinson said the department’s principles have “long emphasized that decisions about bringing criminal charges should involve not only a determination that a federal offense has been committed and that the admissible evidence will probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction, but should also take into account other individualized factors, including personal circumstances and criminal history, the seriousness of the offense, and the probable sentence or other consequences that would result from a conviction.”

The “zero tolerance” policy meant that any adult caught crossing the border illegally would be prosecuted for illegal entry. Because children cannot be jailed with their family members,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/63e7e47666914bf79eff7366e8eb411b">families were separated</a>&nbsp;and children were taken into custody by Health and Human Services, which manages unaccompanied children at the border.

While the rescinding of “zero tolerance” is in part symbolic, it undoes the Trump administration’s massively unpopular policy responsible for the separation of more than 5,500 children from their parents at the U.S-Mexico border. Most families have not been prosecuted under zero tolerance since 2018, when the separations were halted, though separations have continued on a smaller scale. Practically, the ending of the policy will affect mostly single men who have entered the country illegally. Prosecutions had dropped sharply after the Trump administration declared a pandemic-related health emergency that allows them to immediately expel Mexicans and many Central Americans without applying immigration laws.

“While policies may change, our mission always remains the same: to seek justice under the law,” Wilkinson wrote in the memo, which was obtained by The Associated Press.

President Joe Biden has issued an executive order to undo some of Trump’s restrictive policies, but the previous administration has so altered the immigration landscape that it will take quite a while to untangle all the major changes. Some of the parents separated from their children were deported. Advocates for the families have called on Biden to allow those families to reunite in the United States.

Then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, along with Trump and other top leaders in his administration, were bent on curbing immigration. The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/f11e70e3d8c7424d8c0a01ae41ca15a7">“zero tolerance” policy&nbsp;</a>was one of several increasingly restrictive policies aimed at discouraging migrants from coming to the Southern border. Trump’s administration also vastly reduced the number of refugees allowed into the U.S. and all but halted asylum at the border, through a combination of executive orders and regulation changes.

The policy was a disaster; there was no system created to reunite children with their families. A report from the Justice Department’s inspector general,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/aclu-doj-zero-tolerance-policy-failure-b8e6e0a189f5752697335f51d57b1628">released earlier this month</a>, found that the policy led to a $227 million funding shortfall. Children suffered lasting emotional damage from the separations, and the policy was criticized as grossly inhumane by world leaders.

The policy began April 6, 2018, under an executive order that was issued without warning to other federal agencies that would have to manage the policy, including the U.S. Marshals Service and Health and Human Services. It was halted June 20, 2018. A federal judge ordered the families to be reunited.

The watchdog report also found that Sessions and other top officials knew the children would be separated under the policy and encouraged it. Justice officials ignored concerns from staff about the rollout and did not bother to set up a system to track families in order to reunite them. Some children are still separated.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2019/8/1565991611783.png" alt="Near McAllen, TX, migrants who crossed the Rio Grande surrender to U.S. Border Patrol agents near an area known as Rincon on June 5, 2019 From here, they are transported to a processing center. photo courtesy U.S. Customs and Border Protection" />
 <figcaption>Near McAllen, TX, migrants who crossed the Rio Grande surrender to U.S. Border Patrol agents near an area known as Rincon on June 5, 2019 From here, they are transported to a processing center. photo courtesy U.S. Customs and Border Protection</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department on Tuesday rescinded a Trump-era memo that established a “zero tolerance” enforcement policy for migrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border illegally, which resulted in thousands of family separations.Acting Attorney General Monty Wilkinson issued the new memo to federal prosecutors across the nation, saying the department would return to its longstanding previous policy and instructing prosecutors to act on the merits of individual cases.“Consistent with this longstanding principle of making individualized assessments in criminal cases, I am rescinding — effective immediately — the policy directive,” Wilkinson wrote.Wilkinson said the department’s principles have “long emphasized that decisions about bringing criminal charges should involve not only a determination that a federal offense has been committed and that the admissible evidence will probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction, but should also take into account other individualized factors, including personal circumstances and criminal history, the seriousness of the offense, and the probable sentence or other consequences that would result from a conviction.”The “zero tolerance” policy meant that any adult caught crossing the border illegally would be prosecuted for illegal entry. Because children cannot be jailed with their family members,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/63e7e47666914bf79eff7366e8eb411b">families were separated</a>&nbsp;and children were taken into custody by Health and Human Services, which manages unaccompanied children at the border.While the rescinding of “zero tolerance” is in part symbolic, it undoes the Trump administration’s massively unpopular policy responsible for the separation of more than 5,500 children from their parents at the U.S-Mexico border. Most families have not been prosecuted under zero tolerance since 2018, when the separations were halted, though separations have continued on a smaller scale. Practically, the ending of the policy will affect mostly single men who have entered the country illegally. Prosecutions had dropped sharply after the Trump administration declared a pandemic-related health emergency that allows them to immediately expel Mexicans and many Central Americans without applying immigration laws.“While policies may change, our mission always remains the same: to seek justice under the law,” Wilkinson wrote in the memo, which was obtained by The Associated Press.President Joe Biden has issued an executive order to undo some of Trump’s restrictive policies, but the previous administration has so altered the immigration landscape that it will take quite a while to untangle all the major changes. Some of the parents separated from their children were deported. Advocates for the families have called on Biden to allow those families to reunite in the United States.Then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, along with Trump and other top leaders in his administration, were bent on curbing immigration. The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/f11e70e3d8c7424d8c0a01ae41ca15a7">“zero tolerance” policy&nbsp;</a>was one of several increasingly restrictive policies aimed at discouraging migrants from coming to the Southern border. Trump’s administration also vastly reduced the number of refugees allowed into the U.S. and all but halted asylum at the border, through a combination of executive orders and regulation changes.The policy was a disaster; there was no system created to reunite children with their families. A report from the Justice Department’s inspector general,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/aclu-doj-zero-tolerance-policy-failure-b8e6e0a189f5752697335f51d57b1628">released earlier this month</a>, found that the policy led to a $227 million funding shortfall. Children suffered lasting emotional damage from the separations, and the policy was criticized as grossly inhumane by world leaders.The policy began April 6, 2018, under an executive order that was issued without warning to other federal agencies that would have to manage the policy, including the U.S. Marshals Service and Health and Human Services. It was halted June 20, 2018. A federal judge ordered the families to be reunited.The watchdog report also found that Sessions and other top officials knew the children would be separated under the policy and encouraged it. Justice officials ignored concerns from staff about the rollout and did not bother to set up a system to track families in order to reunite them. Some children are still separated.

DOJ rescinds ‘zero tolerance’ immigration rule

WASHINGTON— (AP) President Joe Biden on Tuesday ordered the Department of Justice to end its reliance on private prisons and acknowledge the central role government has played in implementing discriminatory housing policies.

In remarks before signing the order, Biden said the U.S. government needs to change “its whole approach” on the issue of racial equity. He added that the nation is less prosperous and secure because of the scourge of systemic racism.

“We must change now,” the president said. “I know it’s going to take time, but I know we can do it. And I firmly believe the nation is ready to change. But government has to change as well.”

Biden rose to the presidency during a year of intense reckoning on institutional racism in the U.S. The moves announced on Tuesday reflect his efforts to follow through with campaign pledges to combat&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/racial-injustice">racial injustice.</a>

Beyond calling on the Justice Department to curb the use of private prisons and address housing discrimination, the new orders will recommit the federal government to respect tribal sovereignty and disavow discrimination against the Asian American and Pacific Islander community over the coronavirus pandemic.

Biden directed the Department of Housing and Urban Development in a memorandum to take steps to promote equitable housing policy. The memorandum calls for HUD to examine the effects of Trump regulatory actions that may have undermined fair housing policies and laws.

Months before the November election, the Trump administration rolled back an Obama-era rule that required communities that wanted to receive HUD funding to document and report patterns of racial bias.

The order to end the reliance on privately-run prisons directs the attorney general not to renew Justice Department contracts with privately operated criminal detention facilities. The move will effectively revert the Justice Department to the same posture it held at the end of the Obama administration.

“This is a first step to stop corporations from profiting off of incarceration,” Biden said.

The more than 14,000 federal inmates housed at privately-managed facilities represent a fraction of the nearly 152,000 federal inmates currently incarcerated.

The federal Bureau of Prisons had already opted not to renew some private prison contracts in recent months as the number of inmates dwindled and thousands were released to home confinement because of the coronavirus pandemic.

GEO Group, a private company that operates federal prisons, called the Biden order “a solution in search of a problem. ”

“Given the steps the BOP had already announced, today’s Executive Order merely represents a political statement, which could carry serious negative unintended consequences, including the loss of hundreds of jobs and negative economic impact for the communities where our facilities are located, which are already struggling economically due to the COVID pandemic,” a GEO Group spokesperson said in a statement.

David Fathi, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Prison Project, noted that the order does not end the federal government’s reliance on privately-run immigration detention centers.

“The order signed today is an important first step toward acknowledging the harm that has been caused and taking actions to repair it, but President Biden has an obligation to do more, especially given his history and promises,” Fathi said.

The memorandum highlighting xenophobia against Asian Americans is in large part a reaction to what White House officials say was offensive and dangerous rhetoric from the Trump administration. Trump, throughout the pandemic, repeatedly used&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/a7c233f0b3bcdb72c06cca6271ba6713">xenophobic language</a>&nbsp;in public comments when referring to&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/coronavirus-pandemic">the coronavirus</a>.

This memorandum will direct Health and Human Services officials to consider issuing guidance describing best practices to advance cultural competency and sensitivity toward Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in the federal government’s COVID-19 response. It also directs the Department of Justice to partner with AAPI communities to prevent hate crimes and harassment.

The latest executive actions come after Biden signed an order Monday reversing a Trump-era Pentagon policy that largely barred&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-reverse-ban-transgender-military-f0ace4f9866e0ca0df021eba75b3af20">transgender people</a>&nbsp;from serving in the military. Last week, he signed an order reversing Trump’s ban on travelers from several predominantly Muslim and African countries.

Biden last week also directed law enforcement and intelligence officials in his administration to study the threat of domestic violent extremism in the United States, an undertaking launched weeks after a mob of insurgents loyal to Trump, including some connected to white supremacist groups, stormed the U.S. Capitol.

White House domestic policy adviser Susan Rice said Biden sees addressing equity issues as also good for the nation’s bottom line. She cited a Citigroup study from last year that U.S. gross domestic product lost $16 trillion over the last 20 years as a result of discriminatory practices in a range of areas, including in education and access to business loans. The same study finds the U.S. economy would be boosted by $5 trillion over the next five years if it addressed issues of discrimination in areas such as education and access to business loans.

“Building a more equitable economy is essential if Americans are going to compete and thrive in the 21st century,” Rice added.

Biden’s victory over Trump in several battleground states, including Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, was fueled by strong Black voter turnout.

Throughout his campaign and transition, Biden promised that his administration would keep issues of equity — as well as climate change, another issue he views as an existential crisis — in the shaping of all policy considerations.

Biden, who followed through on early promise to pick a woman to serve as&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/kamala-harris-vice-president-f86d6be83bf83fe9b823ae7e21f94796">vice president</a>, has also sought to spotlight the diversity of his Cabinet selections.

On Monday, the Senate confirmed Biden’s pick for treasury secretary, Janet Yellen, who is the first woman to lead the department. Last week, the Senate confirmed Lloyd Austin as the nation’s first Black defense secretary.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/1/1611700794973.png" alt="President Biden sees addressing equity issues as also good for the nation’s bottom line. -photo courtesy White House" />
 <figcaption>President Biden sees addressing equity issues as also good for the nation’s bottom line. -photo courtesy White House</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON— (AP) President Joe Biden on Tuesday ordered the Department of Justice to end its reliance on private prisons and acknowledge the central role government has played in implementing discriminatory housing policies.In remarks before signing the order, Biden said the U.S. government needs to change “its whole approach” on the issue of racial equity. He added that the nation is less prosperous and secure because of the scourge of systemic racism.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/1/1611700891419.png" alt="Image Courtesy White House" />
 <figcaption>Image Courtesy White House</figcaption>
 </figure>“We must change now,” the president said. “I know it’s going to take time, but I know we can do it. And I firmly believe the nation is ready to change. But government has to change as well.”Biden rose to the presidency during a year of intense reckoning on institutional racism in the U.S. The moves announced on Tuesday reflect his efforts to follow through with campaign pledges to combat&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/racial-injustice">racial injustice.</a>Beyond calling on the Justice Department to curb the use of private prisons and address housing discrimination, the new orders will recommit the federal government to respect tribal sovereignty and disavow discrimination against the Asian American and Pacific Islander community over the coronavirus pandemic.Biden directed the Department of Housing and Urban Development in a memorandum to take steps to promote equitable housing policy. The memorandum calls for HUD to examine the effects of Trump regulatory actions that may have undermined fair housing policies and laws.Months before the November election, the Trump administration rolled back an Obama-era rule that required communities that wanted to receive HUD funding to document and report patterns of racial bias.The order to end the reliance on privately-run prisons directs the attorney general not to renew Justice Department contracts with privately operated criminal detention facilities. The move will effectively revert the Justice Department to the same posture it held at the end of the Obama administration.“This is a first step to stop corporations from profiting off of incarceration,” Biden said.The more than 14,000 federal inmates housed at privately-managed facilities represent a fraction of the nearly 152,000 federal inmates currently incarcerated.The federal Bureau of Prisons had already opted not to renew some private prison contracts in recent months as the number of inmates dwindled and thousands were released to home confinement because of the coronavirus pandemic.GEO Group, a private company that operates federal prisons, called the Biden order “a solution in search of a problem. ”“Given the steps the BOP had already announced, today’s Executive Order merely represents a political statement, which could carry serious negative unintended consequences, including the loss of hundreds of jobs and negative economic impact for the communities where our facilities are located, which are already struggling economically due to the COVID pandemic,” a GEO Group spokesperson said in a statement.David Fathi, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Prison Project, noted that the order does not end the federal government’s reliance on privately-run immigration detention centers.“The order signed today is an important first step toward acknowledging the harm that has been caused and taking actions to repair it, but President Biden has an obligation to do more, especially given his history and promises,” Fathi said.The memorandum highlighting xenophobia against Asian Americans is in large part a reaction to what White House officials say was offensive and dangerous rhetoric from the Trump administration. Trump, throughout the pandemic, repeatedly used&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/a7c233f0b3bcdb72c06cca6271ba6713">xenophobic language</a>&nbsp;in public comments when referring to&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/coronavirus-pandemic">the coronavirus</a>.This memorandum will direct Health and Human Services officials to consider issuing guidance describing best practices to advance cultural competency and sensitivity toward Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in the federal government’s COVID-19 response. It also directs the Department of Justice to partner with AAPI communities to prevent hate crimes and harassment.The latest executive actions come after Biden signed an order Monday reversing a Trump-era Pentagon policy that largely barred&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-reverse-ban-transgender-military-f0ace4f9866e0ca0df021eba75b3af20">transgender people</a>&nbsp;from serving in the military. Last week, he signed an order reversing Trump’s ban on travelers from several predominantly Muslim and African countries.Biden last week also directed law enforcement and intelligence officials in his administration to study the threat of domestic violent extremism in the United States, an undertaking launched weeks after a mob of insurgents loyal to Trump, including some connected to white supremacist groups, stormed the U.S. Capitol.White House domestic policy adviser Susan Rice said Biden sees addressing equity issues as also good for the nation’s bottom line. She cited a Citigroup study from last year that U.S. gross domestic product lost $16 trillion over the last 20 years as a result of discriminatory practices in a range of areas, including in education and access to business loans. The same study finds the U.S. economy would be boosted by $5 trillion over the next five years if it addressed issues of discrimination in areas such as education and access to business loans.“Building a more equitable economy is essential if Americans are going to compete and thrive in the 21st century,” Rice added.Biden’s victory over Trump in several battleground states, including Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, was fueled by strong Black voter turnout.Throughout his campaign and transition, Biden promised that his administration would keep issues of equity — as well as climate change, another issue he views as an existential crisis — in the shaping of all policy considerations.Biden, who followed through on early promise to pick a woman to serve as&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/kamala-harris-vice-president-f86d6be83bf83fe9b823ae7e21f94796">vice president</a>, has also sought to spotlight the diversity of his Cabinet selections.On Monday, the Senate confirmed Biden’s pick for treasury secretary, Janet Yellen, who is the first woman to lead the department. Last week, the Senate confirmed Lloyd Austin as the nation’s first Black defense secretary.___

President Biden takes action to advance racial equality 

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused a church’s request to enter a legal battle over the government’s authority to limit the size of religious gatherings amid the COVID-19 pandemic — after the church won an appeals court ruling last month that found Nevada’s restrictions unconstitutional.

Attorneys general from 19 other states had recently joined in support of the unusual request from Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley east of Reno.

They were urging the Supreme Court to rule on the merits of the Nevada case to help bring uniformity to various standards courts across the country have used to balance the interests of public safety and freedom of religion.

The church’s lawyers said in a court filing last Thursday they wanted the high court to “clarify for all that the First Amendment does not allow government officials to use COVID-19 as an excuse to treat churches and their worshippers worse than secular establishments and their patrons.”

In a 5-4 decision in June, the Supreme Court refused Calvary Chapel’s request for an emergency injunction blocking enforcement of Nevada’s attendance limit at houses of worship.

But the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled in favor of the church last month, finding it was unconstitutional for Nevada to treat casinos and other businesses more favorably than churches.

The church’s latest plea for relief from the Supreme Court was in the form of a petition for a review of the case on its merits. Such petitions are rare and their approval is even rarer, even though they require approval by only four justices.

The justices denied the request without explanation on Monday.

The 9th Circuit ruling sent the case back to the district court to determine how to proceed but in the meantime prevented the state from enforcing any church attendance limit more stringent than the current 25% of capacity limit on most businesses.

Judge Richard Boulware put the case on hold pending the Supreme Court’s ruling on the church’s petition. He instructed lawyers on both sides to provide an update on the status of any future filings planned within seven days of such a ruling.

Lawyers for the church said Monday they were disappointed in the high court’s refusal to review the case. But they said the appellate court has made it clear government responses to COVID-19 “cannot treat churches worse than similarly situated businesses,” at least in the 9th Circuit, which also includes Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho and Montana.

“We asked the Supreme Court to hear the case so there would be a national ruling confirming what the 9th Circuit held in December: government officials certainly have the authority to protect health and public safety, but the First Amendment — including the free exercise of religion — is never suspended,” said David Cortman, senior counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom.

“Although this victory for religious liberty remains a 9th Circuit matter, we are confident that Nevada will agree to a permanent injunction on the terms that the 9th Circuit unanimously announced, and we look forward to resolving this case soon,” he said Monday in a statement emailed to AP.

Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford had argued the justices should let the federal court in Reno sort out the details before taking the extraordinary step of wading into the case. He wrote in court documents submitted last week the case “is a poor vehicle for addressing questions beyond those the Ninth Circuit already resolved in Calvary’s favor.”

Ashley Forest, a spokeswoman for Ford’s office, said in an email on Monday that “while the Supreme Court won’t hear the church’s COVID case regarding attendance limits, Nevada heard the 9th Circuit clearly and appreciates the guidance on how best to protect this constitutional right.”

Indoor religious gatherings in Nevada most recently had been subject to a hard cap of 50 churchgoers while attendance limits at many businesses including casinos were based on a percentage of the buildings’ fire-code capacities.

Nevada currently imposes the 25% occupancy limit on all gathering places — including casinos, restaurants, bars, amusement and theme parks, gyms and fitness facilities and movie theaters.

The church’s latest court filings argued that an attendance limit of 25% for houses of worship is prohibited under the First Amendment. It wants to be treated the same as essential businesses — like manufacturing facilities and professional offices, which currently have no capacity limits other than social distancing.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused a church’s request to enter a legal battle over the government’s authority to limit the size of religious gatherings amid the COVID-19 pandemic — after the church won an appeals court ruling last month that found Nevada’s restrictions unconstitutional.Attorneys general from 19 other states had recently joined in support of the unusual request from Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley east of Reno.They were urging the Supreme Court to rule on the merits of the Nevada case to help bring uniformity to various standards courts across the country have used to balance the interests of public safety and freedom of religion.The church’s lawyers said in a court filing last Thursday they wanted the high court to “clarify for all that the First Amendment does not allow government officials to use COVID-19 as an excuse to treat churches and their worshippers worse than secular establishments and their patrons.”In a 5-4 decision in June, the Supreme Court refused Calvary Chapel’s request for an emergency injunction blocking enforcement of Nevada’s attendance limit at houses of worship.But the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled in favor of the church last month, finding it was unconstitutional for Nevada to treat casinos and other businesses more favorably than churches.The church’s latest plea for relief from the Supreme Court was in the form of a petition for a review of the case on its merits. Such petitions are rare and their approval is even rarer, even though they require approval by only four justices.The justices denied the request without explanation on Monday.The 9th Circuit ruling sent the case back to the district court to determine how to proceed but in the meantime prevented the state from enforcing any church attendance limit more stringent than the current 25% of capacity limit on most businesses.Judge Richard Boulware put the case on hold pending the Supreme Court’s ruling on the church’s petition. He instructed lawyers on both sides to provide an update on the status of any future filings planned within seven days of such a ruling.Lawyers for the church said Monday they were disappointed in the high court’s refusal to review the case. But they said the appellate court has made it clear government responses to COVID-19 “cannot treat churches worse than similarly situated businesses,” at least in the 9th Circuit, which also includes Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho and Montana.“We asked the Supreme Court to hear the case so there would be a national ruling confirming what the 9th Circuit held in December: government officials certainly have the authority to protect health and public safety, but the First Amendment — including the free exercise of religion — is never suspended,” said David Cortman, senior counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom.“Although this victory for religious liberty remains a 9th Circuit matter, we are confident that Nevada will agree to a permanent injunction on the terms that the 9th Circuit unanimously announced, and we look forward to resolving this case soon,” he said Monday in a statement emailed to AP.Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford had argued the justices should let the federal court in Reno sort out the details before taking the extraordinary step of wading into the case. He wrote in court documents submitted last week the case “is a poor vehicle for addressing questions beyond those the Ninth Circuit already resolved in Calvary’s favor.”Ashley Forest, a spokeswoman for Ford’s office, said in an email on Monday that “while the Supreme Court won’t hear the church’s COVID case regarding attendance limits, Nevada heard the 9th Circuit clearly and appreciates the guidance on how best to protect this constitutional right.”Indoor religious gatherings in Nevada most recently had been subject to a hard cap of 50 churchgoers while attendance limits at many businesses including casinos were based on a percentage of the buildings’ fire-code capacities.Nevada currently imposes the 25% occupancy limit on all gathering places — including casinos, restaurants, bars, amusement and theme parks, gyms and fitness facilities and movie theaters.The church’s latest court filings argued that an attendance limit of 25% for houses of worship is prohibited under the First Amendment. It wants to be treated the same as essential businesses — like manufacturing facilities and professional offices, which currently have no capacity limits other than social distancing.

Supreme Court refuses to hear church's COVID-19 case

OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — A judge has found sufficient evidence for a man to stand trial in a 2013 shooting death in Omaha. Bernard “B.J.” Turner Jr. was bound over for trial Monday on a charge of first-degree murder charge in the October 2013 death of 19-year-old Julius Vaughn, a fellow gang member. 

The Omaha World-Herald reports that the case stalled until a witness came forward last year and told police that he had driven Turner from the shooting scene. 

The witness said Turner ditched the gun in a storm sewer. When detectives opened a manhole in that spot, 6½ years after the killing, they found a rusty handgun that is consistent with the type of firearm that was used to kill Vaughn.

OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — A judge has found sufficient evidence for a man to stand trial in a 2013 shooting death in Omaha. Bernard “B.J.” Turner Jr. was bound over for trial Monday on a charge of first-degree murder charge in the October 2013 death of 19-year-old Julius Vaughn, a fellow gang member. The Omaha World-Herald reports that the case stalled until a witness came forward last year and told police that he had driven Turner from the shooting scene. The witness said Turner ditched the gun in a storm sewer. When detectives opened a manhole in that spot, 6½ years after the killing, they found a rusty handgun that is consistent with the type of firearm that was used to kill Vaughn.

Man ordered to stand trial in 2013 Omaha shooting death

LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) — A Nebraska man was arrested in a burglary after getting stuck in the snow outside the victim’s home.

 Lancaster County Sheriff Terry Wagner said the homeowners noticed a sport utility vehicle in their driveway Monday night and went to see if the driver needed help. 

The Lincoln Journal Star reports that here was no one inside, but they saw some of their belongings from a storage shed, including a fishing tackle box and motorcycle helmet. 

Deputies followed fresh tracks in the snow to the neighbor’s house, where they found the 25-year-old suspect. 

The Nebraska man had walked to the home to seek help.

LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) — A Nebraska man was arrested in a burglary after getting stuck in the snow outside the victim’s home. Lancaster County Sheriff Terry Wagner said the homeowners noticed a sport utility vehicle in their driveway Monday night and went to see if the driver needed help. The Lincoln Journal Star reports that here was no one inside, but they saw some of their belongings from a storage shed, including a fishing tackle box and motorcycle helmet. Deputies followed fresh tracks in the snow to the neighbor’s house, where they found the 25-year-old suspect. The Nebraska man had walked to the home to seek help.

Sheriff: Burglary suspect caught after getting stuck in snow

HOOD RIVER, Ore. (AP) — Oregon teachers are eligible for COVID-19 shots before senior citizens after Democratic Gov. Kate Brown decided to prioritize reopening schools. 

The decision has outraged older people and underscores the moral dilemma state and local officials across the U.S. are facing as they decide who's first in line for the vaccine. 

Ethicists say America hasn't faced such a stark moral calculus in generations. Everyone from the elderly and those with chronic medical conditions to communities of color and front-line workers are clamoring for the scarce vaccine. 

And each group has a compelling argument for why they should get priority.

HOOD RIVER, Ore. (AP) — Oregon teachers are eligible for COVID-19 shots before senior citizens after Democratic Gov. Kate Brown decided to prioritize reopening schools. The decision has outraged older people and underscores the moral dilemma state and local officials across the U.S. are facing as they decide who's first in line for the vaccine. Ethicists say America hasn't faced such a stark moral calculus in generations. Everyone from the elderly and those with chronic medical conditions to communities of color and front-line workers are clamoring for the scarce vaccine. And each group has a compelling argument for why they should get priority.

Who goes first? Vaccine rollout forces stark moral choices

By TOM SHINE <a href="https://www.kmuw.org/post/get-paid-get-vaccinated-how-one-economist-proposes-we-reach-herd-immunity">Kansas News Service</a>

Like a lot of people, Bob Litan and his wife, Margaret, have been cooped up in their Lawrence home during the pandemic.

Other than the occasional walk and visit to the doctor’s office, they’ve been indoors for nearly a year.

Vaccinations have begun, but Litan says he’s concerned not enough people will voluntarily get one.

Litan
 is a non-resident senior fellow in economic studies at the Brookings 
Institution, a public policy organization based in Washington, D.C.

He said he did some "back-of-the-envelope calculations" that showed 
about 250 million people will need to get vaccinated for the country to 
reach herd immunity and return to life pre-pandemic.

But if not enough people voluntarily step forward, Litan is <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/want-herd-immunity-pay-people-to-take-the-vaccine/" target="_blank">proposing a kind of Plan B</a>:
 He says the government should pay people to take the vaccine — $200 
when people get the shot, and another $800 when the country reaches herd
 immunity.

Litan was born in McPherson and grew up in Wichita. He has a law degree and doctorate in economics from Yale University.&nbsp;

He
 talked with Tom Shine and The Range about his plan, why the cost is 
worth it and what it says about our current political climate that 
people may skip the vaccine.

The interview was edited for length and clarity.

Tom Shine: Give us a general outline of your thoughts on paying people to take the vaccine.

Bob Litan: So last August I <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/want-herd-immunity-pay-people-to-take-the-vaccine/" target="_blank">wrote a piece</a>
 that came out of really conversations with my wife. We're both in the 
70 age group, and we're talking to ourselves, we're saying, 'How are we 
ever going to get out of the house if not enough people take the 
vaccine?'

And so the only two ways you can really get there are 
either mandating people to take the shot, which I think in this current 
environment would probably come close to inciting a revolution, or a 
monetary inducement. And that's what led me to propose $1,000 per 
person.

You call your idea Plan B; Plan A being that 
enough people would agree on their own to take the vaccine. … You're not
 confident that we'll hit that mark to get to herd immunity.

Well,
 I'm really glad you mentioned Plan B because it is a Plan B. I'm not 
advocating that tomorrow the administration roll out with this plan 
because we ought to give public health officials and the administration 
and other people … a chance to encourage people to voluntarily take the 
vaccine And the reason we need a Plan B is what happens if we don't get 
there?

Your plan would cost about $250 billion … but you've argued that still makes economic sense. Explain that a little bit.

Basically
 it's money to pay the country and ourselves to get the economy back to 
full employment. Because if we don't reach herd immunity, we're going to
 be at a sub-optimal level of economic output and employment, and 
therefore sub-optimal amount of tax revenue and just not having our 
lives back.

And for $250 billion, I know it sounds like a lot of 
money, but you know, we're talking about trillions now of helping people
 in various rescue packages. And if we could just do this once and for 
all, and just get rid of this thing, I think that it would be money that
 would be well worth it.

There's been critics of your 
plan, which is not a surprise. The most common one I see is that 
offering payments somehow sends a signal that the government is unsure 
that this vaccine is totally safe. What are your thoughts on that 
particular line of thinking?

It would be a concern if 
this were Plan A, in other words, we were doing it now. And if you were 
worried about turning people off, then you wouldn't want to do it at the
 beginning.

But when you couch the plan as a Plan B, which is 
basically after all the voluntary people are done, then the question is:
 What do you have to lose at that point? You've got a good portion of 
the country that has not taken the shot when they had the chance to do 
so. It's not as if now all of a sudden they're going to change their 
mind.

So it's not as if we're going to make things worse. We can 
only make things better as a Plan B because then we can switch some 
people who were on the fence. They would say to themselves, 'You know, 
for $1,000' — and by the way, for a family of four that's $4,000, that's
 a lot of money to kiss away — 'we'll take the money and take the shot.'

Is there a precedent in our history or in the world's history for this type of a plan?

Not
 in the U.S., but there are examples in less-developed countries for 
paying people to take vaccines in a lot lower amount. But we haven't had
 something like this since 1918.

We haven't had a program to 
actually pay people, but then we haven't been as divided as we have 
been. So this is not like polio back in the 1950s … and there was no 
mass resistance. People did it, but now you got a lot of people who 
don't trust science. They don't trust the government. They don't trust 
doctors.

And in a world of very low trust, the only way I can 
think of to overcome that is to actually pay people to overcome it. It's
 the price we have to pay for our political division if we really want 
to get out of this mess.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/1/1611587728185.png" alt="U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Europe District, flickr Creative Commons" />
 <figcaption>U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Europe District, flickr Creative Commons</figcaption>
 </figure>By TOM SHINE <a href="https://www.kmuw.org/post/get-paid-get-vaccinated-how-one-economist-proposes-we-reach-herd-immunity">Kansas News Service</a>Like a lot of people, Bob Litan and his wife, Margaret, have been cooped up in their Lawrence home during the pandemic.Other than the occasional walk and visit to the doctor’s office, they’ve been indoors for nearly a year.Vaccinations have begun, but Litan says he’s concerned not enough people will voluntarily get one.Litan
 is a non-resident senior fellow in economic studies at the Brookings 
Institution, a public policy organization based in Washington, D.C.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/1/1611587789252.png" alt=" Bob Litan is a non-resident senior fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution. He's proposing the government pays people to get vaccinated for COVID-19: $200 to get the first dose, and $800 when the country reaches herd immunity. Credit Courtesy" />
 <figcaption> Bob Litan is a non-resident senior fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution. He's proposing the government pays people to get vaccinated for COVID-19: $200 to get the first dose, and $800 when the country reaches herd immunity. Credit Courtesy</figcaption>
 </figure>He said he did some "back-of-the-envelope calculations" that showed 
about 250 million people will need to get vaccinated for the country to 
reach herd immunity and return to life pre-pandemic.But if not enough people voluntarily step forward, Litan is <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/want-herd-immunity-pay-people-to-take-the-vaccine/" target="_blank">proposing a kind of Plan B</a>:
 He says the government should pay people to take the vaccine — $200 
when people get the shot, and another $800 when the country reaches herd
 immunity.Litan was born in McPherson and grew up in Wichita. He has a law degree and doctorate in economics from Yale University.&nbsp;He
 talked with Tom Shine and The Range about his plan, why the cost is 
worth it and what it says about our current political climate that 
people may skip the vaccine.The interview was edited for length and clarity.Tom Shine: Give us a general outline of your thoughts on paying people to take the vaccine.Bob Litan: So last August I <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/want-herd-immunity-pay-people-to-take-the-vaccine/" target="_blank">wrote a piece</a>
 that came out of really conversations with my wife. We're both in the 
70 age group, and we're talking to ourselves, we're saying, 'How are we 
ever going to get out of the house if not enough people take the 
vaccine?'And so the only two ways you can really get there are 
either mandating people to take the shot, which I think in this current 
environment would probably come close to inciting a revolution, or a 
monetary inducement. And that's what led me to propose $1,000 per 
person.You call your idea Plan B; Plan A being that 
enough people would agree on their own to take the vaccine. … You're not
 confident that we'll hit that mark to get to herd immunity.Well,
 I'm really glad you mentioned Plan B because it is a Plan B. I'm not 
advocating that tomorrow the administration roll out with this plan 
because we ought to give public health officials and the administration 
and other people … a chance to encourage people to voluntarily take the 
vaccine And the reason we need a Plan B is what happens if we don't get 
there?Your plan would cost about $250 billion … but you've argued that still makes economic sense. Explain that a little bit.Basically
 it's money to pay the country and ourselves to get the economy back to 
full employment. Because if we don't reach herd immunity, we're going to
 be at a sub-optimal level of economic output and employment, and 
therefore sub-optimal amount of tax revenue and just not having our 
lives back.And for $250 billion, I know it sounds like a lot of 
money, but you know, we're talking about trillions now of helping people
 in various rescue packages. And if we could just do this once and for 
all, and just get rid of this thing, I think that it would be money that
 would be well worth it.There's been critics of your 
plan, which is not a surprise. The most common one I see is that 
offering payments somehow sends a signal that the government is unsure 
that this vaccine is totally safe. What are your thoughts on that 
particular line of thinking?It would be a concern if 
this were Plan A, in other words, we were doing it now. And if you were 
worried about turning people off, then you wouldn't want to do it at the
 beginning.But when you couch the plan as a Plan B, which is 
basically after all the voluntary people are done, then the question is:
 What do you have to lose at that point? You've got a good portion of 
the country that has not taken the shot when they had the chance to do 
so. It's not as if now all of a sudden they're going to change their 
mind.So it's not as if we're going to make things worse. We can 
only make things better as a Plan B because then we can switch some 
people who were on the fence. They would say to themselves, 'You know, 
for $1,000' — and by the way, for a family of four that's $4,000, that's
 a lot of money to kiss away — 'we'll take the money and take the shot.'Is there a precedent in our history or in the world's history for this type of a plan?Not
 in the U.S., but there are examples in less-developed countries for 
paying people to take vaccines in a lot lower amount. But we haven't had
 something like this since 1918.We haven't had a program to 
actually pay people, but then we haven't been as divided as we have 
been. So this is not like polio back in the 1950s … and there was no 
mass resistance. People did it, but now you got a lot of people who 
don't trust science. They don't trust the government. They don't trust 
doctors.And in a world of very low trust, the only way I can 
think of to overcome that is to actually pay people to overcome it. It's
 the price we have to pay for our political division if we really want 
to get out of this mess.

Get paid to get vaccinated? Economist offers herd immunity idea

LINCOLN, Neb. -- A new study confirms mounting evidence bee populations are on the decline in Nebraska and across the globe. Researchers scoured an international network of databases, from universities, museums and government agencies, filled with more than three centuries of data. They found there have been&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cell.com/one-earth/fulltext/S2590-3322(20)30651-5" target="_blank">zero sightings</a>&nbsp;for nearly a quarter of all known bee species in more than 30 years. Eduardo Zattara, biologist at the Institute for Research on Biodiversity and the Environment, and the report's co-author, said that's a problem in part because bees are critical for food production. "Many crops that are actually of high value, like fruits, almonds, are highly dependent on pollinators, and so we need bees," Zattara explained. "No bees, you get no fruit." Climate change, loss of pollinator habitat to human development, and the growing use of neonicotinoid insecticides are seen as primary drivers of declining bee numbers. Neonicotinoid manufacturers have argued honeybee populations are on the rise globally, and have&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cropscience.bayer.com/sites/cropscience/files/inline-files/BEEINFOrmed_issue3_The_Bee_Safety_of_Neonicotinoids-1iusc0izc_0.pdf" target="_blank">conducted studies</a>&nbsp;showing no harm to colonies when their product is used correctly. Zattara said honeybees have become the poster child of bee conservation efforts, which he believes is misguided. He said once farmers figure out the right levels of chemical insecticides, honeybees are likely to do just fine, and their populations can be restored with enough investment. "The problem is that it's all the other bees," Zattara observed. "There's 20,000 species of bees. If you put all of the focus on the honeybee, you're going to be missing the other ones. The other ones are actually providing a lot of support for what honeybees cannot do." Zattara pointed to a Twitter post he came across comparing bird and bee biodiversity to illustrate the challenge facing conservationists. Zattara said honeybees are like the chickens of the insect world. Preventing the loss of diverse bird species will not happen by raising more chickens.

From Nebraska News ConnectionBy Eric GalatasLINCOLN, Neb. -- A new study confirms mounting evidence bee populations are on the decline in Nebraska and across the globe. Researchers scoured an international network of databases, from universities, museums and government agencies, filled with more than three centuries of data. They found there have been&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cell.com/one-earth/fulltext/S2590-3322(20)30651-5" target="_blank">zero sightings</a>&nbsp;for nearly a quarter of all known bee species in more than 30 years. Eduardo Zattara, biologist at the Institute for Research on Biodiversity and the Environment, and the report's co-author, said that's a problem in part because bees are critical for food production. "Many crops that are actually of high value, like fruits, almonds, are highly dependent on pollinators, and so we need bees," Zattara explained. "No bees, you get no fruit." Climate change, loss of pollinator habitat to human development, and the growing use of neonicotinoid insecticides are seen as primary drivers of declining bee numbers. Neonicotinoid manufacturers have argued honeybee populations are on the rise globally, and have&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cropscience.bayer.com/sites/cropscience/files/inline-files/BEEINFOrmed_issue3_The_Bee_Safety_of_Neonicotinoids-1iusc0izc_0.pdf" target="_blank">conducted studies</a>&nbsp;showing no harm to colonies when their product is used correctly. Zattara said honeybees have become the poster child of bee conservation efforts, which he believes is misguided. He said once farmers figure out the right levels of chemical insecticides, honeybees are likely to do just fine, and their populations can be restored with enough investment. "The problem is that it's all the other bees," Zattara observed. "There's 20,000 species of bees. If you put all of the focus on the honeybee, you're going to be missing the other ones. The other ones are actually providing a lot of support for what honeybees cannot do." Zattara pointed to a Twitter post he came across comparing bird and bee biodiversity to illustrate the challenge facing conservationists. Zattara said honeybees are like the chickens of the insect world. Preventing the loss of diverse bird species will not happen by raising more chickens.

Study: Global bee populations on decline

SAN ANTONIO (AP) — A&nbsp;<a href="https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/texas">Texas</a>&nbsp;man has pleaded guilty to a terror charge after authorities accused him of plotting attacks on the White House and Trump Tower in&nbsp;<a href="https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/new-york">New York</a>&nbsp;City.

Jaylyn Christopher Molina, 22, of Cost, also pleaded guilty Monday to one count of receiving child pornography after authorities found images on his cellphone while executing a search warrant, federal prosecutors said.

Kristopher Sean Matthews, of&nbsp;<a href="https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/south-carolina">South Carolina</a>, and Molina were charged last year with conspiracy to provide material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization. Their plotting allegedly began in May 2019, prosecutors said.

While President Donald Trump was in office, the pair had discussed traveling to Syria to fight with the Islamic State group or carrying out attacks at Trump Tower, the White House, the New York Stock Exchange or the headquarters of federal law enforcement agencies, according to court records.

Matthews pleaded guilty in November and is scheduled to be sentenced in March 4, while Molina's sentencing is scheduled for April 22. Both men face up to 20 years in prison for the conspiracy charge and Molina faces up to 20 years in prison on the child pornography charge.

SAN ANTONIO (AP) — A&nbsp;<a href="https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/texas">Texas</a>&nbsp;man has pleaded guilty to a terror charge after authorities accused him of plotting attacks on the White House and Trump Tower in&nbsp;<a href="https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/new-york">New York</a>&nbsp;City.Jaylyn Christopher Molina, 22, of Cost, also pleaded guilty Monday to one count of receiving child pornography after authorities found images on his cellphone while executing a search warrant, federal prosecutors said.Kristopher Sean Matthews, of&nbsp;<a href="https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/south-carolina">South Carolina</a>, and Molina were charged last year with conspiracy to provide material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization. Their plotting allegedly began in May 2019, prosecutors said.While President Donald Trump was in office, the pair had discussed traveling to Syria to fight with the Islamic State group or carrying out attacks at Trump Tower, the White House, the New York Stock Exchange or the headquarters of federal law enforcement agencies, according to court records.Matthews pleaded guilty in November and is scheduled to be sentenced in March 4, while Molina's sentencing is scheduled for April 22. Both men face up to 20 years in prison for the conspiracy charge and Molina faces up to 20 years in prison on the child pornography charge.

Texas man pleads guilty in plot to attack Trump Tower

WASHINGTON (AP) — House Democrats delivered the impeachment case against Donald Trump to the Senate for the start of his historic trial, but Republican senators were easing off their criticism of the former president and shunning calls to convict him over the deadly siege at the U.S. Capitol.

It’s an early sign of Trump’s enduring sway over the party.

The nine House prosecutors carried the sole impeachment charge of “incitement of insurrection” across the Capitol on Monday night, making a solemn and ceremonial march to the Senate along the same halls the rioters ransacked just weeks ago. But Republican denunciations of Trump have cooled since the Jan. 6 riot. Instead Republicans are presenting a tangle of legal arguments against the legitimacy of the trial and questioning whether Trump’s repeated demands to overturn Joe Biden’s election really amounted to incitement.

What seemed for some Democrats like an open-and-shut case that played out for the world on live television, as Trump encouraged a rally mob to “fight like hell” for his presidency, is running into a Republican Party that feels very differently. Not only are there legal concerns, but senators are wary of crossing the former president and his legions of followers — who are their voters.&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/lawmakers-trump-impeachment-trial-b9a44a269d6cfeee28e79b46572d28a6">Security remains tight at the Capitol.</a>

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, asked if Congress starts holding impeachment trials of former officials, what’s next: “Could we go back and try President Obama?”

Besides, he suggested, Trump has already been held to account. “One way in our system you get punished is losing an election.”

Arguments in the Senate trial will begin the week of Feb. 8, and the case against Trump, the first former president to face impeachment trial, will test a political party still sorting itself out for the post-Trump era. Republican senators are balancing the demands of deep-pocketed donors who are distancing themselves from Trump and voters who demand loyalty to him. One Republican, Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio, announced Monday he would not seek reelection in 2022, citing the polarized political atmosphere.

For Democrats the tone, tenor and length of the upcoming trial, so early in Biden’s presidency, poses its own challenge, forcing them to strike a balance between their vow to hold Trump accountable and their eagerness to deliver on the new administration’s priorities following their sweep of control of the House, Senate and White House.

Biden himself told CNN late Monday that the impeachment trial “has to happen.” While acknowledging the effect it could have on his agenda, he said there would be “a worse effect if it didn’t happen.”

Biden said he didn’t think enough Republican senators would vote for impeachment to convict, though he also said the outcome might well have been different if Trump had six months left in his term.

In a Monday evening scene reminiscent of just a year ago — Trump is now the first president twice impeached — the lead prosecutor from the House, this time Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, stood before the Senate to read the House resolution charging “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Earlier, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said failing to conduct the trial would amount to a “get-out-jail-free card” for others accused of wrongdoing on their way out the door.

Republicans appear more eager to argue over trial process than the substance of the case, he said, perhaps to avoid casting judgment on Trump’s “role in fomenting the despicable attack” on the Capitol.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/1/1611623417150.png" alt="Democratic House impeachment managers as they walk through Statuary Hall in the Capitol, to deliver to the Senate the article of impeachment alleging incitement of insurrection against former President Donald Trump-image courtesy CSPAN" />
 <figcaption>Democratic House impeachment managers as they walk through Statuary Hall in the Capitol, to deliver to the Senate the article of impeachment alleging incitement of insurrection against former President Donald Trump-image courtesy CSPAN</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — House Democrats delivered the impeachment case against Donald Trump to the Senate for the start of his historic trial, but Republican senators were easing off their criticism of the former president and shunning calls to convict him over the deadly siege at the U.S. Capitol.It’s an early sign of Trump’s enduring sway over the party.The nine House prosecutors carried the sole impeachment charge of “incitement of insurrection” across the Capitol on Monday night, making a solemn and ceremonial march to the Senate along the same halls the rioters ransacked just weeks ago. But Republican denunciations of Trump have cooled since the Jan. 6 riot. Instead Republicans are presenting a tangle of legal arguments against the legitimacy of the trial and questioning whether Trump’s repeated demands to overturn Joe Biden’s election really amounted to incitement.What seemed for some Democrats like an open-and-shut case that played out for the world on live television, as Trump encouraged a rally mob to “fight like hell” for his presidency, is running into a Republican Party that feels very differently. Not only are there legal concerns, but senators are wary of crossing the former president and his legions of followers — who are their voters.&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/lawmakers-trump-impeachment-trial-b9a44a269d6cfeee28e79b46572d28a6">Security remains tight at the Capitol.</a>Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, asked if Congress starts holding impeachment trials of former officials, what’s next: “Could we go back and try President Obama?”Besides, he suggested, Trump has already been held to account. “One way in our system you get punished is losing an election.”Arguments in the Senate trial will begin the week of Feb. 8, and the case against Trump, the first former president to face impeachment trial, will test a political party still sorting itself out for the post-Trump era. Republican senators are balancing the demands of deep-pocketed donors who are distancing themselves from Trump and voters who demand loyalty to him. One Republican, Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio, announced Monday he would not seek reelection in 2022, citing the polarized political atmosphere.For Democrats the tone, tenor and length of the upcoming trial, so early in Biden’s presidency, poses its own challenge, forcing them to strike a balance between their vow to hold Trump accountable and their eagerness to deliver on the new administration’s priorities following their sweep of control of the House, Senate and White House.Biden himself told CNN late Monday that the impeachment trial “has to happen.” While acknowledging the effect it could have on his agenda, he said there would be “a worse effect if it didn’t happen.”Biden said he didn’t think enough Republican senators would vote for impeachment to convict, though he also said the outcome might well have been different if Trump had six months left in his term.In a Monday evening scene reminiscent of just a year ago — Trump is now the first president twice impeached — the lead prosecutor from the House, this time Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, stood before the Senate to read the House resolution charging “high crimes and misdemeanors.”Earlier, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said failing to conduct the trial would amount to a “get-out-jail-free card” for others accused of wrongdoing on their way out the door.Republicans appear more eager to argue over trial process than the substance of the case, he said, perhaps to avoid casting judgment on Trump’s “role in fomenting the despicable attack” on the Capitol.Schumer said there’s only one question “senators of both parties will have to answer before God and their own conscience: Is former President Trump guilty of inciting an insurrection against the United States?”On Monday, it was learned that Chief Justice John Roberts is not expected to preside at the trial, as he did during Trump’s first impeachment, potentially affecting the gravitas of the proceedings. The shift is said to be in keeping with protocol because Trump is no longer in office.Instead, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D- Vt., who serves in the largely ceremonial role of Senate president pro tempore, is set to preside.Leaders in both parties agreed to a short delay in the proceedings that serves their political and practical interests, even as National Guard troops remain at the Capitol amid security threats on lawmakers ahead of the trial.The start date gives Trump’s new legal team time to prepare its case, while also providing more than a month’s distance from the passions of the bloody riot. For the Democratic-led Senate, the intervening weeks provide prime time to confirm some of Biden’s key Cabinet nominees.Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., questioned how his colleagues who were in the Capitol that day could see the insurrection as anything other than a “stunning violation” of the nation’s history of peaceful transfers of power.“It is a critical moment in American history,” Coons said Sunday in an interview.An early vote to dismiss the trial probably would not succeed, given that Democrats now control the Senate. The House approved the charge against Trump on Jan. 13, with 10 Republicans joining the Democrats.Still, the mounting Republican opposition to the proceedings indicates that many GOP senators will eventually vote to acquit Trump. Democrats would need the support of 17 Republicans — a high bar — to convict him.One by one, Republican senators are explaining their objections to the unprecedented trial and scoffing at the idea of trying to convict Trump now that he’s no longer in office.Rand Paul of Kentucky said that without the chief justice presiding the proceedings are a “sham.” Joni Ernst of Iowa said that while Trump “exhibited poor leadership,” it’s those who assaulted the Capitol who “bear the responsibility.” New Sen. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama said Trump is one of the reasons he is in the Senate, so “I’m proud to do everything I can for him.”Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., is among those who say the Senate does not have the constitutional authority to convict a former president.Democrats reject that argument, pointing to an 1876 impeachment of a secretary of war who had already resigned and to opinions by many legal scholars. Democrats also say that a reckoning of the first invasion of the Capitol since the War of 1812, perpetrated by rioters egged on by a president as Electoral College votes were being tallied, is necessary.A few GOP senators have agreed with Democrats, though not close to the number that will be needed to convict Trump.Mitt Romney of Utah said he believes “what is being alleged and what we saw, which is incitement to insurrection, is an impeachable offense. ... If not, what is?” Romney was the only Republican senator to vote for conviction when the Senate acquitted Trump in his first impeachment trial.___