“Congress has been complicit and made itself a feckless branch of the federal government by granting the president so many emergency powers and refusing to regularly vote on termination of national emergencies as required by current law,” said Republican Sen. Rand Paul.

Policy, politics and progressive commentary

WASHINGTON — Senators from both political parties at a Wednesday hearing appeared to be on the same page about limiting presidential emergency powers, striking a bipartisan agreement that Congress should take steps this year to rework a decades-old law.

The National Emergencies Act, approved during the 94th Congress, provides the president with powers they wouldn’t otherwise have and was intended to give lawmakers oversight of those emergencies.

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Gary Peters, a Michigan Democrat, said there are “common sense reforms that would strengthen Congress’ role in exercising oversight of these emergency powers.”

Peters said he looks forward to collaborating with Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul, ranking member on the committee, as the panel works “diligently to make that happen in the coming months.”

“Reforming the National Emergencies Act is not about thwarting the policy goals of either party,” Peters said. “It’s about strengthening our democracy and ensuring Congress maintains the responsibility to oversee executive power.”

‘Dangerous imbalance’

Paul said the current structure of the 1976 law, which was affected by a Supreme Court ruling in the 1980s, creates a “dangerous imbalance of constitutional separations of powers.”

“Congress has been complicit and made itself a feckless branch of the federal government by granting the president so many emergency powers and refusing to regularly vote on termination of national emergencies as required by current law,” he said.

Paul said he hoped the hearing marked the beginning “of a serious and sustained effort to restore the Constitution, reclaim the authority of Congress and protect the liberties of the people by paring back the vast emergency powers delegated to the president.”

Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the liberal-leaning Brennan Center for Justice, testified there are 43 emergency declarations under the National Emergencies Act in place today, out of 79 total declarations.

That is especially concerning, Goitein said, because “an emergency declaration unlocks powers contained in more than 130 statutory provisions, and some of these carry enormous potential for abuse.”

One emergency power allows the president to take over or shut down wire or radio services, a process last used during World War II when that applied to telephones and telegrams that weren’t in many American homes, she said.

“Today, it could arguably be used to exert control over U.S.-based internet traffic,” Goitein said. “Other laws allow the president to freeze Americans’ assets without any judicial process, to control domestic transportation and even to suspend the prohibition on government testing of chemical and biological agents on unwitting human subjects.”

It would be “irresponsible” of Congress to continue hoping for “presidential self-restraint” to ensure that an executive doesn’t take their emergency powers too far, she testified.

Trump border wall emergency 

Former President Donald Trump, Goitein said, “opened the door to abusing statutory emergency powers when he declared a national emergency to secure funding for the border wall after Congress had refused to provide that funding.”

“President (Joe) Biden nudged the door open a little bit more when he relied on emergency powers to forgive student loan debt,” she added. “Again, after Congress had considered legislation to forgive debt and had not passed that legislation.”

There are several proposals that would require Congress to approve a president’s emergency declaration within 30 days, otherwise it would terminate. And even if a president received congressional approval, they would have to go back to lawmakers a year later to renew the emergency, Goitein said.

Gene Healy, senior vice president for policy at the libertarian Cato Institute, testified that it is “remarkable that we haven’t seen far greater abuses” of presidential emergency powers under the National Emergencies Act.

Congress should “reset” how emergency powers work by “sunsetting presidential emergency declarations after a matter of weeks and requiring actual authorization from Congress to extend them further,” Healy testified.

Lawmakers should review what emergency powers were granted to presidents under the nearly 50-year-old law and take away any that wouldn’t be necessary during a true emergency or that “are especially susceptible to abuse,” he said.

Satya Thallam, senior fellow at the Foundation for American Innovation and a former senior staff member for the panel, said “the sweet spot for any reform is one that is on its face policy neutral and designed to service only the interests of Congress’ lawmaking role vis-à-vis the president, rather than any particular political agenda.”

The Foundation for American Innovation writes on its website that it was established in 2014 in Silicon Valley as Lincoln Labs. Its mission “is to develop technology, talent, and ideas that support a better, freer, and more abundant future.”

Disruption of peaceful transfer of power

In response to a question from Georgia Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff about how a president could disrupt a peaceful transition of power, Goitein reluctantly testified that she was concerned about the Insurrection Act, which exists outside of the National Emergencies Act.

“The Insurrection Act is a law that allows the president to deploy federal military troops to quell civil unrest or to execute the law in crisis,” she said. “It gives the president extremely broad and judicially unreviewable discretion to deploy troops in ways that could certainly be abused.”

Healy said it would be “prudent” for Congress to “tighten up” the authorities that a president holds under the Insurrection Act.

Paul said he was fully supportive of re-working the Insurrection Act to avoid potential abuses by presidents.

“The Insurrection Act is a thousand times more potent and has the potential for turning the place into, you know, military rule overnight,” Paul said, adding that he’s introduced a bill that would bar presidents from sending the military anywhere without the explicit approval of Congress.

“Our soldiers are great, but they’re not trained to obey the Fourth Amendment, our police are. And even that’s imperfect,” Paul said. “But our police know about the Fourth Amendment. They know they have to get warrants. Armies don’t get warrants.”

Paul said any changes to the Insurrection Act must be “more strict” than changes to the National Emergencies Act, “because you’re talking about putting troops in our cities.”

Paul also said the committee should look closely at the emergency power that could allow a president to essentially turn off the internet during a national emergency, referring to that as the internet kill switch.

“You could become dictator in a day, in a moment, in one executive order,” Paul said.

The post Wide scope of presidential emergency powers could be reined in by Congress this year appeared first on Nevada Current.

Former President Donald Trump on Tuesday was asked if he supports “any restrictions on a person’s right to contraception.” (Photo of a package of birth control pills by Getty Images)

Policy, politics and progressive commentary

WASHINGTON — Donald Trump, the Republican Party’s presumptive nominee for president, suggested during a taped interview with a Pittsburgh TV news station Tuesday that he might be open to states restricting access to contraceptives, though he later appeared to backtrack.

“We’re looking at that and I’m going to have a policy on that very shortly and I think it’s something that you’ll find interesting,” Trump said on KDKA. “It’s another issue that’s very interesting. But you will find it very smart. I think it’s a smart decision, but we’ll be releasing it very soon.”

Trump had been asked if he supports “any restrictions on a person’s right to contraception.”

Trump later added that “things really do have a lot to do with the states. And some states are going to have different policies than others.” That comment came just after being asked if he “may want to support some restrictions, like the morning-after pill or something?”

The former president, who is currently on trial for allegedly facilitating hush money payments to an adult film actress during his 2016 campaign to cover up a prior affair, later posted on his social media platform that he wasn’t advocating for birth control restrictions.

“​​I HAVE NEVER, AND WILL NEVER ADVOCATE IMPOSING RESTRICTIONS ON BIRTH CONTROL, or other contraceptives,” Trump wrote. “This is a Democrat fabricated lie MISINFORMATION/DISINFORMATION, because they have nothing else to run on except FAILURE, POVERTY, AND DEATH. I DO NOT SUPPORT A BAN ON BIRTH CONTROL, AND NEITHER WILL THE REPUBLICAN PARTY!”

Supreme Court rulings

The U.S. Supreme Court has twice ruled in favor of privacy rights for decisions about contraceptives, meaning that any state looking to restrict or ban access to birth control would quickly see that law challenged in federal court.

In the1965 Griswold v. Connecticut case, the justices struck down a Connecticut law that prevented married couples from using birth control, writing that the “right to privacy can be inferred from several amendments in the Bill of Rights, and this right prevents states from making the use of contraception by married couples illegal.”

The Supreme Court later ruled in the 1972 Eisenstadt v. Baird case that the same privacy rights that protected married couples’ decision-making about contraceptives also protected unmarried people.

In that case, the justices held that “unmarried couples have the right to use contraception, based on the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the more nebulous constitutional right to privacy.”

Biden-Harris spokesperson Sarafina Chitika released a written statement Tuesday that Trump’s comments show he “wants to rip away our freedom to access birth control.”

“Women across the country are already suffering from Donald Trump’s post-Roe nightmare, and if he wins a second term, it’s clear he wants to go even further by restricting access to birth control and emergency contraceptives,” Chitika wrote. “It’s not enough for Trump that women’s lives are being put at risk, doctors are being threatened with jail time, and extreme bans are being enacted with no exceptions for rape or incest.”

KDKA-TV Money & Politics Editor Jon Delano posted on social media that viewers interested in the Trump interview could tune in at “4, 5, and 6 to hear comments on the trial, abortion, contraceptives, the economy, energy, trade, and the fairness of PA’s election.”

The Biden campaign posted clips of the interview on their social media account, but it didn’t appear available anywhere else prior to KDKA’s airing.

Other policy hints from Trump

Trump has teased out providing clear policy plans before, telling Time magazine in an April interview that his campaign would put out details in the weeks ahead about his “strong views” on access to mifepristone. The campaign had not done so as of Tuesday afternoon.

The pharmaceutical is one of two drugs used in medication abortions and is currently in front of the U.S. Supreme Court.

The justices heard oral arguments in the case in March and are expected to decide this summer whether to leave the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s prescribing guidelines in place or revert to what was used before changes began taking effect in 2016.

Trump said during the Time magazine interview that he wasn’t going to explain his beliefs about access to mifepristone just then.

“Well, I have an opinion on that, but I’m not going to explain,” Trump said, according to the transcript of the interview. “I’m not gonna say it yet. But I have pretty strong views on that. And I’ll be releasing it probably over the next week.”

The post Trump signals he’s open to state limits on contraceptive access, then insists he’s not appeared first on Nevada Current.

The PACT Act added 23 illnesses to the list of toxic-exposure-related ailments presumed to be connected to military service. (Photo by Andrew Burton/Getty Images)

Policy, politics and progressive commentary

WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden is set to announce in New Hampshire on Tuesday that 1 million claims have been granted for benefits under the toxic exposure law that Congress approved less than two years ago, following the military’s use of open air burn pits in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The law, approved with broad bipartisan support following years of advocacy by veterans, their families and service organizations, has also led to more than 145,000 people enrolling in health care provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Secretary of Veterans Affairs Denis McDonough told reporters on a call ahead of the announcement that the law has made “tangible, life-changing differences for” veterans and their survivors.

“That has meant more than $5.7 billion in earned benefits for veterans as well as access to no-cost VA health care across all 50 states and the territories,” McDonough said.

White House Domestic Policy Advisor Neera Tanden said during the call that the law, known as the PACT Act, “represents the most significant expansion of benefits and services for toxic-exposed veterans, including veterans exposed to burn pits and certain veterans exposed to radiation and Agent Orange.”

“This is truly personal for the president given his experiences as a military parent,” Tanden said. Biden’s son, Beau, died at 46 years old in 2015 from brain cancer.

The approval rate for benefits under the PACT Act is about 75%, according to a senior administration official.

Biden is set to make the announcement during a trip to Merrimack, New Hampshire.

Congress struggled for years before reaching a compromise on when and how to provide health care and benefits for veterans exposed to open air burn pits during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Hazardous chemicals, medical waste, batteries and other toxic substances were disposed of in those burn pits, typically located on military bases. Service members had no choice but to live and work alongside the smoke, often breathing it in.

The law added 23 illnesses to the list of conditions that the VA presumes are connected to military service, eliminating the arduous and complicated process that many veterans had to undergo to try to get health care and benefits for those diagnoses.

Before the bill became law, veterans often had to prove to the VA that their illnesses were connected to their military service if they wanted to receive benefits or health care for those illnesses.

The U.S. Senate voted 84-14 in June 2022 to send the legislation to the House, where it was delayed for weeks over a dispute about incentivizing health care providers to move to rural or very rural areas.

The bill passed the House following a 342-88 vote in July, after that section was removed from the package. Senators voted 86-11 in August to send the bill to Biden’s desk.

The president signed the bill during a ceremony on Aug. 10.

“When they came home, many of the fittest and best warriors that we sent to war were not the same,” Biden said during the event. “Headaches, numbness, dizziness, cancer. My son Beau was one of them.”

The VA has an interactive dashboard that provides veterans with information about how to apply for health care and benefits under the PACT Act as well as how many claims have been submitted. The VA has a calendar of in-person events that can be found here. Veterans or their family members can also call the VA at 800-698-2411 to inquire about PACT Act benefits.

The post Biden to announce 1 million claims granted for VA benefits under toxic exposure law appeared first on Nevada Current.

Missouri Republican U.S. Sen. Eric Schmitt speaks during a press conference on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, May 15, 2024. Kansas Republican Sen. Roger Marshall stands at the left and Wisconsin Republican Sen. Ron Johnson is on the right. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

Policy, politics and progressive commentary

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate on Wednesday rejected efforts to roll back guidance from the Treasury Department regarding how state and local governments can spend funding approved by Congress during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The 46-49 vote on the Congressional Review Act resolution ended an attempt by several GOP senators to block the Biden administration from changing the definition of “obligation” as it relates to State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds and the timeline for spending some of that money.

Missouri Republican Sen. Eric Schmitt said during floor debate that the Treasury Department’s change in guidance, which was released in November, was trying to “pull a fast one” on Congress.

“Treasury’s attempted sleight of hand to keep the COVID spending spigot on is an insult to Congress and those who believe in our Constitution, as well as a complete misuse of taxpayer dollars,” Schmitt said.

The fund for state and local governments, Schmitt said, was intended to assist with “revenue shortfalls tied to the COVID-19 pandemic” and the law clearly stated that “all costs incurred with money from this fund must be incurred by Dec. 31, 2024.”

The interim final rule that the Treasury Department released around Thanksgiving extended that deadline by two years for “administrative and legal costs, such as compliance costs and internal control requirements,” he said.

“This rule ensures that funding does not go to bridges or broadband, but to bureaucrats,” Schmitt said.

Projects affected in multiple states

Oregon Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden spoke against the CRA resolution during floor debate, saying it could have impacted 17 projects in Georgia, 160 in Michigan, 342 in Ohio, 50 in Arizona, 404 in Montana and 73 in West Virginia.

“Nationwide there could be thousands of projects closed. Tens or even hundreds of jobs lost,” Wyden said. “This one is one of the most unusual votes that I’ve seen recently, a true head scratcher.”

Wyden said he didn’t “see a good reason for the United States Senate to backtrack on solid, bipartisan progress and have this chamber act in a way that leaves more of our nation’s infrastructure in a state of disrepair.”

Schmitt said during a press conference before the vote that the claim the CRA resolution would have impacted projects already underway was a lie.

“Essentially the obligations that are committed before the end of 2024, according to existing law, will be honored,” Schmitt said. “What this says is that you can’t extend that out into ‘25 and ‘26. That was never the congressional intent here.”

Kansas Republican Sen. Roger Marshall, also speaking at the GOP press conference, said the CRA resolution would claw back about $13 billion and went as far as calling it “illegal spending.”

“The clock is going to run out, but Joe Biden is trying to circumvent the law once again,” Marshall said, adding that the COVID-19 pandemic is over and spending from those laws needs to wind down.

Counties, cities opposed

Schmitt introduced the two-page CRA resolution in February along with Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, Mike Braun of Indiana, Tom Cotton of Arkansas, Joni Ernst of Iowa, Bill Hagerty of Tennessee, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, Marshall and Rick Scott of Florida.

The National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities and the Government Finance Officers Association urged lawmakers to vote against the CRA in a written statement released Wednesday before the vote.

“The $350 billion SLFRF provided $65.1 billion to every city and county in America, and since 2021, localities have used these crucial resources to meet the unique needs of residents and support long-term economic prosperity,” the statement read.

The three organizations wrote that the Treasury Department’s interim final rule “recognized the importance of flexibility in facilitating the effective rollout of recovery funds, including our ability to use funds for certain personnel costs and to re-obligate funds where necessary.”

The White House released a Statement of Administration Policy on Wednesday, saying that President Joe Biden would veto the CRA had it reached his desk.

The CRA resolution, it said, “could result in projects being canceled midstream, reduced project management and oversight, and higher costs as state and local governments are forced to contract out programs.”

“Nearly all SLFRF funds have been committed to projects, including infrastructure and disaster relief projects made eligible by bipartisan legislation,” the SAP read. “S.J. Res. 57 would create unnecessary uncertainty for recipients that are executing on projects, jeopardize important work underway, and inappropriately constrain Treasury’s ability to address ongoing implementation issues.”

The post U.S. Senate GOP tries to block states from spending some of their COVID relief cash appeared first on Nevada Current.

Nevada Rep. Susie Lee and Sen. Jacky Rosen, both Democrats, are listed in the analysis from the Lugar Center and the McCourt School of Public Policy at Georgetown University which ranks members of Congress on bipartisanship. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

Policy, politics and progressive commentary

WASHINGTON — Two Nevadans, both Democrats, were among the most bipartisan members of Congress last year, according to a newly released analysis.

Jacky Rosen ranked as the 6th most bipartisan senator, and Susie Lee ranked as the 7th most bipartisan member of the House, according to rankings compiled by the Lugar Center and the McCourt School of Public Policy at Georgetown University. Both are are running for reelection in what are expected to be close races.

Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins and Pennsylvania Republican Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick were the most bipartisan members of Congress last year.

“I’m proud to be recognized as one of the top 10 most bipartisan senators for the third year in a row for my work with Republicans, Democrats, and Independents to help lower costs, support our state’s economy, and protect our national security,” said Rosen in a statement.

“I’ll always put our state first, above politics and party loyalty, to see that Nevadans get ahead,” added Rosen, who has run campaign ads this year touting her willingness to vote with Republicans.

“Hardworking families in southern Nevada care less about political parties and more about common sense solutions,” Lee said in a statement.“I’m proud to have been named Nevada’s most bipartisan Member of Congress and one of the top ten most bipartisan lawmakers in the U.S. House of Representatives. I will continue working with my Republican colleagues to help Nevada’s families, small businesses, seniors, and veterans.”

Nevada’s other senator, Democrat Catherine Cortez Masto was ranked the 34th most bipartisan of the 100 senators. Among the other three members of Nevada’s House delegation, Democrat Dina Titus ranked 94th, Republican Mark Amodei ranked 147th, and Democrat Steven Horsford ranked 368th.

The least bipartisan House lawmaker was Ohio Republican Jim Jordan, while Alabama’s Katie Britt, a Republican freshman, placed last among senators.

The latest ranking of the most bipartisan lawmakers comes amid one of the least productive Congresses in the nation’s history and just months before nearly all House lawmakers and about one-third of the Senate face voters at the polls in November.

Maria Cancian, dean of the McCourt School of Public Policy, wrote in a statement announcing the new rankings that “while there is much room for improvement, I am encouraged to see some progress on cross-party collaboration.”

“In these deeply divided times, and with an increasing amount of misleading information online, we need tools like the Bipartisan Index more than ever — an evidence-based and nonpartisan approach for measuring how well policymakers work across the aisle to get things done,” Cancian wrote.

Lugar Center Policy Director Dan Diller wrote that it was “especially disheartening that all eight new Senators who took office in January 2023 ranked in the bottom 30 percent of Senate scores.”

“Bipartisan cooperation on legislation in 2023 was deficient by historical standards, though there were some marginal improvements in scores from the previous Congress,” Diller wrote.

The website with the rankings states that the “Bipartisan Index is intended to fill a hole in the information available to the public about the performance of Members of Congress.”

The Lugar Center, founded by the late U.S. Sen. Richard Lugar, a Republican from Indiana, “is a platform for informed debate and analysis of global issues, including nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction, global food security, foreign assistance effectiveness and global development, energy security, and enhancing bipartisan governance,” according to its website.

The rankings take into consideration “the frequency with which a member of Congress sponsors bills that are co-sponsored by at least one member of the opposing party” and “the frequency with which a member co-sponsors bills introduced by members of the opposite Party.”

Hugh Jackson contributed to this report.

The post Rosen, Lee make list of most bipartisan members of Congress appeared first on Nevada Current.

A sales representative shows prospective customers a BYD Dolphin electric car at a BYD dealership on April 05, 2024 in Berlin, Germany. BYD, which stands for Build Your Dreams, is a Chinese manufacturer that went from making solar panels to electric cars. (Photo by Sean Gallup/Getty Images)

Policy, politics and progressive commentary

WASHINGTON — The Biden administration is doubling and in some cases tripling tariffs on Chinese-made products, like steel and electric vehicles, in a move aimed at easing economic pain in battleground states, though senior administration officials say it isn’t political.

National Economic Advisor Lael Brainard told reporters on a call Monday ahead of the announcement that the steep increase to several tariffs would help address the Chinese government “flooding global markets with exports that are underpriced due to unfair practices.”

“We know China’s unfair practices have harmed communities in Michigan and Pennsylvania and around the country that are now having the opportunity to come back due to President Biden’s investment agenda,” Brainard said, mentioning two crucial swing states ahead of November’s election.

President Joe Biden’s decision to increase several tariffs, Brainard said, ensures “that American businesses and workers have the opportunity to compete on a level playing field in industries that are vital to our future, such as clean energy and semiconductors.”

Here are the tariffs that will increase and when the White House will implement those changes:

• Steel and aluminum will move from a 7.5% tariff to a 25% tariff this year.
• Semiconductor tariffs will rise from 25% to 50% before 2025.
• Electric vehicle tariffs will increase from 25% to 100% this year.
• Batteries: The tariff on lithium-ion EV batteries and battery parts will rise from 7.5% to 25% in 2024. The tariff on lithium-ion non-EV batteries will rise to the same level in 2026.
• Solar cells will rise from a 25% tariff to a 50% tariff this year.
• Ship-to-shore cranes will get a 25% tariff this year. They currently aren’t subject to tariffs.
• Medical products: Tariffs on personal protective equipment, including face masks, will increase this year and tariffs on rubber medical and surgical gloves will go up in 2026. Both will be set at 25%. Tariffs on syringes and needles will go from not having a tariff to 50% in 2024.

Senators appealed for tariff increases

A group of seven Democratic U.S. senators wrote to Biden earlier this month, urging him and United States Trade Representative Katherine Tai to “maintain or increase the tariffs to address China’s continued actions to cheat and undermine our national security.”

Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, Bob Casey and John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, Gary Peters and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York all signed on to the letter.

The senators wrote that tariffs “are an important tool to level the playing field and combat anti-competitive practices from non-market economies and trade cheats, and they must remain in place.”

“China has continued to cheat, circumvent, and manipulate to artificially strengthen its economy and harm the United States,” the senators wrote. “Across sectors like steel, solar products, and electric vehicles, China employs tactics to distort markets and create artificially low prices by illegally subsidizing its industries and producing to overcapacity.”

Tariffs on electric vehicles

A senior administration official, speaking with reporters on background Monday to discuss details of the changes, said the higher tariffs on electric vehicles are necessary to avoid China having an unfair share of the global market.

“If we have a level playing field, we and other countries will have the chance to compete and that’s the kind of dynamic that we think will produce resilient supply chains and clean technology and give us our best chance of meeting our climate goals,” the senior administration official said.

A second senior administration official declined to “speculate” about whether China would set retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods, saying that officials from that country are likely to speak publicly in the coming days.

A third senior administration official on the call said the decision to raise certain tariffs and the timing of the announcement “has nothing to do with politics.”

That official also said there are differences between the production of electric and gas-powered vehicles in China, which is why the Biden administration is raising tariffs on one, but not the other.

“We’ve been thoroughly studying and assessing how the Chinese have been investing in their electric vehicle domestic industry and the range of unfair best practices that are giving them a significant unfair pricing competitive advantage,” the third official said. “So I think that’s the reason why we’re moving towards a significant step up in the tariff rate for electric vehicles.”

The post Tariffs to be sharply hiked by Biden administration on Chinese-made products appeared first on Nevada Current.

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., right, and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., stand for the national anthem during the statue dedication ceremony for civil rights leader Daisy Bates in Statuary Hall at the U.S. Capitol Wednesday. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

Policy, politics and progressive commentary

WASHINGTON — Efforts by a small group of far-right U.S. House Republicans to remove Speaker Mike Johnson from his leadership role failed Wednesday night, ending weeks of infighting about whether the Louisianan should remain the head of that chamber.

Republican lawmakers joined by Democrats voted 359-43 to table, or set aside, the so-called motion to vacate that Georgia GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene originally filed in March, before spending weeks calling for Johnson to resign.

All four of Nevada’s members of the House voted to scrap Greene’s motion, including the sole Nevada Republican in the House, Mark Amodei.

Greene was backed by Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie and Arizona Rep. Paul Gosar ahead of the vote, though a few more GOP lawmakers signaled their frustrations with Johnson’s leadership by voting to move ahead with a vote, instead of tabling it.

Greene, reading from her lengthy motion to vacate before the vote, rejected Johnson bringing broadly bipartisan bills to the House floor during his six months as speaker.

The government funding bills, Greene said, showed that “Johnson supported fully funding abortion, the trans agenda, the climate agenda, foreign wars and Biden’s border crisis, rather than ensuring liberty, opportunity and security for all Americans.”

“Mike Johnson is ill-equipped to handle the rigors or the job of speaker of the House and has allowed a uniparty — one that fuels foreign wars, tramples on civil liberties and increases our disastrous national debt — to take complete control of the House of Representatives,” Greene said.

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, a Louisiana Republican, moved to table Greene’s motion.

House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Democratic Whip Katherine Clark and Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar announced last week they would vote to keep Johnson in the speaker’s office.

Greene and Massie met with Johnson for two hours on Monday and about 90 minutes on Tuesday, laying out their requirements for not offering the motion to vacate. Greene said the ball was in Johnson’s court on whether to comply with the changes or not.

The vote was considerably different from the vote to remove former Speaker Kevin McCarthy, a California Republican, that took place in October after Florida GOP Rep. Matt Gaetz filed another motion to vacate.

Eight Republicans and the chamber’s Democrats all voted to remove McCarthy from his leadership post.

The House Republican Conference then spent weeks debating behind closed doors who should become their nominee for speaker — first selecting Scalise, who withdrew after just one day without holding a floor vote; then choosing Ohio’s Jim Jordan, who took his bid to the floor for a series of failed votes; and then Minnesota Rep. Tom Emmer, who withdrew after just hours as the nominee.

House Republicans then voted to nominate Johnson, who received unanimous support from fellow GOP lawmakers during the floor vote.

Johnson held that leadership role for less than six months before Greene began calling for him to step down from the speaker’s office or face a motion to vacate him from the office on the House floor.

Greene and others have become increasingly angry that Johnson has brought bipartisan bills to the floor for votes, including government funding legislation, the reauthorization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and a $95 billion aid package for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan.

Johnson’s detractors argue that he should have done more to push for conservative policy wins, even though any legislation that passes the House must move through the Democratic-controlled Senate and avoid President Joe Biden’s veto pen in order to become law.

Greene has also argued that Johnson allowing broadly bipartisan legislation to pass on the House floor could risk Republican candidates’ chances of winning seats during the November elections.

The post Marjorie Taylor Greene fails in attempt to oust House Speaker Mike Johnson appeared first on Nevada Current.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., and Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., speak to reporters in Statuary Hall after meeting with U.S. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., in the U.S. Capitol Building on May 06, 2024, in Washington, D.C. Last week, Greene threatened to move forward with a ‘motion to vacate’ over her dissatisfaction with the Speaker’s handling of the government funding legislation. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

Policy, politics and progressive commentary

WASHINGTON — U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson and Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene plan to meet privately Tuesday amid her calls for him to resign or face a floor vote that could, but likely won’t, remove the Louisiana Republican from leadership.

Greene announced the meeting Monday evening after she and Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie met privately with Johnson for two hours over disagreements about how he’s been running the House with a narrow GOP majority.

Greene, speaking briefly to reporters outside the speaker’s office after the meeting wrapped up, didn’t divulge details of what she, Massie and Johnson discussed.

“Let me tell you, I have been patient. I have been diligent. I have been steady. And I’ve been focused on the facts,” Greene said. “And none of that has changed. So I just had a long discussion with the speaker in his office about ways to move forward for a Republican-controlled House of Representatives.”

Greene, standing next to Massie, then said they would be meeting again on Tuesday.

Greene repeatedly has expressed her anger that Johnson has brought successful pieces of legislation to the House floor with bipartisan backing. Some of those recent bipartisan measures include government funding packages in March and military and humanitarian assistance to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan in April.

Johnson last week issued a statement that Greene’s motion to vacate was wrong.

“This motion is wrong for the Republican Conference, wrong for the institution, and wrong for the country,” he wrote.

House Democratic leaders last week issued a statement vowing to back Johnson if far-right Republicans try to remove him as speaker, which makes it unlikely the motion to vacate will succeed.

In late March, Greene filed a resolution to remove Johnson, following a bipartisan vote to approve the last remaining appropriations bill of fiscal year 2024. Since then, she has gained support from Massie and Arizona’s Paul Gosar.

Johnson was unanimously elected to the post about seven months ago following three weeks of chaos in October, in which Republicans were unable to agree on a lawmaker to take the speaker’s gavel after a small group of GOP lawmakers ousted former Speaker Kevin McCarthy of California.

The post Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene huddles with U.S. House speaker she’s trying to oust appeared first on Nevada Current.

An attendee looks at a series of banners for National Crime Victims’ Rights Week Candlelight Vigil on the National Mall on April 24, 2024, in Washington, D.C. The Justice Department’s Office for Victims of Crime held the event to pay tribute to victims and survivors of crime and individuals who provide service and support. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

Policy, politics and progressive commentary

WASHINGTON — States and local organizations that aid victims of sexual assault and other crimes are raising the alarm about a multi-year plunge in funds, a major problem they say Congress must fix soon or programs will be forced to set up wait lists or turn victims away altogether.

Affected are rape crisis centers, domestic violence shelters, child advocacy centers and more that serve millions of Americans and can’t necessarily rely on scarce state or local dollars to keep the doors open if federal money runs short.

The problem has to do with a cap on withdrawals from the federal crime victims fund, put in place by Congress years ago in an earlier attempt at a solution.

Under the cap, how much money is available every year is determined by a complex three-year average of court fees, fines and penalties that have accumulated — a number that has plummeted by billions during the past six years. The fund does not receive any taxpayer dollars.

National Children’s Alliance CEO Teresa Huizar said in an interview with States Newsroom that child advocacy centers, which help connect children who have survived sexual or domestic abuse to essential services, have no fat left to trim in their budgets.

“What children’s advocacy centers are really looking at now are a set of extremely hard choices,” Huizar said. “Which kids to serve, which kids to turn away? CACs that have never had to triage cases previously, now will have to. CACs that have never had a waitlist for mental health services will now have long, lengthy waitlists to get kids in for therapy.”

“I mean, imagine being a kid who’s been sexually abused and being told you’re going to have to wait six months to see a counselor,” Huizar added. “It’s terrible.”

New Hampshire Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, chairwoman of the spending panel that sets the cap every year based on the dwindling revenue, and Kansas Republican Sen. Jerry Moran, the subcommittee’s ranking member, both indicated during brief interviews with States Newsroom that a fix is in the works, but declined to provide details.

“There is an effort to address that and we’re in the process of doing that, but in the meantime there’s not as much money there,” Shaheen said.

Fund goes up and down by billions every year

Congress established the crime victims fund in 1984 when it approved the Victims of Crime Act. Its funding comes from fines, forfeited bonds and other financial penalties in certain federal cases.

The money flowing into the fund fluctuates each year, making it difficult for the organizations that apply for and receive grant funding to plan their budgets. Congress hoped to alleviate those boom-and-bust cycles by placing the annual cap on how much money can be drawn from the crime victims fund.

But that cap has sharply decreased recently, causing frustration for organizations that rely on it and leading to repeated calls for Congress to find a long-term solution.

The cap stayed below $1 billion annually until fiscal year 2015 when it spiked to $2.3 billion before reaching a high of $4.4 billion in fiscal year 2018.

The annual ceiling then dropped by more than $1 billion, starting the downward trend, according to a report from the Congressional Research Service and data from the Department of Justice.

The cap was set at $2 billion in fiscal year 2021 before rising to $2.6 billion in fiscal 2022 and then dropping to $1.9 billion in fiscal 2023.

Congress set the cap on withdrawals at $1.2 billion for fiscal 2024 when it approved the latest round of appropriations in March, and states and localities have reacted with concern at the prospect of such a dramatic cut. In Iowa, for example, where the state receives $5 million a year, the potential loss of funding posed a major question as legislators wrote their budget for judicial services.

A better fix sought

Congress approved legislation in 2021 to increase the types of revenue from federal court cases moving into the crime victims fund, but advocates say a longer-term answer is needed.

Huizar said the National Children’s Alliance and prosecutors as well as organizations that combat domestic and sexual violence have been urging Congress to fix the funding stream or supplement it to provide stability and consistency.

“Now is the time for Congress to turn urgent attention to this issue if they do not want the safety net for kids and families and serious crime victims to just fall apart,” Huizar said.

A bipartisan group of lawmakers — Reps. Stephanie Bice, R-Okla., Jim Costa, D-Calif., Debbie Dingell, D-Mich., Nathaniel Moran, R-Texas and Ann Wagner, R-Mo. — have introduced legislation that would move unobligated funds collected from entities that defraud the federal government under the False Claims Act to the crime victims fund. The act is a main tool the federal government uses to fight fraud.

That bill is not a long-term solution, but a “temporary infusion of resources,” according to a summary released by lawmakers.

As for the Senate appropriators, Moran said he and others on the spending subcommittee “are waiting for the Judiciary Committee’s examination of the issue, so that we can take the authorizers’ suggestions and take them into account when we appropriate.”

Josh Sorbe, a spokesperson for the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Illinois Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin, wrote in a statement the “sustainability of the CVF is extremely important, as evidenced by Senator Durbin’s work on the VOCA Fix that passed in 2021, and we continue to work with our colleagues and survivor advocates and service providers to examine further ways to strengthen the CVF.”

Shaheen’s office did not provide details about what changes may be in the works, following multiple requests from States Newsroom.

Should taxpayer dollars be tapped?

National District Attorneys Association President Charles Smith said his organization supports the House bill, but noted one problem with the short-term fix is that the crime victims fund would be last in line to get the additional revenue.

“I believe that the government gets their money first, the whistleblower second and then we’re in kind of third place there,” Smith said.

One struggle over the fluctuating revenue and available funding, Smith said, is debate about whether taxpayer dollars should be used to offset low balances.

“We need to set a number that everybody’s happy with, so to speak, and fund it through these available sources,” Smith said. “But if there’s a deficit, there needs to be some mechanism in place for it to come out of the general fund.”

The crime victims fund is essential for witness coordinators and victims assistance coordinators in prosecutors’ offices as well as other services for people who survive crimes.

“They’re critical for the well-being of the victim and a lot of times they are critical for the witness even showing up and testifying,” said Smith, who also is the state’s attorney for Frederick County, Maryland.

The organizations that support crime victims, like child advocacy centers, domestic violence shelters and rape crisis centers, are crucial to prosecutors, Smith said.

“Not only are we directly impacted by a loss of staffing and loss of resources, but a lot of the partner agencies that we rely on collaborating with are going to be hurt as well,” Smith said of the reduction to the funding cap.

‘Real alarm’ in states

Karrie Delaney, director of federal affairs for the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network, said the slowdown of court cases during the COVID-19 pandemic and the last administration not prosecuting as many corporate cases has impacted the fund more than usual.

RAINN is the country’s largest anti-sexual-violence organization. It operates the National Sexual Assault Hotline (800-656-HOPE) alongside local organizations and runs the Defense Department’s Safe Helpline. It “also carries out programs to prevent sexual violence, help survivors, and ensure that perpetrators are brought to justice,” according to its website.

“I think what’s important from RAINN’s perspective is the actual impact that those fluctuations have on the survivors that we support and organizations and service providers across the country,” Delaney said.

When the federal cap decreases, she said, organizations that support crime victims often turn to state and local governments to make up the gap. And a lot of the times there aren’t enough funds to do that.

“What we’ve seen across the states is real alarm that the cuts coming down are not just impacting the ability of these organizations to offer certain services, but to really keep their doors open,” Delaney said.

Child advocacy centers, domestic violence shelters and rape crisis centers, Delaney added, are the “real boots on the ground organizations that are helping people in times of very active crisis that are at risk of seeing their programs drastically cut to the point where service is placed in jeopardy.”

If you are a victim of crime, there are toll free, text and online hotlines available. A list from the Office for Victims of Crime is here. You can also find help in your state here.

The post Plummeting balance in federal crime victims fund sparks alarm among states, advocates appeared first on Nevada Current.

President Joe Biden on Wednesday signed into law foreign aid that includes $60.84 billion in assistance for Ukraine. In this photo, Biden delivers remarks about Russia’s “unprovoked and unjustified” military invasion of neighboring Ukraine in the East Room of the White House on Feb. 24, 2022 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

Policy, politics and progressive commentary

WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden signed a bipartisan emergency spending law Wednesday to provide an additional $95 billion in aid for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan, ending months of behind-the-scenes maneuvering and public pleas for Congress to approve the funding.

The package also included a measure requiring the popular app TikTok be sold by its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, or face a possible ban.

“It should have been easier and it should have gotten there sooner,” Biden said of the spending. “But in the end, we did what America always does — we rose to the moment, we came together and we got it done.”

The foreign aid funding, he said, was not just an investment in the security of American allies but of the United States itself.

“We’re sending Ukraine equipment from our own stockpiles, then we’ll replenish those stockpiles with new products made by American companies here in America,” Biden said. “Patriot missiles made in Arizona, javelins made in Alabama, artillery shells made in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas.”

Biden reiterated that America’s commitment to Israel is “ironclad” and that he would ensure “Israel has what it needs to defend itself against Iran and the terrorists that it supports.”

He also called on Israel to ensure that humanitarian aid can reach civilians in Gaza, who are “suffering the consequences of this war that Hamas started.”

“Israel must make sure all this aid reaches the Palestinians in Gaza without delay,” Biden said. “And everything we do is guided by the ultimate goal of bringing these hostages home, securing a ceasefire and setting the conditions for an enduring peace.”

The Pentagon announced a $1 billion military assistance package for Ukraine minutes after Biden signed the law that includes “air defense interceptors, artillery rounds, armored vehicles, and anti-tank weapons.”

Six months of fighting over assistance

Congress has spent the last six months debating the best way to pass the aid, after Biden sent an emergency spending request to lawmakers in October.

Republican leaders in the House and Senate insisted that changes to border security and immigration laws accompany the military and humanitarian assistance.

Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Lankford, Connecticut Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy and Arizona independent Sen. Kyrsten Sinema huddled for months before reaching a deal.

But former Republican President Donald Trump urged GOP lawmakers to block the bill from advancing in the Senate amid concerns that it would provide a win to the Biden administration in a policy area that weighs heavily for many voters.

After Senate Republicans blocked a package that included the bipartisan border security bill, that chamber moved to pass a $95 billion emergency spending package with aid for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan.

That measure passed in February, but spent the next two months stalled in the House as Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, held a series of meetings on whether that chamber should act.

Johnson ultimately decided to move forward, releasing four bills that would each receive separate votes, before being bundled as one package and sent to the Senate.

The $95 billion in aid for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan was strikingly similar to the Senate bill with an exception that economic aid for Ukraine be categorized as a forgivable loan.

The House voted Saturday to approve all four bills on broadly bipartisan votes and the Senate voted Tuesday night to send the package to Biden’s desk.

House GOP leaders added a measure to the emergency spending bills — called the 21st Century Peace through Strength Act — that wrapped together numerous bills, including the one that requires ByteDance to sell the social media app within one year or face a possible ban within the United States.

Washington Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell, chairwoman of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, said Tuesday that she found it “disturbing” the Chinese government “used TikTok to repeatedly access U.S. user data and track multiple journalists covering the company.”

“As of December 2023, an analysis by Rutgers University found that TikTok posts mentioning topics that are sensitive to the Chinese Government, including Tiananmen Square, Uighurs, and the Dalai Lama were significantly less prevalent on TikTok than on Instagram, the most comparable social media,” Cantwell said.

“Foreign policy issues disfavored by China and Russian Governments also had fewer hashtags on TikTok, such as pro-Ukraine or pro-Israel hashtags,” she added.

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Mark Warner, a Virginia Democrat, said Tuesday that “it is not hard to imagine how a platform that facilitates so much commerce, political discourse and social debate could be covertly manipulated to serve the goals of an authoritarian regime, one with a long track record of censorship, transnational oppression and promotion of disinformation.”

The post Biden signs $95 billion aid package for Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan into law  appeared first on Nevada Current.