ReportWire

Tag: Legislation

  • California Gov. Newsom signs law to slowly raise health care workers’ minimum wage to $25 per hour

    California Gov. Newsom signs law to slowly raise health care workers’ minimum wage to $25 per hour

    [ad_1]

    California Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed a law to raise the minimum wage for health care workers

    ByADAM BEAM Associated Press

    October 13, 2023, 11:11 PM

    EMBARGOED HOLD FOR RELEASE – FILE – California Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks during an interview with Politico in Sacramento, Calif., Sept. 12, 2023. On Friday, Oct. 13, 2023, Newsom announced he signed a law that will increase the minimum wage for health care workers in the state. (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli, File)

    The Associated Press

    SACRAMENTO, Calif. — California will raise the minimum wage for health care workers to $25 per hour over the next decade under a new law Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Friday.

    The new law is the second minimum wage increase Newsom has signed. Last month, he signed a law raising the minimum wage for fast food workers to $20 per hour.

    Both wage increases are the result of years of lobbying by labor unions, which have significant sway in the state’s Democratic-dominated Legislature.

    “Californians saw the courage and commitment of healthcare workers during the pandemic, and now that same fearlessness and commitment to patients is responsible for a historic investment in the workers who make our healthcare system strong and accessible to all,” said Tia Orr, executive director of the Service Employees International Union California.

    The wage increase for health care workers reflects a carefully crafted compromise in the final days of the legislative session between the health care industry and labor unions to avoid some expensive ballot initiative campaigns.

    Several city councils in California had already passed local laws to raise the minimum wage for health care workers. The health care industry then qualified referendums asking voters to block those increases. Labor unions responded by qualifying a ballot initiative in Los Angeles that would limit the maximum salaries for hospital executives.

    The law Newsom signed Friday would preempt those local minimum wage increases.

    It was somewhat unexpected for Newsom to sign the law. His administration had expressed concerns about the bill previously because of how it would impact the state’s struggling budget.

    California’s Medicaid program is a major source of revenue for many hospitals. The Newsom administration had warned the wage increase would have caused the state to increase its Medicaid payments to hospitals by billions of dollars.

    Labor unions say raising the wages of health care workers will allow some to leave the state’s Medicaid program, plus other government support programs that pay for food and other expenses.

    A study by the University of California-Berkely Labor Center found almost half of low-wage health care workers and their families use these publicly funded programs. Researchers predicted those savings would offset the costs to the state.

    The $25 minimum wage had been a point of negotiations between Kaiser Permanente and labor unions representing about 75,000 workers. Those workers went on strike for three days last week. Both sides announced a tentative deal Friday.

    The strike came in a year when there have been work stoppages within multiple industries, including transportation, entertainment and hospitality. The health care industry has been confronted with burnout from heavy workloads, a problem greatly exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • California Gov. Newsom signs law to slowly raise health care workers’ minimum wage to $25 per hour

    California Gov. Newsom signs law to slowly raise health care workers’ minimum wage to $25 per hour

    [ad_1]

    California Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed a law to raise the minimum wage for health care workers

    ByADAM BEAM Associated Press

    October 13, 2023, 11:11 PM

    EMBARGOED HOLD FOR RELEASE – FILE – California Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks during an interview with Politico in Sacramento, Calif., Sept. 12, 2023. On Friday, Oct. 13, 2023, Newsom announced he signed a law that will increase the minimum wage for health care workers in the state. (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli, File)

    The Associated Press

    SACRAMENTO, Calif. — California will raise the minimum wage for health care workers to $25 per hour over the next decade under a new law Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Friday.

    The new law is the second minimum wage increase Newsom has signed. Last month, he signed a law raising the minimum wage for fast food workers to $20 per hour.

    Both wage increases are the result of years of lobbying by labor unions, which have significant sway in the state’s Democratic-dominated Legislature.

    “Californians saw the courage and commitment of healthcare workers during the pandemic, and now that same fearlessness and commitment to patients is responsible for a historic investment in the workers who make our healthcare system strong and accessible to all,” said Tia Orr, executive director of the Service Employees International Union California.

    The wage increase for health care workers reflects a carefully crafted compromise in the final days of the legislative session between the health care industry and labor unions to avoid some expensive ballot initiative campaigns.

    Several city councils in California had already passed local laws to raise the minimum wage for health care workers. The health care industry then qualified referendums asking voters to block those increases. Labor unions responded by qualifying a ballot initiative in Los Angeles that would limit the maximum salaries for hospital executives.

    The law Newsom signed Friday would preempt those local minimum wage increases.

    It was somewhat unexpected for Newsom to sign the law. His administration had expressed concerns about the bill previously because of how it would impact the state’s struggling budget.

    California’s Medicaid program is a major source of revenue for many hospitals. The Newsom administration had warned the wage increase would have caused the state to increase its Medicaid payments to hospitals by billions of dollars.

    Labor unions say raising the wages of health care workers will allow some to leave the state’s Medicaid program, plus other government support programs that pay for food and other expenses.

    A study by the University of California-Berkely Labor Center found almost half of low-wage health care workers and their families use these publicly funded programs. Researchers predicted those savings would offset the costs to the state.

    The $25 minimum wage had been a point of negotiations between Kaiser Permanente and labor unions representing about 75,000 workers. Those workers went on strike for three days last week. Both sides announced a tentative deal Friday.

    The strike came in a year when there have been work stoppages within multiple industries, including transportation, entertainment and hospitality. The health care industry has been confronted with burnout from heavy workloads, a problem greatly exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Montana judge keeps in place a ban on enforcement of law restricting drag shows, drag reading events

    Montana judge keeps in place a ban on enforcement of law restricting drag shows, drag reading events

    [ad_1]

    HELENA, Mont. — A federal judge in Montana is continuing to block enforcement of a law that puts restrictions on drag shows and bans drag reading events in public schools and libraries, saying Friday that the law targets free speech and expression and that the text of the law and its legislative history “evince anti-LGBTQ+ animus.”

    The preliminary injunction, granted by U.S. District Court Judge Brian Morris, prevents enforcement of the law while a lawsuit filed on July 6 moves through the court process. Morris heard arguments over the injunction on Aug. 28.

    In briefs, the state argued “the Legislature determined sexually oriented performances and drag reading events to be indecent and inappropriate for minors,” and potentially harmful.

    Protecting minors from divergent gender expression is not the same as protecting minors from obscene speech, attorney Constance Van Kley argued for the plaintiffs during the Aug. 28 hearing.

    Montana law already protects minors from exposure to obscenities, the plaintiffs argued.

    “The state hasn’t argued meaningfully that the speech targeted by (the new law) — beyond the obscenity already regulated — is potentially harmful to children,” the plaintiffs argued in court filings.

    The state is not trying to establish a new obscenity standard in regulating drag performances, Assistant Attorney General Michael Russell said during arguments over the injunction.

    “We’re arguing that they’re indecent and improper for minors only,” and that the state has an interest to protect minors from that kind of conduct, he said.

    “No evidence before the Court indicates that minors face any harm from drag-related events or other speech and expression critical of gender norms,” Morris wrote in granting the injunction.

    Morris had granted a temporary restraining order against the law in late July, in time to allow Montana Pride to hold its 30th annual celebration in Helena without concerns about violating the law.

    The judge said the way the law was written would “disproportionally harm not only drag performers, but any person who falls outside traditional gender and identity norms.” He said the law did not adequately define actions that might be illegal and appears likely to ”encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.”

    The law seeks to ban minors from attending “sexually oriented performances,” and bans such performances in public places where children are present. However, it does not adequately define many of the terms used in the law, causing people to self-censor out of fear of prosecution, attorneys for the plaintiffs argue.

    The law also made Montana the first state to specifically ban drag kings and drag queens — which it defined as performers who adopt a flamboyant or parodic male or female persona with glamorous or exaggerated costumes and makeup — from reading books to children in public schools or libraries, even if the performances do not have a sexual element.

    The law does not define terms like “flamboyant,” “parodic” or “glamorous,” Morris said in July.

    Enforcement can include fines for businesses if minors attend a “sexually oriented performance.” The law also calls for the loss of state licenses for teachers or librarians, and the loss of state funding for schools or libraries, that allow drag reading events to be held. It allows someone who, as a minor, attended a drag performance that violated the law to sue those who promoted or participated in the event at any time over a 10-year period after the performance.

    Montana’s law is flawed — like similar laws in Florida and Tennessee that have been blocked by courts — because it regulates speech based on its content and viewpoint, without taking into account its potential literary, artistic, political or scientific value, Morris found in July.

    The U.S. Supreme Court in 1972 set guidelines to determine whether something is obscene: Whether the work appeals to the prurient interest — a degrading or excessive interest in sexual matters; whether it depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way; and whether the work lacks serious serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

    Like many Republican-led states, Montana’s conservative lawmakers have passed other laws targeting transgender people. The state’s law banning gender-affirming medical care for minors has been blocked by a state judge. Montana’s Republican-controlled legislature also passed a bill to define sex as only “male” or “female” in state law. That law was challenged this week, with arguments that it blocks legal recognition and protections to transgender, nonbinary and intersex residents.

    “It is absolutely impermissible for the government to deny benefits to a group of people on the basis of their straightforward hostility to them,” said Van Kley. In the “male” or “female” sex case, “there is pretty substantial evidence that the intent was to target transgender people,” Van Kley added.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Lawmakers take aim at credit card interest rates, fees as cardholder debt tops $1 trillion

    Lawmakers take aim at credit card interest rates, fees as cardholder debt tops $1 trillion

    [ad_1]

    Luis Alvarez | Digitalvision | Getty Images

    Some lawmakers and regulators are calling for interest rate caps and lower fees on credit cards as debt levels march higher.

    Total credit card debt topped $1 trillion in the second quarter of 2023 for the first time ever.

    The average interest rate for all cardholders jumped to more than 21% in August, the highest on record, according to Federal Reserve data. Some cards — retail store cards, in particular — charge more than 30%, said Ted Rossman, industry analyst for CreditCards.com.

    More from Personal Finance:
    New Labor Department rules will likely target rollovers to IRAs
    What strikers need to know about unemployment benefits
    77-year-old widow lost $661,000 in a common tech scam

    Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., introduced a bill in September to cap credit card rates (also known as the “annual percentage rate,” or APR) at 18%, citing “higher financial burdens” shouldered by working people.

    The legislation — the Capping Credit Card Interest Rates Act — would also aim to prevent card companies from raising other fees to evade a cap.

    Meanwhile, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau proposed a rule earlier this year to slash fees for late credit-card payments. One prong of the rule would lower fees for a missed payment to $8 from as much as $41.

    In June, four senators — Sens. Richard Durbin, D-Ill.; Roger Marshall, R-Kan.; J.D. Vance, R-Ohio; and Peter Welch, D-Vt. — introduced the Credit Card Competition Act. That act aims to reduce merchant card transaction fees that may get passed on to consumers.

    “I think some of the [political] lines are starting to blur a little bit, at least on credit card issues,” Rossman said.

    However, it’s unclear if these measures will succeed.

    For example, Democrats are “likely to embrace” Hawley’s bill, since progressives have long favored a federal interest-rate cap, Jaret Seiberg, analyst at Cowen Washington Research Group, wrote in a recent research note. But it likely doesn’t have enough support to overcome a filibuster in the Senate and is almost a non-starter in the Republican-controlled House, he said.

    “We do not see a path forward for legislation to cap credit card interest rates,” Seiberg said.

    The CFPB is also embroiled in a legal fight before the Supreme Court that, depending on the outcome, has the potential to erase all agency rulemakings from the books.  

    There’s virtually no federal cap on card rates

    Americans have leaned more on credit cards to pay their bills as pandemic-era inflation raised prices on food, housing and other consumer items at the fastest pace in four decades.

    Credit cards are the “most prevalent form of household debt” — and their use continues to spread, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. There are 70 million more credit card accounts open now than in 2019, it said.

    Rates have moved upward as the Federal Reserve has raised its benchmark interest rate to reduce inflation.

    Credit card interest rates have predominantly remained below 36% due to “self-restraint” by banks, though that’s still “extremely high” for a credit card, said Lauren Saunders, associate director at the National Consumer Law Center.

    However, current federal law generally doesn’t impose a ceiling on rates, she said.

    I think some of the [political] lines are starting to blur a little bit, at least on credit card issues.

    Ted Rossman

    industry analyst for CreditCards.com

    There are some exceptions: The Military Lending Act caps interest for active duty servicemembers and dependents at 36% for consumer credit. Federally chartered credit unions have an 18% limit.  

    Past legislative proposals have also sought to slash interest rates. For example, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y,. introduced a measure in 2019 that would have capped rates at 15%.

    Reps. Jesús “Chuy” García, D-IL, and Glenn Grothman, R-WI, proposed a 36% cap on consumer loans in 2021. Grothman plans to reintroduce the legislation next year, his office said.

    “The 36% interest rate cap for active-duty servicemembers and their families has proven to be a highly effective measure in providing protection against predatory lending practices,” Grothman said in an e-mail. “Why should we not extend these same protections to veterans and all Americans?”

    The financial services industry remains largely opposed to imposing a ceiling.

    Eight trade groups representing lenders like banks and credit unions wrote a letter to Sen. Hawley in September, stating that his proposed cap would have adverse effects like restricting the availability of credit and eliminating or reducing popular card features like cash back rewards.

    Interest income accounts for 80% of company profits on credit cards, according to a 2022 study published by the Federal Reserve.

    How to reduce your personal card rate to 0%

     Rossman’s general advice to consumers: Make your personal credit card rate 0%.

    That means paying your bill in full and on time each month. Such customers don’t get charged interest, while those who carry a balance from month to month generally accrue interest charges.

    That advice wouldn’t change, even if the rate were capped at 15% or 18%, for example, he said.

    “[Such rates] would be better, but no picnic in my estimation,” Rossman said.

    Credit card debt top $1 trillion: Here are ways to help pay it off

    The average credit card balance is almost $6,000, according to TransUnion.

    At 18% interest, cardholders with an average balance who make only the minimum monthly payment would be in debt for 206 months and make $7,575 in total interest expenses, according to Rossman. (The latter figure doesn’t include payments toward principal.)

    “Minimum-payment math is brutal,” he said. “Your debt can drag on for decades.”

    Join CNBC’s Financial Advisor Summit on October 12th, where we’ll talk with top advisors, investors, market experts, technologists, and economists about what advisors can do now to position their clients for the best possible outcomes as we head into the last quarter of 2023, and face the unknown in 2024. Learn more and get your ticket today.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Putin banks on wavering support for Ukraine, amid a race against time | CNN

    Putin banks on wavering support for Ukraine, amid a race against time | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    How does the war in Ukraine end? Earlier this year, former President Donald Trump boasted that if he were re-elected, he’d “have that war settled in one day, 24 hours.”

    Russian President Vladimir Putin is making a slightly less ambitious forecast: If things go his way, the war can be over in a week.

    In remarks Thursday at the annual meeting of the Valdai Discussion Club, a Kremlin-friendly confab on global issues, Putin predicted that Ukraine would collapse if the West turns off the taps of military aid and economic assistance.

    “By and large, the Ukrainian economy cannot exist without external support,” he said. “Once you stop this, everything will be over in a week. Finished. The same applies to the defense system: Imagine that supplies will stop tomorrow — you will only have a week to live when the ammunition runs out.”

    These remarks were perhaps Putin’s most clear articulation to date his strategy in Ukraine: He is counting on the Western alliance that backs Ukraine to fracture, the longer the gruesome war of attrition grinds on. And developments in recent days, to the alarm of Ukraine’s supporters, suggest that Putin’s plan may be gaining some traction.

    Take the recent headlines from Washington. Last week, President Joe Biden signed into law a stopgap bill to avert a government shutdown, but funding for Ukraine was a casualty of the brinksmanship on Capitol Hill.

    The measure signed into law may keep the US government open only through November 17, but it includes no additional funding for Ukraine.

    The Biden administration emphasizes that that the American public’s support for Ukraine remains strong. But the lack of funding in the bill for Ukraine sets the clock ticking for Kyiv, and has the White House scrambling for workarounds.

    Throughout the war, the US has been a steady lifeline for Ukraine, committing a total of around $113 billion to it, including direct military assistance, budget infusions and humanitarian assistance.

    But the ouster of House Speaker Kevin McCarthy has thrown the short-term prospects for a new assistance package into serious doubt: Without a permanent speaker, legislative business in the House is effectively on hold.

    The administration does have some options. The Pentagon Comptroller — the Department of Defense’s chief financial officer — has noted that there is the option to replenish Ukraine’s dwindling military supplies through what is known as Presidential Drawdown Authority.

    But to the drama in Congress add: resistance among far-right Republican legislators raises serious questions about the US sustaining aid longer term for Ukraine, particularly during a major counteroffensive.

    And then there is the race for the Republican presidential nomination, which likely also plays into Putin’s calculus. The Kremlin is no doubt mindful of the fact that several GOP aspirants are vocal skeptics when it comes to aiding Ukraine. Trump, no friend to Ukraine, is leading the pack.

    The United States, it’s worth remembering, is not the only country shouldering the financial burden of supporting Ukraine. European Union members provide around 39% of direct military assistance to Ukraine.

    Putin is clearly counting on Ukraine fatigue in Europe. Earlier this week, a party headed by Robert Fico, a populist, pro-Kremlin figure, came out on top in parliamentary elections in Slovakia, an EU and NATO member. Fico has called on the Slovak government to stop arming Ukraine, and his bogus rhetoric — blaming “Ukrainian Nazis and fascists” for provoking Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine — must no doubt be music to Putin’s ears.

    Putin’s advisors also appear to be reading the defense trade press. In his remarks this week, the Kremlin leader noted that the US industrial base is struggling to ramp up demand for ammunition for Ukraine, which has been locked in an artillery slogging match with Russia.

    “The United States produces 14 thousand 155-mm shells, and Ukrainian troops expend up to five thousand per day, and there they produce 14 [thousand] per month,” he claimed at the Valdai conference. “Do you understand what we’re talking about? Yes, they are trying to increase production – up to 75,000 by the end of next year, but we still have to wait until the end of next year.”

    Putin’s notecards may have been slightly off – US monthly production is currently at 28,000 shells. But the Russian president was not mischaracterizing the fact that the US and its European allies are locked in a desperate race against Russia’s industrial base.

    Ukrainian serviceman at frontline positions south of Bakhmut on September 22.

    In a discussion this past week at the Warsaw Security Forum, Royal Netherlands Navy Adm. Rob Bauer, chair of the NATO Military Committee warned that “the bottom of the barrel is now visible” when it comes to ammunition production for Ukraine.

    Putin, then, appears to be counting on both dysfunction in Washington and stress within the transatlantic alliance for his strategy of attrition to work. That strategy, to some degree, also depends on winning a battle of perception. If Ukraine is seen as a losing cause, Kremlin logic argues, then its patrons will pull the plug.

    But what about the actual situation on the ground in Ukraine, as winter draws near and a much-anticipated Ukrainian counteroffensive makes only incremental gains? Is the situation as dire as Putin might suggest?

    Putin casts that fight in existential terms, arguing this week that nothing less than a twilight struggle is underway to establish a new world order congenial to authoritarian states — and implying that Russia is in this for the long haul.

    “The Ukrainian crisis is not a territorial conflict, I want to emphasize this,” he said at the Valdai forum. “Russia is the largest country in the world, with the largest territory. We have no interests in terms of conquering any additional territories. We still have to explore and develop Siberia, Eastern Siberia and the Far East. This is not a territorial conflict or even the establishment of a regional geopolitical balance. The question is much broader and more fundamental: we are talking about the principles on which the new world order will be based.”

    Leave aside for a moment that Putin has, at other times, brazenly framed the invasion of Ukraine as project of imperial restoration. In his remarks at Valdai, he clearly implied that Russia intends to outlast the West over Ukraine.

    But not everyone, and especially not Ukrainians, believe it’s a waiting game.

    Tymofiy Mylovanov, the president of the Kyiv School of Economics, responded to Putin’s Valdai remarks with a reminder that Ukrainians would still fight for survival regardless of Moscow’s goal of hiving off support for his country.

    Paraphrasing Putin, Mylovanov said that the Kremlin believes that “Ukraine will have one week left to LIVE once Western supplies are over. LIVE as in EXIST, not defend or resist.

    What defending or resisting comes is down not just to action on Capitol Hill. Putin’s credibility has been dented in recent months by the Wagner mutiny, as well as the Russian government’s ability to muster motivated, well-trained troops after a sustained hammering on the battlefield.

    If Putin is counting on a long war to blunt Western will to support Ukraine, he is also taking a gamble on the longevity of his system of rule — and perhaps underestimating the resolve of Ukrainians, whom he sees as merely a puppet of Washington and Brussels.

    And that is where the dark headlines for Ukraine have the unsurprising result of hardening Ukrainian resolve. Whether the deadly strike on the village of Hroza or Friday’s attack on Kharkiv, Ukraine’s will to fight, regardless of US and Western support, appears unwavering.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • California governor signs several laws, including a ban on certain chemicals in food and drinks

    California governor signs several laws, including a ban on certain chemicals in food and drinks

    [ad_1]

    SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom has taken action on a slew of bills. He has until Oct. 14 to act on legislation that lawmakers have sent to his desk.

    Newsom vetoed some Saturday, including a measure that would have made California the first state in the nation to outlaw discrimination based on caste and another that would have decriminalized the possession and use of some hallucinogens, including psychedelic mushrooms. He also signed several into law, notably a sweeping mandate requiring large businesses to disclose a wide range of planet-warming emissions.

    Here’s a look at some of the other bills Newsom signed into law on Saturday:

    FOOD INGREDIENTS BAN

    California on Saturday became the first state to ban four chemicals used in well-known candies and other foods and drinks because of their link to certain health problems.

    Newsom signed a law banning the red dye No. 3 chemical used as food coloring for products like Peeps, the marshmallow treat most associated with Easter. The chemical has been linked to cancer and has been banned from makeup for more than 30 years.

    The law also bans brominated vegetable oil, which is used in some store brand sodas, and potassium bromate and propylparaben, two chemicals used in baked goods.

    Newsom said in a signing statement that the additives addressed in the bill are already banned in various other countries. All four chemicals are already banned in foods in the European Union.

    “Signing this into law is a positive step forward on these four food additives until the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reviews and establishes national updated safety levels for these additives,” Newsom’s statement said.

    Just Born Inc., the company that makes Peeps, has said it has been looking for other dye options for its products.

    The bill was authored by Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel, a Democrat from Los Angeles.

    “The Governor’s signature today represents a huge step forward in our effort to protect children and families in California from dangerous and toxic chemicals in our food supply,” Gabriel said in a statement Saturday.

    The law doesn’t take effect until 2027, which Newsom said should give companies plenty of time to adapt to the new rules.

    LEGISLATIVE STAFF UNIONIZATION

    Newsom signed a law allowing legislative staffers to unionize, a move that comes after lawmakers passed several labor initiatives amid a summer of strikes by hotel workers, actors and writers.

    Assemblymember Tina McKinnor, a Democrat representing Inglewood who introduced the bill, said at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in July that it was hypocritical for lawmakers to ask staffers to write legislation expanding other workers’ right to unionize when those staffers themselves cannot form a union.

    “Our staff aren’t looking for special treatment,” McKinnor said. “They’re looking for the same dignity and respect afforded to all represented workers.”

    The law allows lower-level staff to join and form a union, but it does not apply to lawmakers, chiefs of staff or appointed officers in the Legislature.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • California governor signs several laws, including a ban on certain chemicals in food and drinks

    California governor signs several laws, including a ban on certain chemicals in food and drinks

    [ad_1]

    SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom has taken action on a slew of bills. He has until Oct. 14 to act on legislation that lawmakers have sent to his desk.

    Newsom vetoed some Saturday, including a measure that would have made California the first state in the nation to outlaw discrimination based on caste and another that would have decriminalized the possession and use of some hallucinogens, including psychedelic mushrooms. He also signed several into law, notably a sweeping mandate requiring large businesses to disclose a wide range of planet-warming emissions.

    Here’s a look at some of the other bills Newsom signed into law on Saturday:

    FOOD INGREDIENTS BAN

    California on Saturday became the first state to ban four chemicals used in well-known candies and other foods and drinks because of their link to certain health problems.

    Newsom signed a law banning the red dye No. 3 chemical used as food coloring for products like Peeps, the marshmallow treat most associated with Easter. The chemical has been linked to cancer and has been banned from makeup for more than 30 years.

    The law also bans brominated vegetable oil, which is used in some store brand sodas, and potassium bromate and propylparaben, two chemicals used in baked goods.

    Newsom said in a signing statement that the additives addressed in the bill are already banned in various other countries. All four chemicals are already banned in foods in the European Union.

    “Signing this into law is a positive step forward on these four food additives until the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reviews and establishes national updated safety levels for these additives,” Newsom’s statement said.

    Just Born Inc., the company that makes Peeps, has said it has been looking for other dye options for its products.

    The bill was authored by Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel, a Democrat from Los Angeles.

    “The Governor’s signature today represents a huge step forward in our effort to protect children and families in California from dangerous and toxic chemicals in our food supply,” Gabriel said in a statement Saturday.

    The law doesn’t take effect until 2027, which Newsom said should give companies plenty of time to adapt to the new rules.

    LEGISLATIVE STAFF UNIONIZATION

    Newsom signed a law allowing legislative staffers to unionize, a move that comes after lawmakers passed several labor initiatives amid a summer of strikes by hotel workers, actors and writers.

    Assemblymember Tina McKinnor, a Democrat representing Inglewood who introduced the bill, said at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in July that it was hypocritical for lawmakers to ask staffers to write legislation expanding other workers’ right to unionize when those staffers themselves cannot form a union.

    “Our staff aren’t looking for special treatment,” McKinnor said. “They’re looking for the same dignity and respect afforded to all represented workers.”

    The law allows lower-level staff to join and form a union, but it does not apply to lawmakers, chiefs of staff or appointed officers in the Legislature.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • California Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoes bill that would have decriminalized psychedelic mushrooms

    California Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoes bill that would have decriminalized psychedelic mushrooms

    [ad_1]

    SACRAMENTO, Calif. — California Gov. Gavin Newsom has vetoed a bill aimed at decriminalizing the possession and personal use of several hallucinogens, including psychedelic mushrooms.

    The legislation vetoed Saturday would have allowed those 21 and older to possess psilocybin, the hallucinogenic component in what’s known as psychedelic mushrooms. It also would have covered dimethyltryptamine (DMT) and mescaline.

    The bill would not have legalized the sale of the substances and would have barred any possession of the substances on school grounds. Instead, it would have ensured people are neither arrested nor prosecuted for possessing limited amounts of plant-based hallucinogens.

    Newsom, a Democrat who championed legalizing cannabis in 2016, said in a statement Saturday that more needs to be done before California decriminalizes the hallucinogens.

    “California should immediately begin work to set up regulated treatment guidelines – replete with dosing information, therapeutic guidelines, rules to prevent against exploitation during guided treatments, and medical clearance of no underlying psychoses,” Newsom’s statement said. “Unfortunately, this bill would decriminalize possession prior to these guidelines going into place, and I cannot sign it.”

    The legislation, which would have taken effect in 2025, would have required the California Health and Human Services Agency to study and to make recommendations to lawmakers on the therapeutic use of psychedelic substances.

    Even if California made the bill a law, the drugs would still be illegal under federal law.

    In recent years, psychedelics have emerged as an alternative approach to treating a variety of mental illnesses, including post-traumatic stress disorder. The Federal Drug Administration designated psilocybin as a “breakthrough therapy” for treatment-resistant depression in 2019 and recently published a draft guideline on using psychedelics in clinical trials.

    Public opinion on psychedelics, which have been mostly associated with 1960s drug culture, has also shifted to support therapeutic use.

    Supporters of the legislation include veterans, who have talked about the benefits of using psychedelics to treat trauma and other illnesses.

    “Psilocybin gave me my life back,” Joe McKay, a retired New York City firefighter who responded to the 9/11 attacks, said at an Assembly hearing in July. “No one should go to jail for using this medicine to try to heal.”

    But opponents said the drugs’ benefits are still largely unknown, and the bill could lead to more crimes — though studies in recent years have shown decriminalization does not increase crime rates. Organizations representing parents also worry the legislation would make it easier for children and young people to access the drugs.

    State Sen. Scott Wiener, who authored the bill, called the veto a missed opportunity for California to follow the science and lead the nation.

    “This is a setback for the huge number of Californians — including combat veterans and first responders — who are safely using and benefiting from these non-addictive substances and who will now continue to be classified as criminals under California law,” Wiener said in a statement Saturday. “The evidence is beyond dispute that criminalizing access to these substances only serves to make people less safe and reduce access to help.”

    He said he would introduce new legislation in the future. Wiener unsuccessfully attempted to pass a broader piece of legislation last year that would have also decriminalized the use and possession of LSD and MDMA, commonly known as ecstasy.

    Lawmakers can override a governor’s veto with a two-thirds vote, but they have not tried in decades.

    In 2020, Oregon voters approved decriminalizing small amounts of psychedelics, and separately were the first to approve the supervised use of psilocybin in a therapeutic setting. Two years later, Colorado voters also passed a ballot measure to decriminalize psychedelic mushrooms and to create state-regulated centers where participants can experience the drug under supervision.

    In California, cities including Oakland, San Francisco, Santa Cruz and Berkeley have decriminalized natural psychedelics that come from plants and fungi.

    Despite Newsom’s veto, California voters might have a chance to weigh in on the issue next year. Advocates are attempting to place two initiatives to expand psychedelic use on the November 2024 ballot. One would legalize the use and sale of mushrooms for people 21 and older, and the other would ask voters to approve borrowing $5 billion to establish a state agency tasked with researching psychedelic therapies.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • California Gov. Gavin Newsom signs law requiring big businesses to disclose emissions

    California Gov. Gavin Newsom signs law requiring big businesses to disclose emissions

    [ad_1]

    SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Large businesses in California will have to disclose a wide range of planet-warming emissions under a new law Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Saturday — the most sweeping mandate of its kind in the nation.

    The law requires more than 5,300 companies that operate in California and make more than $1 billion in annual revenues to report both their direct and indirect emissions. That includes things like emissions from operating a building or store as well as those from activities like employee business travel and transporting their products.

    The law will bring more transparency to the public about how big businesses contribute to climate change, and it could nudge them to evaluate how they can reduce their emissions, advocates say. They argue many businesses already disclose some of their emissions to the state.

    But the California Chamber of Commerce, agricultural groups and oil giants that oppose the law say it will create new mandates for companies that don’t have the experience or expertise to accurately report their indirect emissions. They also say it is too soon to implement the requirements at a time when the federal government is weighing emissions disclosure rules for public companies.

    The measure could create “duplicative” work if the federal standards are adopted, the chamber and other groups wrote in an alert opposing the bill.

    California has made major strides to set trends on climate policy in recent years. The state has set out to ban the sale of new gas-powered cars by 2035, expand renewable energy and limit rail pollution. By 2030, the state plans to lower its greenhouse gas emissions by 40% below what they were in 1990.

    This was Democratic State Sen. Scott Wiener’s third attempt to get the sweeping emissions disclosure rules passed in California. Last year, it passed in the Senate but came up short in the State Assembly. Wiener said the new emissions information will be useful for consumers, investors and lawmakers.

    “These companies are doing business in California,” Wiener said. “It’s important for Californians to know … what their carbon footprint is.”

    Major companies, including Apple and Patagonia, came out in support of the bill, saying they already disclose much of their emissions. Christiana Figueres, a key former United Nations official behind the 2015 Paris climate agreement, said in a letter that the bill would be a “crucial catalyst in mobilizing the private sector to solve climate change.”

    Seventeen states already have inventories requiring major emitters to disclose their direct emissions, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. But the new California mandates will be go beyond that to make companies report a wide range of direct and indirect emissions.

    Public companies are typically accustomed to collecting, verifying and reporting information about their business to the government, said Amanda Urquiza, a corporate lawyer who advises companies on climate and other issues. But the California law will mean a major shift for private companies that don’t yet “have the infrastructure” to report information that will include a wide-range of greenhouse gas emissions, she said.

    The federal rules, proposed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, would require major public companies to report their emissions and how climate change poses a financial risk to their business.

    Under the California law, the state’s Air Resources Board has to approve rules by 2025 to implement the legislation. By 2026, companies have to begin annually disclosing their direct emissions, as well as those used to power, heat and cool their facilities. By 2027, companies have to begin annually reporting other indirect emissions.

    ___

    Sophie Austin is a corps member for the Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues. Follow Austin on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter: @sophieadanna

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Ousting of US House speaker darkens outlook for Ukraine aid as funds dry up | CNN Politics

    Ousting of US House speaker darkens outlook for Ukraine aid as funds dry up | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The removal of House Speaker Kevin McCarthy in the US Congress has cast a dark cloud over the already troubled process of Washington’s military and financial aid for Ukraine, as its counteroffensive against Russia grinds on with little change to the frontlines.

    Without a Speaker, the House is unable to pass legislation, and it may be a week or more before a successor is elected – throwing America’s military backing for Kyiv into doubt. 

    The vote to remove McCarthy follows a weekend deal in which funding for the government was extended for 45 days – but in which no provision was made for fresh aid to Ukraine. That left the Biden administration’s $24 billion request for fresh military aid, submitted to Congress in the summer, in limbo. It also left the coffers dangerously low. 

    US President Joe Biden said at the weekend that he expected McCarthy “to keep his commitment to secure the passage and support needed to help Ukraine as they defend themselves against aggression and brutality.” McCarthy has now lost his role and has ruled out running for Speaker again. While it’s unclear who might succeed him, several potential candidates are skeptical about continuing support for Ukraine at current levels.  

    McCarthy himself warned: “Our members have a lot of questions, especially on the accountability provisions of what we want to see with the money that gets sent.” 

    The turmoil in Washington adds to other recent worries for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. In Slovakia, former pro-Russia Prime Minister Robert Fico’s populist party won parliamentary elections, vowing to stop sending weapons to Ukraine and to thwart its NATO ambitions. And a spat over grain exports with Poland – one of Kyiv’s earliest and most staunch allies – has led Warsaw to warn it could stop arms shipments to its neighbor.

    Money and weapons run low

    Many analysts estimate that Ukraine’s current “burn rate” of equipment, munitions and maintenance in the conflict with Russia is about $2.5 billion a month, maybe a little higher. Much of the funding for that spending comes from Washington.  

    Last week, the Pentagon’s Chief Financial Officer, Michael McCord, warned Congressional leaders that money for Ukraine was running low. In a letter subsequently released by House Democrats, McCord said that the Pentagon had about $5.4 billion left in what’s known as presidential drawdown authority, which allows the rapid dispatch of weapons from existing stocks. That’s essentially about two months’ money. 

    McCord also warned that of the roughly $26 billion that Congress had authorized to replace weapons and equipment that had been sent to Ukraine, only $1.6 billion remains. 

    One pipeline, the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI), is already empty. McCord told Congressional leaders that “a lack of USAI funding now will delay contracting actions that could negatively impact the department’s ability to purchase essential additional 155 mm artillery and critical munitions essential to the success of Ukraine’s armed forces.” 

    “Without additional funding now, we would have to delay or curtail assistance to meet Ukraine’s urgent requirements, including for air defense and ammunition that are critical and urgent now as Russia prepares to conduct a winter offensive and continues its bombardment of Ukrainian cities,” he wrote. 

    Max Bergmann, Director of Europe and Russia at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said, “The chaos in the House leaves Ukraine in a dangerous limbo. Let’s be clear, if the US Congress does not pass a funding bill, Ukraine will be in deep trouble. A lot of Ukrainians will die and their ability to fight on will be severely compromised.”

    “Without funding the US will not be able to rapidly supply Ukrainian forces,” Bergmann said on X, formerly Twitter. 

    He also noted that the drawdown authority, which had been raised to $14.5 billion, went back to $100 million on October 1, a drop in the ocean.  

    Current funding – partially boosted by a revaluation downwards of the equipment being sent – would suggest that there is just about enough funding for the rest of the calendar year.  

    But for Ukraine’s military planners, the uncertainty is an immense challenge as they try to plot any winter offensive or where to place air defenses. 

    Bergmann and others also warned that should US funding dwindle or get delayed, European countries won’t be able to pick up the slack. Inventories are already very low, as NATO officials warned Tuesday. 

    “European militaries already had empty warehouses from decades of under-investment. There isn’t much left to give. Europeans can and should get their industries humming but this again takes time,” Bergmann notes. 

    “In short, abruptly stopping funding to Ukraine could be catastrophic, leaving it deeply exposed on the battlefield. The US will also lose all credibility with allies everywhere,” says Bergman. 

    The funding of Ukraine’s war effort by the US has thus far amounted to $113 billion in security, economic and humanitarian aid since the Russian invasion. 

    While any delays in Western aid for Ukraine will be met with concern in Kyiv, Ukrainian officials have tried to sound a note of optimism in public.

    Responding to the news that aid to Ukraine had not been included in last weekend’s temporary funding measure, Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba said: “The question is whether what happened in the US Congress last weekend is an incident or systematic,” Kuleba said on the margins of a meeting with European Union foreign ministers. 

    “I think it was an incident,” he said.

    And on Wednesday, Ukraine’s ambassador in Washington said the embassy has a good dialog with the “vast majority” of likely candidates to replace McCarthy.

    Oksana Markarova said on Facebook that there are “many names are already in the discussion” but it was too early to discuss specific candidates.

    “I can only say that we have built a good constructive dialog with the vast majority of the names that are being mentioned and their teams,” Markarova said. “We at the Embassy of Ukraine in the USA continue our active work with caucuses, committees, individual congressmen, and of course the Senate to discuss our needs and possible solutions for the next package of assistance to Ukraine.”

    But a senior adviser to Zelensky criticized “Western conservative elites” for suggesting that military aid to Ukraine should be suspended.

    Mykhailo Podolyak, an adviser to the head of the president’s office, wrote on X Wednesday: “When any of the representatives of Western conservative elites talk about the need to suspend military aid to #Ukraine, I have a direct question: what are your motives? Why are you so insistently against… destroying the Russian army, which has been terrifying democracies for decades, and why are you against drastically reducing #Russia’s ability to conduct ‘special destructive operations’ in different countries and on different continents?”

    Podolyak added: “Most importantly, why do you so insistently want Russia to withstand, do some work on its mistakes, reinforce its army, reboot its military-industrial complex and start looking for new opportunities to attack other countries and other – including yours – armies?”

    Podolyak did not specifically reference the freezing of US aid to Ukraine in the temporary spending measure approved by Congress at the weekend, nor the ousting of McCarthy late on Tuesday.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • These 8 Republicans stood apart to remove Kevin McCarthy as House speaker

    These 8 Republicans stood apart to remove Kevin McCarthy as House speaker

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — Rep. Kevin McCarthy had support from 208 members of his conference to remain as House speaker. But it took only eight dissenters in his party to boot him from the job.

    A handful of Republicans joined with Democrats to make history as McCarthy became the first speaker in U.S. history to be voted out of the position by his colleagues.

    Most of the eight have never been members of the McCarthy fan club. They chafed at the deal McCarthy made with President Joe Biden to avoid a federal default. They voted against the bill Congress passed Saturday to keep the federal government operating at current funding levels through mid-November.

    Most are also fiscal hardliners who opposed McCarthy’s candidacy for speaker early on. But, McCarthy, soon after announcing he would not seek to run again for the speaker’s job, countered that he did not view the eight as conservatives.

    “They don’t get to say they’re conservative because they’re angry and they’re chaotic,” McCarthy said. “That’s not the party I belong to. The party of Reagan was if you believed in your principles, that you could govern in a conservative way. They are not conservative and they do not have the right to have the title.”

    While each has their reasons, the eight lawmakers generally voiced frustration with how McCarthy has moved priority legislation through the chamber, namely spending bills. Some have also described him as untrustworthy and failing to living up to various agreements he made to become speaker back in January, something he hotly disputed Tuesday when he announced he would not seek the post again.

    A look at the eight Republicans who voted to remove McCarthy from office, against the overwhelming wishes of their colleagues.

    Biggs is serving his fourth term in the House representing a strongly Republican-leaning district in Arizona. He is a former chairman of the hardline House Freedom Caucus. He threw his hat into the ring in the race to become speaker back in January, but won only 10 votes in the first of 15 rounds of voting.

    Biggs serves on two of the committees leading up the impeachment inquiry of President Joe Biden and has long called for his impeachment. He also has been a staunch ally of former President Donald Trump and describes him as the leader of the Republican Party.

    Biggs complained Tuesday that lawmakers were promised the House would pass 12 annual funding bills in a timely manner, but that wasn’t accomplished before the end of the fiscal year, requiring a stopgap spending bill to avoid a shutdown. He said the annual spending bills are critical to cutting spending and getting rid of duplicative programs.

    “Why didn’t we get this stuff done?” he asked at one point in Tuesday’s debate.

    “Yes, I think it’s time to make a change,” Biggs said.

    Buck is serving his fifth term representing a Colorado district that includes much of the eastern part of the state and some Denver suburbs. He’s got a penchant for being a wildcard as a fiscal conservative, but also someone willing to push back against party leaders when he feels like it.

    Most recently, Buck has spoken out against McCarthy’s launch of an impeachment inquiry into Biden, saying that House Republicans itching for impeachment are relying on flimsy evidence.

    He also has pointed to concerns about the process for approving spending and complained about stopgap spending bills like the one McCarthy came up with Saturday to keep the government running.

    “We are $33 trillion in debt and on track to hit $50 trillion by 2030,” he tweeted after the vote. “We cannot continue to fund the government by continuing resolutions and omnibus spending bills. That’s why I voted to oust @SpeakerMcCarthy. We must change course to sensible budgeting and save our country.”

    Burchett is serving his third term representing a district in east Tennessee. Burchett served 16 years in Tennessee’s legislature as well as eight years as a mayor before entering Congress.

    He said while explaining his vote to oust McCarthy that the House took off the whole month of August despite knowing they needed to get the spending bills done before the fiscal year ended Sept. 30.

    “At some point, we’ve just got to say enough is enough, folks,” he said in a Twitter video. “I hate losing Kevin as a friend, but I worry about losing our country.”

    Crane represents an Arizona district. He is also a former Navy SEAL who served in the military for 13 years. In November, he defeated a Democratic incumbent, Tom O’Halleran, who had held the seat since 2017. He was the lone Republican freshman back in January to come out against McCarthy’s bid to become speaker.

    “Each time our majority has had the chance to fight for bold, lasting change for the American people, leadership folded and passed measures with more Democrat support than Republican,” Crane tweeted Tuesday.

    Gaetz is serving his fourth term representing a Florida district. He is a close Trump ally who filed the motion to vacate the chair, the procedure used to oust McCarthy, and he led the debate on the House floor for those seeking to pass the motion.

    He was also a holdout in January when McCarthy ran to become speaker. The defining moment during that showdown came when Alabama Rep. Mike Rogers, a Republican ally of McCarthy, angrily confronted Gaetz on the House floor before being pulled back by a colleague.

    Gaetz could face political repercussions for his actions, as many Republican lawmakers blame him for this week’s chaos and view him as looking out for himself rather than for the good of the party.

    “Look, you all know Matt Gaetz. You know it was personal. It had nothing to do about spending,” McCarthy said. “It all was about getting attention from you. I mean we were getting e-mail fundraisers as he’s doing it.”

    Gaetz said McCarthy didn’t follow through on many of the commitments he made to win the speaker’s job, and that’s what drove him.

    “Kevin McCarthy is a feature of the swamp. He has risen to power by collecting special interest money and redistributing that money in exchange for favors,” Gaetz said. “We are breaking the fever now, and we should elect a speaker who’s better.”

    Good of Virginia won office in 2020 after GOP voters ousted the Republican incumbent, Denver Riggleman, who had angered social conservatives by officiating a gay marriage.

    Good said Tuesday that back in January he helped persuade a handful of colleagues to switch their votes to present so that McCarthy could become speaker.

    But Good has been harshly critical of the deal to avoid a default and voiced alarm as Republicans prepared to ensure a partial government shutdown did not occur last weekend.

    He said that if you’re not willing to endure any kind of shutdown to get the changes you seek, “it’s a recipe to lose, it’s a recipe for surrender.”

    “We need a speaker who will fight for something, anything, besides just staying or becoming speaker,” Good said on the House floor Tuesday.

    Mace is serving her second term representing a South Carolina district. She graduated from The Citadel, where she was the first female to graduate from its Corps of Cadets. She served as a state representative before coming to Congress.

    Mace tweeted her vote to oust McCarthy wasn’t about ideology. “This is about trust and keeping your word. This is about making Congress do its job,” she said.

    McCarthy said he called Mace’s chief of staff on Monday saying he didn’t understand how he had not kept his word. He noted that he had helped get Mace elected to Congress.

    Rosendale is serving his second term in the House representing a Montana district. He’s a hardliner on fiscal issues who also has voted against U.S. support for Ukraine in repelling Russia’s invasion, citing what he said are more pressing security needs along the southern U.S. border.

    “Our country is facing $33 trillion of debt. Our border is facing an unprecedented invasion. And instead of being energy dominant, we are now energy reliant. The House of Representatives and the American people deserve a leader who can challenge the status quo and put an end to this ruin,” Rosendale said following Tuesday’s vote.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Selma Blair helps White House salute landmark disability legislation

    Selma Blair helps White House salute landmark disability legislation

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — Actor and disability rights advocate Selma Blair on Monday helped President Joe Biden mark the legacy of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, displaying a touch of the comedic timing that made her a star in Hollywood hits like “Legally Blonde” and “Cruel Intentions.”

    Blair, who was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 2018, walked together with Biden to a ceremony on the White House’s south lawn with her cane and her service dog, an English Labrador named Scout.

    When she reached the stage, she told Scout, “down” and “good boy.” As he lay near Biden’s feet, the president started to bend down to pet Scout, but Blair looked over and said, “yeah, stay.” That caused Biden to straighten up to full attention.

    “I feel so powerful all of a sudden,” laughed Blair. Then, indicating a handheld microphone in addition to the one she was using affixed to the podium, she said, “I don’t need this. This is for someone else, correct?”

    “It’s for me,” Biden said, prompting Blair to respond, “OK, the real guy.”

    Blair, 51, is known for a number of memorable late ’90s/early ’00’s movie roles and her modeling career. In recent years she’s become a leading face of disability rights, calling herself Monday “a proud disabled woman.”

    Blair told a crowd of advocates attending the ceremony, “Although I’d had symptoms since the age of 7, it took a lifetime of self-advocacy to finally lead me to a diagnosis at age 46, after living most of my life in pain and self-doubt.”

    She said Judy Heumann, a renowned activist who helped secure passage of the legislation protecting the rights of disabled people being celebrated Monday and who died in March at age 75, “Taught me my worth.”

    “The push towards equity continues,” Blair said. “Our laws and policies must reflect that our disabled lives are not of lesser value.”

    Biden also hailed Huemann, noting that, “History shows it’s often not the people in power, but the power of the people that move the country forward.”

    The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in programs conducted by federal agencies, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 prevents discrimination against disabled people on everything from employment to parking to voting.

    October is National Disability Employment Awareness Month, and Biden noted both bills received bipartisan support when clearing Congress.

    “These laws are a source of opportunity, meaningful inclusion, participation, respect, and, as my dad would say, the most important of all, dignity,” Biden said. “Be treated with dignity. Ensuring that the American dream is for all of us, not just for some of us.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Connecticut enacts its most sweeping gun control law since the Sandy Hook shooting

    Connecticut enacts its most sweeping gun control law since the Sandy Hook shooting

    [ad_1]

    HARTFORD, Conn. — Connecticut’s most wide-ranging gun control measure since the 2013 law enacted after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting takes effect Sunday, with proponents vowing to pursue more gun legislation despite legal challenges happening across the country.

    The new law, signed by Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont in June, bans the open carrying of firearms and prohibits the sale of more than three handguns within 30 days to any one person, with some exceptions for instructors and others.

    “We will not take a break and we cannot stop now, and we will continue to pass life-saving laws until we end gun violence in Connecticut. Our lives depend on it,” said Jeremy Stein, executive director of Connecticut Against Gun Violence.

    Immediately after it was passed, the law was challenged in court by gun rights supporters. Connecticut’s landmark 2013 gun law, passed in response to the 2012 elementary school shooting in Newtown that claimed 26 lives, is also being contested in court.

    Besides Connecticut, which has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, other politically liberal-leaning states including California, Washington, Colorado and Maryland also have passed gun laws this year that face legal challenges. They come in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court last year expanding gun rights.

    California Gov. Gavin Newsom last week signed nearly two dozen gun control measures, including laws banning firearms being carried in most public places while doubling taxes on guns and ammunition sold in the state. He acknowledged some might not survive a legal challenge. Last week, a federal judge struck down a California law banning guns with detachable magazines that carry more than 10 rounds.

    “We feel very strongly that these bills meet the (new standard), and they were drafted accordingly,” Newsom said. “But I’m not naive about the recklessness of the federal courts and the ideological agenda.”

    About 150 gun rights activists held a rally outside the state Capitol on Saturday, despite the rainy and raw weather, to mark the last day that carrying a visible firearm was legal in Connecticut. But they remain hopeful the law will eventually be overturned in court, arguing it’s an infringement on Second Amendment rights and unnecessary.

    “It is not common in Connecticut to go the grocery store and see somebody with an exposed firearm. Does it happen on rare occasions? Sure, but it is not a problem in our state,” Holly Sullivan, president of the Connecticut Citizens Defense League, told the Waterbury Republican-American. She said there were already state laws on the books that address people illegally carrying a weapon in public or abusing the open carry law.

    The new law also increases bail and toughens probation and parole for what officials called a narrow group of people with repeated serious gun offenses; expands the state’s current assault weapons ban; stiffens penalties for possession of large-capacity magazines; expands safe-storage rules to include more settings; and adds some domestic violence crimes to the list of disqualifications for having a gun.

    Republican legislative leaders, who represent the minority party in the state General Assembly, accused Democrats of bragging about how safe Connecticut is because of the gun laws when there have been carjackings, serious property crimes and other acts of violence. House Minority Leader Vincent Candelora, a Republican from North Branford, said claims Connecticut is one of the safest states are a “slap in the face” to residents.

    “Enough with the news conferences — Democrats should step away from the lectern and tap into what’s happening in their districts,” he said in a statement.

    State Senate President Pro Tempore Martin Looney, a Democrat from New Haven, called the legislation a “very significant initiative” but stressed “the battle is not over.”

    Connecticut is vulnerable to states with looser gun laws, Looney said. He wants to pursue further limits on monthly gun purchases and require microlabeling or ammunition microstamping to help law enforcement trace bullet casings to specific firearms makes and modes.

    Lamont, who proposed the newly enacted law, said he is interested in working with fellow governors in the Northeast to draft similar laws, given how the technology is changing so fast and Connecticut “can only do so much within our small state and within our borders.”

    ____

    This story corrects that California governor signed gun law bills last week, not this week

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • California governor signs law to bolster eviction protections for renters

    California governor signs law to bolster eviction protections for renters

    [ad_1]

    California’s Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed a law to close a loophole in a 2019 law that has allowed landlords to circumvent the state’s rent cap

    ByTRÂN NGUYỄN Associated Press

    September 30, 2023, 10:29 PM

    SACRAMENTO, Calif. — California’s Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law Saturday to bolster eviction protections for renters and close a loophole in an existing law that has allowed landlords to circumvent the state’s rent cap.

    The move updates a 2019 landmark law that created rules around evictions and establishing a rent cap at 5% plus the inflation rate, with a 10% maximum.

    Under the 2019 law, landlords can evict tenants for “at fault” or “no fault” reasons. “At fault” reasons include failure to pay rent on time. Under “no fault” rules, landlords can terminate leases by saying they need to move into units, make repairs or take the units off the rental market.

    Renters’ advocates said some landlords have exploited the “no fault” evictions to get around the state’s rent cap. They pointed to a case in Santa Clara County in which a landlord evicted tenants, citing the need to move in relatives, but then re-listed the units at nearly double the price.

    Under the new law, landlords moving into their units or renting to family also must identify the people moving in. In addition, the rental must be occupied within three months of eviction and they must live in the unit for at least a year. Those who evict tenants to renovate properties must include copies of permits or contracts, among other details, when serving eviction notices.

    Landlords who do not follow through will have to allow evicted tenants to move back under the original lease terms.

    “Today is a victory for all Californians,” said Michelle Pariset, director of legislative affairs at Public Advocates, the group that sponsored the legislation. “Through this law more of our neighbors will be able to stay in their homes!”

    The law, which was authored by Democratic state Sen. María Elena Durazo, also allows the attorney general, local government and renters to sue landlords for wrongful evictions and illegal rent increases.

    Proponents said they have worked with several local governments to tighten the loophole, but the new law will ensure landlords throughout the state can no longer abuse the system.

    The bill faced fierce backlash earlier this year from powerful landlord groups, who said the changes went too far and successfully pressured lawmakers to eliminate a provision that sought to reduce the state’s rent cap to 5%.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Government on brink of shutdown ahead of midnight deadline as McCarthy slates last-minute vote | CNN Politics

    Government on brink of shutdown ahead of midnight deadline as McCarthy slates last-minute vote | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Federal agencies are making final preparations with the government on the brink of a shutdown and congressional lawmakers racing against Saturday’s critical midnight deadline – as House Speaker Kevin McCarthy mounts a last-minute push to avert the lapse in funding.

    McCarthy announced that the House will vote on a 45-day short-term spending bill Saturday, and it will include the natural disaster aid that the White House requested.

    The bill does not include $6 billion in funding to aid Ukraine, a key concession that many House Republicans demanded and a blow to allies of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who lobbied Congress earlier this month for additional assistance.

    Asked if he is concerned that a member, including Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, could move to oust him over this bill, McCarthy replied, “If I have to risk my job for standing up for the American public, I will do that.”

    Infighting among House Republicans has played a central role in bringing Congress to a standoff over spending – and it is not yet clear how the issue will be resolved, raising concerns on Capitol Hill that a shutdown, if triggered, may not be easy to end.

    Democrats in the House have been trying to slow down passage of the GOP-led continuing resolution throughout the day Saturday, objecting to being forced to vote on a bill just introduced and wanting to keep Ukraine aid. It’s unclear how long Democrats will stall the House from voting.

    House Republicans met throughout Saturday morning, seesawing between options for how to proceed. Republicans including veteran appropriators and those in swing districts pushed to bring a short-term resolution to keep the government funded for 45 days to the House floor for a vote Saturday.

    McCarthy has faced threats to keeping his job throughout the month if he works with Democrats as he endures a consistent resistance from the hardline conservatives in his own party.

    A shutdown is expected to have consequential impacts across the country, from air travel to clean drinking water, and many government operations would grind to a halt – though services deemed essential for public safety would continue.

    Both chambers are scheduled to be in session Saturday, just hours before the deadline. The Senate was expected to take procedural steps to advance their own plan to keep the government funded – GOP Sen. Rand Paul had vowed all week to slow that process beyond the midnight deadline over objections to the bill’s funding for the war in Ukraine. The Senate is now waiting to see how the House developments shake out before proceeding.

    But Paul told CNN on Saturday afternoon that he won’t slow down the Senate’s consideration of the House GOP’s 45-day spending bill, if it passes the House and the Senate takes it up, allowing the Senate the ability to move the bill quickly – though any one other senator could slow that down beyond the midnight deadline.

    House Republicans have so far thrown cold water on a bipartisan Senate proposal to keep the government funded through November 17, but they have failed to coalesce around a plan of their own to avert a shutdown amid resistance from a bloc of hardline conservatives to any kind of short-term funding extension.

    “After meeting with House Republicans this evening, it’s clear the misguided Senate bill has no path forward and is dead on arrival,” McCarthy wrote on X. “The House will continue to work around the clock to keep government open and prioritize the needs of the American people.”

    His late Friday night message came after a two-hour conference meeting in the Capitol, where McCarthy floated several different options – including putting the Senate bill on the floor or passing a short-term bill that excludes Ukraine money. But there is still no consensus on what – if anything – they will put on the House floor Saturday to avoid a government shutdown.

    McCarthy suffered another high-profile defeat on Friday when the House failed to advance a last-ditch stopgap bill.

    In the aftermath of Friday’s failed vote, McCarthy told reporters he had proposed putting up a “clean” stopgap bill, and said he was “working through maybe to be able to do that.”

    “We’re continuing to work through – trying to find the way out of this,” McCarthy said.

    The Senate’s bipartisan bill would provide additional funds for Ukraine aid, creating a point of contention with the House where many Republicans are opposed to further support to the war-torn country.

    McCarthy argued on Friday that aid to Ukraine should be dropped from the Senate bill. “I think if we had a clean one without Ukraine on it, we could probably be able to move that through. I think if the Senate puts Ukraine on there and focuses on Ukraine over America, I think that could cause real problems,” he told CNN’s Manu Raju.

    The Senate, meanwhile, is working to advance its own bipartisan stopgap bill. The chamber is on track to take a procedural vote Saturday afternoon to move forward with the bill, particularly if the last-minute House bill falters. But it’s not yet clear when senators could take a final vote to pass the bill and it may not happen until Monday, after the government has already shut down.

    Border security has also become a complicating factor for the Senate bill as many Republicans now want to see the bill amended to address the issue.

    Senate Republicans said Friday that they were still discussing what kind of border amendment they would want to add to the bill, and were unsure if the chamber could even advance the bill in Saturday’s procedural vote without the addition of a border amendment.

    “Nothing’s really coming together, too many moving parts at this stage,” said Sen. Mike Braun, an Indiana Republican. “I think what I understand is we’re going to have a vote tomorrow … and other than that, there’s nothing that’s really crystallized in anything that probably would be palatable with the House.”

    This story and headline have been updated with additional developments.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Georgia judge declines to freeze law to discipline prosecutors, suggesting she will reject challenge

    Georgia judge declines to freeze law to discipline prosecutors, suggesting she will reject challenge

    [ad_1]

    ATLANTA — A judge is declining to freeze a new Georgia law creating a commission to discipline and remove state prosecutors, suggesting that she will ultimately rule against a lawsuit attacking the measure.

    Fulton County Superior Court Judge Paige Reese Whitaker on Friday denied a request for an injunction by four district attorneys who have sued to overturn the commission, arguing that it unconstitutionally infringes on their power.

    Some Republicans in Georgia want the new commission to discipline or remove Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis for winning indictments of former President Donald Trump and 18 others. Willis is not one of the plaintiffs in the suit, although she opposed the law.

    Georgia’s law is one in a series of attempts nationwide by Republicans to impose controls on prosecutors they don’t like. Republicans have inveighed against progressive prosecutors after some have brought fewer drug possession cases and sought shorter prison sentences, arguing Democrats are coddling criminals.

    The commission has not begun operating yet, and its rules must be approved by the state Supreme Court. The plaintiffs argued prosecutors are already changing their behavior because they’re worried about getting investigated. But Whitaker said there’s no proof that anyone has been hurt by the law yet. Usually, only people who can prove an injury have standing to bring a lawsuit.

    “Plaintiffs have not shown an injunction is a ‘vital necessity’ to preventing an immediate and irreparable injury,” the judge wrote.

    More damaging to those who oppose the law is Whitaker’s finding that the suit is unlikely to succeed. She agreed with arguments put forward by state Attorney General Chris Carr’s office that the law doesn’t violate the state constitution.

    “The court is persuaded that the Georgia Constitution expressly authorizes the General Assembly to impose duties on district attorneys and to create the grounds and processes to (discipline) or remove district attorneys who fail to meet those legal duties,” Whitaker wrote.

    Plaintiffs said they are not giving up, still want a full trial, and will take their case to the state Supreme Court to protect prosecutorial independence.

    “While we are disappointed that our motion was denied, this is just the beginning of what we expect will be a long legal battle,” DeKalb County District Attorney Sherry Boston, a Democrat and one of the plaintiffs, said in a statement. “We look forward to presenting our full arguments against this dangerous and undemocratic law.”

    The plaintiffs say the law creates a bias in favor of prosecuting people, but Carr, a Republican, argued that if district attorneys don’t prosecute, they are violating their oaths of office.

    “All Georgians deserve to be safe, and it’s a district attorney’s duty to enforce the law,” Carr said in a statement. “When elected prosecutors fail to do so, crime goes up and victims are denied justice.”

    The law raises key questions about prosecutorial discretion, a bedrock of the American judicial system that allows prosecutors to decide what criminal charges to seek and how heavy of a sentence to pursue. The Georgia law states a prosecutor can’t refuse to prosecute whole categories of crimes, but must instead decide charges case by case. It applies both to district attorneys and elected solicitors general, who prosecute lower-level crimes in some Georgia counties.

    The law set a deadline of Sunday for the commission to start taking complaints, but two members said in sworn statements earlier this month that it can’t start operations until the state Supreme Court approves proposed rules. That hasn’t happened yet.

    Commissioners also noted that they voted on Sept. 15 not to investigate any acts that take place before the rules are approved. Because the law took effect July 1, both supporters and opponents had said prosecutors could be disciplined or removed for acts beginning then.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The Supreme Court will decide if state laws limiting social media platforms violate the Constitution

    The Supreme Court will decide if state laws limiting social media platforms violate the Constitution

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Friday to decide whether state laws that seek to regulate Facebook, TikTok, X and other social media platforms violate the Constitution.

    The justices will review laws enacted by Republican-dominated legislatures and signed by Republican governors in Florida and Texas. While the details vary, both laws aim to prevent the social media companies from censoring users based on their viewpoints.

    The court’s announcement, three days before the start of its new term, comes as the justices continue to grapple with how laws written at the dawn of the digital age, or earlier, apply to the online world.

    The justices had already agreed to decide whether public officials can block critics from commenting on their social media accounts, an issue that previously came up in a case involving then-President Donald Trump. The court dismissed the Trump case when his presidential term ended in January 2021.

    Separately, the high court also could consider a lower-court order limiting executive branch officials’ communications with social media companies about controversial online posts.

    In all, the justices added 12 cases Friday that will be argued during the winter. They include:

    — A dispute over the FBI’s no-fly list. The appeal came from the Biden administration in a case involving an Oregon man who once was on the list, but had been removed years ago. A federal appeals court said he could continue his lawsuit because the FBI never disavowed his initial inclusion.

    — A copyright case that involves a hit for the hip-hop artist Flo Rida in which he made use of someone else’s song from the 1980s. Music publishing companies that were sued for copyright infringement over the 2008 song “In the Ayer” are challenging a lower court ruling against them.

    — A plea by landowners in southeast Texas who want the state to compensate them for effectively taking their property. Their lawsuit claims that a successful project to renovate Interstate 10 and ensure it remains passable in bad weather results in serious flooding on their properties in heavy rainfall.

    The new social media cases follow conflicting rulings by two appeals courts, one of which upheld the Texas law, while the other struck down Florida’s statute. By a 5-4 vote, the justices kept the Texas law on hold while litigation over it continues.

    But the alignment was unusual. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett voted to grant the emergency request from two technology industry groups that challenged the law in federal court.

    Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Elena Kagan and Neil Gorsuch would have allowed the law to remain in effect. In dissent, Alito wrote, “Social media platforms have transformed the way people communicate with each other and obtain news.”

    Proponents of the laws, including Republican elected officials in several states that have similar measures, have sought to portray social media companies as generally liberal in outlook and hostile to ideas outside of that viewpoint, especially from the political right.

    The tech sector warned that the laws would prevent platforms from removing extremism and hate speech.

    “Online services have a well-established First Amendment right to host, curate and share content as they see fit,” Chris Marchese, the litigation director for the industry group NetChoice, said in a statement. “The internet is a vital platform for free expression, and it must remain free from government censorship. We are confident the Court will agree.”

    Without offering any explanation, the justices had put off consideration of the case even though both sides agreed the high court should step in.

    The justices had other social media issues before them last year, including a plea the court did not embrace to soften legal protections tech companies have for posts by their users.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Dianne Feinstein, California’s longest-serving senator, dies at 90

    Dianne Feinstein, California’s longest-serving senator, dies at 90

    [ad_1]

    U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California has died at age 90, her office confirmed Friday.

    Feinstein, a Democrat, was the oldest member of the Senate, where she had served since 1992. She held her seat in the chamber longer than any other woman and any other senator from California.

    She passed away Thursday night at her home in Washington, D.C.

    “There are few women who can be called senator, chairman, mayor, wife, mom and grandmother. Senator Feinstein was a force of nature who made an incredible impact on our country and her home state,” her chief of staff, James Sauls, said in a statement.

    Feinstein’s death ends a boundary-pushing political career that spanned more than half a century and was studded with major legislative achievements on issues including gun control and the environment.

    But in Feinstein’s final years, she had increasingly visible health and memory issues, and as a result of those a conflict with fellow Democrats over her refusal to step down.

    She planned to retire at the end of her current term in January 2025.

    Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., in the Senate subway on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., May 11, 2022.

    Kent Nishimura | Los Angeles Times | Getty Images

    Feinstein’s death leaves it to Gov. Gavin Newsom to appoint a temporary successor. Three leading Democrats are seeking the seat, Reps. Barbara Lee, Katie Porter and Adam Schiff.

    Newsom in a statement called Feinstein “a political giant, whose tenacity was matched by her grace.”

    “She broke down barriers and glass ceilings, but never lost her belief in the spirit of political cooperation,” he said. “There is simply nobody who possessed the poise, gravitas, and fierceness of Dianne Feinstein.”

    Newsom said he and his wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom, “are deeply saddened by her passing, and we will mourn with her family in this difficult time.”

    Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said on the chamber floor, “We lost a giant in the Senate.”

    “Today, there are 25 women serving in this chamber, and every one of them will admit they stand on Dianne’s shoulders,” he said.

    Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, the former speaker of the House, grew emotional as she told reporters, “It’s a very sad day for all of us.”

    “May she rest in peace,” Pelosi said.

    President Joe Biden, who served with Feinstein for decades in the Senate, said in a statement, “She had an immense impact on younger female leaders for whom she generously opened doors.”

    “Dianne was tough, sharp, always prepared, and never pulled a punch, but she was also a kind and loyal friend, and that’s what Jill and I will miss the most,” Biden said.

    A San Francisco native, Feinstein cleared a path for women in politics as she rose through the ranks of leadership.

    Close-up of American politician San Francisco Board of Supervisors member (and future US Senator) Dianne Feinstein as she attends a Candidates’ Day event at the Douglas School, San Francisco, California, September 1979. 

    Janet Fries | Hulton Archive | Getty Images

    After two failed bids for mayor, she was elected president of San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors in 1978, becoming the first woman to hold the title.

    Feinstein was made acting mayor later that year, when then-Mayor George Moscone and Harvey Milk, a colleague on the supervisors board, were assassinated by former board member Dan White.

    In later interviews, Feinstein recalled finding Milk’s body and searching for a pulse by putting her finger in a bullet hole.

    Feinstein was the first to announce the murders to the press. Her appointment a week later made her San Francisco’s first female mayor.

    The trauma of the murders remained with her for decades. 

    “I never really talk about this,” Feinstein said with a sigh when asked about the killings during a 2017 CNN interview.

    Candidate Dianne Feinstein celebrates her primary win, June 2, 1992.

    John O’Hara | San Francisco Chronicle | Getty Images

    Her streak of firsts continued at the national level.

    Feinstein lost a gubernatorial bid in 1990. But in 1992, she won a special election to the U.S. Senate, becoming the first California woman to hold a seat there.

    Weeks later, Barbara Boxer was sworn in as a senator, making California the first state to be represented in the Senate by two women at once.

    Their elections came in the “Year of the Woman,” when four Democratic women were elected to the Senate — more than doubling the chamber’s female representation.

    Feinstein clinched some of her biggest legislative achievements in the Senate. She wrote and championed the 1994 assault weapons ban, a landmark bill that was a continuation of a career-long effort to enact stricter gun controls. 

    The legislation passed Congress and was signed by then-President Bill Clinton, albeit with major compromises including a 10-year sunset provision. The ban expired in 2004 during the administration of George W. Bush.

    She also sponsored bills that protect millions of acres of California’s desert, worked to create a nationwide AMBER alert network, helped reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act and fought for the release of a lengthy report detailing the CIA’s torture practices, among other accomplishments.

    Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) attends a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on judicial nominations on Capitol Hill September 6, 2023 in Washington, DC.

    Drew Angerer | Getty Images

    Over her three decades in the Senate, Feinstein has generally been seen as a political moderate in her party. In the 1990s and 2000s, that reputation made Feinstein highly popular — but much of that popularity eroded in the following years as California’s political tint shifted toward deeper shades of blue.

    As her centrism grew increasingly out of fashion, Feinstein’s standing in her final stretch in office was further diminished by a crescendo of skepticism about her mental fitness for the Senate.

    A damning report from the San Francisco Chronicle in April 2022 featured unnamed Democratic colleagues of Feinstein fretting over her apparent decline in mental acuity. Feinstein defended her ability to govern, while acknowledging that she had been going through an “extremely painful and distracting” period as her late husband, financier Richard Blum, had battled cancer.

    By the time Feinstein announced that she would not seek reelection at the end of her term in 2024, multiple Democratic politicians had already launched campaigns to succeed her.

    A bust of U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) is displayed inside San Francisco City Hall on September 29, 2023 in San Francisco, California.

    Justin Sullivan | Getty Images

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Dianne Feinstein, longest-serving female US senator in history, dies at 90 | CNN Politics

    Dianne Feinstein, longest-serving female US senator in history, dies at 90 | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Dianne Feinstein, whose three decades in the Senate made her the longest-serving female US senator in history, has died following months of declining health. She was 90.

    Feinstein’s death, confirmed to CNN by a source familiar, will hand California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom the power to appoint a lawmaker to serve out the rest of Feinstein’s term, keeping the Democratic majority in the chamber through early January 2025. In March 2021, Newsom publicly said he had a list of “multiple” replacements and pledged to appoint a Black woman if Feinstein, a Democrat, were to retire.

    News of Feinstein’s death also comes as federal funding is set to expire, as Congress is at an impasse as to how to avoid a government shutdown, though Senate Democrats still retain a majority without her.

    Feinstein, a former mayor of San Francisco, was a leading figure in California politics for decades and became a national face of the Democratic Party following her first election to the US Senate in 1992. She broke a series of glass ceilings throughout her political career and her influence was felt strongly in some of Capitol Hill’s most consequential works in recent history, including the since-lapsed federal assault weapons ban in 1994 and the 2014 CIA torture report. She also was a longtime force on the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary committees.

    In her later years, Feinstein’s health was the subject of increasing scrutiny and speculation, and the California Democrat was prominent among aging lawmakers whose decisions to remain in office drew scrutiny, especially in an age of narrow party margins in Congress.

    A hospitalization for shingles in February led to an extended absence from the Senate – stirring complaints from Democrats, as Feinstein’s time away slowed the confirmation of Democratic-appointed judicial nominees – and when she returned to Capitol Hill three months later, it was revealed that she had suffered multiple complications during her recovery, including Ramsay Hunt syndrome and encephalitis. A fall in August briefly sent her to the hospital.

    Feinstein, who was the Senate’s oldest member at the time of her death, also faced questions about her mental acuity and ability to lead. She dismissed the concerns, saying, “The real question is whether I’m still an effective representative for 40 million Californians, and the record shows that I am.”

    But heavy speculation that Feinstein would retire instead of seek reelection in 2024 led several Democrats to announce their candidacies for her seat – even before she announced her plans. In February, she confirmed that she would not run for reelection, telling CNN, “The time has come.”

    Feinstein was fondly remembered by her colleagues on Friday.

    Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer told reporters that he will address Feinstein’s death on the Senate floor later Friday morning, calling it a “very, very sad day for all of us.” North Carolina Republican Sen. Thom Tillis called her a “trailblazer” and Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois said “she was always a lady but she never backed down from a cause that she thought was worth fighting for.”

    “We lost one of the great ones,” Durbin said.

    San Francisco native and leader

    Feinstein was born in San Francisco in 1933 and graduated from Stanford University in 1955. After serving as a San Francisco County supervisor, Feinstein became the city’s mayor in 1978 in the wake of the assassination of Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk, the first openly gay politician from California to be elected to office.

    Feinstein rarely talked about the day when Moscone and Milk were shot but she opened up about the tragic events in a 2017 interview with CNN’s Dana Bash.

    Feinstein was on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors then, and assassin Dan White had been a friend and colleague of hers.

    “The door to the office opened, and he came in, and I said, ‘Dan?’ ”

    “I heard the doors slam, I heard the shots, I smelled the cordite,” Feinstein recalled.

    It was Feinstein who announced the double assassination to the public. She was later sworn in as the first female mayor of San Francisco.

    Her political career was marked by a series of historic firsts.

    By that time she became mayor in 1978, she had already broken one glass ceiling, becoming the first female chair of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

    California’s first woman sent to the US Senate racked up many other firsts in Washington. Among those: She was the first woman to sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee, the first female chairwoman of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, and the first female chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

    Feinstein also served on the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee and held the title of ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee from 2017 to 2021. In November 2022, she was poised to become president pro tempore of the Senate – third in line to the presidency – but declined to pursue the position, citing her husband’s recent death.

    Feinstein reflected on her experience as a woman in politics in her 2017 interview with Bash, saying, “Look, being a woman in our society even today is difficult,” and noting, “I know it in the political area.” She would later note in a statement the week she became the longest-serving woman in US history, “We went from two women senators when I ran for office in 1992 to 24 today – and I know that number will keep climbing.”

    “It has been a great pleasure to watch more and more women walk the halls of the Senate,” Feinstein said in November 2022.

    Led efforts on gun control and torture program investigations

    Though she was a proud native of one of the most famously liberal cities in the country, Feinstein earned a reputation over the years in the Senate as someone eager to work across the aisle with Republicans, and at times sparked pushback and criticism from progressives.

    “I truly believe that there is a center in the political spectrum that is the best place to run something when you have a very diverse community. America is diverse; we are not all one people. We are many different colors, religions, backgrounds, education levels, all of it,” she told CNN in 2017.

    A biography from Feinstein’s Senate office states that her notable achievements include “the enactment of the federal Assault Weapons Ban in 1994, a law that prohibited the sale, manufacture and import of military-style assault weapons” (the ban has since lapsed), and the influential 2014 torture report, a comprehensive “six-year review of the CIA’s detention and interrogation program,” which brought to light for the first time many details from the George W. Bush-era program.

    Feinstein’s high-profile Senate career made its mark on pop culture when she was portrayed by actress Annette Bening in the 2019 film “The Report,” which tackled the subject of the CIA’s use of torture after the Sept. 11 attacks and the effort to make those practices public.

    In November 2020, Feinstein announced that she would step down from the top Democratic spot on the Senate Judiciary Committee the following year in the wake of sharp criticism from liberal activists over her handling of the hearings for then-President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett.

    While Democratic senators could not block Barrett’s nomination in the Republican-led Senate on their own, liberal activists were angry when Feinstein undermined Democrats’ relentless attempt to portray the process as illegitimate when she praised then-Judiciary Chairman and South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham’s leadership of it.

    Feinstein said at the time that she would continue to serve as a senior Democrat on the Judiciary, Intelligence, Appropriations, and Rules and Administration panels, working on priorities like gun safety, criminal justice and immigration.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • McCarthy rejects Senate spending bill while scrambling for a House plan that averts a shutdown

    McCarthy rejects Senate spending bill while scrambling for a House plan that averts a shutdown

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — A government shutdown appeared all but inevitable as House Speaker Kevin McCarthy dug in Thursday, vowing he will not take up Senate legislation designed to keep the federal government fully running despite House Republicans’ struggle to unite around an alternative.

    Congress is at an impasse just days before a disruptive federal shutdown that would halt paychecks for many of the federal government’s roughly 2 million employees, as well as 2 million active-duty military troops and reservists, furlough many of those workers and curtail government services.

    But the House and Senate are pursuing different paths to avert those consequences even though time is running out before government funding expires after midnight on Saturday.

    “I still got time. I’ve got time to do other things,” McCarthy told reporters at the Capitol Thursday evening, adding, “At the end of the day, we’ll get it all done.”

    The Senate is working toward passage of a bipartisan measure that would fund the government until Nov. 17 as longer-term negotiations continue, while also providing $6 billion for Ukraine and $6 billion for U.S. disaster relief.

    The House, meanwhile, has teed up votes on four of the dozen annual spending bills that fund various agencies in hopes that would cajole enough Republicans to support a House-crafted continuing resolution that temporarily funds the government and boosts security at the U.S. border with Mexico. It’s a longshot, but McCarthy predicted a deal.

    Lawmakers already weary from days of late-night negotiating had another long night of voting ahead. The strain was evident at McCarthy’s closed-door meeting with Republicans Thursday morning, which was marked by a tense exchange between the speaker and Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., according to those in the room.

    Gaetz, who has taunted McCarthy for weeks with threats to oust him from his post, confronted the speaker about conservative online influencers being paid to post negative things about him. McCarthy shot back that he wouldn’t waste his time on something like that, Gaetz told reporters as he exited the meeting.

    McCarthy’s allies left the meeting fuming about Gaetz’s tactics.

    With his majority splintering, McCarthy is scrambling to come up with a plan for preventing a shutdown and win Republican support. The speaker told Republicans he would reveal a Republican stopgap plan, known as a continuing resolution or CR, on Friday, according to those in the room, while also trying to force Senate Democrats into giving some concessions.

    But with time running out, many GOP lawmakers were either withholding support for a temporary measure until they had a chance to see it. Others are considering joining Democrats, without McCarthy’s support, to bring forward a bill that would prevent a shutdown.

    With his ability to align his conference in doubt, McCarthy has little standing to negotiate with Senate Democrats. He has also attempted to draw President Joe Biden into negotiations, but the White House, so far, has shown no interest.

    Biden sought to apply more pressure on McCarthy, urging him to compromise with Democrats even though that could threaten his job.

    “I think that the speaker is making a choice between his speakership and American interests,” Biden said.

    Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Congress and the White House had already worked out top-line spending levels for next year with an agreement this summer that allowed the government to continue borrowing to pay its bills. But McCarthy was deviating from that deal and courting a shutdown by catering to Republicans who say it didn’t do enough to cut spending, he said.

    “By focusing on the views of the radical few instead of the many, Speaker McCarthy has made a shutdown far more likely,” Schumer said.

    McCarthy insisted in a CNBC interview that the House will have its say. “Will I accept and surrender to what the Senate decides? The answer is no, we’re our own body.”

    But later at the Capitol, he openly complained about the difficulty he is having herding Republican lawmakers.

    “Members say they only want to vote for individual bills, but they hold me up all summer and won’t let me bring individual bills up. Then they say they won’t vote for a stopgap measure that keeps government open,” McCarthy told reporters.

    “So I don’t know, where do you go in that scenario?”

    The speaker also hinted he has a backup plan but gave no indication he was ready to work with Democrats to pass something in the House.

    Meanwhile, the White House, as well as the Department of Homeland Security, notified staff on Thursday to prepare for a shutdown, according to emails obtained by The Associated Press. Employees who are furloughed would have four hours on Monday to prepare their offices for the shutdown.

    The White House plans to keep on all commissioned officers. That includes chief of staff Jeff Zients, press secretary Karine Jean Pierre, national security adviser Jake Sullivan and other senior-level personnel, by declaring them “excepted” during a shutdown, according to the White House email.

    Military troops and federal workers, including law enforcement officers, air traffic controllers and Transportation Security Administration officers, will also report to work because they are essential to protecting life and property. They would miss paychecks if the shutdown lasts beyond Oct. 13, the next scheduled payday, though they are slated to receive backpay once any shutdown ends.

    Social Security payments for seniors, Medicare and Medicaid payments to health care providers, and disability payments to veterans will continue, as much of the government will continue to function. But there will be critical services that do stop. For example, the U.S. Treasury says that, with two-thirds of IRS employees potentially furloughed, taxpayer phone calls to the agency will go unanswered and 363 Taxpayer Assistance Centers across the country will close.

    Many Republicans have voiced fears they would be blamed for a shutdown — including in the Senate, where many GOP members are aligned with Democrats on a temporary bill.

    Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said he agrees with many of the goals of the House Republicans, but he warned a shutdown will not achieve any of them.

    “Instead of producing any meaningful policy outcomes, it would actually take the important progress being made on a number of key issues and drag it backward,” McConnell said.

    Nevertheless, Senate Republicans huddled for much of the day to cobble together a plan that could win support to boost funding for border security. McCarthy’s House allies were also hoping the threat of a shutdown could help conservatives with their push to limit federal spending and combat illegal immigration at the U.S-Mexico border.

    “Anytime you have a stopgap situation like this, you have an opportunity to leverage,” said Rep. Garret Graves, R-La. “This is another opportunity. America does not want an open Southern border. The polls are crystal clear. It’s having a profound impact on us.”

    __

    Associated Press writers Seung Min Kim and Fatima Hussein contributed reporting.

    [ad_2]

    Source link