By By Zachary Warmbrodt on Apr 20, 2021 08:00 pm
A bipartisan group of senators on Tuesday unveiled plans to offer more emergency pandemic relief to the country's tiniest employers, a last-minute revamp of Washington's nearly $1 trillion small business rescue that is close to exhausting its funding. The bill introduced by Senate Small Business Chair Ben Cardin (D-Md.) would allow thousands of self-employed Americans to qualify for more aid under the massive Paycheck Protection Program, which offers government-backed loans that can be forgiven if businesses maintain payroll. Cardin and the bill's co-sponsors — including Sens. James Lankford (R-Okla.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) — face a narrow window to pass the legislation because PPP funding is expected to run out in the coming weeks. Their bill would not appropriate additional money. As of last week, the program had $44 billion to lend out of the nearly $292 billion made available by Congress since December. It's unclear how many potential borrowers the bill will help without any more money being pumped into the program. And the legislation doesn't extend the May 31 deadline for loan applications either. "No new PPP funding is currently proposed," said Paul Merski, executive vice president of the Independent Community Bankers of America, which represents lenders that make PPP loans. "It is hard to see how all this can be implemented before the money runs out." The last-minute proposal is the latest complication for the PPP, which policymakers have operated via ad hoc and ever-changing guidelines since creating it at the outset of the pandemic. The program has nonetheless been one of the most popular Covid-19 relief efforts, delivering nearly 9.9 million forgivable loans worth more than $762 billion. It was not immediately clear how quickly the legislation would move ahead. The bill's backers would need to try to obtain unanimous consent in the Senate to pass it on an expedited basis. Otherwise, the legislation would be at risk of being bogged down in a lengthy floor debate. Congress is returning to the PPP after passing legislation less than a month ago that extended its application deadline from March 31 to May 31. At that time, lawmakers declined to appropriate additional funding, even as the Small Business Administration, which administers the PPP, warned that the program would be on track to run out of money well ahead of the new deadline. This week, Congress is once again proposing changes to the program without appropriating more funds. While Cardin said earlier this month that he would be open to a bipartisan effort to add more money, sources following the negotiations said Republicans were resistant. "Congress must pass this bill as quickly as possible so eligible small businesses have time to secure the aid they need before PPP closes on May 31," Cardin said Tuesday. The new bill would add new demands on the PPP's limited financial resources. The legislation is a response to complaints raised after President Joe Biden revised the rules for PPP in March so that self-employed individuals, sole proprietors and independent contractors could qualify for larger loans. While the administration's idea was to help a group that had long struggled with access, the changes were only offered to businesses applying for new loans. It triggered a backlash from business owners who had already received PPP loans and were unable to retroactively increase the size of the aid they had already gotten. Cardin's bill would let self-employed individuals who were left on the sidelines apply for additional support under the PPP. Similar treatment would also extend to farmers and ranchers. The SBA would be required to create a new process that would allow those businesses to request a recalculation and potentially receive a payment equal to the difference between what they would have received under the old rules versus what they would have gotten under the new rules. "The Biden administration has taken steps to make PPP more useful to farmers, ranchers and sole proprietors so making the changes retroactive is a matter of basic fairness," Cardin said. The change could prove to be a significant administrative headache for the SBA and private lenders that are responsible for issuing the loans on the agency's behalf. Banks have warned that the smallest applicants can often prove to be the most complicated to process, and some lenders may be reluctant to work with borrowers on retroactive changes. The SBA, a relatively small agency, is already facing huge challenges in administering the PPP as well as separate rescue programs for live performance venues and restaurants. "SBA is overwhelmed with what is already on their plate," Merski said. A concern among advocates for the legislation is how quickly the SBA would be able to implement it if Congress passes the bill. In the past, the SBA has taken weeks to draft rules to execute changes to the PPP. "We would be really interested in seeing how the SBA is planning for implementation, in particular the communication to lenders encouraging them to work on this retroactivity," said Rebecca Shi, executive director of the American Business Immigration Coalition. "These are the smallest borrowers. The majority are businesses of color or rural businesses that will be affected. They've been left out of this program and so this is their opportunity to get fuller relief."
Read in browser »
By By Burgess Everett, Marianne LeVine and Nicholas Wu on Apr 20, 2021 07:20 pm
Derek Chauvin's conviction for the murder of George Floyd is heaping more pressure than ever on the Senate to finally enact nationwide police reform, senators in both parties said Tuesday in the wake of the verdict. And progress toward a bipartisan deal that addresses the fraught issue of police bias is currently at a standstill. Though the House has passed police reform bills, the Senate has yet to approach a deal that can get 60 votes. And there's been no real movement to speak of since last year's Democratic filibuster of Sen. Tim Scott's (R-S.C.) policing measure. Scott said he was relieved by the guilty verdict reached against Chauvin but that more work needed to be done. His party and Democrats conceded one point on Tuesday night: The long-running gridlock on police reform has become untenable for both parties. "It's pretty awful to have the nation's eyes on a courtroom. It's up to us to try to stop this from happening as frequently as it does," said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.). Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) put it even more bluntly: "The judicial system worked. But a man is dead. So that's a very high price to pay. And avoiding more circumstances like this, more events like this, is still a huge priority." Romney suggested a return to Scott's approach, which sought to encourage an end to police use of chokeholds, made lynching a crime and increased disclosure requirements for the use of force. Democrats found that bill relatively toothless and pushed for a more stringent approach that banned chokeholds and no-knock raids. In addition, senators have reached no consensus on whether to end qualified immunity, a legal doctrine that shields police officers from lawsuits. Eliminating qualified immunity is a red line for many Republicans. Despite resolve among senior lawmakers in both parties to move forward, it's not clear Congress can add another divisive issue to its plate. Rep. Karen Bass (D-Calif.), a former Congressional Black Caucus chair and the lead House author of police reform legislation named for Floyd, said it was "extremely important" to reform qualified immunity in any bill that passes Congress. "If you don't like qualified immunity, then tell me what we can do to hold police officers accountable," she said, arguing that Chauvin acted as if he knew he would not be prosecuted or sued. "They have to feel that there are consequences to what they do." Bass said she had talked with Scott and Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) about policing reform and hoped to have a bill on Biden's desk by the end of May, but that there were "no formal negotiations" yet. Her timetable is incredibly optimistic. Congress is set for a recess during one week of May, and it's taken the Senate a full week to negotiate a relatively modest hate crimes bill. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer will follow it with water legislation and a U.S.-China bill — and his chamber still has yet to tackle any gun legislation following a recent spate of mass shootings. Several Republicans were skeptical of their colleagues' insistence on legislative reform of police conduct. Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) warned lawmakers not to "do something [just] to be doing it." Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.), one of the few in the GOP open to touching qualified immunity, was not particularly optimistic about the path forward. "As hard as it is to get anything done here, I think it's still going to revive" discussions, Braun said of Chauvin's conviction. "If it goes anywhere? I'm not sure." Even if the Senate can move forward on a compromise, progressives are likely to push back. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said during an Instagram Live stream after the verdict that House-passed policing legislation is "important" but "not good enough." The failure to craft a better bill lies with Democratic leaders as well as the GOP, Ocasio-Cortez said. Both the left and right have used police reform to try to score political points, with conservatives sloganeering that they "back the blue" and progressives calling to defund the police. Former President Donald Trump literally weaponized the issue last year as his administration forcefully cleared a crowd of protesters from outside the White House, and he urged officials to "dominate" protesters. Even before the verdict was announced, the Chauvin trial itself was politically divisive and spurred incendiary rhetoric. House Republicans tried to censure Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) for telling protesters to "get more confrontational" and "stay on the streets" if Chauvin was acquitted. Meanwhile, several Republicans criticized Biden for suggesting that there was "overwhelming" evidence for a guilty verdict. The debate over police reform is only the latest emblem of Congress' dysfunction. Senate Republicans offered their own proposal led by Scott, but Democrats blocked the measure on the floor. Since then, there's been little tangible movement toward a strategy that could overcome a filibuster, though Schumer has vowed to put the House-passed policing bill on the floor. Police reform joins a litany of other issues the 50-50 Senate is laboring to solve amid real-world pressure across the country, like gun control and immigration. But the sustained attention that policing has received since Floyd's murder, particularly from the Democratic base, means it may be difficult for the Senate to avoid taking up the issue at some point. "The public has paid so much attention to this. And I don't know how Republicans are going to think about this … but there's more impetus on our part," argued Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio). "People saw so much about this and saw what good cops do and what bad cops do, knowing most are good cops." The protests that dominated Washington, D.C. last summer eventually faded away, even though cities like Minneapolis and Portland, Ore., continue to grapple with unrest over police brutality toward African Americans. Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.) said those demonstrations allowed everyone in the country to see that the nation has different standards of justice for white people and people of color. And that if ever there was a "tipping point" to actually do something, she said, it's now. "The reason that so many people took to the street is because they could see that [double standard] and they were demanding change," she said. "So the question here is: Will those demands be heard here in the Capitol? And I've got to be optimistic that they will be." Melanie Zanona contributed.
Read in browser »
By By Sarah Ferris and Melanie Zanona on Apr 20, 2021 04:08 pm
A GOP push to punish Rep. Maxine Waters for encouraging protests against police brutality fizzled on Tuesday. But the effort exposed a massive problem facing congressional leaders in both parties as they struggle to rein in members' inflammatory rhetoric. House Republicans, who have wrestled with incendiary remarks among their own, rallied around a resolution to censure Waters (D-Calif.) for urging Minneapolis protesters to "get more confrontational" and "stay on the streets" if former police officer Derek Chauvin is acquitted of George Floyd's murder later Tuesday. The GOP bid failed in a party-line 216-210 vote Tuesday after House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy brought it up, a big victory for Democratic leaders who successfully defended one of their own committee chairs from the threatened rebuke. The vote occurred roughly an hour before a jury found Chauvin guilty of murdering Floyd, lessening the likelihood of mass protests in Minnesota and throughout the U.S. Nearly a half-dozen centrist Democrats privately considered backing the effort to reprimand Waters, arguing that her comments were out of line with the nation already on edge this week, according to multiple congressional sources. But Democratic leaders, who have uniformly defended Waters, worked hard to keep their caucus together to present a united front against the GOP attacks. The whipping effort went beyond the leadership team, with Waters herself phoning members throughout the day Tuesday, according to a person familiar with the calls. "I love my colleagues and they love me. I don't want to do anything to hurt them or hurt their chances for re-election," Waters told reporters after the vote. "I will make sure that they are comfortable with my kind of advocacy so that we can all be sure that we can do the right thing." Members of the Congressional Black Caucus huddled together to hear the Chauvin verdict, replacing a tense moment for the caucus with sighs of relief, and for some jubilation. "Someone said it better than me: I'm not celebrating, I'm relieved," Waters said after the jury announced its decision. Even several Democrats who are personally uncomfortable with Waters' rhetoric said they would refuse to reprimand her while letting Republicans such as Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) go unpunished for his provocative speech during a Jan. 6 rally hours before a pro-Donald Trump mob attacked the Capitol. Rep. Susan Wild (D-Pa.), among several Democrats who considered voting to censure her colleague, said she was "deeply concerned about [Waters'] word choice" but ultimately did not think it compared to the conduct of some of her GOP colleagues in recent weeks. For those Democrats wary of Waters' remarks, censuring their own colleague while ignoring what's been said by their GOP counterparts — several of whom Democrats have accused of helping to incite the Capitol riot — would smack of hypocrisy. Then there's first-term Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), who has a long history of promoting extremist rhetoric online and was booted off her House committees for endorsing violence against Pelosi. "I had to weigh it long and hard because of the votes we've taken earlier this year," Wild said, referring to the House votes to strip Greene off her committees. "I don't think it rises to that level. But it was not an easy vote." Adding to complications on the resolution, some lawmakers were concerned that punishing Waters — or any member, for that matter — could lead to the weaponization of similar resolutions down the line. Such votes are relatively uncommon in the House, and both parties are typically reluctant to punish their own members on the floor. In recent years, the House has voted on measures to rebuke Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and former Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), for instance, but only after intense pressure from both sides. Republicans had planned to use Tuesday's censure vote to tie vulnerable Democrats to Waters, long a liberal bogeywoman for the GOP. For many members, the debate over whether to punish Waters, a veteran member of the Congressional Black Caucus, reopened a painful schism over how Congress can proceed to normal business — and relationships — after Jan. 6. The GOP's censure push quickly turned into a moment of judgment for several other lawmakers who have courted controversy with their conduct since the fraught 2020 election concluded. "I think it's a totally phony effort to distract from what the Republicans know has been the rhetoric of so many of their members, which has aided and abetted and condoned violent activity," said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer. The Maryland Democrat fiercely defended Waters hours after the judge in the Chauvin trial stunned many in Washington, D.C., by criticizing Waters' remarks from the bench. But the dispute over the resolution was yet another reminder that a Capitol long strained by partisanship remains near a breaking point after the traumatic violence of the insurrection. The attempt to rebuke Waters gave Republicans an opportunity to unify after months spent grappling with their own members' divisive conduct and waging ugly intraparty battles. During a closed-door party meeting Tuesday morning, McCarthy encouraged his members to back his resolution and argued that Waters has incited violence. "Censure is appropriate for the actions she has taken," McCarthy told POLITICO after the meeting. "And we will bring it to the floor and see if Democratic members stand behind the words she said or believe censure is appropriate." House Minority Whip Steve Scalise, argued that Waters' rhetoric was more inflammatory than that of former President Donald Trump, who was impeached for inciting the Jan. 6 riot, and pointed out that the Democrat's remarks were condemned by the judge in the Chauvin case. "In fact, President Trump used the words 'peaceful' when he talked about the statements that he made," Scalise said at a weekly press conference. "I haven't heard Maxine say anything about peacefully protesting." Republicans are also expected to paint Democrats as anti-police in next year's midterms — and Waters' remarks may give them more fodder. Top Democrats, however, presented a united front in defending Waters. Pelosi said Waters doesn't need to apologize and was merely encouraging civil rights-style forms of protests. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said Waters "wants peace." And House Democratic Caucus Chair Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said McCarthy should worry about his own problems. "Lauren Boebert is a mess. Matt Gaetz is a mess. MTG is a mess," Jeffries said, referring to Rep. Greene and other GOP lawmakers who are facing their own political headaches. "Clean up your mess, Kevin. Sit this one out. You've got no credibility here."
Read in browser »
By By Tanya Snyder, Marianne LeVine and Burgess Everett on Apr 20, 2021 04:05 pm
Republican senators Tuesday discussed a counterproposal to President Joe Biden's infrastructure plan, likely coming in at $600 billion to $800 billion and paid for with user fees and unspent Covid relief money. The plan: Two people who attended Tuesday's GOP lunch said the plan, spearheaded by Environment and Public Works ranking member Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.V.) on behalf of a group of centrist Republicans, would cost roughly $600 billion to $800 billion, depending how many years the plan lasted. One of the sources was more specific, putting the plan estimate between $550 billion and $880 billion. The latter number would be for an eight-year plan, the same duration as Biden's $2.2 trillion proposal. POLITICO reported last week that Republicans were preparing an infrastructure counteroffer in the $600 billion to $800 billion range. The pay-for: Capito proposed paying for the plan with user fees that would extend to electric and hydrogen-powered cars, which don't pay gas taxes but which as yet make up a vanishingly small minority of vehicles on the road, and with money left over from the Covid relief package, people in the meeting said. Public-private partnerships would also be a component of the plan. The reception to the counteroffer was positive among Republicans, the meeting attendees said. Capito's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. What's next: Biden on Monday challenged Republicans to bring him an alternative proposal, complete with a way to pay for it, by mid-May.
Read in browser »
By By Kyle Cheney, Nicholas Wu and Sarah Ferris on Apr 20, 2021 02:30 pm
Congressional security officials reversed course late Tuesday and abandoned a plan to reconstruct fencing around the Capitol — one that had been approved by Capitol Police and other security leaders just hours earlier. The plan for fencing was approved in anticipation of potential unrest following the verdict in the trial of Derek Chauvin, the former Minneapolis police officer charged with killing George Floyd. Shortly after the jury returned a guilty verdict on all charges, the Capitol Police revealed they had scrapped the renewed fencing plan. "USCP is no longer planning to go ahead with reinstalling some of the outer perimeter fencing," a spokeperson said in a brief statement that offered no explanation for the change of plans. The rebuilt fence also appeared intended to precede President Joe Biden's first joint address to Congress on April 28. The seesawing security plans came as Congress once again closely scrutinizes its security planning, with many lawmakers still on edge in the wake of the Jan. 6 Capitol riot by supporters of former President Donald Trump. Under the now-abandoned plan, portions of an outer perimeter fence — removed just weeks ago — would have been re-installed. The Senate sergeant-at-arms announced the rebuilding plan in an email to lawmakers and aides shortly before the Capitol Police walked back that very same preparation. The 180-degree turn on outer fence planning also followed frustration from at least one senior lawmaker with responsibilities to oversee Capitol security. Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri, top Republican on the Senate Rules Committee, which oversees Capitol security matters, had expressed frustration that he hadn't been consulted on the new fencing plan. The Capitol Police Board, which includes the Senate and House sergeants-at-arms and the architect of the Capitol, is empowered to make security decisions for the Capitol complex without congressional approval. "Well apparently the Capitol Police and the police Board have no interest in sharing any of these discussions with the oversight committee," Blunt said. "I'm certainly not aware of the particular threat to the Capitol, nor do I think that every time there's some incident somewhere in the country that could possibly create a public response that we should fence off the United States Capitol." "I think it's a mistake and maybe more importantly, as the top Republican on the Rules Committee, no one has stepped forward to explain to me why it would be necessary," he added. A new wave of anxiety on the Hill about possible protests this week, which seemed to abate soon after the Chauvin verdict, coincides with plans to reopen the Capitol to limited groups of visitors on Wednesday. It's the first time that outside visitors on "official business" will be allowed into the House side of the Capitol since the coronavirus pandemic forced significant restrictions. Additional visitors will be allowed into the rest of House buildings next Wednesday, the day of Biden's speech. The House sergeant-at-arms is expected to formally announce the new visitation protocol in a letter to congressional offices on Tuesday. The task of securing the Capitol also came up Monday night in a House Democratic leadership meeting where lawmakers discussed potential protests this week, according to sources familiar with the conversations. Some draconian security measures implemented after Jan. 6 have started to wind down around the Capitol complex. The outer perimeter fence was removed just a few weeks ago, amid bipartisan concern that the heavy fortifications had gnarled traffic in Washington, D.C. and created a fortress-like atmosphere in what has traditionally been an open campus. The National Guard also has scaled back its presence in the Capitol complex in recent weeks, though some troops still remain. But just days after the outer fence came down, an attacker rammed a vehicle into a Capitol Police checkpoint, killing one officer, William Evans, and injuring another. That deadly incident, as well as ongoing reviews of Capitol security in the aftermath of the insurrection, have added an air of uncertainty to safety plans for lawmakers, staff and visitors.
Read in browser »
By By Betsy Woodruff Swan and Daniel Lippman on Apr 20, 2021 01:27 pm
Months before news broke that the feds were investigating him for sex trafficking, Rep. Matt Gaetz was at the center of a separate internal fight at the Justice Department. The sparring match involved an Oval Office meeting, a foul-mouthed threat from the attorney general and voting in Florida. It has not been previously reported. In Aug. 2018, President Donald Trump nominated Larry Keefe — a former law partner of Gaetz's at the firm Keefe, Anchors & Gordon — as U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Florida. More than a year after he was sworn in, and as Joe Biden was locking up the Democratic nomination, Keefe looked to open a wide-ranging probe into voter fraud in Florida, according to two people familiar with the matter. To open the probe, he needed approval from the Public Integrity Section at the Justice Department's headquarters. The lawyers there blanched at the statewide scope of Keefe's proposal, the sources said, and indicated they thought it would be too broad. Keefe told Gaetz that he was facing resistance from the Public Integrity Section, according to a third person familiar with the situation. In a phone interview with POLITICO about this reporting, Gaetz described the conversation this way: "Keefe did not share with me any details of any investigative work, nor would he. We were having a broad discussion about legal doctrine related to jurisdiction and venue." Specifically, Gaetz said their conversation was about whether U.S. attorneys whose districts included state capital cities could investigate voter fraud in parts of the state outside their districts. Gaetz described Keefe's view of the law this way: Since presidential electors are certified in state capital cities, any harm related to their fraudulent certification would be caused there — meaning the U.S. attorneys whose districts included those cities should have the authority to investigate those crimes. "I got the sense from Keefe that the DOJ wanted U.S. attorneys to be very passive when it came to election integrity," Gaetz said. After Keefe and Gaetz discussed the issue, the congressman had a meeting in the Oval Office of the White House with Trump. Gaetz said Trump brought up his views on fraud connected to mail-in voting. In response, Gaetz brought up Keefe's legal theory. "I said to him that an appreciation for the Keefe position on venue would give good U.S. attorneys in every capital city the necessary jurisdiction to root out fraud," Gaetz said. "I also shared with President Trump that Keefe had faced substantial resistance from the Department of Justice."  Gaetz said that Trump then told White House counsel Pat Cipollone, who was in the room, to tell Attorney General William Barr that Trump believed Keefe's legal theory had merit. When Barr learned about Gaetz's conversation with the president, he was incensed. The attorney general called the U.S. attorney and gave him an earful, according to two people familiar with the call. "If I ever hear of you talking to Gaetz or any other congressman again about business before the Department, I am going to fucking fire your ass," Barr told him, according to one of the people with knowledge of the call. Gaetz said he didn't know about any testy conversations. "I am unaware of any discussion Barr had with Keefe," he told POLITICO, "but I did get a message from Keefe subsequent to my meeting in the Oval wherein Keefe said he was not going to be able to discuss these matters with me, and I got the sense that the politics of the Department of Justice were such that they did not want U.S. attorneys looking for election fraud in this type of very proactive way." Barr declined to comment for this story. A spokesperson for Trump also declined to comment. A DOJ spokesperson declined to comment. Trump won Florida handily in the 2020 race. Keefe, like almost every other U.S. attorney appointed by Trump, was asked to resign by the Biden administration and left office on Feb. 28. Keefe said in a statement: "It is not appropriate for me to comment on details related to my previous service as a U.S. Attorney. I stand by the decisions I made and the actions I took in honoring and enforcing the laws of this nation during my public service." Gaetz is reportedly being investigated for whether he engaged in sex trafficking. He has not been charged with a crime, and no women have publicly accused him of sexual misconduct in the three weeks since the New York Times first reported on the investigation. He has denied any wrongdoing. At the time of Keefe and Gaetz's attempted investigation, the issue of voting rights, especially in Florida and other swing states, was a top national political story. Republicans have long raised concerns about voter fraud hurting the legitimacy of elections, even though numerous studies have shown that there are very few actual cases. Voting rights advocates, meanwhile, engaged in a wide-ranging effort to help people convicted of felonies who'd completed their prison sentences register to vote. A landmark constitutional amendment passed in 2018 restored voting rights to people in this category — some experts have estimated it could have let up to 1.4 million people vote in Florida who couldn't previously, as ProPublica reported. But because of a state law and a court ruling, those people also had to pay any outstanding fines, restitution and fees before being able to vote — what has been called a 21st century poll tax. Former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg offered to help pay down the fees, and Florida's Republican attorney general asked the FBI to investigate if the move broke any voting laws.
Read in browser »
By By Anthony Adragna on Apr 20, 2021 01:10 pm
Progressive lawmakers, led by Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), on Tuesday formally revived their push for a Green New Deal, leaning into the framework to swiftly transition off fossil fuels that's become a prominent foil for conservatives. Little more than two years after the Green New Deal landed with a massive splash on Capitol Hill, progressives are broadening their legislative focus beyond the original non-binding resolution to include pushing additional bills. That's been a criticism of institutionalists and some moderate Democrats, who have dismissed the call for a 10-year national mobilization to combat climate change as a political headache lacking sufficient substance. "We're going to transition to a 100 percent carbon free-economy, that is more unionized, more just, more dignified and guarantees more health care and housing than we ever have before," Ocasio-Cortez said at a press conference overlooking the National Mall. "Do we intend on sending a message to the Biden administration that we need to go bigger and bolder? The answer is absolutely yes." Markey credited the climate roadmap with helping to elect a new generation of progressive lawmakers and said he won his own reelection thanks to making the Green New Deal the central part of his campaign. "For the past two years, it has been proven that the Green New Deal isn't just a resolution — it is a revolution," Markey said. "Do we want to go beyond even what Joe Biden has proposed? The answer is yes. We believe that this is the moment that requires us to act big, think big, have a program that matches the magnitude of the problem that we're confronted with. And to do so with justice." But Republicans pounced on the resolution's reemergence. "The Green New Deal is a socialist super-package which will only saddle hard-working taxpayers with debt and displace millions of Americans from their jobs," said Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, in a statement. "Democrats will stop at nothing to push their progressive pet projects on the American people." Deeper legislative push: Among the new legislation is a proposal from Reps. Cori Bush (D-Mo.) and Ocasio-Cortez that would authorize up to $1 trillion for cities, tribes and territories to fund their own localized versions of the Green New Deal. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Ocasio-Cortez also released legislation on Monday that would spend up to $172 billion on public housing over 10 years, more than quadrupling what President Joe Biden's White House has proposed for public housing. There's also a new proposal from Markey and Ocasio-Cortez creating the Civilian Conservation Corps, which they said would provide employment to a diverse group of 1.5 million Americans over 5 years with jobs on climate change projects that come with strong benefits. The broad contours of such a program is embraced by Democrats across the political spectrum and similar to the one Biden established in an early executive order. Ocasio-Cortez said there are now a record 103 co-sponsors of the resolution in the House. More than a dozen pieces of legislation embracing the framework, touching on topics like transportation electrification and agricultural resilience, have already been introduced. The proposals faces stiff headwinds in gaining consensus even among Democrats, but allows the progressive flank of the party to stake its position as Congress prepares to embark on a massive infrastructure spending push. Key context: As much as the non-binding resolution rallied young progressives anxious for urgent action to address climate change (they protested at Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office en masse), it turned into a favored talking point for conservatives, one of whom likened the Green New Deal as "tantamount to genocide" for western states. Then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) even called a vote on the resolution in a bid to jam moderate Democrats in March 2019, but Democrats slammed the "sham" vote and voted present. Republican climate summit: The progressive push lands as House Republicans are convening what they bill as a three-day, virtual "Energy Innovation Summit" where they said climate change should be addressed through approaches like technological innovation and natural solutions, such as tree planting. "Democrats often dismiss Republicans as being disinterested in addressing global climate change — this is just false," Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said in a video unveiling the summit, arguing his conference developed "thoughtful, targeted legislation to reduce global emissions." Some of those sessions stressed the need to further develop carbon capture and advanced nuclear sessions but did not offer any economy-wide approaches to curb emissions. Others harkened back to familiar Republican energy talking points criticizing the cancellation of the Keystone pipeline, slamming burdensome regulations and blasting any potential carbon tax.
Read in browser »
By By Sarah Ferris, Melanie Zanona and Olivia Beavers on Apr 20, 2021 12:21 pm
House Democratic leaders believe they've found a workaround to defuse weeks of delay tactics used by hard-line Republicans that have irked lawmakers in both parties and brought much of the chamber's floor action to a halt. At least temporarily. The conservative firebrands have sought to make life difficult for Democrats in protest against what they say are efforts to shut out the minority party. But their tactics have made it virtually impossible for Democrats and Republicans to fast-track so-called suspension bills — noncontroversial measures that are critical to running the House — and instead created a legislative slog. Under the response shaped by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, leaders of the far-right Freedom Caucus would no longer be able to effectively seize control of the floor by demanding individual votes on dozens of suspension bills and forcing members to vote late into the night, at least for the rest of this week. Instead, Hoyer plans to package much of that broadly palatable suspension legislation into a single block on the floor, which he said would "save us somewhere in the neighborhood of seven-and-a-half hours" of voting time. "What we have seen in the past few weeks has been an unfortunate example of extreme partisanship getting in the way of even the most bipartisan legislation there is," Hoyer said in a statement, confirming POLITICO's reporting on the planning. In total, Hoyer said, the conservatives' tactics have cost at least 15 hours of votes on bills that otherwise could have been approved with little fanfare in a voice vote. "There are Democrats and Republicans who want to get things done, and we will work around those who do not," added House Rules Committee Chairman Jim McGovern. The Freedom Caucus has wrestled over how far to push its rebellion. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy stopped by the group's weekly meeting on Monday evening, where he encouraged members to fine-tune their strategy and focus on achievable goals. McCarthy also warned Freedom Caucus members that they could face potential consequences from Democratic leaders if they keep disrupting the floor. One of the ultimate goals driving the Freedom Caucus' floor tactics is getting controversial Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) back on her committees after a bipartisan vote to strip her of those assignments. But Democrats are ruling out that demand. "I've been meeting with Steny and I went to the Freedom Caucus last night. We had a good discussion," McCarthy told POLITICO in a brief interview. "They want to fight. They're frustrated with everything that's happening, and I get all that. But my point is: What's the goal, what's the strategy?" The House's dispute over suspension bills appears obscure. But beyond the wonky details, it's emblematic of bigger partisan tensions that have dominated the first few months of this Congress as emotions run high following the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection. Shortly after lawmakers were caught up in that day's violence, a handful of Democrats also sought to use suspension bills as a form of protest against Republicans who voted against certification of Donald Trump's loss to President Joe Biden. That effort proved short-lived after top Democrats stepped in and convinced the aspiring rebels that noncontroversial bills needed to easily clear their chamber. Democrats' strategy to vote on suspension bills "en bloc," rather than individually on the floor, is set to be discussed in the House Rules Committee hearing later Tuesday afternoon. Conservatives touted the Democratic move as further proof that Democrats are curbing their rights while the minority. Freshman Rep. Matt Rosendale (R-Mont.) tweeted a Wile E. Coyote gif in response. The House Freedom Caucus also tweeted that Pelosi and House Democrats "are so frustrated" by their efforts, that they are working to considering making changes to ensure they can pass bills without members present to take a formal vote, while arguing that if they "choose to strip of us of our right to request votes, it will be yet another example of Democrats…undermining the rights of the minority party to expedite the passage of their partisan, far-Left agenda."
Read in browser »
By By Nicholas Wu on Apr 20, 2021 04:30 am
The worst day of Chris Murphy's career, as he tells it, came eight years ago this week. That's when the Senate defeated a gun control bill forged after the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in his state. The mass shootings haven't stopped plaguing America ever since. Nor has Congress ceased its perpetual stalemate on universal background checks for gun buyers. But Connecticut's junior senator is leading the charge yet again on the issue — a mid-level policy change that would still be a high-water mark for activists who have spent years battling the NRA and most of the GOP. And this year, Murphy's job is harder than ever: Expectations are high, while patience for compromise and delay is wearing thin. Democrats control all of Washington, and their frustrated base wants to get something done by any means necessary, filibuster be damned. But as gun control legislation looks headed toward the same partisan gridlock as previous efforts, despite a gun lobby at its weakest point in decades, Murphy has little to show for what both parties respect as a good-faith effort. The telegenic young senator, his last decade in the Senate defined by gun violence, is struggling. "It's incredibly heavy to be surrounded by such tragedy," Murphy said in an interview. "I feel a real weight that if by the time my political career is done, we haven't made significant progress on this issue, my time in Washington will be a failure." It's not for lack of trying. Gun control is no pet project for the 47-year-old, who won his first election to the House at age 33. Murphy calls it the issue he's "most passionate about" and "the motivating force for" much of his political career. But, he added, "every single day, I wish there was a different" topic driving him forward. The day before that remarkably candid interview, Murphy had stood on the National Mall alongside other lawmakers to unveil 40,000 white flowers in commemoration of the lives lost to gun violence this past year. The flowers were planted by the group named for his friend and gun control ally, former Rep. Gabby Giffords, who stood with him. Speaker Nancy Pelosi was there, too, with high praise. "We will have legislation because of [Chris] Murphy's persistence," Pelosi said at the event. But as Murphy already knows, his tenacity may not be enough. And he's already contending with an activist base that's worried Democrats still can't get anything done on guns. "We didn't work so hard in 2018 and in 2020 to elect a progressive Congress and White House to see nothing," said Max Markham, policy director of the gun control group March For Our Lives. Cameron Kasky, a graduate of the Florida high school where the 2018 shooting of 17 people inspired a cohort of energized and traumatized young gun control advocates, predicted a backlash against Democrats if they can't act: "If Congress does not really put the pedal to the metal, then we're gonna see really nasty things happen in 2022," he said. Many influential gun control groups are pressing for changes to the filibuster before anything else, seeing the Senate's 60-vote threshold to pass most bills as the main obstacle to progress. The Fix Our Senate coalition calling for the elimination of the filibuster includes gun control groups like Brady: United Against Gun Violence and March For Our Lives. A spokesperson for the bigger coalition, Eli Zupnick, said there was "no chance of meaningful gun safety legislation" with the legislative filibuster intact. But Democrats don't have the votes among themselves to end the filibuster. That leaves activists to put their faith in Murphy, viewing him as an honest broker who won't make concessions they can't swallow. "Murphy's always behind some of the best legislation that you're going to see on guns," said Kasky. And despite his exhaustion with the endless cycle of good-faith attempts followed by collapse, Murphy is trying again. He worked the phones during the Senate's spring recess, talking with what he estimated was close to half of the 50-member Senate GOP conference about background checks. "I've had a lot of very encouraging conversations with Republicans over the last few weeks. I do see a path to 60 votes," he said, adding that he told GOP colleagues he has "no interest in this issue becoming a permanent political cudgel" against them. Among the Republicans whom Murphy called was Indiana Sen. Mike Braun, who recalled listening to Murphy's case but was hesitant to accept a broader deal. "Anything that's going to make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to exercise their Second Amendment [rights], that's not going to go anywhere," Braun said. Braun said that he'd be open to a narrower attempt but not the kind of comprehensive legislation Democrats want. The Indianan described retiring Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) as an anomaly for his past openness to bipartisan work on background checks. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), whom Murphy cited as a potential partner given their past collaboration on improvements to background check systems, also said he'd consider the idea of a narrower bill. Cornyn added that he appreciated the "sort of quiet conversations" he's having with Murphy "to see where we can find common ground." Despite the faint stirrings of possible agreement, Murphy still has to lock in support from senators in his own caucus for whatever bill comes to the floor. That's not a given: Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) played a leading role in shaping the chamber's failed 2013 background checks bill but has recently cast doubt on House-passed legislation to address the issue. Murphy acknowledged a background checks bill might not advance this month, and that it could fail again even if it can get to the Senate floor. He said he wanted to "give this a month or so," hoping for a workable bill by the end of spring or early summer. And if Democrats don't have a filibuster-proof compromise by then, "at some point you will have to call their bluff," he said of Republicans. One factor working in his favor is the waning influence of powerful gun lobby groups like the NRA, the once-influential organization now going through bankruptcy. The Democratic Party has also shifted leftward on guns as its number of red-state incumbents has dwindled. "I don't know ... that we'll have another opportunity like this" to act on guns, he said of Democrats' slim majorities in both chambers of Congress. He's come a long way on the issue since ascending to the Senate in 2013, when guns were "a third rail issue for legislators," said Mark Barden, the co-founder and managing director of the gun control group Sandy Hook Promise. Barden credited Murphy with helping change the national conversation around guns. The senator "knows that this is a long game," said Barden. Murphy's still playing that game. Even if background checks legislation fails again, Murphy sees the push for gun control as a "historic social change movement" in the same vein as the civil rights and marriage equality movements, both of which "suffered a lot of setbacks before they achieved victories." "I hope that we get something substantial done this year," Murphy said. "But I also remember that from the time that [former White House press secretary] James Brady was shot to the day the Brady [gun control] bill passed the Congress, it was over a decade." Marianne LeVine contributed.
Read in browser »
Recent Articles:
| 
No comments:
Post a Comment